New FTC guidelines for jewelry

[denverappraiser]

The Federal trade commission has been working since 2016 to update the guidelines for jewelry related industries. I haven't finished reading them all yet, but I thought some people here might be interested in what the rules actually say. There's lots of interesting diamond information in here. For example, 'natural' origin is no longer required to make an unqualified statement calling a crystalline piece of carbon a diamond.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/do..._of_basis_and_purpose_for_final_jewelry__.pdf

 

[WinkHPD]

But do you not need to declare synthetic or man made to non natural?

Wink, who obviously also has not read them yet...

 

[denverappraiser]

It doesn't look like it. The unqualified word 'diamond' now seems to cover both.

Diamond definition.

Section 23.11 addressed the definition and misuse of the word “diamond.” Section 23.11(a) stated: “A diamond is a natural mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; and it has a refractive index of 2.42.”430 The Commission did not propose changes to this section.

2. Comment Diamond Foundry asked that the Commission remove “natural” from the diamond definition. It contended, “[t]he fact that diamonds exist in the soil of Earth” is “not a necessary attribute.”431 3. Analysis The Commission agrees. The final Guides therefore eliminate the word “natural” from the diamond definition. When the Commission first used this definition in 1956,432 there was only one type of diamond product on the market – natural stones mined from the earth. Since then, technological advances have made it possible to create diamonds in a laboratory. These stones have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds. Thus, they are diamonds. The distinctions between these lab-created diamonds and mined stones are addressed elsewhere in the Guides.

 

[John P]

The ISO came out rather solidly on this topic in 2015. After their research and review, only a natural diamond may be referred-to as a "diamond" with no modifier.

Details here.
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/bl...-s-the-law-diamond-means-natural-diamond-.htm

The decision wasn't arbitrary. Nine of the foremost organizations in the diamond industry recommended that all traders and trade organizations comply with those ISO guidelines on all documents and websites. For the record, they are the AWDC, CIBJO, DPA, GJEPC, IDI, IDMA, USJC, WDC and WFDB.

Thread about that here.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...s-back-standard-terminology-guideline.237456/

Meanwhile, producers of synthetic-diamonds have been hammering the FTC for years to adopt/approve the use of "cultured," among other terms. in 2016 the DPA and DeBeers' produced a petition that includes (1) a well-done, succinct juxtaposition describing how Natural diamonds form vs HPHT and CVD synthesis and (2) a lot of market research regarding terminology.

That DPA Petition is here.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2016/05/00069-128099.pdf


Inigo Montoya might want to tell the FTC ~ "You keep using that word..."

 

[Matthews1127]

The ISO came out rather solidly on this topic in 2015. After their research and review, only a natural diamond may be referred-to as a "diamond" with no modifier.

Details here.
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/bl...-s-the-law-diamond-means-natural-diamond-.htm

The decision wasn't arbitrary. Nine of the foremost organizations in the diamond industry recommended that all traders and trade organizations comply with those ISO guidelines on all documents and websites. For the record, they are the AWDC, CIBJO, DPA, GJEPC, IDI, IDMA, USJC, WDC and WFDB.

Thread about that here.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...s-back-standard-terminology-guideline.237456/

Meanwhile, producers of synthetic-diamonds have been hammering the FTC for years to adopt/approve the use of "cultured," among other terms. in 2016 the DPA and DeBeers' produced a petition that includes (1) a well-done, succinct juxtaposition describing how Natural diamonds form vs HPHT and CVD synthesis and (2) a lot of market research regarding terminology.

That DPA Petition is here.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2016/05/00069-128099.pdf


Inigo Montoya might want to tell the FTC ~ "You keep using that word..."

Thank you so much for this information!! I need to start reading!!!

 

[denverappraiser]

Right. They seem to disagree with the 2015 ISO decision.

The unqualified use of the word 'cultured' applied to diamonds now seems to be a deceptive term as well.

This is going to take some time to digest but there seem to be some fairly important changes.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Neil,
What are the rules for say synthetic corundum (ruby and sapphire) et al?

 

[denverappraiser]

As far as I can tell, there is no definition of what is a ruby. That too is a bit of a can-o-worms because of the glass filled things that have as much glass as corundum. Is that a treated ruby, a hybrid glass/ruby composite, a manufactured material containing some corundum, or something else entirely?

Here's the section that seems to relate to synthetics.

§ 23.25 Misuse of the words ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ ‘‘stone,’’ ‘‘birthstone,’’ “gem,” ‘‘gemstone,’’ etc.

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a mined stone of the type described.

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word ‘‘stone,’’ ‘‘birthstone,’’ “gem,” ‘‘gemstone,’’ or similar term to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, [manufacturer name]-created, synthetic, imitation, or simulated stone, unless such word 148 or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word ‘‘laboratory-grown,’’ ‘‘laboratory-created,’’ ‘‘[manufacturer name]-created,’’ or some other word or phrase of like meaning, or by the word ‘‘imitation’’ or ‘‘simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone.

 

[OoohShiny]

As far as I can tell, there is no definition of what is a ruby. That too is a bit of a can-o-worms because of the glass filled things that have as much glass as corundum. Is that a treated ruby, a hybrid glass/ruby composite, a manufactured material containing some corundum, or something else entirely?

Here's the section that seems to relate to synthetics.

§ 23.25 Misuse of the words ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ ‘‘stone,’’ ‘‘birthstone,’’ “gem,” ‘‘gemstone,’’ etc.

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a mined stone of the type described.

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘‘ruby,’’ ‘‘sapphire,’’ ‘‘emerald,’’ ‘‘topaz,’’ or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word ‘‘stone,’’ ‘‘birthstone,’’ “gem,” ‘‘gemstone,’’ or similar term to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, [manufacturer name]-created, synthetic, imitation, or simulated stone, unless such word 148 or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word ‘‘laboratory-grown,’’ ‘‘laboratory-created,’’ ‘‘[manufacturer name]-created,’’ or some other word or phrase of like meaning, or by the word ‘‘imitation’’ or ‘‘simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone.

I can appreciate that 'diamond is diamond' in terms of physics/chemistry, which seems to be the approach mentioned earlier, but it's interesting that they are not applying the wording detailed here in reference to CSs to MMDs at this point.

 

[AprilBaby]

 

[Texas Leaguer]

@denverappraiser ,
Just a couple of weeks ago the FTC sent warning letters to eight major lab grown diamond sellers specifying, among other things, deceptive terminology:
The FTC cautioned the companies — whose details were not released — not to use the name of any precious stone, including diamonds, to describe a simulated or lab-grown stone, unless the name is immediately preceded by a “clear and conspicuous disclosure that the product is not a mined stone.”
https://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsI...tle=FTC+Issues+Warnings+to+Synthetics+Sellers

How does this square with your interpretation of where we are now?

 

[Karl_K]

This should answer some questions and is more up to date than the above discussion from last year which was not based on the finished guidelines :
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/05/many-facets-advertising-diamonds-clarity

"To avoid the risk of deceiving consumers about the type of jewelry you offer, advertisers selling simulated or laboratory-created diamonds should disclose that the products aren’t mined diamonds. Describing simulated or laboratory-created diamonds merely as “diamonds,” without more, would likely convey the false impression to consumers that they’re buying mined diamonds. Using a brand name that includes the word “diamond,” without qualifying your claim with a clear explanation, would present the same problem."

 

[Karl_K]

That too is a bit of a can-o-worms because of the glass filled things that have as much glass as corundum. Is that a treated ruby, a hybrid glass/ruby composite, a manufactured material containing some corundum, or something else entirely?

Under: §23.25
"(d) It is unfair or deceptive to describe products made with gemstone material and any amount of filler or binder, such as lead glass, in the following way:

(1) With the unqualified word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or name of any other precious or semi-precious stone;

(2) As a “treated ruby,” “treated sapphire,” “treated emerald,” “treated topaz,” or “treated [gemstone name]”;

(3) As a “laboratory-grown [gemstone name],” “laboratory-created [gemstone name],” “[manufacturer name]-created [gemstone name],” “or “synthetic [gemstone name];” or

(4) As a “composite [gemstone name],” “hybrid [gemstone name],” or “manufactured [gemstone name],” unless the term is qualified to disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product: (A) Does not have the same characteristics as the named stone; and (B) requires special care. It is further recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser."

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...mc=true&node=pt16.1.23&rgn=div5#se16.1.23_116

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Under: §23.25
"(d) It is unfair or deceptive to describe products made with gemstone material and any amount of filler or binder, such as lead glass, in the following way:

(1) With the unqualified word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or name of any other precious or semi-precious stone;

(2) As a “treated ruby,” “treated sapphire,” “treated emerald,” “treated topaz,” or “treated [gemstone name]”;

(3) As a “laboratory-grown [gemstone name],” “laboratory-created [gemstone name],” “[manufacturer name]-created [gemstone name],” “or “synthetic [gemstone name];” or

(4) As a “composite [gemstone name],” “hybrid [gemstone name],” or “manufactured [gemstone name],” unless the term is qualified to disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product: (A) Does not have the same characteristics as the named stone; and (B) requires special care. It is further recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser."

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...mc=true&node=pt16.1.23&rgn=div5#se16.1.23_116

I challenge the FTC and the synthetic diamond industry to explain how you can call the places these diamonds are grown as:
Laboratory Grown

See some images of the FACTORIES

 

[bmfang]

One Singaporean company is already quoting that FTC guideline for their stones and rings. I’m doing what I can in the comments feed for that post to get the company to “‘fess up” about what their product actually is.

 

[bmfang]

I challenge the FTC and the synthetic diamond industry to explain how you can call the places these diamonds are grown as:
Laboratory Grown

See some images of the FACTORIES

Each “pressure cooker” is a lab. Of some sort.

*said with tongue firmly in cheek*

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Each “pressure cooker” is a lab. Of some sort.

*said with tongue firmly in cheek*

Each worker in a car factory is a craftsperson. Very few cars (luxe) can claim to be hand crafted.

 

[OoohShiny]

One Singaporean company is already quoting that FTC guideline for their stones and rings. I’m doing what I can in the comments feed for that post to get the company to “‘fess up” about what their product actually is.

I was thinking as I read that other thread - surely the points made in posts 11 and 12 on this thread apply to them and should be quoted at them! lol

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I was thinking as I read that other thread - surely the points made in posts 11 and 12 on this thread apply to them and should be quoted at them! lol

Sadly, USA law does not extend outside USA. The way the world is going, it would be good if we had some global real trade laws.

 

[bmfang]

Sadly, USA law does not extend outside USA. The way the world is going, it would be good if we had some global real trade laws.

Unfortunately, that Singaporean retailer has used that FTC guideline (and not the clarification recently issued by the FTC) to imply that their lab-grown stones are the same as mined stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Unfortunately, that Singaporean retailer has used that FTC guideline (and not the clarification recently issued by the FTC) to imply that their lab-grown stones are the same as mined stones.

I imagine that could have very nasty legal consequences in strict Singapore. I was borderline for a hair cut when I landed at the airport in the 1970's!

 

[EncikG]

I imagine that could have very nasty legal consequences in strict Singapore. I was borderline for a hair cut when I landed at the airport in the 1970's!

@Garry H (Cut Nut) hmm, imagining a Garry with long hair in the hippie 70’s

 

[bmfang]

I never had this problem growing up in Malaysia crossing the causeway. My parents gave me a crew cut from young so I looked like I was on NS from a toddler’s age

 

[MissStepcut]

The FTC has been pretty clear that MMD sellers need to make clear conspicuous disclosures, and the commenter to the rule “Diamond Foundry” was actually one of the companies to get slapped with a warning letter.

A LOT of sellers aren’t in compliance yet with this new guidance, we will see how much patience FTC has to slap them all with letters.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

OK Garry,
You opened the bottle and let that genie out. Time to see a photo of you in your hippie days!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

OK Garry,
You opened the bottle and let that genie out. Time to see a photo of you in your hippie days!

I would have to hunt a bit, but if you contact my daughters i am sure they would love to share it.
BTW who said i was a hippie?
Just because after I graduated as a geologist and I went overland from South Australia, Timor, Indonesia, singapore, Malaysia, Thai, Nepal, India, Ceylon, Pak, Afg, Iran, Turkey etc to London on $1 a day does not mean I was a hippie.
but i did buy gems enroute and bought tools in London and started making jewellery with the gems. Rest is history.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hippie is as hippie does Garry.

Every young person should make a trip like that!