UK specific: What is a hallmark?

mbstevens wrote:
Jason L wrote:

http://www.thegoldsmiths.co.uk/assay...thallmarks.htm

Yes. This has always amazed me.

"The Act is built around the principle of description,
where it is an offence for any person to apply to an
unhallmarked article a description indicating that it is
wholly or partly made of gold, silver or platinum."

If an object if *in fact* made made of a substance, it
should be basic freedom of speech to describe it as such.
I can understand legislating against fraud, but not
against fact.

And, most of those hallmarks are ugly, old fashioned
designs that I wouldn't want cluttering up my work.

"Breaches of the Act carry stiff sentences (up to 10
years' imprisonment.)"

...and that is just excessive as hell.
I don't know the history of this law -- is it the Guilds
that have such a choke-hold on the legislature?

Regrettably there have always been and still are folks that describe
the articles there offering for sale as being made of precious metal
when "IN FACT" there not.
these folks are only interested in cheating people
So the guilds decided to intervene and insist that they would test and
mark every item offered for sale within the rules of weight etc, as
being genuinely up to the standards defined..
Would you like to be cheated?
Im sure not.
Its a safeguard that has worked for centuries in favour of the
customer as well as the maker.
As an after thought,
With freedom comes responsibility, cheats abuse the freedom they enjoy
by not accepting the responsibility that goes with the freedom..
Ted Frater.

Ted Frater wrote:

mbstevens wrote:
Jason L wrote:


http://www.thegoldsmiths.co.uk/assay...thallmarks.htm

Yes. This has always amazed me.

"The Act is built around the principle of description,
where it is an offense for any person to apply to an
unhallmarked article a description indicating that it
is wholly or partly made of gold, silver or platinum."

If an object if *in fact* made made of a substance, it
should be basic freedom of speech to describe it as
such. I can understand legislating against fraud, but
not against fact.

And, most of those hallmarks are ugly, old fashioned
designs that I wouldn't want cluttering up my work.

"Breaches of the Act carry stiff sentences (up to 10
years' imprisonment.)"

...and that is just excessive as hell.
I don't know the history of this law -- is it the
Guilds that have such a choke-hold on the legislature?

Regrettably there have always been and still are folks
that describe
the articles there offering for sale as being made of
precious metal
when "IN FACT" there not.

Then punish fraud as fraud -- don't make it illegal to
say a thing contains a metal if it does contain that
metal.

these folks are only interested in cheating people
So the guilds decided to intervene and insist that they
would test and mark every item offered for sale within
the rules of weight etc, as being genuinely up to the
standards defined..
Would you like to be cheated?
I am sure not.

And you think restricting basic rights to free speech
is a lesser wrong? *TEN YEARS* in the pokey for saying
your artwork has precious metal in it when it DOES in fact
have it?

A little ugly stamp is going to stop fraud?
Doubtful. It more likely just reinforces the powers of
Guild members.

Its a safeguard that has worked for centuries in
favour of the
customer as well as the maker.

Other countries seem to get along fine without it.

As an after thought,
With freedom comes responsibility,

Individuals take responsibility. This laws takes
responsibility away from individuals.

cheats abuse the
freedom they enjoy by not accepting the responsibility
that goes with the freedom.. Ted Frater.

So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*

These kinds of laws are on the books not really to protect
individuals but to protect organizations. It happens
everywhere. The cattle barons here in Texas have pushed
through a law protecting locally grown *beef* from
slander. It's all just to be ridiculed.

"mbstevens" wrote in message
news

And you think restricting basic rights to free speech
is a lesser wrong? *TEN YEARS* in the pokey for saying
your artwork has precious metal in it when it DOES in fact
have it?

So don't say it.

Say 'I'm an artist, the medium may or may not be precious in its own right,
but I'm above hallmarks.

See what happens...

See how much you sell as well...

A little ugly stamp is going to stop fraud?
Doubtful. It more likely just reinforces the powers of
Guild members.

What guild, anyone can buy a hallmark.

Other countries seem to get along fine without it.

Nope, not these days, I think the USA is just about the only major country
without a marking system. Of course some countries (Italy springs to mind)
have problems, but they all mark...


cheats abuse the
freedom they enjoy by not accepting the responsibility
that goes with the freedom.. Ted Frater.

So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*

Jewellers don't.

You send it away to be stamped.

These kinds of laws are on the books not really to protect
individuals but to protect organizations. It happens
everywhere. The cattle barons here in Texas have pushed
through a law protecting locally grown *beef* from
slander. It's all just to be ridiculed.

Ah...

You're from Texas...

Sorry...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

William Black wrote:


Nope, not these days, I think the USA is just about the only major country
without a marking system.


That is not true. The US does have stamping laws, i.e. the "National Gold and
Silver Stamping Act" that are in fact quite rigorous. The only thing different,
is that a jeweler does not take his wares to an assayer's office to have it
done, he does so himself. So the quality and quantity of the goods is not
guaranteed by the government, but by the maker. If caught to be wrong, stiff
penalties are levied.

It is true, that the US does NOT require goods to be stamped with a quality
mark. However, if a quality mark is used it MUST be accompanied by a maker's mark.

Read:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/do...ch8/index.html

Sections 294, 295, 296.

Several years ago, I was contacted by the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, on
organization in the US, that oversees fraud in this area, about an issue
regarding the way I had stamped a certain ring. A jeweler (a very incompetent
one) had irreparably damaged one of my rings, that belonged to one of his
customers, while trying to size it. When I refused to sell him a replacement at
a greatly reduced cost, he contacted the Jewelers Vigilance Committee and
claimed that his mistake was due to my incorrect stamping. (instead of his
incompetence). To make a long story short, I won the case.

But the bottom line is, we most definitely have stamping laws. Stamping is just
executed differently than in the UK for instance.
Of course some countries (Italy springs to mind)
have problems, but they all mark...



cheats abuse the
freedom they enjoy by not accepting the responsibility
that goes with the freedom.. Ted Frater.

So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*


Jewellers don't.

You send it away to be stamped.


These kinds of laws are on the books not really to protect
individuals but to protect organizations. It happens
everywhere. The cattle barons here in Texas have pushed
through a law protecting locally grown *beef* from
slander. It's all just to be ridiculed.


Ah...

You're from Texas...

Sorry...



--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

William Black wrote:


So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*


Jewellers don't.

You send it away to be stamped.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, btw, take a look at Mr. Stevens' work
to understand where he is coming from. And he calls those little stamps
"butt-ugly"?

http://tinyurl.com/9c9tl

and other pieces at http://mbstevens.com/x4x2002/index.html

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:


So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*


Jewellers don't.

You send it away to be stamped.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, btw, take a look at Mr.
Stevens' work
to understand where he is coming from. And he calls those little stamps
"butt-ugly"?

http://tinyurl.com/9c9tl

and other pieces at http://mbstevens.com/x4x2002/index.html

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

WOW! 8¬D
Some design! And with pieces like this, who cares about hallmarks.
I like them and would wear them.

--
Jackdaw collector of junk, trivia and bright twinkly things.

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:


So, punish for fraud. Do not force jewelers to put
those *butt-ugly* little stamps on articles that are
intended to be *beautiful.*


Jewellers don't.

You send it away to be stamped.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, btw, take a look at Mr.
Stevens' work
to understand where he is coming from. And he calls those little stamps
"butt-ugly"?

http://tinyurl.com/9c9tl

and other pieces at http://mbstevens.com/x4x2002/index.html

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

WOW! 8¬D
Some design! And with pieces like this, who cares about hallmarks.
I like them and would wear them.

--
Jackdaw collector of junk, trivia and bright twinkly things.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:44:28 -0700, in Abrasha wrote:


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, btw, take a look at Mr. Stevens' work
to understand where he is coming from.

Yes indeed. Sensative, orgainic, free form. Very Nice work, IMHO.
But of course, design ideas vary a lot, and Mr. Steven's work, clearly wildly different
from your own, Abrasha, may well not appeal to you, nor agree with your ideas of how
designs for jewelry should be arrived at. So you are as free to personally not like
it, as I am, to like both Mr. Steven's work, AND your own.

And he calls those little stamps
"butt-ugly"?

As you say, in the eye of the beholder. One can clearly see why, given the nature of
Mr. Stevens work, he might well find such stamps in conflict, aesthetically, with his
designs, just as by contrast, your own work might easily be quite well complimented,
rather than diminished, by the application of nice neat hallmarks.

I would, however, like to remind readers of this thread of messages on the moderated
rec.crafts.jewelry group to please be sure to confine judgemental comments to the work,
or the topics and opinions discussed, rather than letting this degrade into insults of
the people involved. Those of you following this thread in uk.rec.crafts should know
that personal attacks or flames are not allowed in r.c.j., and posts, no matter which
group they originate in, will be blocked if they don't conform to the posting standards
of r.c.j. If you object to this, exclude it from the crosspost list when you post.

Peter Rowe
moderator
rec.crafts.jewelry

On Thu, 05 May 2005 07:27:43 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

Yes indeed. Sensitive, organic, free form.

Hmm.
I offer my apologies for that "...at the mall" crack!
(I like to keep things a *little* edgy. It's been
so awfully _quiet_ around the forum...maybe
spring fever among the bling-blingeures.
I've been missing any real
jewelry discussion for a couple of months now.)
;-)

Hi,
I'm only a jewellery buyer but afaik a hallmark is the multiple marks made
by a uk assay office.
If you want to provide an honest description just say they are "stamped 375"
which you believe means they are 9K gold.

Do make sure you're know they're gold. I bought a "9k" necklace from ebay
recently which only had markings on the lobster clasp. These clasps can be
picked up for a few pounds from the www. There were no other markings on
the chain itself. The clasp was newer than the chain and the chain plating
was badly worn so that you could see pitted brass coloured metal beneath.
No way was it solid. I sent it back.
Other chains I own usually have markings on the first chain/jump ring to
indicate their karat content.