The National Gold and Silver Stamping Act 1906
The National Gold and Silver Stamping Act 1906
The US federal statute that governs precious-metal quality marks and trademark accompaniment
The National Gold and Silver Stamping Act of 1906, also called the Stamping Act and codified principally at 15 U.S.C. §§ 294-300, is the United States federal statute that regulates the quality marks applied to gold, silver, and (since later amendments) platinum articles in interstate and foreign commerce. The Act was enacted on 7 June 1906 in response to widespread misrepresentation of precious-metal content in the late nineteenth century, and remains the foundation of US precious-metal marking law. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the Act and issues guidance on its application; the FTC's Jewelry Guides — most recently revised in 2018 — interpret the Act for current commercial practice and address materials and treatments that the original 1906 legislation could not have anticipated.
Core provisions
The Stamping Act sets two principal requirements. First, any quality mark stamped on a gold or silver article — for example 14K, 18K, 925, or Sterling — must accurately represent the metal content of the article within statutory tolerances. The 1906 Act set tolerances of one half of one karat for gold articles without solder and one karat for articles containing solder; subsequent FTC guidance has refined these tolerances and aligned them with international practice. Second, any quality mark must be accompanied on the same article by a registered trademark identifying the manufacturer, importer, or other party responsible for the accuracy of the mark. The trademark requirement is the Act's distinctive feature: a quality mark without an accompanying trademark renders the article misbranded under federal law.
The Act treats articles in interstate commerce; intrastate transactions are subject to state regulation, although in practice most US jewellery is produced or imported through interstate channels and falls within federal scope.
Amendments and the platinum question
The Act has been amended significantly since 1906. The most consequential amendment, in 1976, extended its scope to platinum articles, prescribing rules for marks such as 950 Pt, Plat, and Iridplat. Subsequent FTC rulemaking has addressed gold-filled and rolled-gold-plate descriptors, vermeil, and the treatment of multi-metal articles. The 2018 revision of the FTC Jewelry Guides updated the treatment of vermeil — requiring a minimum gold thickness for the vermeil descriptor — and clarified disclosure expectations for laboratory-grown diamonds, treated stones, and synthetic substitutes. The Stamping Act itself remains the underlying statutory authority; the FTC Guides operate as regulatory interpretation.
Enforcement
Violations of the Stamping Act constitute misbranding under the Federal Trade Commission Act and may give rise to civil actions, FTC enforcement orders, and in serious cases criminal prosecution. The Act has been used in coordinated industry actions — notably the 1980s and 1990s campaigns against under-karated gold imports and the periodic enforcement against fraudulent silver-content claims on flatware and souvenir items. The Jewelers Vigilance Committee, the trade body that monitors industry compliance, plays a substantial role in identifying violations and coordinating with the FTC.
Practical implications
For a US jewellery manufacturer or importer, two compliance points follow directly from the Stamping Act. The trademark must be registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office or, for trademarks used principally in commerce, must be the kind of identifier the FTC will accept as adequately identifying the responsible party. The trademark must be applied to the same article as the quality mark — typically struck adjacent to the karat mark on the inside of a ring shank, the back of a brooch, or the clasp of a chain. The omission of the trademark is the single most common Stamping Act violation in routine FTC enforcement.
For a US retailer, the Act's implications are practical: imported articles bearing quality marks must also bear a trademark, and articles bearing only a karat mark — even if the karat mark is accurate — are misbranded and not lawfully saleable in interstate commerce. Retailers buying from importers should verify trademark presence on every article in a delivery, since the manufacturer or importer carries primary responsibility but the retailer can be drawn into FTC actions where misbranded articles are knowingly sold.
International context
The US trademark-accompaniment requirement is unusual internationally. The European hallmarking regimes — the British, French, and Convention systems — assign responsibility through assay-office hallmarks rather than through manufacturer trademarks alongside karat marks. Articles imported into the US from hallmarking jurisdictions must satisfy the US trademark-accompaniment requirement in addition to whatever marks they carry from their country of origin, which is why imported European jewellery often shows two sets of marks on inspection.