In a move that sends seismic tremors through the already turbulent diamond industry, HRD Antwerp has made a landmark announcement: beginning next year, it will cease its grading services for loose laboratory-grown diamonds. With this decision, the renowned European gemological institution is not merely adjusting its business model; it is making a profound statement about its identity, its heritage, and its vision for the future of the diamond world. Billing itself as the first major gemological laboratory to take such a definitive step, HRD Antwerp is deliberately drawing a line in the sand, seeking to create a clear and unequivocal distinction between the worlds of natural and synthetic stones.
The declaration came directly from the top. Ellen Joncheere, CEO of HRD Antwerp, confirmed the strategic pivot in a formal statement. While the laboratory will no longer issue grading reports for individual, unmounted lab-grown diamonds, she clarified that the relationship with synthetics is not being severed entirely. HRD Antwerp will continue to analyze lab-grown stones for critical research purposes, contributing to the industry’s collective understanding of these man-made materials. Furthermore, it will still offer its expertise in certifying finished jewelry pieces that incorporate lab-grown diamonds, acknowledging their established presence in the consumer market. But the core service of grading them as standalone gems? That chapter is closing.
This strategic retreat is deeply rooted in a desire to reassert the institution’s foundational principles and its unique place in the gemological landscape. HRD Antwerp is not just any laboratory; it is inextricably linked to the city that for centuries has been the undisputed global capital of the diamond trade. Owned by the Antwerp World Diamond Centre (AWDC), HRD’s identity is woven into the very fabric of Antwerp’s history—a history built on the mystique, rarity, and timeless allure of natural diamonds mined from the Earth.
Ravi Bhansali, Vice President of the AWDC, provided crucial context for the decision, emphasizing that it was not born from animosity towards the lab-grown sector. “It’s not a matter of negativity against lab-grown,” Bhansali explained in a recent interview with industry publication JCK. Instead, the move is a proactive measure to address a growing and significant problem: consumer confusion. In recent years, as lab-grown diamonds have proliferated, the market has become a semantic battlefield. Both natural and lab-grown stones are marketed using the 4Cs (Cut, Color, Clarity, and Carat), and their grading reports, issued by the same respected laboratories, can appear virtually identical to the untrained eye. This similarity, Bhansali argues, creates a fog of ambiguity that ultimately undermines consumer confidence.
“At the end of the day, we found there’s a lot of consumer confusion created by using the same terminology and certificates,” he stated. “We said, let’s make a clear line and a distinction.” This is not just about protecting a legacy; it’s about providing clarity in a marketplace where the value propositions of two chemically identical but foundationally different products are becoming dangerously blurred. For a consumer, seeing two similar reports for stones with drastically different market values, origins, and long-term worth can be bewildering. HRD’s decision is a direct attempt to cut through that confusion.
Moreover, Bhansali stressed that the move is “about aligning HRD’s vision with that of the Antwerp World Diamond Centre.” This alignment is a powerful reaffirmation of identity. “Antwerp as a center is predominantly interested in natural diamonds,” he continued. “It’s where we have a centuries-old history.” By stepping away from loose lab-growns, HRD is choosing to double down on its core strength and historical mandate, positioning itself as the preeminent authority on the natural diamond.
From a purely business perspective, the decision is less a radical overhaul and more of a strategic refinement. Bhansali revealed that lab-grown diamonds have accounted for only a “mid-single-digit” percentage of HRD’s overall business. This relatively small revenue stream makes the sacrifice palatable, allowing the organization to trade a minor business line for a much more significant gain in brand clarity and market positioning. It is a calculated move to fortify its stronghold in the natural diamond ecosystem, a domain where its name carries immense weight and historical credibility.
HRD Antwerp’s journey with lab-grown diamonds has been a telling microcosm of the industry’s broader struggle. The lab began grading created stones in 2019, at a time when their market presence was exploding. Its initial attempt at differentiation involved issuing reports in distinctive green jackets, a clear visual cue to distinguish them from the reports for natural diamonds. However, this move was met with protests and was quickly scrapped, highlighting the market’s sensitivity and the complex politics surrounding the presentation of these new-age gems. The current decision can be seen as the final, decisive outcome of that ongoing quest for proper distinction.
This announcement does not exist in a vacuum. It is the latest, and perhaps loudest, echo of a wider industry trend toward bifurcation. It follows closely on the heels of a significant policy shift by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), arguably the world’s most influential grading authority. The GIA recently announced it would no longer grade lab-grown diamonds using its traditional, detailed 4Cs scale. Instead, it has transitioned to a simplified system using broader descriptive terms like “Colorless,” “Near Colorless,” and “Very, Very Slightly Included,” while still providing a specific carat weight. This was a clear signal from the industry titan that lab-grown diamonds, while gemologically significant, warrant a different classification system than their natural counterparts.
Even more revealing are the comments from GIA Executive Vice President and Chief Laboratory and Research Officer, Tom Moses. He has openly suggested that the GIA’s move to a simplified scale could be an “interim step” toward phasing out its lab-grown grading services altogether. Speaking at a World Federation of Diamond Bourses panel, Moses painted a picture of a future where formal, detailed grading reports for lab-grown diamonds may become obsolete.
“I believe there will not be a desire [in the future] for reports for laboratory-grown diamonds,” he predicted. His reasoning is twofold. First, the economics of lab-grown diamonds are rapidly changing. As production technology improves and competition intensifies, their prices have been steadily falling, diminishing the perceived need for a costly, detailed report that certifies their value. Second, the production of lab-grown diamonds is becoming increasingly homogenized. Manufacturers are consistently producing stones in a very narrow range of high qualities—typically in the upper echelons of color (D-F) and clarity (VVS-VS). When almost every stone produced meets a high standard, the nuanced distinctions provided by a traditional grading report become less meaningful for differentiation and, therefore, less valuable to the consumer and retailer.
Taken together, the actions of HRD Antwerp and the GIA signal a great divergence in the diamond world. The industry is actively working to build two distinct, parallel markets. One is centered on natural diamonds—finite, geologically rare, and imbued with a history and romance that labs cannot replicate. The other is a technology-driven market for lab-grown diamonds—accessible, affordable, and positioned as a modern alternative. By stepping back, the legacy institutions are essentially ceding the formal certification of lab-growns to a new ecosystem of labs that may specialize in them, allowing the natural diamond to reclaim its unique pedestal.
HRD Antwerp’s decision is therefore a bold look backward to inform a strategic leap forward. It is a return to its roots, a recommitment to the legacy of Antwerp, and a clear-eyed response to a market in flux. As the dust settles, the industry will be watching closely to see if other major players follow suit, further solidifying the bifurcation of the diamond world and reshaping how consumers perceive, purchase, and prize these two remarkable, yet fundamentally different, expressions of carbon.
