| Comment Number: | 517683-00044 |
| Received: | 9/2/2005 12:00:00 AM |
| Organization: | Freilich Jewelers Inc. |
| Commenter: | Allan Freilich |
| State: | NY |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries |
| Docket ID: | To Be Added |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: reducing the traditional platinum standard. I have been a jeweler for thirty five years, and my father before me since 1939. In our industry, with the help of the federal trade commision, the word 'diamond' cannot be used in the descrtiption of any simulant or fake or imitation of the actual substance 'diamond' (eg. 'cubic zirconia") with the express purpose to make sure the public would not be fooled into thinking that what they were buying had anything to do with an actual diamond. This came about because of the abuses in advertising that were going on. many cases of clients coming into me over the past years with their 'diamond' because the word 'diamond' was in the ad, mostly mail order. The new proposal of reducing the actual purity of platinum to a lesser grade, such as '585' (58.5% or so of pure platinum with other metals added) would undermine our industry with almost as great abuse as the diamond simulants. The buying public could not be expected to fully understand the technicalities of 585. All they would hear is 'platinum' without the quality standard. Traditionally, platinum was a pure metal (90% to 95%-irridium, ruthenium, cobalt, etc) added in minute quantities for strength. The buying public will think that they are buying the traditional platinum and that it is simply one seller offering a better deal than the other without regards to what they are actually getting. Possibly a completely different term could be used to describe this metal so no confusion would even be possible. If 585 is allowed to be sold and marketed, I personally believe that fraud will be the ultimate result. thank you