New Jersey Ivory ban....

[spiral]

Thanks for the links David they explain it well.

I just knew about it as 12 or so years ago Jon Chapman & other leading Rhino horn sculpture "experts" had what they thought was the oldest rhino horn carved cup known tested..... to date it... they were shocked to find out that instead of being c.500 years old or some such it was post nuclear age.

Which shows even the experts can get such things wrong. {Hence the problem.}

I understand your reaction Vandoo, but although some campaigners are emotional as you say, the likes of the NJ & NY mayors & Obama are probably not emotional about it.

There may be many factors behind the current US laws, but they could also involve international politics, so we cant discus that on this forum. {Send me a pm if you would like quick info bulletin on what I rightly or wrongly think may be a factor.}

Or maybe the worlds just turning & changing & views are changing? I don't know.

Selling captured illegal ivory to fund elephant care does seem morally bankrupt to me. Its like selling heroin & crack to fund an anti drugs measure or help druggies... It doesn't really add up when examined...{to my way of thinking anyway.}

Your last sentence is very true, I think... What's next indeed?

Hopefully something sensible & well thought out... but probably not..

spiral

[drac2k]

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?

[spiral]

Originally Posted by drac2k

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?

Interesting leap there...But I can see why you made it but no, it wasn't a masterpiece..

It was a very plain & naïve bowl/cup with a rough & weathered texture & deep patina, which is why it fooled the "experts" {I cant recall whether it had fake provenance as well.}

The perception being its So weathered, patined & simple it must be ancient!

But it wasn't..... it was just well faked modern crap of very little artistic value. {Ill try to get a photo of it tomorrow to illustrate. }

Spiral

[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.

[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 ?