This content was first published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review no. 5 in 2018. The information provided here is therefore current as of the original publication date.
After carefully considering the proposals coming from the trade, the Federal Trade Commission released in July 2018 the final revision to its Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries (16 CFR Part 23). A number of needful clarifications are given, confirming the general lines of the already allowed terminology for synthetic diamonds (the accepted descriptors or qualifications are “laboratory-grown”, “laboratory-created”, “[manufacturer name]-created, the term “cultivated” is not allowed). The qualification of real diamonds as “natural” has been removed, following a consolidated trend in the international regulations.
It is worth recalling what happened a few years ago during the HK Jewellery show when exhibitors were first required to specify that they were offering “natural” diamonds, to be asked to remove then after the signboards in a rush.
What strikes gemstone traders and gemologists is the cancellation of the definition of “gem”. The Italian Gemological Review offered two specific contributions pointing out the inconsistency of the following definition adopted for a long time by FTC: “It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “gem” to describe, identify, or refer to a ruby, sapphire, emerald, topaz, or other industry product that does not possess the beauty, symmetry, rarity, and value necessary for qualification as a gem”. In an attempt to compare the various international rules researchers noticed that such a definition is tautological, since a name was explained by the repetition of the same term supposed to be clarified.
It is meaningful indeed that the definition was not replaced but simply abolished. Beauty, rarity, value (and durability we would add) are not included in the US among the necessary features to legally deal with gemstones. This leads to think that dispute settlements will be left to the the market. Appraisers and gemologists should have to fix the border between fair or misleading use of the word “gem” when used in disputed transactions.
Gem News published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review #5, Autumn 2018
