Here is a link to an article about the various woods that are used in guatars, whether they are protected and cautions about US customs when traveling with wood guitars
Given it's in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal I will consider that source that there may political inuendo given recent conservatives attempts to eviscerate the US Environmental Protection Agency. However, for the bits that may be factual, fyi,
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
OK, another fine cause, saving forests, has been reduced to the point of absurdity by awkwardly written and enforced regulations. Why can't they go after illegally harvested goats or something...
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
I'm not interested in most articles in the Journal, though they do have certain articles which imho are some of the most balanced in journalism ...
"Given the risks, why don't musicians just settle for the safety of carbon fiber? Some do—when concert pianist Jeffrey Sharkey moved to England two decades ago, he had Steinway replace the ivories on his piano with plastic.
Still, musicians cling to the old materials. Last year, Dick Boak, director of artist relations for C.F. Martin & Co., complained to Mother Nature News about the difficulty of getting elite guitarists to switch to instruments made from sustainable materials. "Surprisingly, musicians, who represent some of the most savvy, ecologically minded people around, are resistant to anything about changing the tone of their guitars," he said"
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
The part that concerns me:
"If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution."
I'm sorry, but whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? The proof should be on the feds that it was illegal. Not the other way around. This is theft, pure and simple. Instead of attacking innocent people they should go after the people actually illegally harvesting the materials. *grumble*
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
Exactly violamike, that's what got me too.
How do you prove that every piece of wood on your instrument that might look a bit like a protected wood was aquired legally?
You can't, Such documentation doesn't exist.
How many of you have instruments that have parts made of tropical hardwoods like ebony, brazilwood, rosewood, etc.? And how many have documentation proving that the wood was obtained legally? Or documentation of the exact age of the instrument to show it's an antique?
This whole thing is ridiculous, but it's something to think about for anyone bringing an instrument into the US.
Also read on another forum that the 2009 raid included a total of 6 instruments where the wood wasn't accounted for, and that Gibson is usually very strict on its suppliers. However, the information was not from a certifiable source.
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
If there were a nondestructive way of determining the origin of a piece of wood, something suitable for the use of a customs inspector, this would seem a little more reasonable. But I don't think it's likely that a customs inspector is likely to be very conversant with tonewoods or the difference between fossil ivory and ivory that came off an elephant last Thursday.
The basic motivation for the laws, I believe, is to ensure that the prohibitions on certain materials are not circumvented. I think most of us can agree slaughtering the last wild elephant, or the third-to-the-last, for a handful of saddle blanks would be a pretty sad and stupid thing, so ultimately, we don't want to allow the import of newly-made ivory saddles, whether they're in a carton or attached to existing guitars.
How the law gets written and enforced is another matter, and if it's done badly, that's no great help to anyone, even the elephants, but the motivation is reasonable. I don't know how far I'd trust Rupert Murdoch's views on the implementation of the laws. Might be good to get a second opinion on that.
I heard a story that Martin Simpson lost a brand new guitar at customs because he didn't have the passport with him for the Brazilian Rosewood. The instruments are just destroyed. It is a crying shame.
As I am having a new guitar made for me just now it does give pause for thought. I don't think there will be any woods on it that would cause a problem. Certainly it is Indian Rosewood that is being used rather than Brazilian. It is definitely something worth checking with the maker though. Some certification would be nice.
There seems to be two completely separate issues being discussed in the article - the situations for manufacturers and musicians are completely different
There are three catagories of CITES species that concern us - Appendix 1 species, which can't be exported/imported or sold in any form. Appendix 2 species, which can't be exported as raw materials, but can be traded and imported/exported as finished products. Appendix 3 species can be traded and exported as raw material, but only under licence.
In the Gibson case they are talking about Appendix 2 and 3 species, and the situation is very clear cut - if Gibson have appendix 2 timber in their factory, then they have to be able to prove that it is either old stock, imported before the legislation. If they have appendix 3 timber then they must be able to produce the relevant import and export licences. The country of origin doesn't matter, it is the species that is protected - if I could grow a Madagasca Ebony tree in Scotland, I still couldn't sell the timber to Gibson in the US without the relevant licences. I assume that in this case Gibson were unable to produce licences for the timber in their factory, and that is why it was impounded. If Gibson were using illegally imported timber, then they deserve everything they get.
For musicians the situation is simpler but probably less fair. An instrument is a finished product, so we only have to worry about appendix 1 species - basically just three materials - ivory, tortoise shell and Brazilian Rosewood.
If you have an instrument that was made after 1997 (in the UK, the legislation implementation date is different in other countries) and contains any of those three materials, then you bought an illegal instrument, and it is probably right that you shouldn't be allowed to sell or export it.
If your instrument was made before 1947, then you can get an antique exemption certificate which will allow you to sell it or move it across borders. (Although actually gettting that certificate is quite a rigmarole, and there are a handful of countries, including Canada, who have a blanket ban and won't make exceptions for antiques.)
But if your instrument was made between 1947 and 1997, then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place: despite the fact that it was perfectly legal when you bought it, there is no way you can legally sell your instrument or move it across an international border.
"I heard a story that Martin Simpson lost a brand new guitar at customs because he didn't have the passport with him for the Brazilian Rosewood. The instruments are just destroyed. It is a crying shame."
Strange that Martin Simpson doesn't seem to relate that story on his official website. Is there actually a 'passport' for an instrument's timbers? I believe such a thing was proposed but rejected. Is there any concrete evidence that confiscated instruments are destroyed?
That "story" contains three points that would need to be substantiated before they are taken seriously. The trouble with rumours and indeed articles in papers and magazines is they cannot be relied upon as fact (including those owned by Murdoch as pointed out), and there is the possibility that they become 'fact' as they wield their way through the grapevine.
Has anyone had an instrument confiscated? Was it destroyed?
Should instrument makers circumvent all responsibilities when it comes to the choice of materials?
"But if your instrument was made between 1947 and 1997, then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place: "
Not for Brazilian rosewood parts - the year you are probably thinking of is 1992 (June 11th 1992 was the date of the Convention). You have to apply for pre-Convention status.
Right enough, there was US legislation passed in 1997, but the exemption status is pre-Convention of 1992. Most reputable makers have an identification method for year of manufacture, so the exemption certificate need not be between a 'rock and a hard place'.
If you have ivory or tortoiseshell parts, you are in a bigger fix.
Well, Weejie, he didn't tell it to me so I have no idea if it is true or not. I also can not remember where I heard it. Apologies if I was mistaken. I am not sure it really matters one way or another though.
As far as Brazilian Rosewood is concerned I always thought that it was ok for a new instrument to be made from it as long as the wood is from old stock. Certainly if you are travelling with an instrument made from Brazilian Rosewood then you need to travel with the right documentation determining its origin. I have heard that documentation described as a passport. But you can call it whatever you bl**dy well please!
" I am not sure it really matters one way or another though." well, it matters if it's shight because there seems to be no actual evidence of anyone having an instrument confiscated and destroyed. Citing a bogus example would be misleading.
"I have heard that documentation described as a passport."
It's more complex than a 'passport' (which is why a 'passport' was suggested). Moreover, different rules apply in different countries (only certain points of entry are allowed in the US, for example). There are also differences between CITES agreements (which concern import and export) and domestic (and European)laws (DEFRA, for example,m would allow internal sales of Brazillian rosewood parts on instruments, but not ivory on instruments made after 1947 - as alluded to earlier). Anecdotes - especially unsubstantiated - just cloud the issue.
>>"Not for Brazilian rosewood parts - the year you are probably thinking of is 1992 (June 11th 1992 was the date of the Convention). You have to apply for pre-Convention status."
The convention might have been 1992, but the implimentation in Uk was 1997. I don't know any US law - there might be some sort of exemption in the US, there certainly isn't in the UK. So even if someone in the US had a 'passport', or whatever they need, they might be able to take their guitar out of the US, but they wouldn't be able to bring it into the UK. In the UK the rules for Rio Rose are exactly the same as for ivory, tortoise and other appendix 1 species. If it isn't certified as 'antique' then you can't sell it or take it through customs.
The specific issue at Gibson appears to be an allegation that they falsified documents in order to get raw, sawn ebony wood blanks, instead of the "finished parts" required by the Lacey Act. Here's a quote (unnamed source) from Mandolin Cafe:
-----------------------
"Wednesday's raid of Nashville-based Gibson Guitar Corp was in connection to a June 27 international shipment of 1,250 pieces of ebony wood to Texas, according to court documents.
In an affidavit filed in federal court, agent John Rayfield of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said U.S. Customs agents detained that shipment, alleging it not only violated portions of the Lacey Act but that Gibson officials falsely identified the contents.
Namely, the paperwork outlines allegations that Gibson knowingly changed the description of various imported wood shipments to circumnavigate laws that prevent certain raw materials from India entering the United States. Officials believe Gibson had a hand in identifying those shipments as finished parts for musical instruments, according to documents."
-----------------------
Part of this seems to be a dispute over the meaning of the term "finished parts." At any rate, I think this is something we'll all have to keep our eye on, especially regarding international travel. There are conservation efforts and tree farm experiments for various endangered woods, but many of those efforts won't be able to keep up with demand.
I play a blackwood flute (Dalbergia melanoxylon) and I'd like to take it to the UK some day on vacation. As far as I can tell, there are currently no restrictions on blackwood, but it's highly endangered and it won't surprise me if it shows up on a CITES restriction list in a few years.
Instrument making is hardly putting pressure on rain forests, try the use of veneers in furniture manufacture and then I'd agree. Tiz horlics IMO, closing the barn door after the horse is long gone....
"The convention might have been 1992, but the implimentation in Uk was 1997. "
Sorry Skreech, but you don't know what you are talking about.
CITES is a convention by treaty, to which the UK is a party, and has been since ratification in August 1976. Brazilian rosewood was granted Appendix 1 status in 1992, that is the cut-off date.
Although, owing to the current structure of CITES, the EU is not yet a signatory, it does adopt a policy of implementing the agreements of CITES, and in 1997 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 was introduced. This led to The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 being passed in the UK. CITES Appendix 1 species became Annex A species under EU and UK legislation, and there are provisions made for permits to export and import species under that category. DEFRA is the authority in the UK in charge of that task, and the policies reflect those outlined in the CITES treaty.
As the EU and UK legislation reflects the CITES treaty, the cut-off point for Brazilian rosewood is 1992 - anything imported before that date was before the international ban on import and export, and is exempt - subject to verification. There are distinct differences between Brazilian rosewood and Ivory.
There are more recent restrictions regarding Brazilian rosewood (basically, tighter control) but prior to this, a distinction between the timber and ivory is that ivory tradie is illegal and (DEFRA controlled, following EU Directives) trade for manufactured goods is illegal for anything made after June 1947 - moreover, anything made prior to that date must be in its original state. You cannot rework the ivory. Brazilian rosewood, however can be used to make items so long as the timber was imported before it was placed as an Appendix 1 species.
This would need to be proven, of course, and that is where the difficulty lies. I'll give you an example as evidence of that. Jimmy Moon obtained a boardroom desk made of Brazillian rosewood which has been used to make guitars. He still lists that material on his website: http://www.moonguitars.co.uk/moonhome.html:
[ Acoustic guitar Model: BR-0006]
Also, some of his guitars are available here: http://www.guitarguitar.co.uk/acoustic_guitars_detail.asp?stock=10100616423258
Now, there is no way Jimmy could be using elephant ivory on his instruments, freshly imported or reclaimed. Ergo "in the UK the rules for Rio Rose are exactly the same as for ivory, tortoise and other appendix 1 species" is not correct.
Recent directives have tightened up the selling of Brazilian rosewood items considerably, and authenticating date of import (as pre-Convention, not UK or EU legislation) is much more difficult, but you are not prohibited from selling a pre-1992 Martin guitar if it has Brazilian rosewood in its structure. Import or export of the same would involve some effort, however, but it is not prohibited either. I would avoid selling the instrument if it has ivory fittings though.
"there might be some sort of exemption in the US, there certainly isn't in the UK."
For 'pre-Convention' timber, you would apply for a DEFRA Article 10 certificate, (form FED 1012) and in conjunction with the 'origin' source code, you would state code 'O', which indicates "pre-Convention".
Whatever the facts are, the story is a good example of a Rupert Murdoch vehicle, hewing to the pre-written “government bad/corporation good” script.
The story is so biased it’s almost funny. Federal agents are described as bullies:
“Federal agents swooped, using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle. “
While the company is described as if it were a noble insititution:
“the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian's ES-150.”
And the enforcement of environmental law is trivialized:
“the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.”
And then a little fear mongering to rile the man in the street:
“Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.”
Gibson has indeed been a successful, profitable company since the three east-coast MBAs bought it in the 1980s. And it would seem Gibson has been an environmentally progressive company (although sections of their Wikipedia entry read like press releases), but it wouldn’t be the first time a company said one thing and did another.
Time and a continuing investigation will tell. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t turn to the Wall Street Journal for unbiased journalism.
A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Here is a link to an article about the various woods that are used in guatars, whether they are protected and cautions about US customs when traveling with wood guitars
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
Given it's in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal I will consider that source that there may political inuendo given recent conservatives attempts to eviscerate the US Environmental Protection Agency. However, for the bits that may be factual, fyi,
# Posted on August 26th 2011 by zippydw
They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
This makes me furious:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I understand environmental enforcement in cases where wood is being illegally haversted and sold, but this is insane.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Marklar
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
Looks like they're paying particular attention to guitars. Don't play guitar – problem solved!
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Upsetter
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
Agreed!
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
...Agreed, as to this search and seizure mission's being insane.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
OK, another fine cause, saving forests, has been reduced to the point of absurdity by awkwardly written and enforced regulations. Why can't they go after illegally harvested goats or something...
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
I'm not interested in most articles in the Journal, though they do have certain articles which imho are some of the most balanced in journalism ...
"Given the risks, why don't musicians just settle for the safety of carbon fiber? Some do—when concert pianist Jeffrey Sharkey moved to England two decades ago, he had Steinway replace the ivories on his piano with plastic.
Still, musicians cling to the old materials. Last year, Dick Boak, director of artist relations for C.F. Martin & Co., complained to Mother Nature News about the difficulty of getting elite guitarists to switch to instruments made from sustainable materials. "Surprisingly, musicians, who represent some of the most savvy, ecologically minded people around, are resistant to anything about changing the tone of their guitars," he said"
;)
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Batgirl has left the GPL ;)
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
The part that concerns me:
"If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution."
I'm sorry, but whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? The proof should be on the feds that it was illegal. Not the other way around. This is theft, pure and simple. Instead of attacking innocent people they should go after the people actually illegally harvesting the materials. *grumble*
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by banshee misfortune
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
Exactly violamike, that's what got me too.
How do you prove that every piece of wood on your instrument that might look a bit like a protected wood was aquired legally?
You can't, Such documentation doesn't exist.
How many of you have instruments that have parts made of tropical hardwoods like ebony, brazilwood, rosewood, etc.? And how many have documentation proving that the wood was obtained legally? Or documentation of the exact age of the instrument to show it's an antique?
This whole thing is ridiculous, but it's something to think about for anyone bringing an instrument into the US.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Marklar
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
More information on the piano guy with the ivory keys:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2011/03-09-11.html
After reading the full story he doesn't seem quite as innocent as the WSJ article implies.
My initial shock and anger is a bit worn off. I'm going to have to read a bit more about this.
Another article on the story:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110825/NEWS01/308250049/Gibson-Guitar-raided-lips-zipped
Also read on another forum that the 2009 raid included a total of 6 instruments where the wood wasn't accounted for, and that Gibson is usually very strict on its suppliers. However, the information was not from a certifiable source.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by banshee misfortune
Re: They'll have to pry my fiddle out of my cold dead hands
If there were a nondestructive way of determining the origin of a piece of wood, something suitable for the use of a customs inspector, this would seem a little more reasonable. But I don't think it's likely that a customs inspector is likely to be very conversant with tonewoods or the difference between fossil ivory and ivory that came off an elephant last Thursday.
The basic motivation for the laws, I believe, is to ensure that the prohibitions on certain materials are not circumvented. I think most of us can agree slaughtering the last wild elephant, or the third-to-the-last, for a handful of saddle blanks would be a pretty sad and stupid thing, so ultimately, we don't want to allow the import of newly-made ivory saddles, whether they're in a carton or attached to existing guitars.
How the law gets written and enforced is another matter, and if it's done badly, that's no great help to anyone, even the elephants, but the motivation is reasonable. I don't know how far I'd trust Rupert Murdoch's views on the implementation of the laws. Might be good to get a second opinion on that.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Thanks for the link. An interesting read.
I heard a story that Martin Simpson lost a brand new guitar at customs because he didn't have the passport with him for the Brazilian Rosewood. The instruments are just destroyed. It is a crying shame.
As I am having a new guitar made for me just now it does give pause for thought. I don't think there will be any woods on it that would cause a problem. Certainly it is Indian Rosewood that is being used rather than Brazilian. It is definitely something worth checking with the maker though. Some certification would be nice.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
There seems to be two completely separate issues being discussed in the article - the situations for manufacturers and musicians are completely different
There are three catagories of CITES species that concern us - Appendix 1 species, which can't be exported/imported or sold in any form. Appendix 2 species, which can't be exported as raw materials, but can be traded and imported/exported as finished products. Appendix 3 species can be traded and exported as raw material, but only under licence.
In the Gibson case they are talking about Appendix 2 and 3 species, and the situation is very clear cut - if Gibson have appendix 2 timber in their factory, then they have to be able to prove that it is either old stock, imported before the legislation. If they have appendix 3 timber then they must be able to produce the relevant import and export licences. The country of origin doesn't matter, it is the species that is protected - if I could grow a Madagasca Ebony tree in Scotland, I still couldn't sell the timber to Gibson in the US without the relevant licences. I assume that in this case Gibson were unable to produce licences for the timber in their factory, and that is why it was impounded. If Gibson were using illegally imported timber, then they deserve everything they get.
For musicians the situation is simpler but probably less fair. An instrument is a finished product, so we only have to worry about appendix 1 species - basically just three materials - ivory, tortoise shell and Brazilian Rosewood.
If you have an instrument that was made after 1997 (in the UK, the legislation implementation date is different in other countries) and contains any of those three materials, then you bought an illegal instrument, and it is probably right that you shouldn't be allowed to sell or export it.
If your instrument was made before 1947, then you can get an antique exemption certificate which will allow you to sell it or move it across borders. (Although actually gettting that certificate is quite a rigmarole, and there are a handful of countries, including Canada, who have a blanket ban and won't make exceptions for antiques.)
But if your instrument was made between 1947 and 1997, then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place: despite the fact that it was perfectly legal when you bought it, there is no way you can legally sell your instrument or move it across an international border.
That cannot be fair.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by skreech
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
"I heard a story that Martin Simpson lost a brand new guitar at customs because he didn't have the passport with him for the Brazilian Rosewood. The instruments are just destroyed. It is a crying shame."
Strange that Martin Simpson doesn't seem to relate that story on his official website. Is there actually a 'passport' for an instrument's timbers? I believe such a thing was proposed but rejected. Is there any concrete evidence that confiscated instruments are destroyed?
That "story" contains three points that would need to be substantiated before they are taken seriously. The trouble with rumours and indeed articles in papers and magazines is they cannot be relied upon as fact (including those owned by Murdoch as pointed out), and there is the possibility that they become 'fact' as they wield their way through the grapevine.
Has anyone had an instrument confiscated? Was it destroyed?
Should instrument makers circumvent all responsibilities when it comes to the choice of materials?
Another article:
http://www.fretboardjournal.com/features/magazine/guitar-lover%E2%80%99s-guide-cites-conservation-treaty
And discussion here:
http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=030321
You might need another pinch of salt here and there.....
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
"But if your instrument was made between 1947 and 1997, then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place: "
Not for Brazilian rosewood parts - the year you are probably thinking of is 1992 (June 11th 1992 was the date of the Convention). You have to apply for pre-Convention status.
Right enough, there was US legislation passed in 1997, but the exemption status is pre-Convention of 1992. Most reputable makers have an identification method for year of manufacture, so the exemption certificate need not be between a 'rock and a hard place'.
If you have ivory or tortoiseshell parts, you are in a bigger fix.
http://www.fws.gov/permits/faqs/FaqFGH.html
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
"there is no way you can legally sell your instrument or move it across an international border."
You can sell it if it does not cross an international border (I belive there are interstate restrictions in the US as well).
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Well, Weejie, he didn't tell it to me so I have no idea if it is true or not. I also can not remember where I heard it. Apologies if I was mistaken. I am not sure it really matters one way or another though.
As far as Brazilian Rosewood is concerned I always thought that it was ok for a new instrument to be made from it as long as the wood is from old stock. Certainly if you are travelling with an instrument made from Brazilian Rosewood then you need to travel with the right documentation determining its origin. I have heard that documentation described as a passport. But you can call it whatever you bl**dy well please!
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
" I am not sure it really matters one way or another though." well, it matters if it's shight because there seems to be no actual evidence of anyone having an instrument confiscated and destroyed. Citing a bogus example would be misleading.
"I have heard that documentation described as a passport."
It's more complex than a 'passport' (which is why a 'passport' was suggested). Moreover, different rules apply in different countries (only certain points of entry are allowed in the US, for example). There are also differences between CITES agreements (which concern import and export) and domestic (and European)laws (DEFRA, for example,m would allow internal sales of Brazillian rosewood parts on instruments, but not ivory on instruments made after 1947 - as alluded to earlier). Anecdotes - especially unsubstantiated - just cloud the issue.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
mmm Pipes , Ivory anyone ?
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by bazouki dave
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Mammoth, antique elephant maybe?
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
>>"Not for Brazilian rosewood parts - the year you are probably thinking of is 1992 (June 11th 1992 was the date of the Convention). You have to apply for pre-Convention status."
The convention might have been 1992, but the implimentation in Uk was 1997. I don't know any US law - there might be some sort of exemption in the US, there certainly isn't in the UK. So even if someone in the US had a 'passport', or whatever they need, they might be able to take their guitar out of the US, but they wouldn't be able to bring it into the UK. In the UK the rules for Rio Rose are exactly the same as for ivory, tortoise and other appendix 1 species. If it isn't certified as 'antique' then you can't sell it or take it through customs.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by skreech
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
The specific issue at Gibson appears to be an allegation that they falsified documents in order to get raw, sawn ebony wood blanks, instead of the "finished parts" required by the Lacey Act. Here's a quote (unnamed source) from Mandolin Cafe:
-----------------------
"Wednesday's raid of Nashville-based Gibson Guitar Corp was in connection to a June 27 international shipment of 1,250 pieces of ebony wood to Texas, according to court documents.
In an affidavit filed in federal court, agent John Rayfield of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said U.S. Customs agents detained that shipment, alleging it not only violated portions of the Lacey Act but that Gibson officials falsely identified the contents.
Namely, the paperwork outlines allegations that Gibson knowingly changed the description of various imported wood shipments to circumnavigate laws that prevent certain raw materials from India entering the United States. Officials believe Gibson had a hand in identifying those shipments as finished parts for musical instruments, according to documents."
-----------------------
Part of this seems to be a dispute over the meaning of the term "finished parts." At any rate, I think this is something we'll all have to keep our eye on, especially regarding international travel. There are conservation efforts and tree farm experiments for various endangered woods, but many of those efforts won't be able to keep up with demand.
I play a blackwood flute (Dalbergia melanoxylon) and I'd like to take it to the UK some day on vacation. As far as I can tell, there are currently no restrictions on blackwood, but it's highly endangered and it won't surprise me if it shows up on a CITES restriction list in a few years.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Conical bore
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Instrument making is hardly putting pressure on rain forests, try the use of veneers in furniture manufacture and then I'd agree. Tiz horlics IMO, closing the barn door after the horse is long gone....
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
"The convention might have been 1992, but the implimentation in Uk was 1997. "
Sorry Skreech, but you don't know what you are talking about.
CITES is a convention by treaty, to which the UK is a party, and has been since ratification in August 1976. Brazilian rosewood was granted Appendix 1 status in 1992, that is the cut-off date.
Although, owing to the current structure of CITES, the EU is not yet a signatory, it does adopt a policy of implementing the agreements of CITES, and in 1997 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 was introduced. This led to The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 being passed in the UK. CITES Appendix 1 species became Annex A species under EU and UK legislation, and there are provisions made for permits to export and import species under that category. DEFRA is the authority in the UK in charge of that task, and the policies reflect those outlined in the CITES treaty.
As the EU and UK legislation reflects the CITES treaty, the cut-off point for Brazilian rosewood is 1992 - anything imported before that date was before the international ban on import and export, and is exempt - subject to verification. There are distinct differences between Brazilian rosewood and Ivory.
There are more recent restrictions regarding Brazilian rosewood (basically, tighter control) but prior to this, a distinction between the timber and ivory is that ivory tradie is illegal and (DEFRA controlled, following EU Directives) trade for manufactured goods is illegal for anything made after June 1947 - moreover, anything made prior to that date must be in its original state. You cannot rework the ivory. Brazilian rosewood, however can be used to make items so long as the timber was imported before it was placed as an Appendix 1 species.
This would need to be proven, of course, and that is where the difficulty lies. I'll give you an example as evidence of that. Jimmy Moon obtained a boardroom desk made of Brazillian rosewood which has been used to make guitars. He still lists that material on his website:
http://www.moonguitars.co.uk/moonhome.html:
[ Acoustic guitar Model: BR-0006]
Also, some of his guitars are available here:
http://www.guitarguitar.co.uk/acoustic_guitars_detail.asp?stock=10100616423258
Now, there is no way Jimmy could be using elephant ivory on his instruments, freshly imported or reclaimed. Ergo "in the UK the rules for Rio Rose are exactly the same as for ivory, tortoise and other appendix 1 species" is not correct.
Recent directives have tightened up the selling of Brazilian rosewood items considerably, and authenticating date of import (as pre-Convention, not UK or EU legislation) is much more difficult, but you are not prohibited from selling a pre-1992 Martin guitar if it has Brazilian rosewood in its structure. Import or export of the same would involve some effort, however, but it is not prohibited either. I would avoid selling the instrument if it has ivory fittings though.
# Posted on August 27th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
"there might be some sort of exemption in the US, there certainly isn't in the UK."
For 'pre-Convention' timber, you would apply for a DEFRA Article 10 certificate, (form FED 1012) and in conjunction with the 'origin' source code, you would state code 'O', which indicates "pre-Convention".
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Weejie
Re: A heads up to our Backer Guitar Freinds
Whatever the facts are, the story is a good example of a Rupert Murdoch vehicle, hewing to the pre-written “government bad/corporation good” script.
The story is so biased it’s almost funny. Federal agents are described as bullies:
“Federal agents swooped, using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle. “
While the company is described as if it were a noble insititution:
“the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian's ES-150.”
And the enforcement of environmental law is trivialized:
“the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.”
And then a little fear mongering to rile the man in the street:
“Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.”
Gibson has indeed been a successful, profitable company since the three east-coast MBAs bought it in the 1980s. And it would seem Gibson has been an environmentally progressive company (although sections of their Wikipedia entry read like press releases), but it wouldn’t be the first time a company said one thing and did another.
Time and a continuing investigation will tell. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t turn to the Wall Street Journal for unbiased journalism.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by fidkid