Official Luthiers Forum!

I am wondering if anyone would be interested in mammoth ivory guitar parts, like nuts, saddles, and bridge pins. My source is legal, and there is no need to worry about poaching or extinction. Shipping across borders is possible, as is proving that the ivory is indeed mammoth and not elephant, but proving that on such a small piece as is used on a guitar is challenging, nonetheless.
My prices would be very similar to Bob Colossi in the States, who, to my knowledge, is the only other guy doing this sort of thing. Of course, my sales would take place in the Classified section to support the forum and abide by the rules.

Anybody?

From what I have read you need to keep up to date on the current laws. Over the last few months several states have made it illegal and another handful of states may follow soon.

" Over the last few months several states have made it illegal and another handful of states may follow soon."

I haven't heard that about Mammoth ivory, do you have any more information about that?

According to http://www.mammothivory.org, it is an International free trade merchandise. I'll keep digging and see if anything else turns up. So far, I haven't found anything of concern.

I'd definitely be interested, in fact, I'm currently trying to get a set of bridge pins from Mike Speck for a guitar I just strung up.


Ken Jones
Mountain Song Guitars

_________________
Mountain Song Guitars www.mountainsongguitars.com

From what I remember NY and NJ have passed laws already making it illegal. And I dont see it in this list but I also read VA has a bill in debate?? too.

Here is something I copied from this thread http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showt ... ssociation

More Ivory Ban Bills Across the US


There’s a lot going on and many opportunities for you to get involved at both state and federal levels to fight ivory bans.
New Activity in the States

Florida - SB1120 has been introduced to ban any species of elephant and mammoth and prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, and distribution of ivory articles. In addition there would be an allowance for possible licensing for less than 20% ivory antiques, passing on to your heirs, museums, and musical instruments made before 1979.

Illinois - SB1858 will make it illegal to sell any ivory or ivory containing product. This bill makes no allowances or exemptions for mammoth ivory, musical instruments, or antiques. The only possible exemption will be for bona fide educational or scientific purposes. No hearing scheduled at this time.

Vermont - H297 - Other than the bill number, we don't know much about it. It is safe to assume this ban is like all of the other ones that the Humane Society of the US is pushing around the country.

New York has an amendment pending to their already- in- effect ivory ban. SB 2887 would prohibit the purchase and sale of ivory articles and rhinoceros horns, with limited exceptions, and increase the criminal and civil penalties for the illegal sale of these articles.

Hawaii - Two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate are pending. We have gotten word that these bills have been postponed for further consideration (Thank you to everyone who wrote and called in!) though scheduling could change at any time.

Still Pending in the following states, please keep writing and calling-

Connecticut – there are four separate ivory ban bills pending at the same time in Connecticut. Thank you for everyone who said they would be willing to testify against these bills. We do not yet know when a hearing will be scheduled. Connecticut’s legislative process does not require them to publish the specifics of a bill before a hearing, so we need to assume one or more of these bills will be a complete ban on all ivory including mammoths similar to what was passed in New Jersey. When the time comes, the people who said they would testify will be contacted directly.

Maryland – HB713 is scheduled for hearing on March 4 at 1:00pm. This legislation is ambiguous about whether it applies to mammoth ivory, contains no commercial use exemptions for musical instruments, antiques or other items, criminalizes “possession with intent to sell,” and makes ivory sales a felony for second offenses if value exceeds $250.00.

Washington – Bills are pending before both the House (HB1131) and Senate (SB5241). Constituents successfully gained exemptions in the House bill that eliminated mammoth from the definition of ivory, created some exemptions and reduced some of the penalties from the original bill. It remains to be seen how the Senate will react, whether the amendments from the House will make it into final legislation, and even if they do, how this ban would be enforced.

Iowa – SF 30 is pending that would ban ivory from mammoths along with elephant ivory. This bill was recently reassigned to a subcommittee on Natural Resources and Environment.

Oklahoma – HB1787 – Would ban sales and “possession with intent to sell” of all ivory species including mammoth. Permit scheme similar to New York with very limited exemptions for antiques (less than 20% ivory) and musical instruments.

California – AB96 – Modifies existing California law to ban sale and possession with intent to sell of all species of ivory, including mammoth ivory. Exemptions for musical instruments with less than 20% ivory and made before 1975, and antiques less than 5% ivory by volume at least 100 years old. Jail time, fines up to $50,000, and administrative penalties up to $10,000 are potential penalties.

There have been threads about this on the violin maker's list I'm on. Apparently simply having ivory of any sort in any quantity in a commercial shop in NY is 'intent to sell', and they can nail you.

Basically, as I understand it:
Although it's possible to distinguish elephant ivory from mammoth or walrus in theory, in practice it's not always easy, or even possible on small parts. You have to be able to see an end-grain surface that is large enough to pick out the grain angle, and on small pieces, particularly of inlay, that might not be possible. This means that enforcement agencies can't really be sure what they're looking at all the time. It might be possible with enough training, of course, but that's expensive.

Sadly, there are dishonest individuals who will try to pass off elephant ivory as mammoth with false paperwork, so they can't rely on that. Ditto for 'antique' ivory.

From the perspective of the folks making the laws, the only way they can be sure to stop the trade in elephant ivory is to ban ALL ivory. You'd hope there would be a better way.

From my limited experience, FWI doesn't really look like elephant ivory at all. So much so that I'd be surprised if it was ever mistaken as such.


Ken Jones
Mountain Song Guitars

_________________
Mountain Song Guitars www.mountainsongguitars.com

California has a bill going through the legislature right now that will outlaw trade in any type of ivory and specifically states Mammoth ivory.
It would include raw material and anything that it has been used on.
I think it's admirable that our politicians are trying to preserve an animal that has been dead for thousands of years. Always finding a way to turn honest people into criminals.

"From my limited experience, FWI doesn't really look like elephant ivory at all. So much so that I'd be surprised if it was ever mistaken as such. "

But you can't positively say that FWI NEVER looks like elephant, and that's the issue. If you're referring to the usual staining, people have been staining elephant ivory to make it look old, and that's one of the issues.

I'm not advocating for these kinds of laws; just trying to put out the sort of reasoning that lies behind them. It's awfully hard to avoid politics in these discussions, since that's inevitably part of the process of passing laws. If you disagree with them, get out there and make some noise! But, like them or not, it looks as though we're going to have to live with this sort of thing for the foreseeable future, and it's stupid to make what could be an expensive decision without full information.

Nicely polished bone can look more like ivory than much of the Mammoth I've seen. Perhaps they should ban that. And Tusq, tagua nuts, and a myriad of other near white, hard substances. Because something looks like something else should it be banned?
The mammoth ivory I have seen ranges from cream to chocolate to blue. Not hard to distinguish. But some I've seen could pass for elephant ivory. But it isn't, and a trained inspector can tell the difference. Are we banning things to make someone's job easier?
Using this reasoning many non endangered wood products would be banned because they look like protected species to the untrained casual observer. Where do you draw the line?

I agree with Alan that FWI looks nothing like Mammoth Ivory. Though I have seen people try to sell EI as FWI. They are dis similar in weight, hardness, color and especially figuring.
FWI is already restricted and everything being sold commercially should be coming from Eskimo Indian lands as they can still take it on cultural grounds.
I doubt I would mistake Mammoth Ivory for Elephant Ivory also, but I have seen more ivory than most.

Too much trouble for me. I would rather use bone or some horn. It may be that ivory is great or even magical but at this point it is worth avoiding.

_________________
久保
美智え

Clay S wrote:
"Because something looks like something else should it be banned?"

There have already been problems along those lines. Yes, in effect, they're banning things that look like endangered species because it's hard for untrained people to tell them apart. This is not new. White MOP looks like endangered South African White Abalone, and that's one reason there are paperwork requirements for international trade in things with MOP. People have had guitars stopped at the border because they had MOP dots, and had to jump through some hoops, I'm told. The hell of it is that, according to Chuck Erikson, who should know, S.A. Ab has never been used as an inlay material, so the whole issue is bogus.

To reiterate: although I'm all for what they're trying to do I certainly don't like the way they're going about it. That's really beside the point: the laws are there, and unless we can muster enough support to get them changed we're going to have to deal with them. Given that luthiers are barely a rounding error in the economy it's hard to see how we're going to get anybody to pay attention to our concerns.

"Given that luthiers are barely a rounding error in the economy it's hard to see how we're going to get anybody to pay attention to our concerns."

This is the double edged sword. Most people won't look for ivory products and shell attached to musical instruments, so it won't be a problem. But in a few instances it will. Much the same as Brazilian rosewood.

"Too much trouble for me. I would rather use bone or some horn. It may be that ivory is great or even magical but at this point it is worth
avoiding."

But who says you will be allowed to? Polished bone to the untrained eye, looks much the same as ivory. Some of the inner dentine layers of Mammoth look much the same as horn (which is an inferior material). If lookalikes are banned why not bone and horn? At what point do regulators have to take responsibility for identifying the particular products they wish to regulate?

Clay S. wrote:
"This is the double edged sword. Most people won't look for ivory products and shell attached to musical instruments, so it won't be a problem."

Except, of course, that the Customs agents are well aware that things like BRW and ivory are used on musical instruments, so they check. And, yes, sometimes they get it wrong. There was a European orchestra that came into NY a few months ago and had almost all of their bows impounded. They had paperwork for all of them, stating that there s no ivory on them, but that was discounted. In one case a bow was not impounded while an exact duplicate was. They got them all back in the end, after paying a fine; apparently the paperwork was not up to snuff. Eventually, if that sort of idiocy happens enough times, we'll see some changes. Otherwise it will take a test case, and who can afford that?

Yall keep killing these mammoths they are going to go extinct....[FACE WITH STUCK-OUT TONGUE AND WINKING EYE]

Carry on now I'm done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Folks, Zeke is here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress...

It makes me think I should think about using the ivory I have only on the instruments I plan to keep or give to close family members. It is certainly more treacherous ground than I anticipated a few years back when I first bought the stuff.

Seems like the shape of the wind is visible on the waters in this case. I wouldn't invest...

I love the look and workability of mammoth ivory. I am never again going to buy any or use it if they pass the bill banning it here in California. Probably won't buy it even if they don't pass the bill because they will pass it at some point. They are nuts in this state. You can't raise frogs to sell for food but you can raise just about any other higher animal. You can't use shells of sea critters that you have taken legally with a fishing license but you can use the same shells if you find them on the beach. It's an asylum with the lunatics in charge. I completely disagree that banning mammoth ivory will have a positive effect on elephants. The exact opposite will likely be the case.

_________________
Michael F Smith
Goat Rock Ukulele
http://goatrockukulele.com