November 2nd, 2005
By Charles Wyndham.
When I read references to angels (on All Saints Day), count up 22 question marks, am told that I am a dear friend (one of many) and finally, told that certificates have captured someone’s personal attention; I know and you know that it must be my chum Boney rabbiting (i.e., per the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)talking excessively or pointlessly) on about the GIA.
For someone known to have an opinion about anything to do with our industry and a less than timid desire to make sure that all and sundry know it, Boney’s silence on this topic has been quite remarkable.
I suppose this had nothing to do with the fact that “the scale of our operations with GIA is large and financially significant for the Rapaport Group”.
In four pages of incoherent meandering Boney sets out his position.
We are treated to being informed about Boney’s core values which include “honesty, full-disclosure transparency, fair trading and meeting commitments.”
For the length of time it has taken Boney to let us know that he is “not going to pull any punches”, it might as well have been one of those self same troglodytes that are at the core of his famous price list which is as notable for its total lack of transparency as it is known as the market monopoly.
Moving onto the GIA, which is what I thought is what he should be commenting about, it all seems to be down to raising questions, hence the question marks.
He thoughtfully tells us about “complicated situations”, “difficult transitional period”, “bad people poisoning our well”; Boney finally comes up with the idea that the WFDB (World Federation of Diamond Bourses) and IDMA (International Diamond and Manufacturers Association) should come up at their forthcoming meeting in Mumbai, with a resolution to make it a violation for any member to bribe any laboratory employee, and, make it a violation for any member to knowingly trade in any diamond whose diamond grading report has been improperly upgraded due to bribery….
What is he talking about? (if I may use his favourite question mark).
Such actions are illegal. It is nothing short of theft through collaborative false representation. The suggestion that till now such actions would not result in the most severe censure from either organization is nothing short, in my opinion, of a libelous statement.
Going onto suggest a “joint investigative committee… (and)… consider publishing advisory guidelines…” cannot demonstrate more strongly his desire to avoid the issue.
As we have learnt with Boney’s price list, so much more can be learnt from what is not said.
I found it illuminating that Boney specifically does not comment on the outrageous conflict of interest generated by the GIA accepting charitable donations from those who are then having stones graded.
I can only assume that there is no inherent conflict of interest in his own relationship with the GIA.
It is surprising that Boney is not sponsoring a Chair in ‘Transparency’ and ‘Ethics’, a study in avoiding conflicts of interest at the GIA’s university in Carlsbad. We could all learn from the master or the oracle (OED, a person regarded as an infallible guide to future action). I would certainly vote for him to be the first Professor, the fact that he is paying for it would only make it more appropriate.
Oh by the way, despite another period of total inactivity on Boney’s part in relation to his price list, PolishedPrices price list has shown four consecutive weeks of overall increases.
I cannot recall if there is a similar full disclosure statement on the Boney’s list that it is “large and financially significant for the Rapaport Group”.
Tell us something we did not know.
December 25th, 2005
December 24th, 2005
December 23rd, 2005
December 17th, 2005
December 13th, 2005
December 12th, 2005