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 !

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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. :shrug:

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

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

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/

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. :D

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. :shrug: {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? :shrug:

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

spiral

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

Here ye go Drac...

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

Spiral

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

Me to.... ;)

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.

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

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.

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

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

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. :shrug:

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! :shrug: ;)

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

My point exactly!

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.

Barking deer ?.... photo attached.


I guess it might be possible to develop on the spot chemical tests such as are currently carried in drug test field kits? :shrug: 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

Awesome skull Spiral…vampire deer! :eek: ;) :D

They are arnt they!

& Not to forget the Chinese water deer... ;)

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. :)

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

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. :shrug:

spiral

These might be large enough for a small knife hilt. :D

Certainly large enough for a karda & chakmak!

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

spiral