Look, if you back a stone with an artificial color, whether you
attach the artificial color to the stone or not, you are still
altering the color of the stone. And you better disclose it.
TL, while I’d agree that actually altering a stone is something that
should be disclosed, I think you’re carrying this concept way too far
here. There is no particular reason why the metal underneath a stone
has to be some specified color or other. That’s up to the jeweler. If
I use oxidized silver, or bright polished gold, or bright polished
silver, or open air, under an opal, or any other transparent or
translucent gem for that matter, is independent of any alteration to
the stone, but rather is a design decision for the jeweler to make,
needing no more disclosure than any other aspect of the metal or
design. Usually, any competent jeweler or even most knowledgeable
jewelry consumers both understand this, and can usually see what’s
been done. For that matter, even an opal with a painted on black
coating, or a black glue behind it, doesn’t actually look like a
black opal. If you know opal at all, you can easily see that it’s
simply a white opal where the black color behind makes the play of
color (which does have to already be there, after all) stand out
more. Calling this method automatic deception is going a bit too far,
I think, though I’d agree that it’s best to let a customer know, just
to be sure.
But simply choosing a mounting style or method that will be most
attractive for a given stone is just part of the jewelers job, not
some automatic attempt at fraud should that design not fit your
preconcieved notion of how the stone should be set.
Yes, if I paint the back of an opal, or glue a black back to it, or
glue it in with black cement, that I’ll agree is something a customer
might deserve to know. That’s actually changing the stone itself. But
oxidizing or darkening the metal behind a stone? No, that’s not
altering the stone itself, even if it does cause some of the same
change in “presentation” appearance of the stone. That simply is
neither dishonest, nor any attempt at fraud. It may be an attempt to
get the stone to look it’s potential best, but that isn’t fraud
either. Selling a doublet or triplet as a solid opal, THAT’s fraud.
Selling a dyed stone as natural color, THAT’s fraud too. But please.
somewhere there is a line between properly setting and most
advantageously displaying, a stone, versus actually altering the
stone. Don’t confuse the two.
Just my two cents.
Peter Rowe