Absence of hallmarking in Andrew Berry vid.

[trialuser]

hit it with a hammer first, the melting is part of the re-manufacture.
It also only talks of marks being struck, that's about as specific as batter
Well I suppose they can be struck by photons

[ps_bond]

See https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...egulations.pdf last page on laser marking.

Final points:

Customer has given you hallmarked gold rings to remanufacture. What would any reasonable person consider the remanufactured item to be made of? It doesn't matter what it says on the invoice. You have therefore sold a gold ring.

Customer gives you 18 carat hallmarked gold to remanufacture. You do not have the piece hallmarked. Customer then - for whatever reason - has the piece assayed and is told it is 9ct. Who is going to get the blame?
Customer gives you 18 carat hallmarked gold to remanufacture. You have the piece hallmarked. It assays as 9ct. Yes, you'll still get the blame but you've got a stronger case.
Customer gives you 18 carat hallmarked gold to remanufacture. You do a quick test to double-check and find it is 9ct. You can then go back to the customer and tell them it isn't what they thought. You'll still get the blame, but the risk of litigation is lowest out of the 3 scenarios.

Ask the assay office.

[trialuser]

I don't disagree.
But there is no offence under the hallmarking act.

[Dennis]

It's the same the whole world over.
It's the poor what get the blame.
It's the rich what gets the gravy.
Aint it all a bloomin shame.

[andrew_berry]

As far as I am aware after taking this issue up with trading standards is this.

A client brings in some metal, may be new or old. May have a hallmark, may just be stamped, may be gold or not.

I melt down the metal and remake it into what the client want and don't add any metal to the clients metal. I then give the remade item back to the client.

I charge the client. The charge is based upon my time to rework the metal. I do not sell the item to the client, I sell a service.

Therefore the item is not being sold, so does not have to be hallmarked.

Trading standards seemed happy with this.

Or are they wrong?

Andrew

[Dennis]

If you're defacing the hallmark or changing its use then AIUI it still needs assay, regardless of sale.

Your answer Andrew is in Peter's post above. This would probably not concern trading standards, but is a matter for the hallmark regulating body. Dennis.

[metalsmith]

It seems to hang on the description to me:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person who, in the course of a trade or business—
(a) applies to an unhallmarked article a description indicating that it is wholly or partly
made of gold, silver [, platinum or palladium]1
, or
(b)
supplies, or offers to supply, an unhallmarked article to which such a description is
applied, shall be guilty of an offence.

https://theassayoffice.co.uk/uploads...egislation.pdf

If you don't describe it as the metals included in the Act there is no offence. Questions to ask (rhetorical if you like): was the article referred to as one of the above metals? Was it then subsequently supplied?

[trialuser]

Your answer Andrew is in Peter's post above. This would probably not concern trading standards, but is a matter for the hallmark regulating body. Dennis.

No, Peter is mistaken in his understanding, AIUI

Hallmarking act, section 5.3
It shall not be an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to batter an article so as to render
it fit only for remanufacture.

You are allowed to deface a hallmark by battering, so as to render the item fit only for re manufacture.
You can then re manufacture something from the battered item.
It may or may not then require hallmarking, depending on the weight, the nature of your trade or business, the description you apply to the item, and quite probably which way the wind is blowing.

If there were an offence, it would also concern TS.

Section 9, enforcement of the act says
(1) It shall be the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce the provisions of
this Act within their area; and section 26 of the Act of 1968 (enforcing authorities) shall apply in
relation to the enforcement of this Act, by such an authority, as it applies in relation to the
enforcement of that Act.
(2) The Council and the assay offices may also enforce the provisions of this Act.

If Andrew is battering some items into scrap and reusing it there is no offence.
If he is describing the remanufactured item as a precious metal, or using a description from which it could be construed the item is made from precious metal and its over weight, then it needs hallmarking.
If he hands back the metal, in a remanufactured form, with no description applied, and charges for an act of battering and remanufacture, then it does not require hallmarking.
If it subsequently turns out that the metal was not what it was thought to be, then Andrew may well be suspected or accused of skullduggery, but that is not an offence under the hallmarking act.
Having watched all of Andrews videos, I know he has a procedure in place when accepting jewellery in for repair or remanufacture which protects him from such accusations.
Over and out

[china]

I'm glad that I don't have this hassle

[ps_bond]

It's not a service, it's a provision of goods and would be understood as such by the "man on the Clapham omnibus". Trying to claim it as a service fails the test of reasonableness.

Trading standards are wrong - not the first time - but given they're the ones who are responsible for enforcing the Act, there's not much point in discussing it further. I can't get them to take the easier hallmarking offences seriously as it is.

I strongly suspect I'm the only one who actually asked a lawyer though.