Author Topic: disclosure of treatments in gemstones  (Read 1351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael S Hoover - Redrummd

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Gender: Male
  • Art In Stone
    • View Profile
    • Art In Stone
Re: disclosure of treatments in gemstones
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2013, 10:59:49 PM »
Don - Again you are on the slippery slope as you agreed that these two "treatments" were okay with you.

What about cleaning with Kiwi shoe polish to remove the black dust left by use of Zam?
What about the wax that is used in polishing along with diamond paste?


When I add how wax is used you slipped down the slope and "attack" the use of wax.

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) is the controlling force behind any other group including the GIA. 

Why are we rehashing what was already all said and done months ago?  To suggest I am not honest is a personal attack.  Let's play nice - okay?

"Not disclosing alterations made to any type of rock, be it by waxing, dyeing, heat treating, irradiation or any other means of enhancing the color or clarity, is a far shot from being honest with a prospective customer."

jakesrocks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Gender: Male
  • New Toy.
    • View Profile
Re: disclosure of treatments in gemstones
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2013, 06:30:02 AM »
I did not attack you personally. In fact if you, (as you said), tell your customers up front about your use of a sealer to hide minor cracks and flaws in a stone, I applaud you.

It is those who artificially treat their stone, and hide the fact that their stones have been treated that should be despised and exposed.

As for cleaning dust off of stones with Kiwi shoe polish, remember that Kiwi makes a clear polish as well as colored. I would rather that they wash their stones. But as long as they're using the clear polish and not adding artificial color to the surface of their stones, and as long as they're not trying to hide surface imperfections or a poor polish under a coat of shoe polish, I see no problem with it. But on the other hand, if they are trying to artificially color the stones or hide flawed stones or poor workmanship, they should be exposed to prospective buyers. They are being dishonest with their customers.

As for wax used with diamond paste. Waxes of one sort or another have been used as a carrier for various types of lapping or polishing agents for just about as long as lapidary has been practiced. It's an accepted practice. It is not meant to artificially enhance a stone (unless you consider any sort of polishing of a stone unacceptable). Wax mixed with lapping or polishing compounds is meant to be a way to hold the lapping or polishing compound to the stone while being used. Or would you prefer that expensive dry  diamond powder be dumped by the pound over a piece while you're trying to achieve a polish.

The FTC may be the controlling force, but in America the GIA and one other group who's name slips my mind right now are the deciding factors in the gem and jewelry trades in this country. They lay out the rules in this country about what is and is not acceptable in the jewelry industry in this country.

And as for your last statement. You just agreed with exactly what I have been trying to say.
A day spent without learning something new, is a day wasted.

Don


Michael S Hoover - Redrummd

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Gender: Male
  • Art In Stone
    • View Profile
    • Art In Stone
Re: disclosure of treatments in gemstones
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2013, 08:42:20 AM »
Don,

As I frequently have asked (not necessarily of you) -

Specifically what guidelines are you citing from the GIA that conflict with, or expand upon, the FTC guidelines?

Kiwi neutral shoe wax is clear but it and wax paste polishing compounds are still wax and still get into the fine pores of stone such as Jade and do improve the final polish appearance.  So, either wax is acceptable or unacceptable - you cannot stand on the slippery slope and try to define when it is okay and not okay without being in agreement with the FTC guidelines as I am.

Don, If you want to PM me I will actually give you much more supportive arguments for your position but I also know where the trump card is for the super tight and much more defined position.  I want you to know I am specifically being firm in not allowing incorrect information to be posted as if factually correct.  As I have continually stated: The laws are very clear so why is so much energy put into trying to expand upon what the law specifically denotes.  By trying to force extreme positions you intimidate or at least sow seeds of doubt about what is legal to hobbyist that may be new to this hobby.

jakesrocks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Gender: Male
  • New Toy.
    • View Profile
Re: disclosure of treatments in gemstones
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2013, 09:08:08 AM »
Lets just end it by saying that I'm a purest in every sense of the word. I do not, and never will condone the use of artificial treatments of stones of any type with the purpose of deceiving the customer.

I know that waxing is accepted practice. However, if the crafts person who polished the stone were to take pride in their workmanship, there would be no need for waxing.

I myself wax or oil specimen pieces to bring out the true colors which can't be seen in a dulled by nature natural piece. And I won't say that I have never waxed a cab. However these few cabs that I have waxed were for my own collection. None of them were ever put up for sale. If I can not achieve a high enough polish on a piece without having to resort to resins or waxes, I will not sell the piece. What little cabbing my arthritic old hands will still allow me to do, I take pride in.
A day spent without learning something new, is a day wasted.

Don


Enchantra

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6348
  • Gender: Female
  • Insane Bead Woman
    • View Profile
    • EnchantedRegalia
Re: disclosure of treatments in gemstones
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2013, 02:28:40 PM »


I believe Y'all are beating a dead horse.  Can we move onto something else?