Official Luthiers Forum!

David...is anyone with first hand knowledge of the guitar industry supply side and build side 'counseling' the people that are putting pen to paper on this? I ask because if not, they're just showing up at a baseball game with a FOOTBALL.

_________________
There is no difference between the man that thinks he can....and the man that thinks he cannot.

I STAND BY MY STATEMENT IN THE PREVIOUS THREAD!

I'm glad someone is doing something, but they have still not really addressed many of the issues that impact builders. One thing that should be addressed is that there should be a de minimis rule that applies to the ridiculously small amounts of items present in an instrument. The Lacey Act Ammendment of 2008, was originally designed to stop Pallet loads of illegally harvested wood worth more than $2500 or something like that. Now the only reason guitars are in there is that they are worth more than the pallet load of wood. Unless we are importing directly, and as long as we are buying from reputable suppliers, we should not be impacted! Now if I go out and buy a load from India, then that's my problem.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Agreed. It's the reason I asked David if someone was advising the people writing this legislation. Targeted language, de minimus, and LIMITs on interpretation should be the focus.

_________________
There is no difference between the man that thinks he can....and the man that thinks he cannot.

...and a grandfather clause for _wood_, not just _products_...

Glancing at the proposed legislation, it seems that we would need to prove ownership of pre-2008 inventory. I don't have receipts from most of my material, because it never occured to me that I would need it. So, I would still be at jeopardy. If any of you are in the congressman's district, perhaps you could contact him to try to remedy this.

There is a chance for the legislation to backfire. It seems to offer protection if you can prove prior to 2008 ownership, but then the introduction suggests cracking down on everyone else.

I guess we can each contact our own congressmen and senators to be aware of the bill and offer improvements.

The only wood I use on my instruments is "treewood". Sometimes "mountain cherry". Wonder if they're excluded from Lacey....

Guess if they want to get dendrologists involved with small makers they might re-classify my materials, but given all the crap that's going around now, I think the future for us smaller makers might well be in treewood....

Dave

I don't see how this helps the Gibson situation -- someone wants to import/buy a bunch of Indian fingerboard blanks. It's not pre-2008 stock, so this statute wouldn't help. I haven't read it, but I don't see how "grandfathering" old stuff constitutes reasonable regulation of new stuff.

After the way that Henry dealt with Stan Werbin at Elderly and other long term dealers as well as the whole PRS thing, it's really hard to feel sorry for Gibson for anything. My only sorrow for Gibson is when it bleeds over to the rest of us. With Henry and his way of doing business, I think there's some karmic debt to be paid. Hopefully not at the expense of the rest of us...

Gibson is certainly not the company it once was.

Dave

Dave, I'm not worried about Gibson. But every builder, large and small, is in the same situation as Gibson for wood we are buying today. I haven't read the bill that's being proposed, but it doesn't sound like it will help any of us who are buying wood.

I'm right there with you--just taking note of a bit of irony in the case of Gibson.

I, like many on the forum, am sitting on a pretty good stash of wood that I've accumulated over a long period of time. Could I prove when I bought this wood or where it came from? Only in a few cases. I think that Cooper's intentions are good but the whole act and how it works really needs a major overhaul.

Dave