| Comment Number: | 517683-00048 |
| Received: | 09/13/2005 11:29:02 PM |
| Organization: | Susan Eisen Fine Jewelry and Watches |
| Commenter: | Susan Eisen |
| State: | TX |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries |
| Docket ID: | To Be Added |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I have been a retail jeweler for the past 25 years, mostly self taught and schooled at the local university. I have seen the problems that develop when the public is not aware of the proper definition of things and extrapolate from this lack of education. Using the word or phrase "Plat" as a mark on jewelry will not be understood by the consumer and they will assume that anything with "Plat" is the same even though the metal content and value will be much different. Platinum jewelry has come to be accepted by the trade as that which is almost entirely platinum. Muddying the waters now will have the consumers comparing 50% platinum pieces with 90% plat pieces as the same without realizing the great difference in metal content, metal durability, and metal consistency. Platinum jewelry that is 90% platinum has certain positive characteristics that 50% platinum does not and then the consumer will feel cheated because of a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of both alloys. Some of these characteristics may negatively affect a consumer such as the hypoallergenic quality of 90% platinum jewelry and the allergic quality of jewelry with nickel or other metals in it which may be used to alloy 50% platinum jewelry if you allow them to mark the jewelry "Plat". I respectfully ask that you leave only high content platinum jewelry as containing the mark "Plat". Thank you, Susan Eisen, Master Gemologist Appraiser, ASA, Graduate Gemologist, GIA and Certified Gemologist Appraiser, AGS and jewelry retailer.