<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN'>

<html><head><title>534660-00006.htm</title>

<meta name='vs_defaultClientScript' content='JavaScript'>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

<meta name='vs_targetSchema' content='http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie3-2nav3-0'>

<meta name='Originator' content='CommentWorks'></head><body><Table>

<tr><td><b>Comment Number: </b></td><td>534660-00006</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Received: </b></td><td>8/12/2008 11:59:26 AM</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Organization: </b></td><td>Austin &amp; Warburton</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Commenter: </b></td><td>Craig Warburton</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>State: </b></td><td>MI</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Agency: </b></td><td>Federal Trade Commission</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Rule: </b></td><td>Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries</td></tr>

<tr><td>No Attachments</tr></Table>

<hr><P><b>Comments:</b></p>My opinion of the pending issue regarding the marking and disclosure of cheap plaitnum alloys is as follows:

• that platinum/base metal jewelry should not be allowed to use the term “platinum;”

• that the current FTC proposal is unworkable in terms of industry implementation and would be confusing to consumers;

• and that it’s not in harmony with international standards.

• The submission will also reiterate a suggestion the Task Force made in 2005, when this matter was first raised, which is to recommend that the FTC consider a new and different name for jewelry comprised of platinum and base metals.</body></html>