New Jersey Ivory ban....

[drac2k]

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.

[Shakethetrees]

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.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

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.
.

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

[Shakethetrees]

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.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

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.


& 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

[David]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

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.

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.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by David

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

[Richard Furrer]

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

[drac2k]

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 ?

[spiral]

Here ye go Drac...

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

Spiral

[drac2k]

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

[spiral]

Me to....

[Shakethetrees]

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.