Should revealing a book's history be mandatory for a seller?

[esquirecomics]

Get the FTC to make disclosure mandatory? Okay, we’ve now gone down the rabbit hole and we’re in Wonderland. I think it’s common knowledge that the FTC was promulgated per the Constitution’s Article 2 Interstate Commerce Clause (for the regulation of interstate commerce). But disclosure relative to comic books? I’m curious about this notion of FTC regulation of disclosure, so can we explore this a little:

 

Gemstones – have objective qualities that can be measured, such as weight, color, clarity, cut, etc. In the ordinary course of business, raw stones are cut down to remove inclusions (like carbon spots) and to create the desired cut (shape). You start with a larger carat (weight) raw, unshaped stone and cut it down to remove defects and to create a finished stone. Ultimately, the finished stone is much smaller in weight and size than the raw stone (weight is one major price factor). The finished product has no stigma attached for any/all of the cutting, polishing etc. Disclosure makes sense here.

 

Comic Books – have qualities for which no objective standards of measure exist, only subjective measures. Comic books have a “restored” designation and any trimming, cleaning etc. create a (sliding scale) stigma, thus, a restored book’s value can be affected tremendously (unlike a gemstone) by these techniques. There is no objective measure for classifying degrees of restoration, just opinions. There is no objective or scientific way to discern all restoration. Thus, there is no way to confirm full disclosure.

 

What would the FTC require - each owner (as of the date the FTC mandates disclosure) to disclose what he knows? If so, this still leaves a chasm the size of the Pacific Ocean, unless you are Edgar Church, or the equivalent. If this is the notion (is it?), then I don’t see the same level of protection as with gemstones, even with such an FTC mandate.

 

Learned, I disagree with your analysis above. For one thing, though by no means a gemstone expert (and I presume you fit into that same category), I don't believe that it is as objective as you think with respect to either color or clarity of a gemstone, though I probably have little difficulty believing it is more objective than perhaps with restoration to a comic book. If you review the relevant section of the CFR that pertains to the FTC's regulation of gemstones, it is fraught with obvious problems in description.

 

PART 23—GUIDES FOR THE JEWELRY, PRECIOUS METALS, AND PEWTER INDUSTRIES

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section Contents

§ 23.0 Scope and application.

§ 23.1 Deception (general).

§ 23.2 Misleading illustrations.

§ 23.3 Misuse of the terms “hand-made,” “hand-polished,” etc.

§ 23.4 Misrepresentation as to gold content.

§ 23.5 Misuse of the word “vermeil.”

§ 23.6 Misrepresentation as to silver content.

§ 23.7 Misuse of the words “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” and “osmium.”

§ 23.8 Misrepresentation as to content of pewter.

§ 23.9 Additional guidance for the use of quality marks.

§ 23.10 Misuse of “corrosion proof,” “noncorrosive,” “corrosion resistant,” “rust proof,” “rust resistant,” etc.

§ 23.11 Definition and misuse of the word “diamond.”

§ 23.12 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc.

§ 23.13 Disclosure of treatments to diamonds

§ 23.14 Misuse of the term “blue white.”

§ 23.15 Misuse of the term “properly cut,” etc.

§ 23.16 Misuse of the words “brilliant” and “full cut.”

§ 23.17 Misrepresentation of weight and “total weight.”

§ 23.18 Definitions of various pearls.

§ 23.19 Misuse of the word “pearl.”

§ 23.20 Misuse of terms such as “cultured pearl,” “seed pearl,” “Oriental pearl,” “natura,” “kultured,” “real,” “gem,” “synthetic,” and regional designations.

§ 23.21 Misrepresentation as to cultured pearls.

§ 23.22 Disclosure of treatments to gemstones.

§ 23.23 Misuse of the words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” “stone,” “birthstone,” “gemstone,” etc.

§ 23.24 Misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” etc.

§ 23.25 Misuse of the word “gem.”

§ 23.26 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc.

Appendix to Part 23—Exemptions Recognized in the Assay for Quality of Gold Alloy, Gold Filled, Gold Overlay, Rolled Gold Plate, Silver, and Platinum Industry Products

 

Here are some relevant FTC governing regulations.

 

16 CFR § 23.13 Disclosure of treatments to diamonds

 

A diamond is a gemstone product. Treatments to diamonds should be disclosed in the manner prescribed in §23.22 of these guides, Disclosure of treatments to gemstones.

 

16 CFR § 23.22 Disclosure of treatments to gemstones.

It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated if:

 

(a) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;

 

(b) The treatment creates special care requirements for the gemstone. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser;

 

© The treatment has a significant effect on the stone's value. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated.

 

Note to §23.22: The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in §23.0(b) of these Guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale; except that where a jewelry product can be purchased without personally viewing the product, (e.g., direct mail catalogs, online services, televised shopping programs) disclosure should be made in the solicitation for or description of the product.

 

I still need to research exactly what led to the promulgation of §23.22 but I see it as very analogous to the pressing of a comic book.

 

My point is, there are no controls. And without controls, there is a fundamental flaw with disclosure, voluntary or otherwise.

 

And that can be stated just as easily to any number of legal limitations we have imposed on our society. The controls are weak to be sure at this stage. Perhaps not in the future. But that doesn't mean that the law cannot be utilized in an attempt to impose controls. Deterrence is a strong factor.

[esquirecomics]

I will continue to do some research and post the results. I continue to see strong analogies in the descriptions.

 

M2 Presswire

 

September 5, 2005

 

LENGTH: 630 words

 

HEADLINE: ACCC: ACCC calls for fair trading in jewellery industry

 

BODY:

 

 

M2 PRESSWIRE-SEPTEMBER 5, 2005-ACCC: ACCC calls for fair trading in jewellery industry ©1994-2005 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

 

Australia's $2.5 billion plus jewellery industry must ensure that its descriptions of its products are accurate, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Deputy Chair, Ms Louise Sylvan, said today.

 

She was launching* the new guideline to the industry's rights and responsibilities under the national competition and consumer protection law, the Trade Practices Act 1974.

 

"The industry must be particularly careful about its description of jewellery - it must be truthful and provide adequate disclosure", she said.

 

"The guide sets out the ACCC's views on disclosure when gemstones have been treated and the use of the terms 'cultured', 'imitation', 'synthetic' and 'created' when they relate to natural, laboratory-made and artificial 'gemstones'.

 

"Jewellery can contain naturally formed gemstones or laboratory made gemstones, or even stones that are imitations of genuine gemstones", Ms Sylvan said.

 

"Gemstones can be treated to disguise imperfections and to enhance their appearance and artificial 'gemstones' may be treated to make them look more like their natural counterparts.

 

"The ACCC believes that consumers would have a reasonable expectation that any treatment of gemstones to enhance their aesthetic appearance and value would be disclosed.

 

"In particular, businesses which fail to disclose gemstone treatments, where the treated gemstones value is significantly less than the value of an equivalent untreated gemstone, may also risk contravening the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Act.

 

"The ACCC is also particularly concerned by a reported upswing in what is called 'two price advertising' in the jewellery industry - for example, where a product is said to be 'valued' at a particular figure and is offered at a 'special' price. It is implied that consumers are making a price saving by paying less than they otherwise would, when this is not so.

 

"The ACCC believes that valuations referred to in comparative price advertising should reflect the 'worth' or normal price for the particular piece of jewellery in the market in which it is being sold - and not some inflated figure.

 

"Consumers should not be misled by jewellers using 'in house' jargon when presenting items for sale", Ms Sylvan said. "For example, jewellers understand that a 'Biron emerald' is laboratory emerald, whereas a consumer may assume it is a natural emerald from a place called Biron".

 

"Also discussed in the guide is the use of comparative price advertising, including 'was/now', strike-through price advertising and the use of valuations in the sale process.

 

"The ACCC material includes a checklist for advertisers and adhering to the guideline is the best way to protect a jewellery business and ensuring return custom.

 

"This guide has been developed in conjunction with the industry and the State and Territory fair trading agencies to benefit the consumers.

 

"Those who fail to comply with the law risk action being taken against them by the ACCC or fair trading agencies.

 

"The jewellery industry is on notice. The ACCC expects an overall improvement in advertising and selling practices and an end to misleading, deceptive and false practices.

 

Advertising and Promotion in the Jewellery Industry- a Guide to the Trade Practices Act is available from the ACCC in printed form and from the ACCC website.

 

*Ms Sylvan launched the publication at the Jewellery Industry Trade Fair, Darling Harbour, Sydney.

 

(M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.net on the world wide web. Inquiries to info@m2.com).

[VintageComics]

Gee, way to him started

[esquirecomics]

The American Gem Trade Association describes some of the enhancements performed on stones.

 

Description of Gemstone Enhancements

 

They include, but is not limited to (and depends on the gemstone) heat and pressure treatment.

 

Sound familiar?

[esquirecomics]

Here is an interesting discussion.

 

Am I the only one hearing Mr. Borok saying the book is merely being restored to its "full potential"? Yet with all the similiar difficulties in detecting certain treated diamonds, the FTC still saw fit to regulate disclosure.

 

****************************

 

Business and Industry

Jewelers' Circular-Keystone

 

September 2004

 

SECTION: Vol. 175, No. 9; Pg. 109; ISSN: 1070-0242

 

RDS-ACC-NO: 4358171

 

LENGTH: 1970 words

 

HEADLINE: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the gem business: Part IV If heat treatment really finishes what Mother Nature began, two questions should be asked: first, if Mother Nature intended it this way, why didn't she do it herself? And since Mother Nature didn't do it this way, how is value determined?

 

BODY:

The issue of heat-treatment is not just about disclosure. It's also about value. A gemstone's value depends on three factors: rarity, beauty, and durability. How much is based on rarity? If you think you know, you can probably answer this: "Should the price of a high-pressure/high-temperature-treated D, E, or F color diamond be the same or nearly the same as that of a natural colorless diamond?"

 

[iLLUSTRATION OMITTED]

 

It takes less than two minutes for high pressure and high temperature (HPHT) to squeeze the brown color out of a diamond. But that brown diamond is an uncommon--even rare--Type IIa. It's the geuda sapphire of the diamond industry because it takes only a little furnace heat to dramatically change the color. As discussed in Part II, heated geuda was priced the same or nearly the same as natural sapphire when it first hit the market. Now, it's 30%-40% below natural-color Burmese.

 

Should the value of an HPHT-treated Type IIa diamond be based only on the original brown diamond's value plus the cost of the technology and time needed to create a colorless or fancy color diamond? Or should pricing be based on the rarity of the starting material and, after treatment, its natural-color equivalent?

 

Or is an HPHT-treated diamond just another treated diamond? Should we lump all treated diamonds together?

 

Possible answers to those questions must take into consideration this critical factor: Not all HPHT-enhanced diamonds can be identified.

 

The Gemological Institute of America's Gem Laboratory has reported on and documented nearly 11,000 HPHT-annealed diamonds. "The overwhelming majority of those have been declared [identified as treated] to us during the submission process," says Tom Moses, GIA Gem Laboratory vice president, identification services. Although GIA does not know precisely how many undeclared HPHT diamonds have been submitted, it estimates the figure to be "a few percent" of the total.

 

"The majority of the undeclared HPHT diamonds have been colored--yellow to orangy yellow or in the greenish-yellow to yellow-green hue range," says Moses. "Colorless to near colorless is the next largest population, and we have detected several pinks and a few blue treated diamonds."

 

Moses says, "We believe we are still able to identify the vast majority of HPHT-annealed diamonds." Still, "vast majority" doesn't equal 100%, so a few treated diamonds could be getting a "natural" call or the kiss-of-death "color origin undeterminable" call. Adding to the problem is the fact that HPHT is no longer limited to Type IIa diamonds. According to GIA, the range of diamond types subjected to the annealing procedure continues to expand, thus making the end product more varied.

 

[iLLUSTRATION OMITTED]

 

Non-Type IIa HPHT-treated diamonds are I, J, K, and L colors that are less valuable than colorless diamonds or pinks and blues. Thus, gemologists are less likely to tag them for further study. And even if they were tagged, they often are more difficult to detect, which increases the potential number of unidentified HPHT-enhanced diamonds. In addition, GIA says, "As sourcing for the 'right' starting material becomes more difficult, and more facilities are performing the service, the variety of the treated diamonds will continue to grow."

 

The European Gem Lab USA Group also sees a limited number of HPHT-processed colorless/near colorless diamonds. "So far, only Type IIa and some Type IaB diamonds result in an improved color grade after HPHT modification," notes Branko Deljanin, EGL's director of Canadian operations. "Collectively, Type IIa and Type IaB diamonds represent less than 5% of the diamonds EGL USA certifies. Of these diamonds, approximately half are natural color, and the remaining are either HPHT-modified color or undetermined origin of color."

 

This isn't a concern just in the United States. "We are issuing Diamond Type Notes with all our Diamond Reports," says Daniel Nyfeler, managing director of the Gubelin Gem Lab in Lucerne, Switzerland. "We feel that the type of a diamond is becoming more and more important to be identified and reported, especially now that many HPHT-treated diamonds are in the market. Our clients like this service, and we started recently to issue Diamond Type Notes also independently (i.e., without a Diamond Report)--however, only under certain conditions."

 

Without overtly stating it, the GGL Diamond Type Report alerts potential buyers and sellers that a diamond, even though it's been identified as having a natural color, may be HPHT enhanced but slipped by the lab staff undetected.

 

As the Gubelin report states, diamonds are classified into two fundamental groups based on the relative presence or absence of nitrogen incorporated into the crystal structure, as determined by the infrared spectrum. Type 1 diamonds contain appreciable concentrations of nitrogen, whereas Type II diamonds are chemically very pure and do not reveal infrared absorption characteristics related to nitrogen (although some have been shown via other scientific means to contain minute amounts of nitrogen).

 

A further separation of these two groups includes Type Ia (nitrogen atoms present in pairs or groups), Type Ib (isolated nitrogen atoms), Type IIa (no [easily] measurable traces of nitrogen), and Type IIb (traces of boron).

 

Based on the infrared spectrum, the report concludes by identifying the diamond's type.

 

"Type Ia is not precise enough," says Dr. Henry Hanni, director of the Swiss Gemmological Institute's Laboratory SSEF in Basel. "Type Ia may show two forms of nitrogen aggregation--A and/or B aggregates. So finally we have IaA, IaB, IaAB and Ib. Most gem-quality diamonds are Type IaAB (so-called "Cape" diamonds). We have seen a pure Type IaB of D color in the lab. It turned out to be a natural color after the routine tests. If it would have been HPHT we would have detected it because we have reference data of untreated and HPHT-treated of this type."

 

SSEF has been a leader in preliminary detection of HPHT-treated diamonds. The lab's Type Spotter is a simple, small device that tests a diamond's ability to transmit short-wave ultraviolet--the test that determines Type IIa, Type IIb, and Type IaB.

 

"The Spotter detects any diamond transparent under SWUV [short wave ultraviolet] light," Hanni says. "They are Type II (including IIa and IIb) and pure Type IaB (with B aggregates only). All of these types are potentially HPHT treatable. After HPHT treatment they turn to colorless, pink, or blue. Therefore, the use of the Spotter is essential for any diamond dealer checking inventory for possible HPHT-treated diamonds."

 

The spotter is useless for HPHT-treated Type IaAB diamonds, however. These stones turn to yellowish-green, greenish-yellow, yellow, orange, greenish-brown, or brownish-yellow when treated by HPHT. Type IaAB diamonds do not transmit SWUV, so the spotter does not identify them as a potentially treated stone.

 

"So far SSEF has sold about 500 Spotters," notes staff gemologist Jean-Pierre Chalain. "When we created this tool, we only had one aim: protect the diamond market against the HPHT treatment. We were thinking that the Spotter would be sold to retailers and diamond wholesalers who would send all their stocked Type II colorless diamonds to a lab for an HPHT check." SSEF discovered, however, that most of their spotters are purchased by major diamantaires sorting brown diamonds of Type II for further HPHT treatment. "Some of them, not the major ones, telephone us and ask if we can provide them with the address of a company that offers an HPHT facility," says Chalain.

 

As Mother Nature intended? To make heat-treatment more palatable, treaters claim that it simply finishes what Mother Nature started. Dr. George Rossman, award-winning professor of mineralogy at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Calif., takes the opposite view: "This is not finishing off what Mother Nature started."

 

Consider sapphire formation. Sapphire created by metamorphic activity (colliding continents) involves temperatures of approximately 600[degrees]C to 800[degrees]C, says Rossman. Sapphire formed by basaltic action (heat from volcanic processes) involves temperatures of approximately 1,000[degrees]C to 1,100[degrees]C. "Conceivably, they could be formed at temperatures up to 1,400[degrees]C," says Rossman.

 

[iLLUSTRATION OMITTED]

 

But heat treatment takes place at 1,800[degrees]C, a huge difference from the temperatures of natural sapphire formation. Heat plays an extremely important role in the formation equation, Rossman explains. For every 10 degrees, there is significant change. "Going from 900[degrees]C to 1,000[degrees]C is incredibly significant, so going from 800[degrees]C to 1,800[degrees]C is enormous," says Rossman. "Mother Nature could not do this, even given millions of years to do it."

 

(There is a slight exception to the high-heat treatment rule for sapphires. Pink sapphires from Ilakaka, Madagascar, need only 400[degrees]C to 500[degrees]C heat to drive out the blue tint. There are no inclusions to melt or heal, so high heat isn't used to treat these stones. Therefore, very little internal evidence of heat is produced.)

 

For diamond, comparing HPHT treatment, which uses pressure of 1 million pounds per square inch (psi), to the natural process is less problematic. "At 60 kbar pressure (found at a little over 200 km depth) the pressure is 870,000 psi, so 1 million psi is not unreasonable for a condition many diamonds actually experience in the earth," Rossman says.

 

Some diamond formation may have taken place deeper than 200 km, but depths up to 200 km are more likely. Based on the Continental geotherm, that implies temperatures of less than 1,400[degrees]C.

 

That's significantly less than the 1,800[degrees]C to 2,100[degrees]C under which HPHT treatment typically occurs. And while Rossman does acknowledge that there are diamonds that form at greater depths and higher temperatures, they are in the minority of diamonds studied. "We just don't know for sure about diamond formation in the earth," he says. "But it is clear that the vast majority of diamonds don't reach this temperature."

 

Not your father's gemology. Over the past few months JCK has addressed heat-treated gems commonly found in the jewelry store. Heat treatment is performed mainly to enhance color but also can create greater transparency by dissolving inclusions or healing fissures.

 

[iLLUSTRATION OMITTED]

 

Some enhanced gems can be identified as heated, while most others cannot. Some of the more important gems that are commonly heated may or may not be identified and disclosed as such.

 

The healing of fissures in diamond is not yet a concern for the gemologist. However, the common practice of healing fissures in corundum--and the potential of healed fissures in other colored gems--will likely keep gem laboratories busy for a decade.

 

Temperature high enough to heal fissures also can fuse stones together. Imagine a 10-ct. stone created by fusing two 5-ct. stones. Imagine the identification challenge that would present.

 

That raises other questions: When such healing takes place, how much of the stone has melted and recrystalized? At what point do such stones become partially or fully synthetic? How small would the crystals have to be before a gem is considered "reconstituted" as opposed to fused or healed, and should there be a difference? And if they can be identified, how will such gems be valued?

 

Part IV may be the end of JCK's heat treatment series, but it's not the end of the heat-treatment problem. It's only the beginning.

 

BY GARY ROSKIN, G.G., FGA, SENIOR EDITORCopyright 2004 Reed Business InformationCopyright 2004 Reed Business Information1790

[esquirecomics]

Gee, way to him started

 

Feel free to block my posts. You seem to be starting a trend of trying to disagree with everything I write anyway.

[esquirecomics]

As you will note, there are both "legal requirements" and "ethical responsibilities".

 

 

Business and Industry

Jewelers' Circular-Keystone

 

June 2003

 

SECTION: Vol. 174, No. 6; Pg. 42; ISSN: 1070-0242

 

RDS-ACC-NO: 3878513

 

LENGTH: 429 words

 

HEADLINE: JVC defines the lines on disclosure. (Gem Notes).

 

HIGHLIGHT:

Jewelers Vigilance Committee

 

BODY:

From a legal and ethical standpoint, retailers represent the front lines of the jewelry industry. Cecilia Gardner, executive director and general counsel of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC), explains that it's the retailer who must make certain that everything that needs to be said is said at the counter and that what needs to be written is written on the receipt. Jewelers need effective communication skills and complete and accurate knowledge of the subject.

 

One of JVC's education seminars, entitled "Disclosure," covets the legal requirements of gemstone disclosure as well as the ethical responsibilities related to communication with business partners and customers. The seminar also covers written disclosures and explanations made on appraisals and invoices.

 

Gardner notes that a number of different laws apply to disclosure of gemstones, pearls, and precious-metal quality. These indude the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for the Jewelry Industry, the Lanham Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines Against Deceptive Pricing.

 

According to Gardner, treatments that must be disclosed include, but are not limited to:

 

* non-permanent treatments

 

* treated gemstones that require special care

 

* treatment that has had a significant effect on the stone's value

 

* laser drilling and high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) treatment in diamonds

 

* surface diffusion

 

* irradiation of diamonds or colored gemstones

 

* cultured pearls--all types: freshwater, South Sea, Tahitian, etc.

 

* Precious metals: must identify karat quality, if less than 24k, on ad, sales receipt, tag. Item need not be stamped but if it is, the stamp must be accompanied by a federally registered manufacturer's trademark

 

Coloring (dying) of pearls is not a required disclosure, but it's a good idea, Gardner says.

 

Gardner writes that "according to FTC guides, there is a bright line (certain disclosures that retail jewelers are legally required to make) and a gray line (situations in which it would be best for retailers to disclose information).

 

"Every retailer has to decide what's best for customers and the best way to. deliver information [customers] should know," says Gardner. "Utilizing ethical and sound business practices builds consumer confidence and strong relationships."

[Scheradon]

Great articles Mark, you've really been doing your homework here.

 

I can see how this model could very well be adapted to the comics industry.

[LearnedHand]

Mark,

 

You may recall that I posed my post as a query relative to the FTC issue, as I had no data on this and it seemed curious. Apologies if my opinion offended you, thus, prompting your somewhat confrontational response. Thanks, however, for all the data to review.

 

Let’s establish what we’re talking about before we start the deluge of data. Is it the FTC and the CFR Part relative to gemstone disclosure, or some Australian body’s opinion on what should be disclosed?

 

Assuming we’re still talking about the FTC and Title 16 CFR Part 23, I’ve now reviewed Title 16 CFR Part 23 and some other data relative to gemstones (really helping my work productivity here – thanks!). With all due respect, were you serious when you provided the CFR citations as the grounds for your disagreement and also as your persuasive data relative to comic book disclosure? If so, let’s discuss a few things:

 

You’ll note that 16 CFR Section 23.0 (b) (Scope and Application) makes it clear that “[t]hese guides apply to persons, partnerships, or corporations, at every level of the trade …” And, under Section 23.0©, “[t]hese guidelines apply to claims and representations about industry products included in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, illustrations, depictions, product brand names, or through other means.”

 

So, it seems clear that this entire Part is aimed at people who make their living in the business (not the persons who (to bring it back to comic books) occasionally sell via eBay, CL or Heritage), thus, we’re talking about a limited audience to whom disclosure would even be relevant. Similarly, the context refers to active behavior (puffery or false claims), not silence. Additionally, this would mean we’re talking about raw books, by and large. I guess we can overlook the entire purpose of CFR Part 23, however, and get to the specific issue - the Disclosure Section (23.22) and see if it offers some help.

 

Based on the context of the Disclosure Section (23.22), as applied throughout the entirety of Title 16 CFR Part 23, let’s make sure we’re still all on the same page before moving on (and keep in mind how these points relate to comic books please).

 

1 – the context of Section 23 makes it clear that it’s a given that all enhancements can be discerned (by professionals). In fact, this Section has no qualification for undiscovered enhancements or dealers disclosing only that which they can discern – it addresses enhancements in a very categorical manner. Not all restoration to comic books is discernible. By the way, one step back - we don’t even have a clear definition is the comic book field for restoration anyway.

 

2 - Section 23.22 makes it perfectly clear that enhancements are made in the ordinary course of typical gemstone business, and that most enhancements actually increase the value of the stones. To the contrary, all comic book restoration has a stigma attached to it and decreases a book’s value relative to its unrestored counterpart.

 

3 - It’s also perfectly clear that it is not illegal to fail to disclose anything, “it is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated…” Ditto within the context of comic books.

 

4 - Finally, and most importantly, Section 23.22 makes it crystal clear that almost all enhancements need not be disclosed. In fact, all permanent industry-typical enhancements need not be disclosed, as they are deemed to enhance the gemstone and increase its value. Disclosure, therefore, is specific to two areas of enhancement only: (a) non-permanent enhancements and (b) enhancements that require special maintenance. The catch-all in © states that disclosure also makes sense where “treatment has a significant effect on the stone’s value.” Per the context of Part 23, presumably the drafters are discussing botched enhancements in the catch-all. As we all know the equivalent in the context of comic books would be that professional restoration need not be disclosed. Of course, the gemstone logic is faulty relative to comic books, based on the negative implications of restoration mentioned above.

 

By the way, if you look at many other sub-sections in CFR Part 23, you’ll find clear definitions for objective measures relative to gemstones (for which the comic book world has no comparative equivalents – as I indicated in my earlier post), such as “ flawless ” (“…deceptive to use the word flawless to describe any diamond that [has] flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots…”), “ brilliant ” (“…[refers to] a round diamond that has at least thirty-two (32) facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four (24) facets below”), and “ weight ” (“a carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (1/5 gram), etc.

 

It’s ironic that you challenged the objective measures I mentioned relative to gemstones, yet in the same post you asked that I review the CFR sections you cited – with those sections confirming my statements. Gemstones have objective criteria for measure, with mathematic certainties relative to some fundamental aspects. Comic books do not. At a minimum, there is no mathematical certainty relative to grade, condition, or degree of restoration.

 

Therefore, if you’re using Title 16 CFR Part 23 as the basis upon which to disagree with my analysis (which again, was a query, not a conclusion), I am not sure how to respond, as it’s clear that comparing gemstones to comic books is like comparing apples to zebras.

 

Fundamentally, the entire conversation distills to one paramount question (all the law citations and web-links aside) – the FTC mandates nothing relative to disclosure in the gemstone field (or precious metal field for that matter) even though there are objective measures and even though dealers (a group that can be regulated and controlled through licensing) make up the overwhelming majority of all sales sources. Is it anything but pure fantasy to believe the FTC will have more stringent requirements for comic books – a field rife with subjectivity and where sales sources run the gamut from the dealer to grandma?

 

LH

[Red Hook]

Mark,

 

You may recall that I posed my post as a query relative to the FTC issue, as I had no data on this and it seemed curious. Apologies if my opinion offended you, thus, prompting your somewhat confrontational response. Thanks, however, for all the data to review.

 

Let’s establish what we’re talking about before we start the deluge of data. Is it the FTC and the CFR Part relative to gemstone disclosure, or some Australian body’s opinion on what should be disclosed?

 

Assuming we’re still talking about the FTC and Title 16 CFR Part 23, I’ve now reviewed Title 16 CFR Part 23 and some other data relative to gemstones (really helping my work productivity here – thanks!). With all due respect, were you serious when you provided the CFR citations as the grounds for your disagreement and also as your persuasive data relative to comic book disclosure? If so, let’s discuss a few things:

 

You’ll note that 16 CFR Section 23.0 (b) (Scope and Application) makes it clear that “[t]hese guides apply to persons, partnerships, or corporations, at every level of the trade …” And, under Section 23.0©, “[t]hese guidelines apply to claims and representations about industry products included in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, illustrations, depictions, product brand names, or through other means.”

 

So, it seems clear that this entire Part is aimed at people who make their living in the business (not the persons who (to bring it back to comic books) occasionally sell via eBay, CL or Heritage), thus, we’re talking about a limited audience to whom disclosure would even be relevant. Similarly, the context refers to active behavior (puffery or false claims), not silence. Additionally, this would mean we’re talking about raw books, by and large. I guess we can overlook the entire purpose of CFR Part 23, however, and get to the specific issue - the Disclosure Section (23.22) and see if it offers some help.

 

Based on the context of the Disclosure Section (23.22), as applied throughout the entirety of Title 16 CFR Part 23, let’s make sure we’re still all on the same page before moving on (and keep in mind how these points relate to comic books please).

 

1 – the context of Section 23 makes it clear that it’s a given that all enhancements can be discerned (by professionals). In fact, this Section has no qualification for undiscovered enhancements or dealers disclosing only that which they can discern – it addresses enhancements in a very categorical manner. Not all restoration to comic books is discernible. By the way, one step back - we don’t even have a clear definition is the comic book field for restoration anyway.

 

2 - Section 23.22 makes it perfectly clear that enhancements are made in the ordinary course of typical gemstone business, and that most enhancements actually increase the value of the stones. To the contrary, all comic book restoration has a stigma attached to it and decreases a book’s value relative to its unrestored counterpart.

 

3 - It’s also perfectly clear that it is not illegal to fail to disclose anything, “it is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated…” Ditto within the context of comic books.

 

4 - Finally, and most importantly, Section 23.22 makes it crystal clear that almost all enhancements need not be disclosed. In fact, all permanent industry-typical enhancements need not be disclosed, as they are deemed to enhance the gemstone and increase its value. Disclosure, therefore, is specific to two areas of enhancement only: (a) non-permanent enhancements and (b) enhancements that require special maintenance. The catch-all in © states that disclosure also makes sense where “treatment has a significant effect on the stone’s value.” Per the context of Part 23, presumably the drafters are discussing botched enhancements in the catch-all. As we all know the equivalent in the context of comic books would be that professional restoration need not be disclosed. Of course, the gemstone logic is faulty relative to comic books, based on the negative implications of restoration mentioned above.

 

By the way, if you look at many other sub-sections in CFR Part 23, you’ll find clear definitions for objective measures relative to gemstones (for which the comic book world has no comparative equivalents – as I indicated in my earlier post), such as “ flawless ” (“…deceptive to use the word flawless to describe any diamond that [has] flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots…”), “ brilliant ” (“…[refers to] a round diamond that has at least thirty-two (32) facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four (24) facets below”), and “ weight ” (“a carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (1/5 gram), etc.

 

It’s ironic that you challenged the objective measures I mentioned relative to gemstones, yet in the same post you asked that I review the CFR sections you cited – with those sections confirming my statements. Gemstones have objective criteria for measure, with mathematic certainties relative to some fundamental aspects. Comic books do not. At a minimum, there is no mathematical certainty relative to grade, condition, or degree of restoration.

 

Therefore, if you’re using Title 16 CFR Part 23 as the basis upon which to disagree with my analysis (which again, was a query, not a conclusion), I am not sure how to respond, as it’s clear that comparing gemstones to comic books is like comparing apples to zebras.

 

Fundamentally, the entire conversation distills to one paramount question (all the law citations and web-links aside) – the FTC mandates nothing relative to disclosure in the gemstone field (or precious metal field for that matter) even though there are objective measures and even though dealers (a group that can be regulated and controlled through licensing) make up the overwhelming majority of all sales sources. Is it anything but pure fantasy to believe the FTC will have more stringent requirements for comic books – a field rife with subjectivity and where sales sources run the gamut from the dealer to grandma?

 

LH

 

That could have been a pm, couldn't it? My head hurts!

[LearnedHand]

That could have been a pm, couldn't it? My head hurts!

 

Redhook,

 

The point of these Boards is to provide a forum for conversation - not just a place for people like you to defend personal friends who are found guilty of swindling little old ladies. This conversation took us to myriad CFR citations that were provided on the premise that they offer value to this hobby. After reviewing them, it's clear to me they offer very limited value at absolute best. Of course, my post will surely garner other opinions (hopefully not more legal citations, but honest discussion), which will hopefully move this conversation forward and in a positive manner.

 

By all means, feel free to remain in the dark.

[sterlingcomics]

By all means, feel free to remain in the dark.

 

'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead!

[Red Hook]

That could have been a pm, couldn't it? My head hurts!

 

Redhook,

 

The point of these Boards is to provide a forum for conversation - not just a place for people like you to defend personal friends who are found guilty of swindling little old ladies. This conversation took us to myriad CFR citations that were provided on the premise that they offer value to this hobby. After reviewing them, it's clear to me they offer very limited value at absolute best. Of course, my post will surely garner other opinions (hopefully not more legal citations, but honest discussion), which will hopefully move this conversation forward and in a positive manner.

 

By all means, feel free to remain in the dark.

 

Gee, all you had to say was "f*** off". I was kidding anyway. I think we need a "lawyers only" forum. (I'm kidding again there, too.)

 

Red

[mica]

The point of these Boards is

What else do these boards do?

[Ze-man]

Red , I think I edited LH's post in such a manner that even a lay person such as yourself can understand it.

 

Let’s establish what we’re talking about before we start the deluge of data.Assuming we’re still talking about the FTC and Title 16 CFR Part 23, I’ve now reviewed Title 16 CFR Part 23 You’ll note that 16 CFR Section 23.0 (b) (Scope and Application) makes it clear that “[t]hese guides apply to persons, partnerships, or corporations, at every level of the trade …” And, under Section 23.0©, “[t]hese guidelines apply to claims and representations about industry products I guess we can overlook the entire purpose of CFR Part 23, however, and get to the specific issue - the Disclosure Section (23.22) and see if it offers some help.Based on the context of the Disclosure Section (23.22), as applied throughout the entirety of Title 16 CFR Part 23. 1 – the context of Section 23 makes it clear that it’s a given that all enhancements can be discerned (by professionals). 2 - Section 23.22 makes it perfectly clear that enhancements are made in the ordinary course of typical gemstone business 3 - It’s also perfectly clear that it is not illegal to fail to disclose anything, “it is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated…” Ditto within the context of comic books.4 - Finally, and most importantly, Section 23.22 makes it crystal clear that almost all enhancements need not be disclosed. Disclosure, therefore, is specific to two areas of enhancement only: (a) non-permanent enhancements and (b) enhancements that require special maintenance. The catch-all in © states that disclosure also makes sense where “treatment has a significant effect on the stone’s value.” Per the context of Part 23, presumably the drafters are discussing botchedenhancements in the catch-all. By the way, if you look at many other sub-sections in CFR Part 23, you’ll find clear definitions for objective measures relative to gemstones such as “ flawless ” (“…deceptive to use the word flawless to describe any diamond that [has] flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots…”), “ brilliant ” (“…[refers to] a round diamond that has at least thirty-two (32) facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four (24) facets below”), and “ weight ” (“a carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (1/5 gram), Therefore, if you’re using Title 16 CFR Part 23 as the basis upon which to disagree with my analysis (which again, was a query, not a conclusion). LH

 

 

And to LH, 1 word bro...Summation.

 

Ze-

[esquirecomics]

Mark,

 

You may recall that I posed my post as a query relative to the FTC issue, as I had no data on this and it seemed curious. Apologies if my opinion offended you, thus, prompting your somewhat confrontational response. Thanks, however, for all the data to review.

 

Learned, no offense taken at all. My post was not intended to come across as confrontational. If it came across that way, then you have my apologies.

 

I take your posts very serious as they are always intellectually driven, even if I might not agree with the conclusion.

 

A substantive response (with as little citations as possible) forthcoming. Even for a lawyer reading this stuff makes my head hurt too!

[shapip]

 

Guys, the answer to your problems are so obvious they could not be any closer than in your face. Just start collecting what I have in my inventory!

 

OK , fine.

Start lowering your prices!

 

Hey, that can be arranged for Heritage purchased books! All one needs do is ask! So those who don't care about buying from Heritage, check out the site and take these books off my hands.

 

I can attest that Mark was good on his word at offering to discount one of his Heritage purchased books above in case anyone was thinking about approaching him about it.

-Peter

[EastEnd]

IMHO all restorative work, including cleaning and/or pressing (there's no question in my mind that this activity is restoration because it's entire purpose is to RESTORE the book to it's original state), known by the seller should be disclosed. All material defects should be disclosed, especially on CGC graded books because the slab makes it difficult to identify certain defects (e.g., interior defects, spine splits, light bends, etc.). Resubmission history on books that have had work done to them should also be disclosed.

 

I don't believe, however that resub history on untouched books or grading history on books that have been cracked open and are now being offered raw needs to be disclosed. CGC is not the end all of comic book grading; they are merely an opinion. If an informed seller's opinion differs from CGCs he's entitled to do so. If a buyer wants certainty as to how CGC will grade a book then they should buy the slabbed version (and pay the appropriate premium).

[esquirecomics]

Report: GIA bans more diamond dealers

 

Report: GIA bans more diamond dealers

 

MARCH 08, 2006 - New York -- The grading scandal that has plagued the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) continues to deepen, with GIA confirming in media reports that it has banned an additional group of diamond dealers in recent weeks.

 

GIA wouldn't give names, but according to a story in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, sources told the paper that the new group includes at least three more prominent dealers who sell to larger retailers or private clients.

 

"We felt there was enough evidence of unethical conduct to prompt us to send out another letter," Kathryn Kimmel, GIA's vice president of marketing and public relations, told the Journal, informing certain dealers they could no longer submit stones. "We are trying to pursue all credible leads."

 

A GIA spokeswoman told NATIONAL JEWELER that it was working on a press statement regarding the news report.

 

The institute fired four employees in its New York lab last fall over code of conduct violations, and cut ties with dealers—described at the time as a "small community"—it suspected of bribing GIA staffers. The action was taken after an internal probe into upgrading of stones. That investigation was spurred by a lawsuit filed in April 2005 by diamond dealer Max Pincione, alleging that dealers bribed GIA to get higher diamond grades on their stones. At the end of December, GIA settled that suit for an undisclosed sum and has since offered to re-grade stones, free of charge.

 

GIA confirmed that it has passed along information, including the names of diamond dealers it has banned, to the U.S. Attorney's office. The office couldn't confirm or deny if it was conducting an investigation into the scandal.

 

The issue has raised concerns throughout the industry—from diamond dealers, who say they have been outbid on larger stones by companies who could pay more for a rough stone, knowing they could get a higher grade for the stone from GIA, to retailers, who worry the issue will undermine consumer confidence if the value of the diamonds they sell is put in question.

 

Several industry organizations, including the Diamond Dealer's Club, have called on GIA to release the names of those dealers it has banned. According to several published reports, the Diamond Trading Co. (DTC) has written to its sightholders, asking them to come forward if they are among those companies cut off by GIA.

[esquirecomics]

And I do intend to respond to LearnedHands' intellectual response. My head still hurts from reading it so just bear with me.