Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th August 2014, 08:21 AM   #1
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default New Jersey Ivory ban....

Theres a new, total Ivory & rhino horn ban New Jersey ....it seems,

Makes illegal even the sale or transfer of antique, worked pieces.

spiral

linky

Last edited by spiral : 11th August 2014 at 08:54 AM.
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 09:22 AM   #2
asomotif
Member
 
asomotif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,987
Default

Thank you for the information.

Amazing to read that New Jersey is a hub for smuggling to China.
Unfortunately, if you close one route, a thousand other routes still exsist and if needed, new routes will be found.

When my minds takes a free ride, I can think of a solution by controlling the trade by the african governments.
Tusks and horns can be "harvested" without slaughtering the animals and sold on the free market to the highest bidder (China).
It would eliminate the poaching business and support african economies.

Best regards,
Willem
asomotif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 12:46 PM   #3
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 518
Default

Another solution would be to take all of the illegally poached ivory seized by the government, carve or tag a serial number on the piece where it could not be seen, register it with an agency and have them issue a certificate that the piece is 100% legal to own or trade.
Once all of the "legal ivory," floods the world, the price would be drastically driven down, making it much riskier for poachers for much less money.Take the money or a portion of it and purchase and support game reserves.
Destroying it only makes the price go up; also government bureaucrats deciding what is art, antique,or national treasures as opposed to burning the ivory reminds me of the Chinese Cultural Revolution where all art was seized, demolished and lost forever !
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 01:09 PM   #4
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Chaps, In all honesty although valid as ideas, they arnt going to solve the problem.

You could probably sell all the ivory & rhino horn in the world tomorrow & the new markets & investors would demand more. {just thing at how much ivory the western word gut through from 1850 to 1950.}

Selling heroin to a junkie never stopped them being a junkie. They always want more.

In truth I fear there is no solution. But banning the sale or transfer of genuine antiques in New Jersey clearly doesn't help either.


spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 01:40 PM   #5
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 518
Default

I'm not sure that I would make a correlation between collecting ivory and the heinous physiological and mental addiction of heroine.
In the event that you are espousing the theory that collecting edge weapons is a compulsive behavior, then I would agree, I probably need an intervention .
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 02:30 PM   #6
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Your correct that is a bit of a stretch... but us weapons collectors indeed ,the majority of collectors probably exhibit addictive, compulsive behaviour.

Some suggest that collecting is a modern twist on the ancient hunting instinct.

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2014, 05:54 AM   #7
VANDOO
(deceased)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,140
Default

MANKIND DEVELOPED ART AS A WAY TO SHOW OFF HIS SKILL AND PERHAPS IMPRESS THE LADIES. IF THE WORK WAS GOOD ENOUGH A DEMAND WAS CREATED FOR IT AND COMPETITION WOULD ARISE. TRADE WAS ESTABLISHED EVEN BETWEEN TRIBES THAT WERE ENEMIES IN NORTH AMERICA AND NO DOUBT OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. SOME TRIBES WERE BETTER AT MAKING CERTAIN SPECIALTY'S AND TOOK PRIDE IN THEIR CRAFTS. THE OTHERS COULD ONLY GET THESE ITEMS THRU TRADE OR WAR SO CERTAIN TIMES AND PLACES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SAFE TRADE BETWEEN TRIBES.
THE MAKERS OF THESE NEW IVORY LAWS ARE WELL FUNDED AND ADS ON TELEVISION AND RADIO ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PURSUE THE EVIL IVORY COLLECTORS AND SELLERS IN AMERICA AND SAVE THE ELEPHANTS. IVORY COLLECTORS IN AMERICA CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ELEPHANT BE KILLED OFF. BUT THE ORIENT CAN'T GET ENOUGH RAW IVORY TO SUPPLY ITS CARVING INDUSTRY. AMERICA HAS NOT IMPORTED RAW IVORY AND DOESN'T HAVE A IVORY CARVING INDUSTRY. EVERYTHING I HAVE COLLECTED PREDATES ALL LAWS AND BANS REGULATING IVORY. I NO LONGER COLLECT AND CAN NOT PASS ON THE ITEMS I HAVE HAD FOR YEARS WHAT IF ALL ETHNOGRAPHIC ART AND WEAPONS WERE REGULATED IN THE SAME WAY?
MAN HAS WORKED THE HIDES AND BONES OF THE THINGS HE HUNTED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND IVORY FROM THE MAMMOTH AND OTHER ELEPHANTS WAS USED FOR TOOLS, JEWELRY AND ART UP UNTIL THE PRESENT.
THE IDEA OF MAKING ALL ART , TOOLS OR OBJECTS MADE OF IVORY OR HORN NO MATTER WHEN OR WHERE IT CAME FROM ILLEGAL DOES NOTHING TO SAVE EVEN ONE ELEPHANT. IF EVERY PIECE OF IVORY IN AMERICA WAS GATHERED FROM MUSEUMS AND PEOPLE AND BURNED TODAY IT WOULD NOT SAVE OR BRING BACK ONE ELEPHANT BUT A LOT OF ART AND MANS HERITAGE WOULD GO UP IN SMOKE NOT TO MENTION THE LOSS OF THE MONEY COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS SPENT COLLECTING AND PRESERVING THESE WORKS OF ART.
COLLECTORS DON'T COLLECT IVORY BECAUSE ELEPHANTS HAVE BEEN KILLED OR WITH THE DESIRE TO KILL THEM OFF. BUT BECAUSE IVORY LIKE GOLD, SILVER, GEMS AND ALL OTHER THINGS CONSIDERED BEAUTIFUL AND OF WORTH NEED TO BE CHERISHED AND APPRECIATED. SHOULD WE BURN EVERYTHING AND ALL GO BACK TO THE TREES AND BECOME GRASS EATERS AS WELL, THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK SO. YOU CAN BE SURE THESE PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED UNTIL THEY MAKE EVERYONE CONFORM TO THEIR WISHES AND MANY MORE WORTHLESS ILL CONCEIVED LAWS WILL BE WRITTEN AND PASSED.
I AM FOR THE BANNING OF ANY NEW IVORY THAT IS NOT LEGALLY HARVESTED ( FOR INSTANCE WHEN HERDS ARE CULLED BECAUSE OF OVERPOPULATION IN SOME RESERVES OR WHEN AN ANIMAL DIES. THE MONEY THUS GENERATED COULD THEN BE USED TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THE ELEPHANT.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PRESERVE OLDER EXAMPLES OF ART AND DO WHAT IS PRACTICAL. FOR INSTANCE I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO DESTROY OR BAN ALL OLD PIANOS BECAUSE OF IVORY KEYS.
HERE ARE A FEW ITEMS , ARE THEY ART OR SHOULD THEY BE BURNED TO PLEASE THE WRITERS OF SILLY LAWS? THE IBIS IVORY HANDLE IS FROM ANCIENT EGYPT, THE POWDER HORN IS PORTUGUESE THERE IS AN AFRICAN BUST, A JAPANESE CARVING CIRC. 1900, CHINESE PUZZLE BALL CARVED FROM A SOLID PIECE OF IVORY 10 BALLS ALL INSIDE OF EACH OTHER. CHINESE FIGURE, TWO RHINO HORN CUPS CARVED CIRC. 17TH TO 18 CENTURY. NONE OF THESE ARE MINE BUT IT DOES GIVE SOME IDEA OF THE BEAUTY AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS ART AND ALL ARE WAY BEFORE IVORY BANS AND LAWS EXISTED. FLY WHISK HANDLE IVORY COAST AFRICA, 2 DHA HANDLES
Attached Images
            

Last edited by VANDOO : 12th August 2014 at 04:29 PM.
VANDOO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2014, 02:51 PM   #8
Rick
Member
 
Rick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,519
Default

This is not a particularly new thing (ivory ban) here .
It will be national in no time . The auction houses in my state always post a disclaimer about shipping to California, now they will add N.J. to the list .

Our dear leader has already spoken to this on a national level, and is busily turning works of art into ivory dust .
Rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2014, 03:50 PM   #9
Berkley
Member
 
Berkley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Our dear leader has already spoken to this on a national level, and is busily turning works of art into ivory dust .

A mindset which is not restricted by state or national boundaries:

Quote:
The Duke of Cambridge wants all ivory in the royal collection at Buckingham Palace to be removed and destroyed, it is reported.
Days after the duke gave his backing to a campaign against elephant poaching, the leading primatologist Jane Goodall told the Independent on Sunday Prince William had told her he would "like to see all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace destroyed".
The royal collection contains about 1,200 artefacts dating back hundreds of years.
During the past few years, Prince Charles has reportedly asked for all ivory items at his Clarence House and Highgrove homes to be removed from sight.
The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith applauded the duke's stance, saying: "It's difficult to imagine a stronger symbol of the horrors of ivory than Buckingham Palace publicly destroying its own. Good for Prince William for pushing this."
The Guardian, Feb 17, 2014
Berkley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2014, 05:53 PM   #10
Rick
Member
 
Rick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,519
Default

Yeah, the movement seems to be world-wide .
Rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2014, 06:41 PM   #11
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Yes really sad if genuine antiques get destroyed... Strangely I think much was destroyed in China a few decades ago...

US is supposedly about the 4th largest user of ivory in the world... I guess due to population size & proportion of wealthy & the popular regard for hunting?

As for Zac Goldsmith applauding prince willy wanting to burn the Royal ivory collection, someone should point out its actually part of the National collection & not actually owned by the Royalty anymore... Id guess if he owned it he may be more reticent about burning it? Unless he really is dumb as well as ignorant...

I agree Rick... this is spreading & spreading fast.....will be worldwide in the so called civilised nations within 10 years at most Id guess. Maybe much sooner.

If you have nice old stuff , that you really like keep it, it may be forever, if not get rid of it before it becomes dangerous or illegal to do so.

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2014, 04:25 PM   #12
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

As of yesterday New York has also enacted a ban....

Some slight exceptions for articles that can be proven over 100 years old & only contain small amounts of Ivory.... So I guess that save the antique Stienways & violins at least... Not so good for dealer/collectors of antique arms.

The Ban includes mammoth as well....


The NY governors new law...

linky

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2014, 04:38 PM   #13
Rick
Member
 
Rick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,519
Default

Mammoth ?!?!?!
Now that is the height of idiocy .
Then again, we don't want the Mammoths to go extinct, do we ....
Rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2014, 10:28 PM   #14
Berkley
Member
 
Berkley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
we don't want the Mammoths to go extinct, do we ....

Apparently not:
Quote:
Woolly Mammoth Clone Is Now Possible, Say Scientists
Huffington Post Canada | By Christian Cotroneo

Posted: 03/14/2014 10:31 am EDT Updated: 03/14/2014 10:59 am EDT

Scientists now say they've got enough blood and bone to bring an Ice Age icon kicking and stomping into the modern age.

All thanks to a remarkably well-preserved mammoth found in Siberia last summer.

"The data we are about to receive will give us a high chance to clone the mammoth," Radik Khayrullin, of the Russian Association of Medical Anthropologists, told the Siberian Times.

Researchers at Russia's North-Eastern Federal University discovered the remains-- mammoth hair, soft tissues and bone marrow -- in the northeastern province of Yakutia.

During the autopsy, they were surprised to find an incredibly well preserved corpse -- better, in fact, than "a body of a human buried for six months," another scientist told the Times.

Since last summer, the scientific community has been buzzing about the possibility of breathing life back into those old bones -- or, more specifically, bringing life forth from new bones.

An elephant, as its closest living relative, would be the ideal surrogate mother for a modern-day mammoth.

The idea, as Tanya Lewis writes for LiveScience, would be to implant a mammoth embryo into an elephant, which would then give birth to a very, very old baby.

New York is just being proactive.
Berkley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 01:34 AM   #15
Tim Simmons
Member
 
Tim Simmons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: England UK.
Posts: 5,234
Default

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.
Tim Simmons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 09:44 AM   #16
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
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
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 10:24 AM   #17
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,485
Send a message via AIM to estcrh
Default

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.
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 10:55 AM   #18
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
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
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 01:37 PM   #19
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 518
Default

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 !
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 08:28 PM   #20
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
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
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 10:46 PM   #21
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,517
Default

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.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2014, 11:04 PM   #22
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

I agree with many of your observations A.G.

But other factors can also play a factor perhaps?

... Tiger skins are still worth a lot of money & are fashionable in the middle & far east, but not in the UK etc.. There still poached in India etc.

Elephants & rhino have had a dollar value for a long time, just, big game hunters, terrorists, vets , safari organisers, local military, anyone who wants some money for the cost of a couple of rounds or some poison can scupper the long term value for instant satisfaction.

As for prohibition always increasing value ... that's not always true.

When Persia collapsed the UK was flooded with high purity, very low cost heroin, because it was the easiest way to bring ones wealth out of a collapsing country.

Supply & demand help set the value & quite simply the bartering between salesmen & wealthy customers finally decides what the market will bare.

We see this in the antique arms world as well.

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 02:16 AM   #23
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,517
Default

Spiral, to address all factors involved in this matter would require extensive research and a very long and comprehensive paper. My brief contribution to this discussion is based upon generalities and current risk management practice.

Certainly, we can always argue non-conforming specific cases, and when we talk "dollar value" & "resource" definitions should ideally be given. In short, my comment is very easy to argue with and it would be an interesting exercise to engage in an ongoing debate and see just how long we could keep it going.

But I'm not going to do that. I've stated my concise opinion, and you and all others have stated, and will continue to state theirs.

The thing that I think most of us agree upon is that a total ban will accomplish nothing except the achievement of political objectives, and financial loss for those unable to find a way around the bans. One thing is for sure:- in its present form it will not protect elephants.

Supply & demand are certainly major factors in fixing the value of anything, as demonstrated very clearly by the example I provided of the rise in the price of ivory following the introduction of the early bans. As bans become wider and more intensive, it is probable that supply may decrease, which will of course raise price and desirability, but then what can we expect to happen? If history is any guide, supply will increase to fill the market gap.

Summary execution for possession of any ivory object might have some effect, most especially if such a punishment were to be introduced by China and some other developing countries. But that is not likely to happen.

Personally I think that the people who want to help the poor old jumbos would do well to have a close look at the way in which De Beers manages diamond supply.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 09:07 AM   #24
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Certainly A.G. it is a complex subject with many variables. I am sure it would be an interesting debate!

The last time a huge tonnage of African ivory was released a few years ago with cities permission, elephant poaching roared astronomically, after all a receipt saying ivory was legal, could be used again & again , as after all there is no DNA taken to match the legal document to the ivory.

I am sure De Beers, do many naughty things, many powerful international company's do.

Sadly that wont change.

I guess the fact ivory & particularly rhino horn are a long way from an infinite supply, will have its effect as well.

As you say without harsh punishment of consumers {& I would add poachers, particularly the wealthy organised ones with helicopters etc.. & the armed militia types. & not just some hungry bloke with an old .303 who makes an easy scapegoat.} the demand will remain.

Interestingly, the countries that burn there ivory publicly in huge public piles, don't say where that ivory disappears to afterwards, when they show a photo of a pile of ashes.

After all ivory may crack a bit but it doesn't burn on an open fire, that's just the logs in the pile & a splash of accelerant....

I would like the Elephant & rhino populations to recover from where they are today.... But I don't believe in destroying antiques. That wont help anyone or anything. Its vandalism.

As for Trade bans in the west... I guess at least one can keep what ones already got.

Will any of it really work? probably not...

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 09:29 AM   #25
Sajen
Member
 
Sajen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 5,941
Default

Destroying antiques in old collections would in my eyes the same what the Taliban has done in Afgahnistan with the Buddha statues from Bamiyan in 2001 and don't will help to save elephants or rhinos. Like Spiral said it's pure vandalism.
Sajen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 11:47 AM   #26
Lee
EAAF Staff
 
Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 616
Angry

I have always despised laws and regulations that overreach whatever legitimate aims they have in an effort to facilitate easy, ignorant enforcement. The assault on genuine, legitimate antiques is despicable, as are the politicians who promulgate same. I find the arguments that such overreach will protect a single endangered wild animal entirely specious. I welcome well conceived and competently written laws and regulations that would protect these animals without such gratuitous overreach. I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.
Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 03:19 PM   #27
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Indeed Sajen pure vandalism.

I don't know enough about the US legal system to comment Lee, but from what you say this may be overturned?

If so your justice system works better than the UK... {not that that's difficult...}

I still rather think such laws will become the norm in the more advanced world. europe, US Oz etc. in time.

A law that targets current professional criminals & is properly enforced would be a better approach than turning every collector into a criminal if he passes on a genuine antique.

But I guess it easy to catch non professional or accidental criminals & pretend something efficient & meaningful is going on, to the electorate.

spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 04:28 PM   #28
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,485
Send a message via AIM to estcrh
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.

Lee, as soon as a wealthy collector with influence of some kind realizes that his or her collection is in danger of being labeled as illegal / unsellable etc we will see exceptions make for antiques which contain ivory, I have no doubt.

Last edited by estcrh : 15th August 2014 at 05:55 PM.
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 09:03 PM   #29
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by estcrh
Lee, as soon as a wealthy collector with influence of some kind realizes that his or her collection is in danger of being labeled as illegal / unsellable etc we will see exceptions make for antiques which contain ivory, I have no doubt.


Well that's possible, all country's have corruptible or influenced politician's.

But hopefully it takes more than one rich man to change the state of law in the land of the free? At least a couple of dozen oil magnates, net Mongols & international arms dealers of missiles & other mass expense technology of destruction id hope! {Weve come a long way from a pointed stone & lumpy stick in the last 2000 years! }


Unsaleable shouldn't be a problem to the truly rich... they don't need to sell from there collection's & can still acquire more, even illegally if they so wish... with impunity probably, if they are so influential...

It us poorer collectors who have to decide whether to keep or sell, before laws make that decision for us.

In truth I made my choices a few years back , when I saw which way the wind was blowing.

spiral

Last edited by spiral : 15th August 2014 at 09:38 PM.
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th August 2014, 10:24 PM   #30
Lee
EAAF Staff
 
Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 616
Default

There will be the connected rich collectors and the auction houses and others in the art trade who will hire the required legal talent to deal with this absurd situation. ... I hope.
Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.