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.

In many countries across the board firearms registration is required. This sometimes becomes ridiculous to the point of idiocy, for instance, in NSW, Australia, it is required to register and possess a licence to use, a child's BB gun.

History demonstrates that frequently registration of those things not favoured by ruling entities is a precursor to seizure.

The problem is that this business of ivory seizure is only a symptom of the overall changes in societal values, values that many of us, myself included, have a great deal of difficulty in accepting as either desirable or legitimate.

The fact that these societal changes have been accepted by an overwhelming percentage of the populace in countries that subscribe to the current form of Western Democracy has only been made possible by social engineering.

It is not possible to reason with fanatics. These anti-ivory beings are not logical people, they subscribe to a system of belief that in many of its aspects is immoral, rotten, and undermines the very fabric of a just and moderate society.

Certainly it is always best to try to win any conflict without actually getting involved in a fight, but when one is dealing with people who live in accordance with a belief system that in many of its philosophies parallels a religious belief, one must question if it is possible to defeat these beings without drawing a little blood? (figuratively speaking, of course)

For those who are directly affected by these obnoxious imitations of humanity and the edicts that they have generated, perhaps the writings of Sun Tzu may be of use.

Basically, if you live in the US, your ivory hilted and inlaid weapons are not legal to sell or transport, you would have to get a permit which in most cases would be impossible from what I am reading. Anyone have a different opinion. Soon European countries may inact the same or similar total bans, then what?

http://www.fws.gov/international/tra...nswers.html#27

http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210A1.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-18487.pdf

The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has a website that seems to track individual state laws regarding ivory. The definition of what comprises "ivory" has been expanded to an otherwise ridiculous extent (if it were not for its state of origin) in California.

http://www.aaps-journal.org/Fossil-I...gislation.html

Governments have gotten way out of hand.

The firearms restrictions mentioned by Alan are in effect to some degree even in firearm-friendly USA, notably in CA, NY, NJ, MA and MD, which states are noteworthy in their crusade against ivory ownership. Elsewhere, as forces of PC activism have managed to roil the waters regarding police maintenance of social order, restrictions have been eased by a remarkable extent, as the populace acts to take up arms while it is still possible to do so. This gives me hope that the pendulum is swinging back toward a more rational worldview overall. It may take a generation or so to do so, of course.

Meanwhile, hold your politically incorrect antique artifacts closely, transfer them by inheritance, which is currently about the only legal course, and locate all those receipts which you kept since the 1970s.

It may be too early to contemplate the maxims of Sun Tzu, but it seems that only those of us of a certain advanced age recall the relative freedoms which we enjoyed in our youth. It may be that we will be called upon to attempt their reinstatement.

Bob, inheritance does not give the current owner any rights as far as I can see until you do some further proving of the inherited item....there is no excape except for a few determined individuals who just happen to have the rare proof needed to be granted an exemption.

So?
 

"What're you in for?"
"Inheriting a 200 year old Ivory handled sword." :rolleyes:

They are all "bone" hilted swords and daggers as of now!!!

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

Ariel, very problematic, rhino is now "horn" and walrus is bone, I have also seen several sellers lately that somehow forgot to mention the hilt material at all on items they were selling. I think if not sold soon we may eventually have almost no way of selling these items and will just have to keep them as momentos. I just went through what I owned and found several suspect items I forgot about, not sure what to do now.

As I see it, 4 things that contribute at a foundational level to this issue:

1. the problem of telling the difference between pre-ban 1976 and 1989 ivory versus recent "kill" ivory.

2. laziness of administrators not bothering to learn the difference between 100 aged ivory and recent ivory.

3. the question of fossilzed ivory

4. the problem of illegal black market ivory pumped into the US - a HUGE underground market

Greed meet Vandalism.
No respect for nothing except money.
Poor and hollowly modern world.

The trend is for the various individual states to ban all forms of ivory, to keep it simple. (See link above).

Antiques incorporating ivory no longer cross the auction block in MA.

We did discuss this once before i believe, but a test has been developed for at least determining if an ivory object is pre-1947 or not though carbon-14 tests.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environ...-ban-1-1363787
Obviously there should be no problem at all determining the legitimacy of fossilized ivory. :shrug: ;)

...carbon 14 tests are not cheap. in 2012 it cost around £450 (US$ 650) per. might be worth it on the upper end items tho.

All very distressing in the face of a legal system that is based on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Well, firstly, i have seen testing offered for less than that. Also, as with any technology, prices could drop over time as methods are perfected and more people require the service. So i don't necessarily see this as a monetarily restrictive dead end.

Carbon dating will always cost more than your ivory handle dha is worth unless it is exceptional. All this stuff is what you might call top end which is all a matter of taste really.
:) :)

In the USA you can find it for as little as $250-$300. I don't know that much about the testing procedure, but it seems possible that since testing ivory to determine a pre-1947 date requires only a single indicator they may be able to make such a test even cheaper. And as i mentioned before if more people are getting the test it may also be possible to do it for a lower cost as there would be a larger testing base to cover equipment costs and set-up. Of course, it would be ideal if the onus of proof were on the authority rather than the collector. If you think my ivory is post-CITES then YOU prove it. One can dream... :)

Please accept my apologies for the length of this post.
If you are more interested in ivory than in social justice and logic, don't read any further.

It seems that once again I am well and truly out of step with everybody else.

When I read through this thread from start to finish the impression I gain is that everybody wants to focus on how unfair it is that the duly constituted authorities enforce the laws and regulations governing the sale of Elephant ivory in ways that are contrary to long established and generally accepted standards of law and justice.

In other words everybody accepts that the laws and regs are themselves just, but that the application and enforcement of these laws are unjust.

Although I acknowledge that this conflict between the just and the unjust enforcement of law is a reality, my attitude to the laws concerned is entirely different to the attitude that others taking part in this discussion seem to possess.

I see this entire matter of the protection of a species, specifically the African Elephant, and to a lesser degree the Indian Elephant, in an entirely different light.

If there is a universally held opinion that there is the risk of these elephants becoming extinct, and that it is essential that action be taken for their preservation, the entire problem comes down to a relatively simple matter:- risk and control.

The objective of all this anti-ivory law is to ensure the continued existence of the elephant.

The risk is that the elephants will cease to exist.

The control must be designed to act against this risk.

There are two types of control:- preventative controls, and detective controls. Preventative controls stop something from happening, detective controls reveal when something has happened.

What we have at the present time, in respect of elephant ivory, is an extremely strong structure of detective controls and an extremely weak structure of preventative controls.

The detective controls are what everybody here has been talking about:- laws governing the detection of elephant ivory, and punishment for breach of those laws. Regrettably, those laws are being abused, indeed, the fact that materials to which the laws do not apply are also being unjustly subjected to the provisions of these laws, amounts to no less than a perversion of justice.

The laws are a control intended to assist in achievement of the objective, which is the preservation of the elephant, but when a control is misused it is weakened, and that is precisely what has happened in this case:- these laws as currently enforced do absolutely nothing to ensure the continued existence of the elephant. Thus, although the structure of the detective controls is strong, the application of those controls has weakened their effectiveness.

The preventative controls that are in place in this matter are extremely weak. They consist of small numbers law enforcement officers who spasmodically control huge areas of elephant habitat. The hope is that these patrols will prevent the unlawful killing of elephants before it happens. If prevention fails, as it often appears to do, at least there is another detective control.

The other element of control that forms a part of the preventative control is the penalty imposed upon those who kill elephants. These penalties are very, very lenient, for example in Kenya as at 2013 the maximum penalty for the most serious of wildlife crimes was a maximum fine that equated to about $US450, or a possible jail term of ten years. I do not know the current penalties.

In the design of control against risk there is a hierarchy applied that governs the strength of control design, put simply, where something must be prevented at all cost the control is as strong as it can be made; where it is not so important that something be prevented, the control can be weaker.

It seems obvious to me that in the case of The Elephants, nobody really cares if they live or die:-
the detective controls have been weakened by a mode of enforcement that is nothing short of perversion of justice
the preventative controls have been weakened by ineffective enforcement and laughable penalties.

If there is an overwhelming desire to ensure the continued existence of the elephant, then we have something that must be prevented from happening, no matter what the cost may be.
In other words the preventative controls must be as strong as possible.

Strong controls are expensive.

The countries where elephants live are not wealthy countries.

It seems obvious to me that the governments of developed countries must not only contribute sufficient funds to allow the application of effective preventative controls, but must also offer personnel with the requisite skills to apprehend suspected elephant killers before they can kill.

Equally, penalties for the killing of elephants must be as Draconian as it is possible to make them. The penalties must deter any prospective elephant killer. I would envisage something along the lines of the death penalty, not only for the killer, but for his entire extended family, and for any person who had any involvement in the killing, both before and after the fact.

If my attitude seems just a little too harsh, then perhaps we should take a long step back and ask exactly what is important to us.

If it is the preservation of The Elephant, then no measures taken to ensure this can be considered to be unreasonable

However, if it is the preservation of a just and well managed society then perhaps we should direct our attention to the people within our societies who would have us humanise animals, strip us of the right to self defence, and disavow the long established principles which have strengthened our societies, principles that enshrine the Family as the basic building block of a strong nation.

These corruptors of our way of life, our societies, and our children are the true enemy here. They are a cancer , destroying our way of life from the inside.

This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us.

Loud shout-out form Alan's Amen Corner here!

I've seen the disarming of the public in UK, Australia and parts of USA, and the consequences that follow are not pretty. The same people involved in that are busy building regulatory states, run by unelected administrators against whose judgements there is no recourse.

This has changed the essential nature of Western Civilisation (so-called) to a great degree, and not for the better, in my opinion and that of others whose life experience is long enough to have viewed the change.

Education has faltered, and the collective attention-span of the average person has diminished. It is difficult to become informed of the actual goings-on in the world, as attention is constantly diverted to "shiny objects" of little importance. (By way of example, a young man with whom I work was totally flabbergasted when I showed him a map of the Chinese nine-dash line and explained what was going on).

Meanwhile, hundreds of self-sufficient societies have been brought to the brink of extinction, and the skills needed to survive in a situation where modern communication and electrification might become unavailable for a time are sadly lacking in most developed areas. Much of the West is a week away from chaos under these circumstances, and governments responsible for the welfare of their citizens are heedless and unprepared.

But we can seek out ivory, and tortoiseshell, and save the Spotted Owl, and trade carbon offsets while China burns enough coal to cover California in soot.

Something is wrong, and a few people are beginning to notice. If our systems are robust enough, we might persevere.

The elephant in the room is not the elephant. It's the consequences of corruption, fiscal, mental and moral, at the highest levels.