Brazilian rosewood in the u.s. To become illegal

[patentcad]

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe we should consider amnesty for all Brazilian that has been in the US for several years.

In all seriousness, DUH. I have a friend who owns 4-5 older Martins with Brazilian. Does he have written documentation on the guitars' origins? Why would you need that on a guitar that's 15-60+ YEARS OLD???f

Those regulations as written really have a logic disconnect that is rather unfathomable.

[DRodgers]

I have a couple of novice questions. I am no expert on CITES and how it impacts various woods.

Question #1. How will this update affect builders who have Brazilian(say that was retrieved from old furniture)? Probably no paperwork associated with that.

Question #2. Is Madagascar and Cocobolo following in the same footsteps as Brazilian with regards to CITES? I have a Cocobolo guitar, which is where my curiousity comes from.

Thanks for any information.

[bhbayless]

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe we should consider amnesty for all Brazilian that has been in the US for several years. We could crate a "pathway to legal tonewood" so that Brazilian that aspires to becomes a great guitar has the opportunity to do so instead of being in the shadows of instrument making. Place like Nazareth, PA could declare themselves "sanctuary cities" for undocumented (we shouldn't use the term illegal) rosewood.

Post of the year.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe we should consider amnesty for all Brazilian that has been in the US for several years. We could crate a "pathway to legal tonewood" so that Brazilian that aspires to becomes a great guitar has the opportunity to do so instead of being in the shadows of instrument making. Place like Nazareth, PA could declare themselves "sanctuary cities" for undocumented (we shouldn't use the term illegal) rosewood.

bwahahaha .

[pb+j]

As far as I can tell owning a guitar with brazilian in it not made illegal. What's made potentially illegal is crossing international borders with it. It's not illegal to own it, it's illegal to take it in or out of the country without certification.

A significant distinction, no?

[nrand]

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe we should consider amnesty for all Brazilian that has been in the US for several years. We could crate a "pathway to legal tonewood" so that Brazilian that aspires to becomes a great guitar has the opportunity to do so instead of being in the shadows of instrument making. Place like Nazareth, PA could declare themselves "sanctuary cities" for undocumented (we shouldn't use the term illegal) rosewood.

To take this to the next logical step, we could all then move to Nazareth PA and declare independence from the rest of the world.

[Paultergeist]

Originally Posted by jjordan47

A government dept. in one day declaring that what you legally own is now confiscated by law.
I am just trying to decide when the fighting starts,and it will, do I join in or do I get some popcorn and set back and watch the show. This same thing has been done over and over through history so I know who is going to win,but the show should be good if you can keep from being shot.

I don't think there will be much shooting......big brother will already have taken our guns.......I DO plan on throwing rocks, however.......

[swiftz07]

Could someone clarify, assuming the OP's words are true:

1. Would it then effectively render the brazillian stashes in major factories or single luthiers worthless, since its commercial trade is no longer allowed?

2. Would it mean that posting say, a brazillian guitar for sale even on AGF classifieds would be illegal?

I can't imagine no more brazillian offerings at the next NAMM show, or top luthiers having to replace a treasure trove stash (eg. Kevin Ryan signature series) with an alternative say madrose.

There needs to be a longer lead in period for its ban. declaring the trade illegal overnight hurts many with at least some supply of BRW in stock.

[fuman]

Originally Posted by pb+j

The guy most upset in that article in fretboard journal is vintage seller George Gruhn. Martin seems to have no problem with it.

The obvious answer here, if you are concerned about it, is "get a guitar that doesn't violate CITES to travel with." Problem solved! Making a fetish out of this or that wood species is dumb: it's got nothing to do with music making and everything to do with copycat marketing and vintage marketing.

I'm happy, because I don't want to see Dalbergia Nigra go extinct just to indulge a bunch of collectors who can't play. If you have a nice old guitar with Brazilian backs and sides, be happy, it just got more valuable. Treasure it, and keep it close to home.

I don't think the above is a fair characterization of Mr. Gruhn. Also, if you consider the different perspectives he has vs. C.F. Martin, Martin ALREADY has to comply with CITES for its stocks of Brazilian and other regulated tonewoods. It's not selling any undocumented Brazilian now, so the change has no effect on its business.

Gruhn, meanwhile, will not be able to buy or sell any Brazilian rosewood guitars unless it can acquire and provide the documentation as to the origin of the wood. If a guitar is not specified as Brazilian, but Gruhn thinks it might be, and the provenance is unclear, Gruhn can't buy it because it can't sell it.

Maybe guitar prices are ridiculous and maybe wood fetishes are silly. But I don't think you should slag someone for operating what appears to be an honorable business, providing goods that might otherwise be difficult to market. Maybe he's making money but the money doesn't drive what he does, IMO.

[random works]

What happens to BRW guitars once confiscated? Are they released back to their owners after paying a fine?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by random works

What happens to BRW guitars once confiscated? Are they released back to their owners after paying a fine?

Only if the guitar shows returning home would result in its being turned into a fence post or Sao Paolo outhouse.

[pb+j]

Originally Posted by fuman

I don't think the above is a fair characterization of Mr. Gruhn. Also, if you consider the different perspectives he has vs. C.F. Martin, Martin ALREADY has to comply with CITES for its stocks of Brazilian and other regulated tonewoods. It's not selling any undocumented Brazilian now, so the change has no effect on its business.

Gruhn, meanwhile, will not be able to buy or sell any Brazilian rosewood guitars unless it can acquire and provide the documentation as to the origin of the wood. If a guitar is not specified as Brazilian, but Gruhn thinks it might be, and the provenance is unclear, Gruhn can't buy it because it can't sell it.

Maybe guitar prices are ridiculous and maybe wood fetishes are silly. But I don't think you should slag someone for operating what appears to be an honorable business, providing goods that might otherwise be difficult to market. Maybe he's making money but the money doesn't drive what he does, IMO.

Money doesn't drive what he does? I find that extremely hard to believe. Does he give vintage guitars to deserving orphans to see the smiles on their faces? Gruhn is in the business of selling vintage guitars. It's more or less a perfectly legitimate business, thought here are lots of fakes around. I've no doubts this law works a hardship on him,but it also works a hardship on illegal loggers and importers. I bear him no specific ill will, but yes, he should be required to certify that what he is selling is of legal provenance. It's actually the core thing of his business, isn't it? If he can't establish that the vintage guitar is exactly as advertised, then he's not reliable as a seller of vintage guitars.

I'm not a fan of the vintage market or the whole idea of fetishizing vintage, so my ox is not being gored here. Lots of people love it and good for them. But the living stock of Dalbergia nigra diminishes all the time, and unless strict attention is paid, there are going to be fake vintage guitars, and guitars with dubiously obtained rosewood, all over the place.

[mdutr0]

Originally Posted by devellis

I think the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is misunderstood. As it has been explained to me, it's a rule of evidence, not a rule of law. If you are suspected of a crime, you can be arrested without proof of guilt. You can be presumed guilty based on what a law officer observes, for example. When you go to trial, there must be positive proof of guilt as an evidentiary basis for conviction. But arrest, detention, confiscation of property, and other acts can happen on the basis of reasonable suspicion. If you're suspected of drug trafficking, property involved in that suspected activity (like a car, a house, a boat) can be confiscated.

I'm sure there are nuances here that I'm missing but that's how it has been explained to me. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is true in only a limited sense and it's always been that way.

What Devellis says here is basically correct (I'm a lawyer).

[Burton LeGeyt]

Originally Posted by swiftz07

Could someone clarify, assuming the OP's words are true:

1. Would it then effectively render the brazillian stashes in major factories or single luthiers worthless, since its commercial trade is no longer allowed?

2. Would it mean that posting say, a brazillian guitar for sale even on AGF classifieds would be illegal?

I can't imagine no more brazillian offerings at the next NAMM show, or top luthiers having to replace a treasure trove stash (eg. Kevin Ryan signature series) with an alternative say madrose.

There needs to be a longer lead in period for its ban. declaring the trade illegal overnight hurts many with at least some supply of BRW in stock.

Please understand I am not versed in every level of this but from what I understand:

1. Yes. Many people have wood that did not have CITES paperwork (or that paperwork has expired) and it will become instantly monetarily worthless simply because it will be impossible to sell legally. Up until now trade WITHIN the US has been allowed without the documentation.

2. Yes. If you did not get paperwork with your guitar when you bought it then it will be illegal to sell after this goes into effect in June. Not illegal to own, but you cannot sell it. This goes for anything with BRW, even veneer.

There is still BRW with papers out there so it is not that it will stop being available it will just be (more) expensive.

I agree with your assessment - this is a tough pill to swallow when you have anything invested in the wood. For builders who have raw wood and anyone who bought a BRW guitar expecting it to remain a valuable asset. Again, some of those guitars have paperwork but I imagine many do not.

Also, again, this is MY UNDERSTANDING ONLY from reading the ammendment this morning. I hope I am wrong! But it seems to be true.

[DRodgers]

Originally Posted by Burton LeGeyt

Please understand I am not versed in every level of this but from what I understand:

1. Yes. Many people have wood that did not have CITES paperwork (or that paperwork has expired) and it will become instantly monetarily worthless simply because it will be impossible to sell legally. Up until now trade WITHIN the US has been allowed without the documentation.

2. Yes. If you did not get paperwork with your guitar when you bought it then it will be illegal to sell after this goes into effect in June. Not illegal to own, but you cannot sell it. This goes for anything with BRW, even veneer.

There is still BRW with papers out there so it is not that it will stop being available it will just be (more) expensive.

I agree with your assessment - this is a tough pill to swallow when you have anything invested in the wood. For builders who have raw wood and anyone who bought a BRW guitar expecting it to remain a valuable asset. Again, some of those guitars have paperwork but I imagine many do not.

Also, again, this is MY UNDERSTANDING ONLY from reading the ammendment this morning. I hope I am wrong! But it seems to be true.

So based on what you know, if a builder has X number of Brazilian sets that were recovered from old furniture, then they cannot build with that(assuming that it does not have proper paperwork)? Is that a correct assumption?