There’s a great article in today’s Washington Post (via Slate) about conflict minerals, giving a really succinct summary of the issues involved and a list of possible alternatives if you’re looking for conflict-free or minimal ecological impact jewelry.

The article is here.

We don’t sell conflict minerals. That article lists two kinds of mines: “large industrial mines and small-scale, informal digging sites. Most of the world’s diamonds come from the former, while the vast majority of colored gemstones—rubies, sapphires, emeralds—come from the latter.”

Anyone who is familiar with our jewelry can probably guess that almost all of the stones in our jewelry comes from the smaller operations. The artists and designers we work with use higher quality stones, which are much more likely to come from well-run and long established small-scale mining operations (the best possible option).

We hardly ever have diamond, and when we do (almost always at the request of a customer) we do everything we can to ensure it isn’t a conflict mineral. As a rule, we do not and will not sell conflict minerals—it’s both unethical and unnecessary when there are so many greater options out there, in both mined and cultured or manufactured gemstones.

I may be splitting hairs, but the article uses the word “synthetic” to describe some of these stones, where I wouldn’t. CZs (cubic zirconium, which are much more well made and higher quality than they used to be) and stones like them are synthetic, but stones like the cultured opal we sell are no more synthetic than farmed pearls (which comprise greater than 99% of the pearls now existing in jewelry). It deserves its own post or FAQ, but cultured opals are opal, on a molecular level, and if anything the culturing process produces a more vibrant and much stronger stone. I can’t deny there’s a certain charm about mined stones, but don’t write off the alternatives (especially with opal, since the mined stone is so much more fragile than the cultured).