We don’t have really accurate systems readily available to most jewellers, so we rely on the fact that we never make mistakes, and for the most part we don’t.
When I began working as a manufacturing jeweller (cough) years ago in the UK, every piece I made had to be submitted to an independent assay office – it was the law according to the Hallmarking Act 1973, although some form of hallmarking has been in force for almost a thousand years.
So, after making, but before setting my client’s stones, I would fill in the form and send it with my item to the London assay office. After the normal three days, I would receive my piece, minus a few scrapings from the inside of the shank and setting and it would now display four marks: my maker’s mark, the assay office mark, the gold standard mark and the date letter.
In the UK, it’s illegal to sell jewellery made from precious metals without these marks. In fact, there are huge fines and even prison sentences for those who try to avoid hallmarking, or deliberately try to change them – the laws go back to the 14th Century, originally to protect royalty from being swindled by the silver merchants.
UK consumers can rest assured that someone is watching out for them, but here in Australia we don’t even have to stamp our jewellery with what it is (or what we think it is), let alone a maker’s mark.
I’m not accusing any jewellers in Australia of misleading the public with claims that are unsubstantiated, but I am concerned with the amount of product coming into Australia whose origins are more difficult to test. Jewellery retailers are then on-selling these pieces on the proviso that the description accompanying the piece (when there is one) is accurate.
And I’ve seen some advertised “gold-silver filled” pieces here that couldn’t possibly have been made by that method of production. I’m talking about really delicate hollow earrings that just wouldn’t be practical to be made in this way.
They may be hard gold-plated, maybe even electro-formed, but definitely not gold-silver filled. Many of these enhanced metals have confusing stamps such as 375/SIL. Some suppliers use more gold than others and most do not stamp the amount or ratio of gold or even list it on their invoice. It’s all very confusing.
And that’s the problem with self-regulation in this country. Too much poorly-marked product is swamping the marketplace, especially online, potentially making all of us look bad in the eyes of consumers. And don’t the TV networks love a good story about some shonky jewellery or jeweller ripping off someone?
One solution would be to have mandatory stamping of all jewellery containing precious metals. This has been advocated by a small number of jewellers for many years. Indeed, some use a series of marks and this sets them apart from the mainstream.
Another would be to extend the JAA “code” to include a much wider list of acceptable descriptions and practices; we have them for synthetic, enhanced and natural gemstones so why not for these enhanced metals, too? Then change the code from voluntary to mandatory for membership.
I’ve talked with a number of jewellers and the common thread is that, except for local advertising of one’s own business, there is no positive advertising of our great industry here in Australia. A fellow Nationwide jeweller won a worldwide design competition last year; it made the trade media but that’s all.
Isn’t it time that we all contributed to a central organisation, like the JAA, to do some positive advertising of our industry and promote to consumers why they should think first of their local jeweller?
I believe that the industry has to be regulated, either by government or, preferably in my view, by the JAA or another body, and that all jewellers should belong to this industry body. A small fee paid by everyone would fund the policing of the industry and help promote a positive message, otherwise we risk going the same way as the independent chemists and photo shops. Remember them?
David Hollanders from Wild Trout Designer Jewellers.