Quote:
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
Adam, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I very strongly suspect that we have ivory of one form or another as a component part of this keris?
If this is so, the decision to liquidate was probably based upon the ivory content rather than the weapon nature.
|
Thanks Alan, in this case there was no mention of the hilt and buntut material in the seller's description on eBay; indeed the word 'ivory' did not appear in connection with the keris at all. I was of course hoping to be pleasantly surprised when it arrived, but from the seller's photos I could not be sure that the material was not bone or tridacna (although I believe the latter would also raise CITES issues), maybe even resin if very unluckly. It had occurred to me that US customs might seize it at the border if they inspected it and found it to be ivory, but I believed (no doubt naively) that the date of "1809" on the label would clearly show that the artefact long pre-dates the CITES agreement, and that I would be given the opportunity to make that case to US customs. Indeed, the keris was accompanied by a hard copy of paperwork proving that it had been acquired by the former owner in the early to mid 20th century.
Can anyone tell me what happens with CITES if a buyer acquires an antique from an overseas seller that they suspect/hope has an ivory component, when no mention of that is made by the seller in their description of the item?