Sorry Jim, I tend to lapse a little with ABI's product since they promised to send me a sample to try over a year ago, then never did send it. I understand that the definitions of these metals have mutually exclusive differences when marking them, but I can't see the problem in describing them on a card or sheet of paper as I described. The FTC Guides concern themselves with full disclosure when marking or stamping a jewelry article and I accept that they are hazy and incomplete concerning quality marking. But my main point is that the National Stamping Act requires full disclosure in not only marking the article itself, but in any accompanying description. The way I read it, the Act provides a way to list all constituents of a jewelry article in much the same way as packaged food items are required to list their ingredients.
Here is the section on Platinum from the FTC Guides in part (a) is
says “to mark or describe” The guides pertain to both marking and
marketing of the work. So a card or other descriptive literature is
regulated and held to the same standards as the stamping of the
work.
In the case of ABI’s sterling alloyed with platinum the question is
can you mention the platinum content because it contains less then
500 parts platinum as described in section 23.7.3. You can obviously
call it sterling but, can you list the platinum content. I do not
believe you can. The only way to get a real opinion on it is to write
the FTC and ask for one. I believe ABI should do that so that they
can advise their customers whether they can mark the work with
platinum percentage or even mention it at all.
23.7 Misuse of the words "platinum," "iridium," "palladium,"
"ruthenium," "rhodium," and "osmium."
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words "platinum,"
"iridium," "palladium," "ruthenium," "rhodium," and "osmium,"
or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an
industry product if such marking or description misrepresents
the product=92s true composition. The Platinum Group Metals
(PGM) are Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and
Osmium.
(b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions
that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the word "Platinum" or any abbreviation, without
qualification, to describe all or part of an industry product
that is not composed throughout of 950 parts per thousand pure
Platinum.
(2) Use of the word "Platinum" or any abbreviation accompanied
by a number indicating the parts per thousand of pure Platinum
contained in the product without mention of the number of parts
per thousand of other PGM contained in the product, to
describe all or part of an industry product that is not
composed throughout of at least 850 parts per thousand pure
platinum, for example,"600Plat."
(3) Use of the word "Platinum" or any abbreviation thereof, to
mark or describe any product that is not composed throughout
of at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum.
We in the US should adopt a similar system to England's. It would cut out a lot of confusion. Still, the National Stamping Act and the FTC Guides are all we have right now, and I stand by my post in that arguing about it here won't be nearly as effective as commenting on the proposed new FTC rule about marking "karated" platinum. I realize that ABI's product isn't addressed in it, but it won't all happen at once. The reason that the FTC is entertaining comments on "karated" platinum is because the manufacturers of it have bugged them silly about it. Until ABI does something similar, it's product will never even enjoy serious discussion. Judging from their apathetic attitude, that time is not near.
I find England’s rules worse than ours but to each his own. You are
right about the Need for ABI to petition the FTC
The FTC Guides do not require the marking of metal, only that if you do, you must be accurate and you must add your name or hallmark. If one works with ABI's material, one need not mark it, but may list it's contents and description on an accompanying document. If anyone can prove otherwise (without phrases like "appears to be" or "it seems to me"), I beg your input as I would love to better understand the somewhat interpretable legalese of the Guides and the Act.
This is not the case. For “proof” just go to the Guides. If you
describe or imply it, the metal content it must be in accordance with
the guides as stated in section 23.0 Scope and application. Here is
section 23.0(c)
(c) These guides apply to claims and representations about
industry products included in labeling, advertising,
promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing,
whether asserted directly or by implication, through words,
symbols, emblems, logos, illustrations, depictions, product
brand names, or through any other means.
While the Stamping Act itself is very difficult to read the Guides
are meant to be a clearer description of Congress intent. They don’t
always succeed but you do not need a law degree to read them.
Regards
Jim
