Ivory nuts and bridges

[Thermionik]

Ivory nuts and bridges

 

Two questions:-

Where do you stand on the moral issues.

How do you get ivory nuts and bridges.

 

According to the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, to trade or sell ivory, a certificate allowing the specific item to be displayed for sale, or evidence that the ivory was harvested before 1st June 1947, is required before they can be offered for sale to the public. Only worked ivory which complies can be sold, uncut, off-cuts and blanks, blocks, strips etc are entierly banned. They can NOT be exported, imported or sold. Owning such ivory is not illegal, but selling or trading it is.

 

The ivory which DOES comply MUST be in its original worked form, which means that if your item has been repaired, and if the repairs contain ivory, you need to be certain that the ivory and/or the repair pre-dates 1st June 1947.

 

A common misconception is the belief that old ivory can be re-worked. if you attempted to carve a piece of ivory, even if you knew it was 100 years old, you would be breaking the law exactly the same as someone carving a modern tusk.

 

So unless you find an older piece of ivory already cut to your nut or bridge profile, you are not going to be able to legally have an ivory nut or bridge.

 

The Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species recently approved both Japan and China as potetnial buyers who can bid for the stockpile of 108 tonnes of ivory held by Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, regardless of fears that this will act as a smokescreen for illicit trading in ivory.

 

The International Fund for Animal Welfare said internet sales of ivory were helping to drive up the "illegal trade which was putting elephants at risk"; it singled out online auction site Ebay for particular criticism.

 

Most people believe that all ivory comes from the African and Asian elephant, not realising ivory also comes from Hippo, Walrus, Boar, Whale, Mammoth fossil and other species. With the notable exception of Mammoth (already extinct) most of these are grey areas legally.

 

Mammoth ivory from the tusks of the wooly mammoth is found mainly in Siberia. It displays very similar grain to that of elephant Ivory, though the grain is much darker and thus more visible. Mammoth ivory is completely legal to trade, import and export and is widely available on the internet.

 

So I guess that's the material for me..... anybody else care to comment?

[gearbasher]

My opinion is: As long as the animal is already dead and not killed for the ivory, I would have no problems with it being used.

[Andrew]

Personally I think it's immoral to kill an animal for the ivory. I'd rather have herds of elephants in Africa than a negligible tone difference on my guitar. Same with any animal. If we must kill an animal, i say be efficient and use the whole thing.

 

Nothing wrong with mammoth ivory...it's been dead for 10,000 years.

 

Our quest for tone has (in part at least) destroyed a lot of rainforest for woods such as rosewood. We've had to move on to Madagascar and India to get it now. Then what?

 

My guitar guy told me, and I believe it to be true, that one day in the not so distant future, solid wood instruments will be rare, super-expensive and eventually, extinct.

 

but i digress.

[hawgadi]

I think that if you buy ivory from an already dead source (distinct from already extinct like in the case of Mammoth Ivory) you are still creating demand for more ivory. You just pulled some ivory out of the supply, so that creates more demand, along with legitimizing the use in a tiny way, which also increases demand on a micro level. That demand will be filled by any and all supplies, including killing live animals for ivory. So in my view, buying from sources which have been grandfathered in is not ethical, even if possibly legal.

 

I wouldn't have many qualms about Mammoth ivory, but there is a tiny legitimization of the material even in this completely legal, almost completely ethical practice.

 

If you don't have qualms about creating even a tiny bit more demand, we disagree on the ethics of it, but I think that clearly one must recognize that all use creates some demand.

[albertjohn]

If you don't have qualms about creating even a tiny bit more demand' date=' we disagree on the ethics of it, but I think that clearly one must recognize that all use creates some demand.[/quote']

 

Quite agree hawgadi. Surely there are perfectly adequate alternatives? e.g. KSD's rib bones. (Not actually his but left over from his Holiday BBQ!)

 

There's simply no excuse for buying illegal ivory.

[onewilyfool]

I had ivory nuts once.....a little nude sunbathing fixed that right up.....

[ksdaddy]

I'm not going to get involved in how others should or shouldn't feel about something like this, as it's not any of my business, but if you choose to pursue material for your guitar (or anything else for that matter) that will potentially put you in the hot seat because of it's legality (or lack thereof) or ethical/moral issues simply for the snob appeal of having some exclusive material... then you deserve whatever you get.

 

It's your right to burn the US flag if you like. If you do it outside a biker bar in Sturgis, I will help you pick out your new false teeth (if and when you get out of the hospital).

 

The older I get, the better I get at picking my battles. I'm not very good at it yet, but I would avoid the whole ivory thing. There's nothing to be gained.

[onewilyfool]

Most ivory used in guitars is "fossilized ivory" from old walrus tusks.....or the like....China on the other hand, STILL imports Ivory and will til the last elephant is gone....same with Rhino horns......it is pathetic....but money talks

[Gilliangirl]

I think that if you buy ivory from an already dead source (distinct from already extinct like in the case of Mammoth Ivory) you are still creating demand for more ivory. You just pulled some ivory out of the supply' date=' so that creates more demand, along with legitimizing the use in a tiny way, which also increases demand on a micro level. That demand will be filled by any and all supplies, including killing live animals for ivory. So in my view, buying from sources which have been grandfathered in is not ethical, even if possibly legal.

 

I wouldn't have many qualms about Mammoth ivory, but there is a tiny legitimization of the material even in this completely legal, almost completely ethical practice.

 

If you don't have qualms about creating even a tiny bit more demand, we disagree on the ethics of it, but I think that clearly one must recognize that all use creates some demand.[/quote']

+1

[ballcorner]

As I step onto the slippery slope . . .

 

In general, I agree with everyone who has said if the animal is already dead go ahead.

 

Still, I think ksdaddy has raised the more important issue of motivation - why does someone want ivory versus bone or other materials that might be just as good?

 

I don't think any of us on this forum play as well as Tommy Emmanuel. He doesn't use any exotic nut or saddle materials and he uses standard bridge pins. He seems to get pretty good tone out of his Maton and Kalamazoo guitars - I know I sure buy his albums and DVDs - and he also opts for fairly standard strings with no coatings or high tech cryogenic treatments.

 

The simple fact that the world's greatest acoustic guitar player (IMHO) doesn't need anything from Bob Colosi tells me I probably don't need it either.

 

If someone could produce a controlled recording of the before and after sounds of a guitar that has been upgraded from bone nut/saddle and regular pins to ivory and Bob Colosi pins, and if this recording so impressed me that I felt a Datsun had become a Ferrari - then I might go out to find some ivory to get my guitars done.

 

However, having tried similar recording experiments with a variety of set ups, pins, saddles and nuts - I can say with confidence that the biggest change in tone comes from the enthusiasm of the player who believes some change has made the instrument better.

 

There is extensive discussion here about miniscule improvements we can make to something that is already sort of perfect - a Gibson. Whether the animal died a thousand years ago, or yesterday, I still think it is reasonable to ask ourselves if we actually need this stuff before worrying about ethical standards.

[Thermionik]

I only ask because, here in Europe the laws are in place and very heavy - some suggest draconian, I can not even take an old ivory handled knife of my own from the 1800's and cut the handle into a nut or bridge and then sell it without breaking the law.

 

However the USA's 'black market' in ivory is the second largest in the world (behind China) as discovered in a recent survey by Care for the Wild International funded by the Humane Society of the United States, the John Aspinall Foundation, and Save the Elephants.

 

Whilst it is illegal to traffic in ivory in the U.S, there are loopholes in the law which make the rest of the code difficult to enforce. Ivory tusks can be brought in legally as hunting trophies. Any ivory older than 100 years old can be used or re-used for any purpose within the USA.

 

Despite the highest rate of seizures in the world, the U.S. is unable to stem the flow of illegal ivory once it has got past border security and customs. The world market sees that the U.S. is a good place to sell ivory, which in turn drives the demand in China and elsewhere. This in turn fuels the poachers. (According to the report the number of elephants killed illegally for their ivory was 23,000 in 2006 and has been rising steadily since then).

 

I just wondered what people who might buy a guitar of the top quality of a Gibson or Martin (and so one presumes have an ear for top tone too) felt (tonally and morally) about the ivory bridges and nuts currently advertised in the USA (Warther and others).

 

I also wondered whether upgrading to mammoth fossil ivory makes a significant difference, and if not, why it is such a popular upgrade amongst guitar owners and widely advertised in the USA (Greg Boyd, Janet Davis, WD Music and others).

 

Personally, I can not hear any difference between a good dense plastic like Tusq, bone, mammoth fossil ivory or a dense wood like lignum vitae. Since these are all relatively expensive upgrades, I have until now left the plastic bridge and nut that came with the guitar in place - none of my acoustics has bridge, nut or even inlay of anything approaching ivory (mostly plastic, wood and some abalone inlay tops). But then none of my acoustics cost much either. But if an upgrade to mammoth fossil ivory was worthwhile from a tone perspective, I would like to try it..... since I cannot yet run to a Martin or Gibson quality acoustic.

 

By the by, ksd - I would probably punch the lights out of anyone I saw burning the American flag, and I have not said how others should feel - I am trying to educate myself about how others feel to help formulate a balanced opinion of my own. Reading through your agressive prose, wherein you say 'I will help you pick out your new false teeth (if and when you get out of the hospital)' - for which help, I thank you - am I right in thinking you feel that there is no tone improvement from ANY form of ivory.....

[ksdaddy]

am I right in thinking you feel that there is no tone improvement from ANY form of ivory.....

 

 

Who knows? Really, who knows?

 

None of us do.

 

The way I see it, people spend a lot of time trying to make their possessions better than the next person's. People want their stuff to be one step above the neighbor's, whether it's ivory saddles, some exotic wood, a long scale on an otherwise short scale guitar (and if you can't figure THAT out, then there's a guy named Freud you should meet).

 

Nobody wants their stuff (and therefore themselves) to be ordinary, to be one of the crowd. If you walk into a room full of D-18s carrying a D-18, wouldn't it be cool for yours to have Schallers with ebony buttons instead of the regular chrome?

 

That's what it's all about. Mine's bigger than yours.

 

And add to that a degree of inside knowledge... people might think this saddle is illegal but I bought it from a naturalized US citizen from Borneo who's cousin was a used elephant dealer who married an Episcopalian clam digger, and under US statute 687934-Y it's legal as long as the guitar plays at least one John Prine song a month.

 

I'm smarter than you.

 

And mine's bigger than yours.

 

Sorry if I came across as aggressive, but as you can tell by my rant, I'm not a big fan of compensating for poor self esteem through material possessions.

 

I know, welcome to the human race, right?

[Thermionik]

ksd - my impression is this:

You and I are somewhat out of place on this forum.

You and I would rub along real well if'n we were neighbours.....

.....until I came by and coveted that ol' truck nose you got the other day!!!!!

 

Now - just wait for the backlash.....

 

Here it comes.....

 

[ballcorner]

 

The way I see it' date=' people spend a lot of time trying to make their possessions better than the next person's. People want their stuff to be one step above the neighbor's, whether it's ivory saddles, some exotic wood, a long scale on an otherwise short scale guitar . . . That's what it's all about. Mine's bigger than yours.

 

[/quote']

 

AMEN, brother!

[gearbasher]

 

 

 

The way I see it' date=' people spend a lot of time trying to make their possessions better than the next person's. People want their stuff to be one step above the neighbor's,[/quote']

 

Gee, does that take us back to this topic?

 

Upgraded, Limited True Vintage Hummingbird, J-45, and SJ-200 Now Available

http://forums.gibson.com/Default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=6630&f=42&q=74330