New Jersey Ivory ban....

[drac2k]

I wouldn't count on it ; I think that is what all of the Indian artifact collectors were saying ! While we are waiting for them to do something, the government(s), advance their agenda. It is about control ; each incremental step they take , each erosion of personal freedom, are rights lost ,never to be regained .
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Africans have died of Malaria because of the banning of DDT; it was said to have thinned the eagle eggshell.Does the math add up ? Is each eagle worth 100,00 lives? Last year the Norfolk Airport shredded 3 or 4 eagles,which it sucked through plane engines ;should we ban jets as well ? Each loss of a privilege has a "Butterfly Effect:"
"for the want of a nail a shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe, a horse was lost ............"

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Lee

There will be the connected rich collectors and the auction houses and others in the art trade who will hire the required legal talent to deal with this absurd situation. ... I hope.

Interestingly a few years ago a big auction house in the UK kept selling whole mounted Rhino horns even when customs said they shouldn't, they stated the would win in court when it came to it, arguing about legal definitions..

Instead of taking them to court within 6 months the Government just introduced even tougher & more detailed laws that they felt unable to argue against.

spiral

[Andrew]

Indeed.

And yet, antique ivory is so much more common and ubiquitous than rare rhino horn...

Hope springs eternal.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Indeed.

And yet, antique ivory is so much more common and ubiquitous than rare rhino horn...

Hope springs eternal.

Very true Andrew, us Europeans had wiped out c.80% of them by 1920.

And there more family based creatures rather than vast herds, that elephants once were.

Then if horn not stored properly over the years, it gets the eaten by the dreaded dermistids! {& of course always being consumed in old Chinese & Indian medicine.}

But the new range of American state laws seem to be allying ivory & rhino together?

Either way, as much as I would like nature to have a chance to recover a bit, {In truth not very likely to happen. } I sincerely hope true antiques are not destroyed, they are part of history & in a some cases stunning & amazing works of art, as well.

I fear some will be with badly written & enforced laws though.

spiral

[David]

I see a lot of talk on this thread about destroy works of art made of ivory. Aside from this happening in China, is there any real indication that this will now happen in the USA? I don't see any such provision for confiscated ivory art in these articles, though i do know that raw tusks have been destroyed in the past. Is it likely that the US gov't will destroy these works when confiscated, or is it more likely they will turn them over to museums?

[spiral]

Good question David, in truth I don't know...

But here's some photos of the USA ivory crush last November...

Hopefully its all modern crap carved with electrical power tools, but I cant tell.

They would certainly have to build one or two very large dedicated ivory museums I think though.... Which sounds good to me, but of course would also helps popularise ivory, which doesn't seem to be what there doing.

spiral

[David]

Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around.

[drac2k]

WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .

[VANDOO]

FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by David

Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around.

I know what you mean David, but for me the post ww2 electrical tool work is not the same as the old chisel carving , when it comes to art, indeed for the last 30 years the generic conveyer belt art from Chinese sweat shop production lines has been the major consumer of illegal ivory. And to me is not truly gallery quality never mind museum?


I dare say border officials will do a 2 hour course to make them think there experts! But fear the powers that be wont care whether old or new.... The concept as Tim earlier said to to make ivory be seen like something you accidently stepped in a park...

Originally Posted by drac2k

WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .

I understand your reaction & anger Drac2k, but personaly don't see those pieces in the same way as the ancient stone buddhas, there not as old or as skilled & such ivory carvings can be found all over the place still. {The net is full of them for sale...}{Probably because most are not that old?} I also think its worth remembering its not just communists who behave in a fascist manner perhaps?

Originally Posted by VANDOO

FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS.

Interesting Vandoo, I guess that depends on which ban your talking about... the artefacts & tusks crushed where all seized for illegal importation {smuggled.} since 1990 either without paperwork or with false paperwork, thus breaking USA law leading to their siezure. I expect a few pieces may be pre.ww2 but most of the Chinese stuff seems to have bad proportions re.hand versus skull sizes etc..to my eye? So probably by Chinese art standards not particularly old or good?


The African stuff I cant tell, I've seen stuff from the 1930s that looks the same. But without a good loupe & in hand its hard to be sure?


I agree many laws are about subjugation from our "rulers" & whatever games they may play for whatever ulterior motives that drive them..


The people who crushed the ivory probably do nothing to help elephants or rhinos from their likely extinction , nor care less I agree, & if they did sadley even in the animal rescue trade , there probably only a few idealists who initially set it up who do genuinely care, then if they employ rangers, they will by necessity be ex.soldier,guerrilla, bush hunter types... who will also make a few pounds on the side when occasion arises..., its human nature, also in much of Africa corruption is the given as well. {not saying its not the same in the western world either, our politician's & police just try to hide it a little more, perhaps?.}


What can I say: I personaly don't mind a ban on post 1947 ivory & rhino horn, myself... & that cut of age date can be proved.. {at great cost...} But the destruction of items before that date seem nothing but vandalism to me.

The workmanship quality also drastically fell during & post ww2 to my perception as well. In most crafts in most country's.

But The idea that a chair like this can be be crushed.. Or a rhino horn statue like this appals me.

They are true pieces of art, there also historical & can hardly encourage the modern fake trade because their quality is superlative to a degree not viable or probably even possible to manufacture today.

As David rightly pointed out...

"The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around."

spiral

[drac2k]

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !

[spiral]

I see your point...drac2k .& think its mostly true. I think stuff containing precious metals was often melted down in europe though? & some Chinese art was also kept stored & displayed? Much Russian certainly was.

But such discussion normally leads to closing of threads as political. So perhaps we shouldn't continue? If that's ok with you?

It was about the changes in US wildlife laws law & has encompassed many sides of the debate about ivory, without rancour, & is hopefully both informative & thought provoking for as all.as much as it is contentious & concerning.

All the best.
spiral

[David]

Originally Posted by drac2k

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !

As Spiral rightly points out, if you guys don't want to see this thread closed quickly all discussion of politics needs to end now.
I also agree with Spiral that the pieces he showed being lined up for destruction can in no way be compared to the destruction of ancient stone Buddhas or true historically valuable antiques. I still see it as a shame once material has been shaped into art, but such hyperbole is not really helpful to this discussion.

[drac2k]

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

[David]

Originally Posted by drac2k

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

I seriously doubt that any of the statues in Spiral's photo are as old as 100 yrs. old. If any are then they qualify by most people's standards as being "antique". It does not seem to me that antique ivory is being destroyed by the US gov't. If it is it should be stopped. I am not sure whose statement leads you to believe that it is a "common argument" that recently manufactured art is not worthy of protection, but as Spiral has pointed out, these recent Chinese production pieces have neither the quality nor historical value of true antiques. No one suggested that a Durer should be more valuable than a Van Gogh simply because it is an older work. Both are acknowledged and historically important artists. But the same cannot be said of recent nearly mass produced ivory statuary from China. No one suggested that the work must be thousands of years old to be worthy of protection. I clearly mention antiques (which again would mean 100 yrs. or older) though in actuality if we need to draw a line in the sand, i believe that any carved ivory that it pre-CITES (1973) should be exempt from these new laws.

[VANDOO]

WHO IS TO SAY THAT THE GREATEST IVORY CARVER OF ALL TIME DOESN'T LIVE AND WORK TODAY? UNDER THIS LAW HIS GREATEST MASTERPIECES WOULD BE DESTROYED AND HE FINED AND IMPRISONED. THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVEN IF HE CARVED FROM A PRE-CITES STOCK OF IVORY. FOOD FOR THOUGHT
I AGREE MOST OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN OF A POORER QUALITY. AFTER ALL MOST CUSTOMERS ARE NOT KINGS SO NOT ABLE TO AFFORD THE WORK OF THE MASTERS.
A MORE REASONABLE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE FOUND CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION OF ART OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

[David]

Barry, let's keep in mind the actual source of ivory. The killing of these majestic beasts solely for the artistic endeavors of a theoretical "greatest ivory carver of all time" so that the piece can then be sold to rich westerners for their art collections is hardly justifiable in my universe. So, if the greatest human skull carver is out there trying to do his work today should we legalize the taking of human heads for the sake of his art as well?
Stocks of pre-CITES ivory is another question that needs to need looked into, but it seems to me that the only way to stop the illegal trade is to stop ALL new carving of ivory material. Pre-CITES ivory is a limited and finite supply. Who decides who gets to carve it and what happens when that supply runs out and demand for carved ivory pieces continues? As long as the market for new ivory carvings continues people will find illegal ways to fill it. IMHO the master ivory carver needs to move on to a different material. Continuing to carve new ivory pieces (even if it is pre-CITES material) only continues to drive the market for the stuff and encourages the poachers
My only concern, and what should be the only real concern of antique collectors (weapons or otherwise) everywhere, is the question of antique and pre-CITES carvings and usage. I have no tears for the latest and greatest ivory art carver and his woes about the possible destruction of his latest masterpiece. There are many other materials to carve that don't take the lives of elephants or other ivory bearing animals.

[drac2k]

David, you have just come up with the solution that has been evading all of us; the carving of human sculls.This is not a new tradition, but an old one dating from before the Viking scull mead cups, to the Tibetan practice of bone carving.The Dyaks, Igorots , and others also adorned heads that they took.
There is no need to sanction the illegal taking of heads as there are plenty around the world that could be had cheaply ; one immediate source I can think of would be from Isis, who don't seem to be utilizing them other than for terror purposes! I know, maybe you think that would be encouraging the illegal taking of heads, so I propose that when people die, if they wish, they could sell their bones to whomever they wanted to, to carve as they wish, irregardless of their skills.
I personally have been told that I have a huge head(my wife affectionately calls me bucket head);I would gladly sell it(to be taken after my death),to a "master carver," to do as he wished.Based on the size and bone density and small brain cavity, I am sure it would fetch a high price.I would also donate 10% of the proceeds to a game reserve in penance for any ivory that I might have purchased in the past by accident !

[spiral]

Interesting chaps, personally Vandoo I don't think the best carver of anything will be around today... because he will use electric power tools for speed...{time equals money.} so he may have an artistic eye but its not like the 1920 when it was all done with micro chisels where you needed to understand the medium, the texture & grain you were working in. With abrasive tools that is not so important.

Interesting point David re. a line in the sand.

For the law to be just. {whether people agree with it or not.} it needs accurate dates of what ok & what isn't.

You mention the Cities 1972 order, which actually banned the international trade in worked artefact dating pre. 1 june 1947.

That how the law is in used in most of Europe, although its only the last few years it been more heavily enforced.

Why that date was chosen I am not sure, {But it was just a month before the British gave up ruling India & Burma...}

But that date is more a less checkable as I understand, all bone ,,Ivory & horn on the planet had different radioactive isotopes than anything pre. August 1945 {Hiroshima.} it just took a couple of years to infiltrate every organic still alive via food. So all though there's a 2 year question of proof with that, it is more or less provable.

Any other arbitry date , comes down to opinion, of is it realy that old or not, not proven fact. Morally I think 1972 is fine but, how does one prove such? & what prevents it being faked or mistaken opinion?

That's why I think the 1947 date is a good year... it is provable more or less.

But sadly whatever any of our thoughts it probably wont make a lot of difference to the current & forthcoming new laws.

In England its also illegal to rework old ivory, because years ago people would claim all there modern ivory work came from that one old tusk or item they had a receipt for..... And human nature being what it is many tusks would go through on that one receipt. {No dna matching to receipts.} I think that was also part of the 1972 act but could be mistaken.

Ivory poaching was already seen as a problem by cities back then.

But I think its stepping into another degree now.

Already Illegal import or export of one piece of ivory without the legal paperwork in Europe {the eec.}is punishable by up to 7 years in jail now.

spiral

[David]

Originally Posted by spiral

But that date is more a less checkable as I understand, all bone ,,Ivory & horn on the planet had different radioactive isotopes than anything pre. August 1945 {Hiroshima.} it just took a couple of years to infiltrate every organic still alive via food. So all though there's a 2 year question of proof with that, it is more or less provable.

That's very interesting. Any links to more information on that?

[David]

OK, sorry, i was just being lazy. Here are a couple of interesting links on the testing Spiral wrote about.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...+/3237257.html

http://whyfiles.org/2013/poaching-problem/

[VANDOO]

I AM NOT FOR THE KILLING OF ANY RARE ANIMALS FOR TROPHY'S OR BODY PARTS ELEPHANTS OR RHINO INCLUDED.
REGULATION IS NEEDED FOR ITEMS ALREADY REMOVED FROM ANIMALS NO LONGER LIVING. LEGISLATION MADE BY PEOPLE WITH AN EMOTIONAL AGENDA AND OFTEN VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT IN FULL OFTEN LEADS TO POOR LAWS CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION WILLY NILLY. WITH NO LOGIC OR PLAN TO BENEFIT ANYONE INCLUDING THE ANIMAL TO BE SAVED, SUCH LAWS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. THE HYPOTHETICAL MASTER CARVER IS JUST A FOR INSTANCE AND THE THOUGHT COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY FORM OF ART IF IT WAS ELIMINATED THRU LAW.
TRUE WE COULD REPLACE ALL IVORY PARTS ON OLD WEAPONS WITH PLASTIC AND REQUIRE OWNERS TO REPLACE THEIR IVORY CARVINGS WITH PLASTIC ONES AND THEN BURN ALL IVORY IN SHAME FOR HAVING EVER KILLED AN ELEPHANT THRUOUT HISTORY.
I SUSPECT A MASTER CARVER WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS QUICKLY CARVING PLASTIC WHEN IT CAN BE EASILY CAST SO THE SKILL CAN BE LOST WHICH IS NO BIG DEAL. AFTER ALL THE HUMAN RACE HAS MORE ARTS AND CRAFTS THAN WE NEED ALREADY. THERE ARE MORE THAN ENOUGH COUNTRY'S IN THE WORLD THAT WILL CONTINUE THEIR PRACTICES TO ELIMINATE THE SPECIES IN DEMAND IN TIME ESPECIALLY IF SOME OR THE RESOURCES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO ACQUIRE THE FUNDS TO PROTECT THOSE SPECIES ARE WASTED.
I HAVE SAID ALL I CAN AND PERHAPS MORE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION WILL CHANGE ANYTHING ESPECIALLY THE CURRENT AGENDA I JUST WONDER IN DREAD WHO THEY PLAN TO GET NEXT. SAVE THE SHARK, SAVE THE TREE, SAVE THE FOSSIL, SAVE THE TRIBAL ARTIFACT, MINERAL OR WHAT HAVE YOU, NO FUR, FEATHERS, BONE, TEETH, LEATHER, WOOD ,OIL OR COAL, ECT. AFTER ALL THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL TV PROGRAMS FEATURING NAKED HUMANS IS THAT WHERE WE ARE HEADING. I AM WAY TOO OLD AND OUT OF SHAPE TO APPEAR IN PUBLIC NAKED.

[spiral]

Thanks for the links David they explain it well.

I just knew about it as 12 or so years ago Jon Chapman & other leading Rhino horn sculpture "experts" had what they thought was the oldest rhino horn carved cup known tested..... to date it... they were shocked to find out that instead of being c.500 years old or some such it was post nuclear age.

Which shows even the experts can get such things wrong. {Hence the problem.}

I understand your reaction Vandoo, but although some campaigners are emotional as you say, the likes of the NJ & NY mayors & Obama are probably not emotional about it.

There may be many factors behind the current US laws, but they could also involve international politics, so we cant discus that on this forum. {Send me a pm if you would like quick info bulletin on what I rightly or wrongly think may be a factor.}

Or maybe the worlds just turning & changing & views are changing? I don't know.

Selling captured illegal ivory to fund elephant care does seem morally bankrupt to me. Its like selling heroin & crack to fund an anti drugs measure or help druggies... It doesn't really add up when examined...{to my way of thinking anyway.}

Your last sentence is very true, I think... What's next indeed?

Hopefully something sensible & well thought out... but probably not..

spiral

[drac2k]

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?

[spiral]

Originally Posted by drac2k

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?

Interesting leap there...But I can see why you made it but no, it wasn't a masterpiece..

It was a very plain & naïve bowl/cup with a rough & weathered texture & deep patina, which is why it fooled the "experts" {I cant recall whether it had fake provenance as well.}

The perception being its So weathered, patined & simple it must be ancient!

But it wasn't..... it was just well faked modern crap of very little artistic value. {Ill try to get a photo of it tomorrow to illustrate. }

Spiral

[drac2k]

Thanks, it would be great to see an example...........just in case I'm ever in the market for one, I wouldn't want to buy a fake.

[Shakethetrees]

As I read the new law and talked with people who collect who are also lawyers, as well as others in the antique auction business, I realize that you all might be missing a very important point.

When an item is seized the owner has to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ivory in question is old. A coin or sterling silver tea set with maker's marks, engraved inscriptions and other information will mean absolutely nothing to a government inspector. What they need to see is original paperwork that is for the item in question, such as an 1890's bill of sale. Just because the company that made the set went out of business in 1900 is not proof enough to bank on. Paperwork is the only criteria they are willing to accept. So, a tea set with a couple of 1/4"x1/4"x1" pieces of ivory as insulators in the handle is in danger of being seized, unless new bone or other substitute insulators can be custom made and installed, and at not too small a price, I may add.

Now, the good thing I see in this: this crazy new law brings together antique weapon, musical instrument, furniture, objects d'art, and other collectors and museums in a way that any other law restricting the rights of collectors has never yet done.

In the opinions of the people I spoke to, almost universally they feel that if everybody hunkers down and lays low for a while re:any transactions, there is a more than reasonable chance this will be straightened out.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

As I read the new law and talked with people who collect who are also lawyers, as well as others in the antique auction business, I realize that you all might be missing a very important point.

When an item is seized the owner has to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ivory in question is old. A coin or sterling silver tea set with maker's marks, engraved inscriptions and other information will mean absolutely nothing to a government inspector. What they need to see is original paperwork that is for the item in question, such as an 1890's bill of sale. Just because the company that made the set went out of business in 1900 is not proof enough to bank on. Paperwork is the only criteria they are willing to accept. So, a tea set with a couple of 1/4"x1/4"x1" pieces of ivory as insulators in the handle is in danger of being seized, unless new bone or other substitute insulators can be custom made and installed, and at not too small a price, I may add.
.

Interesting concept STT. But it seems to me you seem to have missed a very important & relevant point about documentation?

To date, such documents are not usually an 1890 bill of sail as you refer to, They are usually a certificate from, Defra {in the UK},Cities, the fish & wildlife gang or whichever relevant party, based on written reports from people they except as experts, dating such items based on their experience.

Style, manufacture date based on makers etc. all helps provide such evidence for the experts report.

Have you any evidence that is no longer how it will be done?

Spiral

[Shakethetrees]

It was my understanding that this certification from CITES would require a much tighter set of criteria on which to award an exemption from confiscation.

The burden of proof will be entirely on the shoulders of the owner/vendor. The object itself will be almost pushed aside regarding this proof of age. It is old paperwork that they want, not expert testimony.

In today's litigious world, you can get an "expert" to state whatever you want, so rather than rely on this, they want to rely on documentation.

Remember, the objective here is to eliminate ivory or rhino horn from private possession, and possibly possession or display in most museums. If these substances and the objects made from them are entirely removed from the conscienceless of the public worldwide, only then can the elephant and rhinoceros be saved from poaching.

In other words, "Down the memory hole" with it.

[drac2k]

Good points, SHAKETHETREES, but you better leave the musicians out of the coalition to protest the ban ;it appears that they have been granted an exemption by the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and they can own pre-1976 Elephant Ivory in their instruments .I guess if your "cool," it's alright to
have it.
I don't blame the musicians, but if you have a flawed law and you start to carve out exemptions for some groups and not apply it equally, what are your real intentions ?