A result of ivory regulations ???

Ian · 23rd January 2024, 05:19 AM

Gav, I'm frankly surprised by your post. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and you have expressed disagreement with statements here condemning some aspects of the attempts to diminish the trade in elephant ivory and other prohibited species. It's not clear to me how such statements do a disservice to collectors.

My concern is more with the opportunistic dealer who crudely removes a hilt to make a few dollars. Look at the second example shown below, where the crafted ferrule has been cut almost completely through with a pair of tin snips or similar tool, and then left hanging there. Crude and crass! Totally without a sense of the aesthetics of the piece and its craftsmanship. I agree that these things happen out of necessity in poorer nations where individuals are struggling to survive and antiques represent an opportunity to make a little money. That's more understandable. But this piece was offered at auction in Britain, a prosperous first world nation.

The title of this forum is Ethnographic Weapons. To me, that means items crafted in a traditional manner from traditional materials by those from the original culture. Sometimes these may contain prohibited materials (such as ivory). In my view, such cultural artifacts created before, say, 1970 and containing prohibited materials should be permitted to remain intact and be traded. Those made after that time should not be traded. However, the rules are very different. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and we, as collectors, should be able to avail ourselves of those exceptions without undue burden. That is not the case, and I think people have a right (and obligation) to vent frustration at that situation because cultural items are being damaged or destroyed as a result of undue bureaucracy.

I don't think my views are harmful in any way to collectors here or as a whole. (Rant over)

Gavin Nugent · 23rd January 2024, 06:44 AM

Ian,

Indeed, vent your frustration at the global situation and the hypocrisy that abounds in that space. Where these are concerned specifically, it is all speculation within.

You have ZERO idea about the who, what, how, and why these blades were presented to an auction without hilts that could be any manner of materials, the whole notion seem absurd without a crystal ball or a time machine with coordinates to get to when and where this happened.... Even the notion of tin snips, it is simply all speculation... surely the 3 question marks you used in the title, you must also have seen this as speculation which is only going to induce hype..

As for the diservices. Whilst not a direct POV to what I wrote, Lee knocked that nail on the head September last year in these pages, and it goes a LOT wider and deeper than that quick note.
If you want to know what is actually happening and how, and it's impacts, feel free to write me privately, and factually.

Gavin

23rd January 2024, 05:19 AM	#1
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Gav, I'm frankly surprised by your post. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and you have expressed disagreement with statements here condemning some aspects of the attempts to diminish the trade in elephant ivory and other prohibited species. It's not clear to me how such statements do a disservice to collectors. My concern is more with the opportunistic dealer who crudely removes a hilt to make a few dollars. Look at the second example shown below, where the crafted ferrule has been cut almost completely through with a pair of tin snips or similar tool, and then left hanging there. Crude and crass! Totally without a sense of the aesthetics of the piece and its craftsmanship. I agree that these things happen out of necessity in poorer nations where individuals are struggling to survive and antiques represent an opportunity to make a little money. That's more understandable. But this piece was offered at auction in Britain, a prosperous first world nation. The title of this forum is Ethnographic Weapons. To me, that means items crafted in a traditional manner from traditional materials by those from the original culture. Sometimes these may contain prohibited materials (such as ivory). In my view, such cultural artifacts created before, say, 1970 and containing prohibited materials should be permitted to remain intact and be traded. Those made after that time should not be traded. However, the rules are very different. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and we, as collectors, should be able to avail ourselves of those exceptions without undue burden. That is not the case, and I think people have a right (and obligation) to vent frustration at that situation because cultural items are being damaged or destroyed as a result of undue bureaucracy. I don't think my views are harmful in any way to collectors here or as a whole. (Rant over)

23rd January 2024, 06:44 AM	#2
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Ian, Indeed, vent your frustration at the global situation and the hypocrisy that abounds in that space. Where these are concerned specifically, it is all speculation within. You have ZERO idea about the who, what, how, and why these blades were presented to an auction without hilts that could be any manner of materials, the whole notion seem absurd without a crystal ball or a time machine with coordinates to get to when and where this happened.... Even the notion of tin snips, it is simply all speculation... surely the 3 question marks you used in the title, you must also have seen this as speculation which is only going to induce hype.. As for the diservices. Whilst not a direct POV to what I wrote, Lee knocked that nail on the head September last year in these pages, and it goes a LOT wider and deeper than that quick note. If you want to know what is actually happening and how, and it's impacts, feel free to write me privately, and factually. Gavin