Hallmarking of joined metals

EB - Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 7:29am

Hello, I recently joined the forum, currently in search of an answer as to how one stamps a jewellery piece that is mostly silver, but also has gold in it. For example the ring part is silver, but a stone is set in 18k gold soldered to silver. Does one stamp the makers mark, the 925, as well as the 18K? I am interested to find out the latest legislature on this subject in USA, UK, Japan and the EU countries, France specifically. After assuming I can stamp the silver ring band with the two regular stamps, plus the 3rd 18k to show the smaller amount of gold used, I now have my doubts about it being legal to stamp the silver band in this case, with the 18k stamp. Kindly reply if you have info on this subject. Thank you very much! EB.

» EB's blog | login or register to post comments

I think your instincts are

Dick C - Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:36am

I think your instincts are correct. In the U.S., the FTC guides state:

§ 23.9 Additional guidance for the use of quality marks.

... snip ...

(a) Deception as to applicability of marks.

(1) If a quality mark on an industry product is applicable to only part of the product, the part of the product to which it is applicable (or inapplicable) should be disclosed when, absent such disclosure, the location of the mark misrepresents the product or part's true composition.

(2) If a quality mark is applicable to only part of an industry product, but not another part which is of similar surface appearance, each quality mark should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or parts to which the mark is applicable.

That can be tough to do. I think the safe course is to only stamp the less precious material, which is what I do, or not mark it at all. I believe that is what is done in the UK.

If you find this information for other countries would you post it here, or links to it?

» login or register to post comments

I have always done as Dick

Rich Waugh - Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 12:04pm

I have always done as Dick suggests. In a case like yours I would stamp the ring shank with my "sterling" or "92.5" stamp and my personal touchmark, but nothing else. The gold is insignificant as far as the assay quality of the piece is concerned, and thus should not be included in the stamping.

In a piece with equal amounts of gold and silver, the issues becomes less clear. If feasible, I might s tamp the silver with the 92.5 mark and the gold with the its appropriate karat stamp. Or I might not stamp assay marks at all and simply state the component metals on an accompanying card.

When a piece is mostly gold, with a silver accent, I'd probably opt to use white gold for the accent so I could use one assay stamp and be legal. Or not stamp it at all if I used an "inferior" metal for the accents.

I don;t know what the European law on this is, but you should be able to get that info from Goldsmith's Hall in London, at least for British works.

» login or register to post comments

I recall working on rings

Dick C - Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 10:38am

I recall working on rings that were half yellow gold and half sterling. The rings were stamped 14K and Sterling, adjacent to each other, on each respective metal. In that case the marking seemed clear. I have no idea how that would be accepted outside the U.S. Actually, I'm not even sure how this would be accepted here. At the time I thought it was clear -- and couldn't see how anyone might not understand what was meant, but since then I've come across range of people.

» login or register to post comments

You got that right, Dick!

Rich Waugh - Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 5:51pm

You got that right, Dick! Every time you think you've gotten a thing absolutely idiot-proof, along comes a better idiot.

The FTC guidelines on assay marking are somewhat vague and don;t address the mixed metals issue at all. About the only place I know that really tries to do it right is England, where things are still (I think) controlled by the folks at Goldsmith's Hall in London.

In the final analysis (no pun intended), it really comes down to the maker's reputation for quality and honesty. Very few people are going to bother doing an assay, and about the only people doing that are the so-called "scrap gold" buyers. Personally, I'd rather see my work go to a mugger than to one of those vultures. (grin)

Rich

» login or register to post comments

Meant to say, "... I've come

Dick C - Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 9:07pm

Meant to say, "... I've come across a wider range of people." Come to think of it, I wasn't always as bright as I thought I was. :)

» login or register to post comments

Me too, Dick - the older I

Rich Waugh - Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 10:28pm

Me too, Dick - the older I get, the better I used to be. :-)

I meant to note in an earlier reply to the original post that the term "hallmarking" properly refers only to the stamp indicating the specific guild hall at which the item was accepted for assay/marking, i.e. Goldsmith's Hall in London (Lion Rampant stamp). The metal quality stamp, sterling or 14kt, for example, is more properly called the assay or proof stamp. In recent years the term hallmark has come to refer to any mark stamped in a metal piece, whether it is the maker's mark, assay mark or guild hall stamp. I think this change is largely due to the death of the old guild system in most parts of the world, as well as the general trend toward less precision in modern speech.

Rich

» login or register to post comments