New Jersey Ivory ban....

[Tim Simmons]

I think the idea is to remove the concept of ivory as a quality material. This will affect desire in the market place even for old ivory. Auction houses will not want to handle it, even pre 1947. I can see some sense in it, to kill the whole market. It may well mean that in a few years time if not now you will be stuck with an unsalable collection or collection pieces.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I think the idea is to remove the concept of ivory as a quality material. This will affect desire in the market place even for old ivory. Auction houses will not want to handle it, even pre 1947. I can see some sense in it, to kill the whole market. It may well mean that in a few years time if not now you will be stuck with an unsalable collection or collection pieces.

Id say ,You've got it in one Tim,

They wish ivory to be seen as horrid vile stuff, rather in the manner many women in non freezing cold areas would regard fur coats today as compared to say 40 years ago.

It would work if it happened across the board, worldwide, whether that's possible, I don't know.

It could work in the west in quite easily though I think? Given a couple of decades. Good quality antique tiger skins in auction 15 years ago in England often made double what they do usually today. And there where more for sale then.

Times are changing, I think the finest antique art works will always have an art price, The more mediocre pieces may not.



Either way due to current enormous worldwide {But particularily far eastern.} demand for ivory, {most made into bangles,beads,religious statues & fake antiques.} combined with the ease of corrupting humans, despite whatever laws exist & because of the time taken for change to happen, I dare say no rhino and very few Elephant will survive in the wild...in 10 years time.

spiral

[estcrh]

I have noticed recently that some sellers are describing what looks like rhino horn hilts as just horn or something besides rhino and items such as swords and knives that look like they have ivory hilts being described as having bone hilts. This may work for small items but I feel sorry for collectors of items made entirely of ivory.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I have noticed recently that some sellers are describing what looks like rhino horn hilts as just horn or something besides rhino and items such as swords and knives that look like they have ivory hilts being described as having bone hilts. This may work for small items but I feel sorry for collectors of items made entirely of ivory.

But that's so they can just claim ignorance.. But if they or a buyer is caught, particularly by customs if exported, I don't think that would help them much?

After all if you do something for years as your living, suddenly saying I didn't know it, is obviously a bit strange.

spiral

[drac2k]

My problem is not with the saving of exotic animals such as rhinos, elephants, etc., but with the wholesale destruction of valuable artifacts of historical, artistic and religious significance !
In N.Y., where this ban takes place, they also have a zero tolerance for the possession of guns.I have a buddy who has a friend who is a police officer whose sole duty is to destroy guns and weapons seized by the police.I couldn't care less about the destruction of illegal Tech-9s or other modern crap,but these guys destroy civil war guns, wheel locks, flintlocks, matchlocks, and any edge weapons they seize in the net as well ; they told me about a medieval 2 handed German sword they cut up and melted.I dare say as a result of this ban ,there are just as many illegally owned guns as before and they fetch a higher price; the only people affected are the law abiding citizen or the collector.
The sad truth is that by the destruction of this ivory, not a single animal will be brought back.What is next, the African shields, the snakeskin scabbards, bone or horn armor ?
I fear the real objective is not the saving of animals but more government control of our lives !

[spiral]

Originally Posted by drac2k

My problem is not with the saving of exotic animals such as rhinos, elephants, etc., but with the wholesale destruction of valuable artifacts of historical, artistic and religious significance !

Yes I agree , & I would say, hopefully no antiques will be destroyed, but of course as with the weapons you mention, if there not legally held or laws are broken in their trade, then the powers that be will destroy them, if & when they find them.

That's how it works once laws are made & enforced.

But my point in posting this was just so members affected are aware of the law change.

Just a word to the wise.


spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

As Tim has commented in post #15, the objective of impending universal bans could be an attempt to alter public perception. However, if we consider the history of the effect of total bans upon the price and desirability of any commodity there seems to be a consistent predictable effect, and that is that when something is banned it becomes more desirable and the price rises accordingly.

An example:- during the 1970's and 1980's I regularly bought keris hilts in Jawa and Bali. At that time a wooden hilt of fine workmanship was always more expensive than an ivory hilt of ordinary quality. Ivory hilts only became more expensive when the workmanship was of a high quality. Following the introduction of ivory bans the prices of ivory hilts skyrocketed. No matter what the quality, if it was ivory, it cost more, a lot more, than even the finest work in any other material.

Examine history and we find that this is the effect of prohibition.

Where a price does not fall because of prohibition the causes can be linked to changing style, for example tiger skins. Forty and more years ago it was very fashionable to decorate one's house with parts of dead animals, mounted heads, skins as scatter rugs, elephant foot umbrella stands. It is no longer fashionable to have one's house looking like a natural history museum, thus the prices of these objects have fallen, in fact it is now often not possible to give this sort of thing away ( I speak from experience).

In a country like Australia, where I live, it is very probable that the ivory bans will bite. As in much of the rest of the developed world, Australians in general have a herd-like mentality and for the most part act in ways that our leaders want them to act. However, it can be expected that demand for all things, not only ivory, will increase in China in at least a compensating proportion to decrease in our developed countries. Total bans on ivory in developed countries will have no effect on desire or ability to purchase in China, and in some other developing countries. The elephants will continue to die.

By profession I am an auditor and risk consultant. In my profession we understand that it is not possible to protect absolutely against the occurrence of something that we do not want to occur. There is no control that cannot be circumvented.

If we do not want elephants to disappear, the risk of their disappearance must be managed, and total bans on trade in, or possession of, the desirable parts of an elephant's body will only increase desirability of those parts.

The answer to protection of elephants is to manage them as a resource. Give them a dollar value and regulate the trade, not ban it.

Regrettably politicians listen to voters and voters listen to half-baked green coloured idiots.