Quinn
08-19-2005, 11:37 AM
Some jewelers favor a loosening of rules about platinum alloys
Here is the link to the article
https://www.ajc.com/news/userreg/ursignup/signup.jsp?UrUsecase=800100&SendBackURL=%2Fnews%2Fcontent%2Fbusiness%2F0805%2F 19bizplatinum.html
By PATRINA A. BOSTIC
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/19/05
Washington ? Dreaming of draping yourself in fine platinum jewelry ? but the price is out of reach?
Some jewelers want the Federal Trade Commission to allow an alloy of 58.5 percent of the precious white element mixed with common metals to be marketed as platinum ? at a proportionately lower price.
Others say that lowering the high purity of items that can carry the platinum hallmark would undermine the market. They are asking the FTC to bar companies from using the word platinum to market such alloys.
Karat Platinum LLC of New York is at the center of this battle. In early 2004, the company began marketing an alloy that is 58.5 percent platinum, and the rest copper and cobalt. Karat marked its products ".585 plat, 0 PGMs," which stands for zero platinum group metals.
"This is a way for consumers to choose between a pure platinum ring, which would hypothetically cost $1,000, and instead buy a 58.5 percent platinum ring with the same or better characteristics and pay only $600," said David Zetoony, an attorney for Karat.
Platinum was trading Thursday at about $891 for a troy ounce.
But some in the jewelry industry quickly raised objections to Karat's labeling, saying it violated the FTC's Platinum Guide, which sets standards for jewelry. They quickly spread that word throughout the industry, impairing Karat's efforts to market the product, Zetoony said.
Karat sought an opinion from the FTC last December, and in February the agency told Bryan Cave LLP, the law firm representing Karat, that its guidelines "neither allow nor prohibit the marketing of the Karat Platinum alloy."
That's because most platinum jewelry is at least 90 percent platinum, usually alloyed with related precious metals such as palladium, ruthenium or iridium. The FTC's guidelines simply didn't envision a platinum alloy like Karat's with a large proportion of unrelated metals.
But the agency did say that Karat's labeling wasn't sufficient to alert consumers to the difference between its alloy and the usual ones containing platinum. The company has since revised its intended label to read ".585 plat, .415 CO/CU," which stands for cobalt and copper.
Input sought
Now, the FTC is soliciting comment from the industry on whether it should amend its guide to address products containing between 50 percent and 85 percent platinum, with no other platinum group metals. The comment period ends Sept. 28.
The comments "will carry considerable weight," said Neil Blickman, staff attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC. So far, jewelers have weighed in on both sides.
"The price of .950 platinum jewelry is so high," commented Minta Spencer, of Spencer & Spencer in Sherman Oaks, Calif. "I welcome a new platinum metal. ... It is a lower-priced alternative to .950 platinum, yet it is more appealing than 14k or 18k white gold. I think there is a large market for this metal.
"I think this metal will have good profit margin for retailers and also will encourage customers to make repeat purchases and spend a little more than they would with white gold," she added. "The .950 platinum metal will still have a large market, and educating customers is the key here."
Still shaping answers
But Lloyd Stanley, with Stanley Jewelers Gemologist in North Little Rock, Ark., said the industry doesn't need another metal product.
"Platinum is a wonderful metal that ... symbolizes the very, very best, and to dilute that metal and not disclose it, it's kind of like going to the gas station and not knowing which grade of fuel you are pumping," he said in an interview.
He told the FTC it should prohibit the use of the word platinum or any abbreviation to mark any product composed of 50 percent to 85 percent pure platinum that contain no other platinum group metals.
Some large trade groups are still shaping their answers.
The Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, in Providence, R.I., is sending a survey to its 1,800 members to get a sense of what they want, said Johnna Beckmann, the association's marketing and public relations manager.
Cecilia Gardner, president and chief executive officer of Jewelry Vigilance Committee, a trade association in New York, said her office is working on submitting its comments to the FTC.
"Traditionally, the industry practice has been to reserve the word platinum for products made of 950 parts per thousand pure platinum and for products using a combination of platinum and other platinum group metals," Gardner said.
Clifford Jackson, marketing manager at Jewelers of America in New York, said the issue is not whether a particular product should be banned.
"It's more important for the industry to have a uniform set of guidelines than it is to say, 'Oh, this company shouldn't market this product or this company shouldn't produce this alloy,' " Jackson said.
"A lot of people in the industry were concerned that they were not making appropriate distinctions between their product and what's already out on the market," he said of Karat.
Here is the link to the article
https://www.ajc.com/news/userreg/ursignup/signup.jsp?UrUsecase=800100&SendBackURL=%2Fnews%2Fcontent%2Fbusiness%2F0805%2F 19bizplatinum.html
By PATRINA A. BOSTIC
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/19/05
Washington ? Dreaming of draping yourself in fine platinum jewelry ? but the price is out of reach?
Some jewelers want the Federal Trade Commission to allow an alloy of 58.5 percent of the precious white element mixed with common metals to be marketed as platinum ? at a proportionately lower price.
Others say that lowering the high purity of items that can carry the platinum hallmark would undermine the market. They are asking the FTC to bar companies from using the word platinum to market such alloys.
Karat Platinum LLC of New York is at the center of this battle. In early 2004, the company began marketing an alloy that is 58.5 percent platinum, and the rest copper and cobalt. Karat marked its products ".585 plat, 0 PGMs," which stands for zero platinum group metals.
"This is a way for consumers to choose between a pure platinum ring, which would hypothetically cost $1,000, and instead buy a 58.5 percent platinum ring with the same or better characteristics and pay only $600," said David Zetoony, an attorney for Karat.
Platinum was trading Thursday at about $891 for a troy ounce.
But some in the jewelry industry quickly raised objections to Karat's labeling, saying it violated the FTC's Platinum Guide, which sets standards for jewelry. They quickly spread that word throughout the industry, impairing Karat's efforts to market the product, Zetoony said.
Karat sought an opinion from the FTC last December, and in February the agency told Bryan Cave LLP, the law firm representing Karat, that its guidelines "neither allow nor prohibit the marketing of the Karat Platinum alloy."
That's because most platinum jewelry is at least 90 percent platinum, usually alloyed with related precious metals such as palladium, ruthenium or iridium. The FTC's guidelines simply didn't envision a platinum alloy like Karat's with a large proportion of unrelated metals.
But the agency did say that Karat's labeling wasn't sufficient to alert consumers to the difference between its alloy and the usual ones containing platinum. The company has since revised its intended label to read ".585 plat, .415 CO/CU," which stands for cobalt and copper.
Input sought
Now, the FTC is soliciting comment from the industry on whether it should amend its guide to address products containing between 50 percent and 85 percent platinum, with no other platinum group metals. The comment period ends Sept. 28.
The comments "will carry considerable weight," said Neil Blickman, staff attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC. So far, jewelers have weighed in on both sides.
"The price of .950 platinum jewelry is so high," commented Minta Spencer, of Spencer & Spencer in Sherman Oaks, Calif. "I welcome a new platinum metal. ... It is a lower-priced alternative to .950 platinum, yet it is more appealing than 14k or 18k white gold. I think there is a large market for this metal.
"I think this metal will have good profit margin for retailers and also will encourage customers to make repeat purchases and spend a little more than they would with white gold," she added. "The .950 platinum metal will still have a large market, and educating customers is the key here."
Still shaping answers
But Lloyd Stanley, with Stanley Jewelers Gemologist in North Little Rock, Ark., said the industry doesn't need another metal product.
"Platinum is a wonderful metal that ... symbolizes the very, very best, and to dilute that metal and not disclose it, it's kind of like going to the gas station and not knowing which grade of fuel you are pumping," he said in an interview.
He told the FTC it should prohibit the use of the word platinum or any abbreviation to mark any product composed of 50 percent to 85 percent pure platinum that contain no other platinum group metals.
Some large trade groups are still shaping their answers.
The Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, in Providence, R.I., is sending a survey to its 1,800 members to get a sense of what they want, said Johnna Beckmann, the association's marketing and public relations manager.
Cecilia Gardner, president and chief executive officer of Jewelry Vigilance Committee, a trade association in New York, said her office is working on submitting its comments to the FTC.
"Traditionally, the industry practice has been to reserve the word platinum for products made of 950 parts per thousand pure platinum and for products using a combination of platinum and other platinum group metals," Gardner said.
Clifford Jackson, marketing manager at Jewelers of America in New York, said the issue is not whether a particular product should be banned.
"It's more important for the industry to have a uniform set of guidelines than it is to say, 'Oh, this company shouldn't market this product or this company shouldn't produce this alloy,' " Jackson said.
"A lot of people in the industry were concerned that they were not making appropriate distinctions between their product and what's already out on the market," he said of Karat.