New Jersey Ivory ban....

[spiral]

Here ye go Drac...

Post 1947 with artificial aging... So made with the intention to deceive...

Spiral

[drac2k]

Thanks, I think I'll stick with edged weapons.

[spiral]

Me to....

[Shakethetrees]

This is a great thread!

Spiral, (sorry, IDK your name), I just don't trust government types getting involved, telling the collecting community what they can and cannot collect.

They are up against folks who may have forty years experience dealing in the substance they're trying to ban, but they, individually, have a very short time investment attempting to learn the intricacies. So in order to get up to speed they must rely on papers or books that may be full of information that is outdated or just plain wrong.

I didn't want to bring this up, but if you go back to the early 1990's and have a look at the way the Janet Reno era gun regulations were written, they were full of discrepancies and just plain bad info.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by 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.


& I didn't want to bring this up, but if you go back to the early 1990's and have a look at the way the Janet Reno era gun regulations were written, they were full of discrepancies and just plain bad info. .

Thanks STT I must raise a few points in response.

S so its an "understanding" that leads you to think certification is changing... So it may or may not be so?

Its cheaper for those that wished to forge Victorian paperwork than pay an expert, so how will they check the paperwork? ... Pay another expert to give their opinion on the paper work? I know some laws are stupid & illogical , but that really doesn't make sense & would cost them rather than you money.

I know an expert can argue anything, but that's why I said the experts they except. {Ones they presume are knowledgeable & reliable.}

I agree many laws are badly, written discussion of gun laws is obviously not relevant, to this discussion though. I could say that there sensible laws banning murder in response.... But that would be equally not relevant to the discussion of ivory laws.

Spiral

[David]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

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.

I think we are slipping into hyperbole again. The objective of these new laws is to stop the poaching (and therefore the extinction) of elephants (100,000 elephants were poached for ivory in just the last 3 years). I have seen absolutely no evidence that there is ANY intention to remove ivory objects from museum display and it would be very difficult for authorities it find and confiscate these items in our personal collections. What these laws are devised to do is to stop the TRADE. What i see as the problem with these new laws (THE big problem for us and the only one relevant to our discussions here) is how they are handing antique ivory items. For new ivory objects the party is over and i must state that i have absolutely no problem with that at all. Barry bemoaned the fate of current ivory artists, but i believe he was incorrect that their art form was being brought to an end. That FORM is sculpture and it will continue throughout our existence. These artists will simply need to change their medium. As for antiques, THAT is where our problems lie. The reason i believe that these new laws are encompassing antique ivory is because so much new ivory is artificially aged to look antique and the authorities can't be bothered to train their people to tell the difference (though i cannot fathom why some of these new restrictions include fossilized tusks, since there is no way to fake that). But as Spiral has pointed out, testing for radioactive isotope can accurately date ivory to the 1947 timeline. What i don't know is how expensive this test actually is to conduct. But it seems that if we (as in ALL antique collectors) can find a way to petition the authorities to consider this form of testing for ivory items we might stand some chance of adjusting the laws to suit antique collectors.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by David

But as Spiral has pointed out, testing for radioactive isotope can accurately date ivory to the 1947 timeline. What i don't know is how expensive this test actually is to conduct. But it seems that if we (as in ALL antique collectors) can find a way to petition the authorities to consider this form of testing for ivory items we might stand some chance of adjusting the laws to suit antique collectors.

I am under the impression from recent reading that it costs about $350 per item, But a decade plus ago it was thousands.

So I guess if a business was set up or a university wanted funds, & 100s of test were done the price would drop massively.

Spiral

[Richard Furrer]

Sorry for the question, but..........
What do they define "ivory" as?
I meet folk who say only elephant is ivory..others who say any tooth or tusk is ivory from any animal...be that hippo,walrus,warthog,whale,deer,mastodon,mammoth etc


Ric

[David]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Sorry for the question, but..........
What do they define "ivory" as?
I meet folk who say only elephant is ivory..others who say any tooth or tusk is ivory from any animal…be that hippo,walrus,warthog,whale,deer,mastodon,mammoth etc

Hi Ric. I have also heard some folks claim that only elephant tusk is ivory. However, the dictionary (this is Oxford i believe) defines it as follows:
a hard creamy-white substance composing the main part of the tusks of an elephant, walrus, or narwhal, often (especially formerly) used to make ornaments and other articles.
Though i am not sure what part of a deer might be considered ivory…
These new laws, however, are, for the most part, directed at elephant ivory in an attempt to end the poaching of elephants specifically. Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory.

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this!

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this!

I agree..sometimes hard to tell, but they have some guidelines here:

http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_guide.php
One would think that the powers that be would utilize them.
I'd hate to see multi thousand year old walrus tusks destroyed because there is not certificate stating that they are not elephant.

Ric

[Shakethetrees]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this!

My point exactly!

[David]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

I agree..sometimes hard to tell, but they have some guidelines here:

http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_guide.php
One would think that the powers that be would utilize them.
I'd hate to see multi thousand year old walrus tusks destroyed because there is not certificate stating that they are not elephant.

True that they have these guidelines. However, identification becomes far more complicated once the ivory has been crafted into hilts or other parts of various cultural dress for weapons.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by David

Though i am not sure what part of a deer might be considered ivory… :

Barking deer ?.... photo attached.

Originally Posted by David

These new laws, however, are, for the most part, directed at elephant ivory in an attempt to end the poaching of elephants specifically. Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory.

I guess it might be possible to develop on the spot chemical tests such as are currently carried in drug test field kits? or maybe not?

There is already a raft of laws re. walrus ivory in place in USA, one can presume the enforcement of those laws may receive a higher priority than in the last decade though.

spiral

[David]

Awesome skull Spiral…vampire deer!

[spiral]

They are arnt they!

& Not to forget the Chinese water deer...

[David]

Another nice one…i'm not so sure that these long incisors actually qualify as ivory per se, but they are cool. Probably too small for the kind of usage we generally see on old weapons (whole hilts or hilt scales for instance), but still very interesting.

[spiral]

For sure! It would have to be a tiny shamshir!

Just the nearest thing to deer ivory there is... they are sold as tusks not teeth & used for some tribal jewellery I think, in far east.

spiral

[Robert]

These might be large enough for a small knife hilt.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Robert

These might be large enough for a small knife hilt.

Certainly large enough for a karda & chakmak!

But hes watching you... & listening with those teddy bear ears!

spiral

[David]

Originally Posted by spiral

But hes watching you... & listening with those teddy bear ears!

…and that cute little kerfuffled ear…

[spiral]

Originally Posted by David

…and that cute little kerfuffled ear…

That looks like its just brushed by Mike Tyson {or Robert!}...to me.

spiral

[spiral]

Not New Jersey , But relevant to those in the Uk... & probably all other so called "civilised" countries given time..

Perhaps The beginning of the end for miss labelling Ivory dealers & auction houses in the UK..

Seems like the police are doing the radioactive isotope check.

spiral

link

[A. G. Maisey]

Looks like the value, and price, of ivory just increased again.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Looks like the value, and price, of ivory just increased again.

Or just decreased in the UK unless clearly pre. 1947... Id guess clearly pre. 1947 as you say will become more valuable!

Who wants a collection of stuff that brings police through your front door? Only those who are fools or think {or actualy may be.} above the law.

Some UK dealers & collectors{{Most are members of this forum.} Even if they don't declare such stuff here.} have apparently cleared out anything not definitely pre that date over the last few months.

Why take the risk... being the consensus.

Times they are a changing... {as someone said 40 or 50 years ago in a little ditty...}

Spiral

[Richard G]

A couple of points:-

You can still import ivory into New Jersey provided you have shot the elephant yourself.

The UK Auctioneers subject to this prosecution have decided selling ivory is too risky and so now will not sell any at all.

Regards
Richard

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Richard G

A couple of points:-

You can still import ivory into New Jersey provided you have shot the elephant yourself.

The UK Auctioneers subject to this prosecution have decided selling ivory is too risky and so now will not sell any at all.

Regards
Richard

Indeed the rich have privilege's everywhere... Obamas friend was given a licence import a black rhino tusk earlier in the year.

The UK Auctioneer is an amusing chap, Hes gone from claiming it was a one off mistake & he was a scapegoat for apparently not naming the seller?
{Shades of Omerta!}To now proclaiming he will now "lead the way" in ending the Ivory trade in UK auctions!

Apparently 16 other London dealers are awaiting notice of prosecution.

spiral

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by spiral

Indeed the rich have privilege's everywhere... Obamas friend was given a licence import a black rhino tusk earlier in the year.

Let's please leave the quasi-political/socio-political commentary at the door.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Let's please leave the quasi-political/socio-political commentary at the door.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

Sure thing Andrew, I Certainly comprehend my Obama comment, as not necessary to say. {Although I had said it without thinking.}

Was the first part re. wealth acceptable? It seemed relevant? After all to fly to Africa, shoot a tusker, have the tusks removed & flown back to New Jersey , with the accompanying safari ,plane, hotel & "legal" paperwork fees probably come to over $150.000 minimum?

If not I apologise for that as well & it wont happen again.

spiral

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by spiral

Sure thing Andrew, I Certainly comprehend my Obama comment, as not necessary to say. {Although I had said it without thinking.}

Was the first part re. wealth acceptable? It seemed relevant? After all to fly to Africa, shoot a tusker, have the tusks removed & flown back to New Jersey , with the accompanying safari ,plane, hotel & "legal" paperwork fees probably come to over $150.000 minimum?

If not I apologise for that as well & it wont happen again.

spiral

It was the Obama comment, Jonathan. Socio-economic comments are fine.