Elanorya

Stone naming guide

The definition names carbon and a crystal system, not a place of origin

The question sounds like one about origin. In 16 CFR § 23.12, the answer does not turn on origin at all. The definition is written in terms of substance and crystal structure, and says nothing about a mine. What the unqualified word then answers to is set out in the next sub-section, and it is not one requirement but two. This is a United States document, and the Jewelry Guides state in § 23.0(d) that they confer no rights and bind neither the Commission nor the public.

What the definition contains, and what it leaves out

§ 23.12(a) opens: "A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; …" The clause continues with a refractive index figure, which falls outside the portion of the sentence quoted here and is therefore not reproduced.

Three kinds of statement are in that sentence: a substance, a crystal system, and physical figures. None of them is a statement about where the material came from. The definition is written about what the thing is, not about how it arrived.

The figures are quoted here because they are part of the definition, and for no other purpose. No comparison with any other material is drawn from them, no gemological measurement of ours stands behind them, and they are not repeated anywhere else on this page.

The unqualified word answers to two conditions, and the second one counts

§ 23.12(b) states that it is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified word "diamond" to describe or identify any object or product not meeting the requirements specified in the definition above. That is the first limb, and it points straight back at § 23.12(a).

The clause does not stop there. It extends to a product that is not symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen polished facets. Two elements are in that condition: symmetrical fashioning, and a count of polished facets with a floor of seventeen.

It is worth being exact about what that second limb is not. It is not a scale, and it is not a judgement about workmanship. The source read here sets out no grading system for cut, colour or clarity, so there is nothing in this document to expand the condition into. This page keeps it as a count and a symmetry condition, which is how the clause states it.

Where the text allows "cultured", it allows it with something attached

§ 23.12(c)(3) addresses the use of "cultured" for laboratory-created diamonds that have essentially the same optical, physical and chemical properties as mined diamonds. The permission is real, and it is conditional in the same sentence: the term is to be qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure conveying that the product is not a mined stone.

The clause gives examples of what such a disclosure looks like — "laboratory-created", "laboratory-grown", "[manufacturer name]-created". The condition is part of the permission itself: the sentence that grants the word is the sentence that qualifies it.

Two things the source does not ask for are worth stating in the same place. It does not require the production method to be named, and it does not require the country of production to be named. What it asks for is a qualification conveying that the product is not mined.

Four ways this clause is read into something it does not say

Each row states the misreading and the sentence in the text that answers it. None of the entries below is a conclusion about any particular listing.

  • "The definition allows it, so the word stands on its own."

    § 23.12(a) is a definition of a mineral; § 23.12(b) is about the use of a word. The second sub-section attaches two conditions to the unqualified word, and the first sub-section does not remove them.

  • "Seventeen facets means the stone has to be well cut."

    The clause states symmetrical fashioning and a minimum count of polished facets. The source contains no grading scale for cut, so the condition has nothing in this document to become.

  • "'Cultured' is the polite way of saying laboratory-grown."

    § 23.12(c)(3) grants the word only for laboratory-created diamonds with essentially the same optical, physical and chemical properties as mined diamonds, and only with a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the product is not a mined stone.

  • "Hardness and specific gravity are selling points I can quote."

    Those figures belong to a regulatory definition of the mineral and are quoted here as part of it. No measurement of ours supports them as a claim about any individual stone, and this page draws no comparison from them.

Treatment is a separate question, and the clause says where it goes

§ 23.14 states that a diamond is a gemstone product, and that treatments to diamonds should be disclosed in the manner prescribed in § 23.24 of the guides. That is the whole of what this page has to say about it: naming a stone and disclosing what was done to it are two different questions, written in two different clauses.

The boundaries around this clause

  • Coloured stones. Rubies, sapphires, emeralds and the rest are addressed by clauses of their own, which are not set out on this page.
  • The detail of treatment disclosure. § 23.14 sends it to § 23.24, and this page follows it no further.
  • Grading, certificates and value. Absent from the source, as set out above.
  • Production method and place. The source does not require a laboratory diamond's production method or country of production to be disclosed.
  • What the app knows. Jewelry AI works from the photograph you supply and the instructions you choose. It does not identify stones, does not verify origin and does not check any description against Part 23 or anything else. Every word discussed here is written by the seller.
  • Anything outside the United States. Part 23 rests on the FTC Act, a United States federal statute; it sets out no rule for the European Union, the United Kingdom, Turkey or elsewhere, and nothing about those markets follows from it.
  • Any conclusion about a particular listing. This page is not legal advice. It reports what clauses say, and it does not state that any wording is adequate, sufficient or lawful. Part 23 states in § 23.0(d) that it confers no rights and binds neither the Commission nor the public.

Questions

Can I write 'diamond' without qualification when the stone was grown in a laboratory?

The definition in § 23.12(a) does not name a mined origin — it names pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system, with the physical figures the clause lists. § 23.12(b) then states that using the unqualified word for a product not meeting that definition, or not symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen polished facets, is unfair or deceptive. § 23.12(c)(3) separately allows "cultured" with a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the product is not a mined stone. Those are the clauses that speak to the word itself. This page does not state what any individual listing may say.

Is "cultured diamond" an allowed term?

§ 23.12(c)(3) addresses it directly: the word is available for laboratory-created diamonds that have essentially the same optical, physical and chemical properties as mined diamonds, where it is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure conveying that the product is not a mined stone, such as "laboratory-created", "laboratory-grown" or "[manufacturer name]-created". The grant and the qualification are in the same sentence.

Does the text require me to say HPHT or CVD, or where the stone was made?

No such requirement is recorded in the source read here. The clause asks for a qualification conveying that the product is not a mined stone; it does not ask for the production method or the country of production to be named.

Does the seventeen-facet condition mean the stone has to be well cut?

The condition in § 23.12(b) is symmetrical fashioning together with a minimum count of polished facets. The source sets out no grading system for cut, colour or clarity, so there is nothing in it that turns the condition into a quality rating. It is stated as a count and a symmetry condition, and this page leaves it in that form.