| Comment Number: | 517683-00005 |
| Received: | 8/8/2005 6:52:42 PM | Organization: | Lux Bond & Green |
| Commenter: | John A. Green |
| State: | CT |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries |
| Docket ID: | To Be Added |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I representing a retail jeweler with 9 locations and being in buisness for 107 years, find changing the rules concerning platinum to not include platinum related metals or a low percentage of platinum in the product totally out of line with my undrstanding of why the FTC writes and rules on laws, and I appreciate this opportunitty to voice my opinion. The FTC is to protect the rights and laws of both the consumer and the manufacterer, and many times the consumer assumes an understanding of something based on many years of trust with a product and or industry. The unspoken understanding of a platinum is part of the fabric of the jewelry business, and I truely believe that the consumer believes platinum to be a pure metal, which I believe was verified by a survey several years ago. Most platinum customers from the 1920's to 1970's had jewelry stamped 90 plat.10 irid. and were told that iridium was in the platinum family. Now with technology we explain that other platinum related metals are used for strength and durability etc. So for 90 plus years or more the customer comes in an assumes platinum to be mostly pure and or slightly mixed with platinum related metals, and the related metals are as rare or rarer than the metal itself. The ambiguity in the current FTC guidlines should be clarified in any change that you consider, but in reality that is not part of any sales presentation, it's unspoken, because of the history of the metal in jewelry making, design, and consumption, and the positive marketing that has occured these past 20 years to back up the pure assumptions from generations past. To allow anyone to now use this name platinum and mix it with other non platinum metals and or a low percentage of the element and still use the name will totally confuse the customer, bringing mistrust and ill feelings to our industry and the metal. How can it feel different, weight; look different, color; react different to our skin, allergies; when it has been understood, assumed, to be pure. I have taught a course on the basic undertanding of purchasing jewelry in the greater hartfrod area for the past 20 years in the continuing education program of our communities, and I have always asked about what is platinum, gold, and silver, and my students have usually understood platinum to be the pure metal, thats heavy, somewhat expensive, rare, beatuiful, and reacts to skin without problems like other metals. I hope you will reflect on the understanding of the words meaning to the vast majority of the American public, including the international market and the ISO guidlines, as much of the 21st century market is truely international. The current ambiguity of the guidlines, should be clarified in any change to reflect the pureness of the metal, the clear understanding of is value to the public, the the trust the public hold in the FTC and the jewerly industrys historical guidlines. Respectfully John Green