DiamondBuzz
Decline in diamond prices eases
Diamond-price drops became more moderate in January, especially in the small goods that had seen sharp declines in recent months reports Rapaport News. Buyers remained cautious due to price uncertainty and the impact of tariffs and geopolitical tensions. The US-India trade deal in early February lifted sentiment.
The market continued to bifurcate, though the divisions were less pronounced than last year. US prices were stronger than those in India, and diamonds over 1.20 carats outperformed smaller ones.
RapNet diamond index for January 20206 table
The RapNet Diamond Index (RAPI™) — which tracks round, D to H, IF to VS2 diamonds — fell 1.3% in January for 0.30- and 1-carat goods after two months of sharper drops. The 0.50-carat RAPI decreased 1.2%. Prices for 3-carat diamonds slid 1.6%, a reversal after recent stability.Round, 1-carat, D to H, SI diamonds saw prices fall 0.1% for the month following a 24.1% slump in 2025.
Post-holiday US retail was seasonally quiet. Jewellers showed demand for rounds and long fancies of 1.50 carats and larger. European orders for 5-carat-plus diamonds were good. India’s jewelry market dipped due to high gold prices. China remained weak.
De Beers reduced rough prices at its January sight, causing concern that lower-cost goods would flood the market. Last year, an influx of lower-value rough from Angola and Russia contributed to weakness in polished under 1 carat.
The industry’s other challenges remain. US tariffs are limiting access to the most important retail market, though President Donald Trump reached a deal with India on February 2 that will cut the country’s tariff rate from 50% to 18% and potentially exempt Indian diamonds from duties altogether. Meanwhile, the spike in gold and silver prices has reduced consumers’ spending power despite a sharp correction in early February.
Diamond demand is permanently lower because of synthetics, China’s slowdown, and social changes like dropping marriage rates. A sales recovery will take time. In the short term, the market’s ability to adapt by downsizing will determine whether prices improve.
Source: Rapaport News
DiamondBuzz
GIA says it can’t comply with industry bodies’ request for nominal, grading-linked contribution mechanism”
A coalition of 15 major industry organizations recently petitioned the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) to implement a “grading-linked contribution mechanism.” The goal was to secure sustainable funding for the Natural Diamond Council (NDC) to revitalize consumer marketing. However, the GIA has officially declined the request, citing legal and structural constraints.
The initiative, led by the Diamond Manufacturers & Importers Association of America (DMIA), suggested a nominal, sliding-scale surcharge based on carat size for every diamond graded by the GIA.

- Objective: To create a “fair, transparent, and scalable” revenue stream for natural diamond promotion.
- Rationale: Proponents argued that since every graded diamond benefits from GIA’s reputation, a small levy is a logical way to support the industry’s collective health.
- Precedent: The groups pointed to India’s successful implementation of small levies for industry promotion as a proof of concept.
3. GIA’s Official Stance
Despite the unified front of the 15 organizations (American Gem Trade Association, Antwerp World Diamond Centre, Bharat Diamond Bourse, CIBJO (World Jewellery Confederation), the Diamond Dealers Club of New York, the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre, the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council, the Indian Diamond & Colorstone Association, the International Diamond Manufacturers Association, the Israel Diamond Manufacturers Association, Jewelers of America, United States Jewelry Council, World Diamond Council, and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses), the GIA has rejected the proposal
The GIA’s refusal to implement the proposed surcharge is rooted in its structural identity as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Under this legal designation, the GIA is strictly prohibited from diverted funds or collecting fees to benefit external, for-profit, or trade-specific marketing entities like the Natural Diamond Council (NDC).
Beyond the legal constraints, the organization maintains a firm boundary regarding its mission alignment; while industry groups seek to drive commercial demand, the GIA’s primary mandate is centered on consumer protection and rigorous scientific education. Engaging in commercial promotion could be perceived as a conflict of interest that undermines its role as an impartial arbiter of diamond quality.
Despite this rejection, the GIA has signaled a willingness for future support through collaborative efforts that fit within its educational purview. By focusing on “industry education” rather than “marketing,” the GIA can continue to fund internal initiatives that overlap with the NDC’s goals without violating its nonprofit status or compromising its reputation for objectivity.
The rejection by the GIA marks a significant hurdle for the NDC’s funding strategy. The industry now faces the challenge of creating a self-funded marketing engine without the “centralized gatekeeper” advantage that a grading lab surcharge would have provided.
Potential Alternative Paths:
- Implementing voluntary contribution models at the retail or wholesale level.
- Focusing on “educational” campaigns that GIA can legally support under its nonprofit status.
- Exploring government-backed levies in major diamond hubs (similar to the Indian model).
-
JB Insights1 week ago2026 THE ROAD AHEAD: Tradition Meets Technology, Sustainability, Personalization
-
DiamondBuzz1 week agoAWDC Hails EU-India Trade Pact, Sees Strong Export Boost for Antwerp-Polished Diamonds in India
-
JB Insights1 week agoGold is Talking, Silver is Screaming – A Case for Prudent Repositioning
-
DiamondBuzz1 week agoJapan, US Weigh Synthetic Diamond Facility to Strengthen Strategic Supply Chains


