What you own is not a problem, it is when you try to sell it that you may have a problem.

Which at some stage we, or our heirs, will do.

But buying from overseas dealers is getting dicier with each passing day.

US situation
 

Could anyone please give a summary of the current regulations in the US and its states?

I know these go beyond the established international CITES measures (including practically banning import/export connected with any commercial transaction IIRC) but just haven't kept track...

How about the status of the judicial challenge in California and possibly other states?

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Kai

US - UK?
 

Hello Sylektis,

Thanks lot lot for bringing this case to our attention - not being my focus of interest I completely missed that these pieces got crippled and cultural heritage of mankind lost (and apparently destroyed)!

It seems these examples were from the Bonhams auction on May 11th, 2016, at London. I really would like to know how this happened - did you contact Bonhams before the auction?

Regards,
Kai

Ariel, I have personally passed on buying these items only recently. Luckily I only have a few items with ivory, and remember that ivory can come from several sources. There will certainly be a black market for antique weapons with ivory hilts, inlay etc. If you can not openly and accurately describe the hilt material and inlay on your weapons how do you sell the without worrying about the buyer coming back on you someday if they eventually have a problem.

Hopefully some very rich and powerful collector has to deal with this problem, that may be the only way we will ever get any help.

David, the gentleman who gave me his ivory hilts cannot be thought of as a collector. Yes, he does have some small collections of various artifacts, but essentially he is a consultant in S.E.Asian art, his principal clients are museums and governmental bodies. He consults to museums, curates their exhibitions and writes accompanying material.

He has no faith at all that ivory artifacts held by museums in the U.S.A. will remain untouched in the long term. This is the reason he needed to find a safe place for his ivory hilts, he needed to move outside the reach of governmental bodies in the U.S.A.

Looking at the situation another way. You have to ask why did the auction house carry on with the sale? You could see them as equal in the mindless vandalism. There motivation was money with obvious disregard for what is artwork. Had I been the manager I would have refused to take the objects in. There may be a black market for some very fine works but for most ivory pieces , who really wants to spend large sums of money on something you will loose on. Antique values can go up and down just like other investments. You can pass them on or swap them. If I was weathy enough to have pieces of the quality shown here I would donate them to a museum or university or give to a friend on my demise.
.

THE ONES WITH THE JOB OF MAKING NEW CITES REGULATIONS AND LAWS DON'T CARE IF LAWS ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS OR ARE GOOD OR BAD. THEY JUST NEED TO KEEP CRANKING OUT NEW ONES TO KEEP THEIR JOBS SO THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH REGULATIONS OR LAWS FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. THOSE HIRED TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS ARE HIRED TO MAKE NO DISTINCTION BUT ONLY TO CONFISCATE , DESTROY, FINE OR PROSECUTE ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. SO FOSSIL OR ANTIQUE , CULTURAL OR MASTERPIECE MEANS NOTHING TO THEM IF ITS ON THE LIST THE LAW MUST BE ENFORCED. THE ZOOS WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A HAVEN FOR THE BREEDING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE ALSO UNDER ATTACK TO FREE WILLY EVEN IF WILLIE CAN NOT SURVIVE IN THE WILD AND LOVES THE ONLY LIFE HE EVER HAS KNOWN. MUSEUMS ARE NOT SAFE FROM THEM EITHER. HUMANS ARE NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT SPECIES BUT THE MOST MIXED UP. :(

If not exported could the ivory, if not damaged, be given free to the buyer to reattach??

Tim, are asking about the ivory taken from the items this post is originally about? If you are, once our government gets its hands on something you have a better chance of capturing bigfoot than you do of ever getting it back from them. :(

i have removed mine as Mr kronckew is gentlemanly enough to remove his.

My apology for being rather abrasive .

All is fine now mr Kronckew.

i have removed the anecdotes in the post #25 & here as they offended you.

We should not be going here, it will just cause problems.

they did! the west should admit and not forget these travesties either. and don't forget the holocaust! we cannot learn from the mistakes if we are not aware of them.

the destruction of these antique ivory items is a cultural disaster for all cultures, and as in the past we are not acknowledging, based on the beliefs of the destroyers that they are doing good and following the beliefs they were taught. they need to be taught better tho.

This discussion is about the current horrible situation which many dealers and collectors now find themselves in, they have invested untold amounts of money on items that were completely legal and suddenly, without any thought of compensation, they are told that their items are now virtually worthless and that they may in fact be considered as criminals if they were to try and sell their formerly legally obtained items.

You should remove the remarks from post #42 as well, they are just as if not more offensive.

i done, how about yours & green's?

mods: please remove our 'offensive' posts, my intent was not to offend. unfortunately just like bonham's, i appear to have gone overboard. when one is digging themselves into a hole, it's best to stop digging.

Disregard


Gavin

As would I, as it is premature to make directed criticisms without such details. Some of the defaced lots still sold at a good price relative to the estimates, though I lack knowledge of what the value was prior to to defacement.

Also, I would like to remind members offended by the remarks of other members that the appropriate action is to report the thread and your concerns to a moderator, not to launch a criticism or rebuttal within the thread.

Hello Gavin,

FWIW, in the US, they also continue to auction this (no link to keep with forum policies).

I *suspect* that this is/was not an issue of the auction house (they were fairly upfront with their reference to Oliver's book).

It seems more likely that this happened during transit (from the US to the UK?) or, less likely, with the consignee (also note that the affected items were delayed and not included in the main Wagner auction).

Regards,
Kai

I do not like the ban but for me the more I think about it. The responsibility for the vandalism falls with the auction house and the person putting the items up for auction. Leaving ideas of monetary values aside both have failed in their duty of care and guardianship of the art. I ask if they were ever seen as art or investment.

I have no answers, all I can do is shake my head.
To me it is unbelievable that such art -work could be destroyed.
This is incompetence at the highest level, and an action should be brought against the auction house before this becomes the norm.
(Or is it Already the norm??)

Unbelievable.

It's nice to see how well you all are capable of following my advise from post #30. :(
Frankly i am not particularly in favor of having to slash and burn entire parts of threads because some members are incapable of taking a moment to consider the impact of their words BEFORE they hit the "submit reply" button. Please stick to the issue at hand and leave religion and politics out of your responses. And maybe we should take a closer look at the ACTUAL LAWS as they stand today to avoid some of the panic and hyperbole i see brewing here. These laws govern COMMERCE of ivory, not ownership. As they currently stand they do not sanction the raiding of either museums or private collections. That is not to say that even as they stand these laws aren't problematic. Banning the sale of pre-CITES ivory, and certainly antique ivory, should be taken off the books. Gaining certification for such antique ivory should be made a simple and affordable process. Destruction of these pieces is a despicable act. But as the laws exist today they do NOT empower the U.S. government to raid your home to confiscate your private collection (though if you are dealing in these items a raid could take place that does not distinguish between your sales stock and your personal items). I absolutely agree that collectors should be able to sell off their collections and understand that for many collecting these objects is an investment as well as a passion. That is the aspects of these laws that must be addressed by a unified force of antique collectors. Are there any known petitions on this issue currently circulating? Is anybody doing any kind of organizing around this issue? Because i am pretty sure that collectors just sitting around complaining to each other on internet forums will not change anything at all. The case must be compiled calmly and intelligently with a well thought out process mapping alternatives and examples and presented though proper channels to authorities that might be open to a review of these laws.
If by now collectors are still unaware, here are the rules as they currently exist. Certain aspects of these rules remain unfortunately vague in places:
http://www.fws.gov/international/tra...d-answers.html
As a general practice i do not buy any weapon with ivory dress parts that must come through customs. Currently the risk is far too great and that's a pair of ivory dice i refuse to roll.

People that want ivory dressed weapons must set up their own regional online exchange and private sales sites. Not cross borders or using auction houses.

What is so dumb of the case here, is why a private sale was not sought in the first place, which is why the auction house and seller have been unbelievably stupid and possibly appallingly greedy.

Collectors sitting around complaining may provide the impetus for further, organised action. I hold little hope that the legal nightmares which spring from the CITES treaty can be easily remedied by going through "proper channels" - it is these selfsame channels that developed the "solution" to the problem, at the behest of emotionally overwrought "activists".

The only effective way to remove such obstacles is by generating a similar appeal to the emotions, which can be harnessed to produce a counterforce response.

The relevant question I see here is, will this site provide a node of contact for concerned collectors and curators to attempt some sort of pushback, or will this be denied as unwelcome political speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ivory-poaching
"Philippe Martin the minister for ecology, durable development and energy, added that all ivory seized in France in future would be destroyed, apart from samples kept for scientific or educational purposes and those items that might help trace traffickers."

Bob, organizing collectors to create an appropriate the pushback that can addresses this issue in the right places was not the kind of political speech i was concerned about. ;)

It looks like the vast majority of what is being destroyed in this article is recently poached raw ivory with a few statues and such made from it, not antiques that hold a cultural, anthropological or archeological value beyond the materials. I believe as collectors it is the latter we should place our attention on with the intent of creating exceptions to the laws in the case of pre-CITES or antique ivory. I seems it would be a losing battle to try to sway these authorities from this kind of destruction of obviously poached ivory and frankly i don't have a issue with that per se. It is the culturally valuable antiques that i don't want to see destroyed and i believe we have a logical and supportable case to be made for the protection of such specimens from destruction.

THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO PROVISION FOR OR CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REGISTERING PRE- BAN IVORY ITEMS TO MAKE THEM LEGAL AND EXEMPT FROM DESTRUCTION. THIS SHOULD BE A EASY AND INEXPENSIVE PROCESS BUT SELDOM IS AND OFTEN IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT FOR HAVING SUCH BANNED ITEMS AND IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE ITEMS WILL NOT BE CONFISCATED TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE ALREADY PLENTY OF CITES LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALLOWING THE RAIDING AND CONFISCATION OF VARIOUS ITEMS FROM PERSONAL COLLECTIONS AND BUSINESSES THAT CAN BE APPLIED. THESE LAWS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH THE CITIZEN WHO IS CONSIDERED THE ENEMY BUT TO PUNISH AND MAKE AN EXAMPLE WHEN EVER POSSIBLE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AS NO ELEPHANTS ARE SAVED THRU SUCH ACTS AND ART IS OFTEN DESTROYED. COLLECTORS AND DEALERS MAY LOSE MILLIONS ON ANTIQUES WHICH SHOULD BE LEGAL. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF A RARE RESOURCE ARE DESTROYED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO COMBAT POACHING WHILE ASKING FOR DONATIONS TO FIGHT POACHING AND SAVE THE ELEPHANTS. IT IS LIKELY THE MONEY USED TO FUND THE ORGANIZATIONS WILL EXCEED THAT ACTUALLY USED TO SAVE ELEPHANTS HABITAT OR FROM POACHING.
I TIE UP MY MONEY AND TAKE CARE OF THE THINGS I LIKE AND COLLECT FOR YEARS AND HOPE TO RECOUP MY MONEY BY SELLING THEM TO SOMEONE WHO WILL DO THE SAME AT SOME TIME IN MY LIFE. FOR SUCH A COLLECTION TO LOSE ALL ITS VALUE AND TO DENY ANY POSSIBILITY OF PRESERVING AND PASSING IT ON DUE TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS EVIL. ITS ONLY LOGICAL TO DO THINGS THIS WAY IF IT IS INTENDED TO BE EVIL.

The first step would seem to be to inquire if there are other groups involved in re-working the restrictions on antique ivory. (Musicians come to mind, as I understand the bits of old ivory on such items as violin bows have created difficulties for professional orchestras considering international travel).

If anyone is aware of such activity, this might be a good place to post information, as we marshal our forces toward some sort of reasonable solution.

I think VANDOO's idea of creating some sort of registry, while cumbersome and intrusive in the extreme, might work as an interim concept.