The Fall 1988 issue of Gems & Gemology contained an article titled “An Economic Review of the Past Decade in Diamonds.” In it, I chronicled the extraordinary, now historic, ups and downs of the diamond market from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s.

When it was published, the article surprised many G&G readers in that it deviated from the purely scientific or gemological nature of the journal. But, as the late Richard T. Liddicoat wrote in that issue’s editorial, “Today . . . the study of gemology is more than refractive indices and specific gravity; it goes beyond synthetics and simulants, localities and Leveridge gauges. Gemology is now a truly interdisciplinary profession, requiring a good balance of the technical, aesthetic, and commercial aspects of gems.”

GIA’s Russell Shor, a respected journalist who has spent more than 20 years following the diamond industry, continues this spirit of gemological breadth and depth in our current issue. His article is a comprehensive review of the vast economic and social forces that have shaped the diamond industry since the late 1980s. During these years, a veritable revolution has taken place. From production and distribution changes, to major market shifts toward India and China, to the branding revolution, conflict diamonds, terrorism threats, and the Kimberley Process, this article is a must-read for any serious jeweler or gemologist, especially one who wants to see today’s diamond industry in its most transparent form.

Of all the changes discussed in this article, none can compare to the fundamental shift in the role of De Beers from custodian of global diamond supply to market driver. With its Supplier of Choice initiative, a response to the many economic and geopolitical forces Shor describes, De Beers abandoned the philosophy that had guided the company for more than a century—controlling supply in order to protect demand. The mere fact that the De Beers brand name is now reserved for its retail partnership with LVMH (De Beers LV) is a monumental change in thinking all its own.

I believe Shor’s work will stand as the most practical resource on diamond industry developments over the turn of the millennium, and will intrigue readers for years to come. As with all G&G articles, especially those that lead an issue, we demand a significant contribution to the gemological and jewelry literature. The broadening of gemology itself and the ramifications of economic, social, geopolitical, and technological factors in our trade qualify Shor’s article as such, and again demonstrate the diverse and multifaceted nature of our field.

William E. Boyajian, President
Gemological Institute of America