Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Woods used on the 78s Sunbursts/CITES problem


Recommended Posts

This a CITES thing I could need some help from the „old ones“ here. Story goes as follows:

I bought a 78 Sunburst on behalf of a member here. We were pretty sure that shipping to the States wouldn‘t be a problem since I got it registrated at the local authorities pretty quick. But now the national officials starts to make some buzz about this, and they want some kind of official confirmation that no Rio rosewood was used for the fingerboard. Now they want me to get an expertise from some university expert.

Before doing so I contacted Jol via facebook (his statement would help), but no luck so far. So heres my question: Is there an old producion log from 78 saying something about the wood used for the fingerboards? I am not sure if this will help, but since the company itself is out of business and the guitar is 40 yrs old now I would give it a try (before driving the guitar for 600 km, and, much worse, keep the buyer waiting for some more weeks).

Any help would be mucho appreciated. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought. Brazilian Rosewood didn't become a CITES listed wood until 1990. Since you are talking about a 1978 Sunburst, maybe you could gain some traction by proving the manufacture date and pointing out that, even if it is Brazilian rosewood, it's export would not be governed by CITES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, currypowder said:

Just a thought. Brazilian Rosewood didn't become a CITES listed wood until 1990. Since you are talking about a 1978 Sunburst, maybe you could gain some traction by proving the manufacture date and pointing out that, even if it is Brazilian rosewood, it's export would not be governed by CITES.

In this case, the Customs people aren't nearly as concerned about how old the wood or the guitar is, but they want to know what kind of wood it is.  Woodwise, to them a 1934 Martin D-28 is the same as a 1968 D-28; if it has Brazilian rosewood, it falls under whatever restrictions there are on Brazilian rosewood.  And if they can't tell or nobody knows what kind of rosewood it is, they're probably going to err on the side of caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man. I get the why behind CITES came to be but this is beyond dumb. If the transfer of the wood predated the regulation that should be that. But oh no, can’t have customs officials thinking logically....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" applies. People may have good intentions, but they implement the most stupid policies without caring about the absurd consequences which follow. That the average person's liberty in exchanging goods should be compromised because of some treaty is beyond foolish. Someone needs to rewrite that treaty to apply specifically to industry and not the sale of personal goods so that the average citizen isn't hassled like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HamerDave said:

Man. I get the why behind CITES came to be but this is beyond dumb. If the transfer of the wood predated the regulation that should be that. But oh no, can’t have customs officials thinking logically....

Would you rather pay for the training required to bring all customs officials up to speed on identifying all brands of guitars years of manufacturer by serial number or some other easily reliable means?  Keeping in mind that STILL won't be good enough to identify when the wood was harvested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FGJ said:

This is where "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" applies. People may have good intentions, but they implement the most stupid policies without caring about the absurd consequences which follow. That the average person's liberty in exchanging goods should be compromised because of some treaty is beyond foolish. Someone needs to rewrite that treaty to apply specifically to industry and not the sale of personal goods so that the average citizen isn't hassled like this.

The point IS to hassle the average citizen along with importer/exporters to divert the usuage of an unnecessarily overharvested species and to tamp down the general demand. Like most laws, they don’t make it impossible, there are just some potential consequences to challenging them. 

Big picture. Some guitars may not ever leave the countries they’re currently in. Not as big a deal as losing an entire tree species due to humans being humans (consume, consume!!). Yes, other industries may be just as or more responsible, but the Musical Instrument Industry is a very destructive and wasteful one. Slight inconvenience and wait for something you really want isn’t that big of a deal...

oops. Fell off my soap box..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything in The Book about it? Presenting that would look rather authoritative to a customs person I would think. Then again, one never really knows who they are dealing with in these situations. Seems like the most extensive training they get on the matter is to go spastic when they see brown-ish wood. Or not, depending on mood, wind direction, day of the week etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logs wouldn't have specified what wood/species was used.  In many cases back then, Rosewood was Rosewood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cmatthes said:

The logs wouldn't have specified what wood/species was used.  In many cases back then, Rosewood was Rosewood.

That‘s what I thought. Off to Munich, then...🛵

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that ALL rosewood species (or wood that looks like it might be a rosewood) needs import and export certification proving that the item was manufactured before the CITES ban. The UK one costs about £70.

99% certain all Sunburst fingerboards are Indian rosewood… and definitely requires certification to cross borders. Without it, the guitar could be legally destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FGJ said:

This is where "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" applies. People may have good intentions, but they implement the most stupid policies without caring about the absurd consequences which follow. That the average person's liberty in exchanging goods should be compromised because of some treaty is beyond foolish. Someone needs to rewrite that treaty to apply specifically to industry and not the sale of personal goods so that the average citizen isn't hassled like this.

"Hassling" the "average citizen" is the intent.  Or "hassling" your political enemies (Gibson for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^ 

I respect the environment and do NOT like wastefulness of any sort.  However well-intended it might be, this CITES thing has been a three alarm dumpster fire from the start.  FGJ’s comments about the “road to hell” are spot on – but now leveraged to a globally bureaucratic level with the backings of governments to take your instruments and destroy them.   How wonderful.

If I recall correctly, the bulk of the exotic/protected woods harvest globally for the last few decades go to the furniture and flooring industry.  Another example, massive quantities of Sitka Spruce were ground up into pulp to make disposable diapers that ended up in your local landfill.  

Yet, the ENTIRE musical instrument industry’s consumption in this regard is somewhere near or below 1% !?!?   They really should exempt musical instruments from this whole cluster-f*ck.   Sorry – rant off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, cynic said:

Would you rather pay for the training required to bring all customs officials up to speed on identifying all brands of guitars years of manufacturer by serial number or some other easily reliable means?  Keeping in mind that STILL won't be good enough to identify when the wood was harvested.  

You bring up an excellent point. No, I wouldn’t want to train all those folks but, being an IT guy, I can see where it shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to have a database capable of informing those nice people whether or not a given instrument is subject to CITES or not.. With AI and machine learning, like Watson, you could potentially crawl all of the publicly available records and pull it together fairly quickly. So, if customs officials are like most government employees, they don’t need to actually know anything. They just need to be told what to do. Tech can help.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andrew said:

99% certain all Sunburst fingerboards are Indian rosewood… and definitely requires certification to cross borders. Without it, the guitar could be legally destroyed.

Because that will save a tree harvested 40 years ago. Can’t change the past. Responsible sourcing and proper regulation going forward are the best course of action imho 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HamerDave said:

So, if customs officials are like most government employees, they don’t need to actually know anything.

Not the first time a member here has shown their disdain for gov't employees, but it always surprises me.

2 hours ago, HamerDave said:

I can see where it shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to have a database capable of informing those nice people whether or not a given instrument is subject to CITES or not.

In many if not most cases, that information simply doesn't exist for guitars built prior to 1992.  Beyond that, there are a shit ton of guitars made after 1992 that also lack provenance.  On the flip side, you've got "experts" who are "confirming" Brazilian rosewood in cases it most likely isn't.  I can't remember who, but there was a member here who felt fairly certain most every 70s/early 80s Hamer guitar had BR and claimed to have some shop in Europe "authenticating" them for him.  It''s a mess so big even IT can't help.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 18, 2018 at 5:04 PM, cynic said:

Would you rather pay for the training required to bring all customs officials up to speed on identifying all brands of guitars years of manufacturer by serial number or some other easily reliable means?  Keeping in mind that STILL won't be good enough to identify when the wood was harvested.  

First, there's a principle in law (at least in this country) that one is presumed innocent until proven guilt. If someone is going to pass such a treaty, they should bear the burden of proving someone is in violation of their treaty and not place the burden on individuals to prove their innocence.

Second, if the vast resources of the state are incapable of identifying wood, what makes anyone think the limited resources of a citizen are capable of doing so? Again, let the state bear the burden of taking up such a task.

Finally, someone else mentioned that these burdensome regulations are intended to hassle the individual and that such harassment is supposed to save trees, or something to that effect (a classic example of "the road to hell..."). But as has already been pointed out, hassling people over dead wood saves zero trees. Moreover, trees are simply a crop. Plant them, cut them down, plant again, rinse, lather, repeat. As long as it's done responsibly, there's no reason to prevent the use of trees. Perhaps the focus ought to be on the responsible cultivation of resources like trees and not the banning of their use or trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't address my point. Reiterating the current state of affairs isn't equivalent to justifying it.

Why isn't the focus on enforcing responsible cultivation rather than harassing individuals and presuming their guilt, forcing them to do what the state itself is unwilling or unable to do?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FGJ said:

That doesn't address my point. Reiterating the current state of affairs isn't equivalent to justifying it.

Why isn't the focus on enforcing responsible cultivation rather than harassing individuals and presuming their guilt, forcing them to do what the state itself is unwilling or unable to do?

 

Exactly! The Palm Oil Industry devastates more rain forrests every day than the guitar industry does in a 100 years. That is a problem for all of mankind. I can not understand why the goverments don't ban the use of palm oil all together.

http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/Whats_the_issue.php

https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/palm-oil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, again, banning palm oil isn't the equivalent of responsible cultivation. Banning Palm oil is an extremist solution. Why not simply cultivate the trees and only use what can be replaced at a sustainable rate? We don't ban cornflakes because we're worried about running out of corn. We just plant more corn. (I realize cultivating trees takes longer, but my point remains; i.e. Limit use to a rate that can be replaced.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not how exploitation, poaching and end-arounds to regulation work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FGJ said:

Well, again, banning palm oil isn't the equivalent of responsible cultivation. Banning Palm oil is an extremist solution. Why not simply cultivate the trees and only use what can be replaced at a sustainable rate? We don't ban cornflakes because we're worried about running out of corn. We just plant more corn. (I realize cultivating trees takes longer, but my point remains; i.e. Limit use to a rate that can be replaced.)

Corn isn't good for you or the environment. Or any of the animals it is fed to. And it's not good for your car or your wallet. If people would wake up to that the problem would take care of itself.  Palm oil is a bit trickier as we are dealing with 3rd world countries where slash and burn cultivation is the norm. The people cant see past putting food in their babies tummies one more day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ting Ho Dung said:

 Palm oil is a bit trickier as we are dealing with 3rd world countries where slash and burn cultivation is the norm. The people cant see past putting food in their babies tummies one more day. 

Definitely agree on the corn comments. It ain’t no good! Just a filler. Ever wonder why it shows up in stool so often? ;)

This comment is exactly the same reason why we are where we are with rose woods (Indian/Braz) and abalone and Honduran Mahogany, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...