Brazilian rosewood in the u.s. To become illegal

[fishstick_kitty]

Originally Posted by Duke of Pearl

...and in conjunction with the new total ban on all elephant ivory, it will become a felony to buy or sell anything containing Brazilian rosewood unless it has proper documentation...

I thought it already required proper documentation . Or, is it just the guitar maker that needs the documentation currently, and in the future, the end customer will need that paperwork?

[Burton LeGeyt]

Originally Posted by DRodgers

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?

Exactly- That is what I believe the new regs will mean.

[BBWW]

In the 70's I was building Dulcimers out of Brazilian, I used a table saw to re-saw!

I recently found my papers from back then, where I'd buy my Brazilian Rosewood at a local lumber company called Mitons Lumber. This paper work might come in handy…LOL

I see a black market in forged receipts developing. Old receipt books bought at the flea market and a red pencil.

These laws are a mess, it is stupid hard, sufficiently vague that it is becoming assumed quilt. Heck I feel guilty talking about it.

[DRodgers]

Originally Posted by Burton LeGeyt

Exactly- That is what I believe the new regs will mean.

Oh man. I really hate to hear that. I know a "small guitar company" that has a very nice stock of superb Brazilian that they actively use. I forwarded them the attachment in the OP. I understand why Brazilian is on the CITES list, but it does seem to get more absurd as the "levels" increase. I just feel that our Government has greater problems than this to worry with. I can actually think of 17.5 trillion dollars of problems right now.

[Silly Moustache]

These new laws - apply pretty much world wide and so I would not knowingly buy a guitar with BRW, Madagascar or coco. Yes they are very pretty - but they are simply not worth the problem.

I do have some relatively recently made guitars that have small bits of BRW veneers on the headstock - which was standard equipment although nowadays the makers puts ebony on the same models - which I think looks better anyway.

This uncertainty, will I believe, radically reduce the value of BRW and Madi guitars - which was one reason why I passed on the Martin D28 '31 Authentic.

Another reason for never buying a guitar in hopes of selling it.

Sitka and EIR - can still be a wondrous guitar.

[rlgph]

The OP states that it is now illegal to sell BRW WITHIN the US. So far as i saw, the Fretboard J article only talked about possible illegality when moving across international boundaries.

Can someone else confirm that the ban applies to commerce within the US?

[Shoreline Music]

Originally Posted by rlgph

The OP states that it is now illegal to sell BRW WITHIN the US. So far as i saw, the Fretboard J article only talked about possible illegality when moving across international boundaries.

Can someone else confirm that the ban applies to commerce within the US?

The Fretboard Journal article is from 6 years ago.

[devellis]

I can't help but think that this won't have much impact on guitar players unless they're dealers. I can't see that any governmental agency has any interest in prohibiting people who own guitars sporting Brazilian rosewood from enjoying them. Likewise, sales that clearly involve instruments that predate the laws or that are from sources known to have complied with the laws seem unlikely to draw the attention of enforcement agencies. On the other hand, new instruments sold publicly that have Brazilian components of recent origin without documentation, or people dealing with substantial quantities of raw wood may well receive such scrutiny.

Obviously, none of us know exactly what will happen but I would be surprised if individuals who aren't contributing in any way to the illegal trafficking of banned goods will be targeted by law enforcement. Thus far, as I understand it, border agents haven't been unreasonable (there may be individual exceptions) about confiscations, even when they technically could have done so under the law. It's scary, to be sure, when a law permits what we would all agree are unwarranted confiscations, even if the actual confiscations don't occur. But if it achieves a greater good without leading to harassment, it may not be all that bad. An analogy might be speed limits. Yes, you can be stopped and ticketed for going 36mph in a 35mph zone. In practice, unless you're more blatantly violating the speed limit, it's unlikely you'll get ticketed, even if you're observed going a bit over 35. Now go 50, and you likely will get a ticket if you're spotted and clocked. Although I obviously don't know for sure, I suspect all of this will be kind of similar to the traffic enforcement situation: Lacking documentation you technically need will be overlooked if it's patently not an effort to circumvent the intent of the rules; flaunt the rules intentionally, and you'll get burnt. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[drtedtan]

After reading through the PDF in the OP (http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf...ter-import.pdf), it certainly appears that any and all BRW within US borders can only be used for non commercial purposes, whether inside or outside the US, unless it can be documented that it was imported pre-CITES. While this is bad for builders that have existing stocks of BRW that they can't prove is legal, it does not appear to require the wood itself to have been documented in all cases: I interpret "written records or other documentary evidence" to mean that a vintage instrument that can be dated based on serial number or other identifying characteristic to have been built pre CITES to be legal for resale. So while I see this as a minor issue of providing increased provenance in the case of vintage dealers (like Mr. Gruhn), I see a potential big issue for builders sitting on stocks of BRW. And the prices of BRW guitars going even higher.

[Jimbolaya]

Originally Posted by DRodgers

Oh man. I really hate to hear that. I know a "small guitar company" that has a very nice stock of superb Brazilian that they actively use. I forwarded them the attachment in the OP. I understand why Brazilian is on the CITES list, but it does seem to get more absurd as the "levels" increase. I just feel that our Government has greater problems than this to worry with. I can actually think of 17.5 trillion dollars of problems right now.

I love guitars and exotic wood, but I disagree with this.
We are the consumers of these tropical woods.
Rainforests have been cut down for years and now we have climate issues which are related. Some say climate issues will be much more devestating than the 17.5 trillion we owe.
CITES is a logical policy to curb over harvesting, poaching, waste, and the financial draw that will entice every Brazilian with a saw or ax.
Granted, guitars use less wood than say the furniture business, but we are one more source that is putting dollars behind the cutting.
At some point we need to bite the bullet and say we are done with BRW for a while (much like we have already done with tortoise shell picks). There are other great options. But really, most of us need to just play the guitars we already own.
-J

[jpd]

Now it's time for Bubinga to flourish......terrific, albeit heavy, b/s tone wood! And it's plentiful........

[Aaron Smith]

I strongly support the ideals behind CITES regulation, as well as many other forms of US government regulation.

However, I loathe the policies that they typically implement, which are almost always an incomprehensible dumpster fire that serves to make things impossible to manage without actually solving any of the problems. In most cases, they couldn't implement a one-car funeral if you spotted them the hearse. For my day job I deal frequently with the FDA and CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services). After 20 years of dealing with them, I am still impressed almost daily by their breathtaking ignorance and ineptitude. Most of the individuals that I've had to work with in these agencies would be almost unhireable in the private sector, yet are given almost limitless power.

I can see no reason why the EPA would be any different.

Apologies in advance to any government regulators that may be reading. Then again- not really.

[DRodgers]

Originally Posted by Jimbolaya

I love guitars and exotic wood, but I disagree with this.
We are the consumers of these tropical woods.
Rainforests have been cut down for years and now we have climate issues which are related. Some say climate issues will be much more devestating than the 17.5 trillion we owe.
CITES is a logical policy to curb over harvesting, poaching, waste, and the financial draw that will entice every Brazilian with a saw or ax.
Granted, guitars use less wood than say the furniture business, but we are one more source that is putting dollars behind the cutting.
At some point we need to bite the bullet and say we are done with BRW for a while (much like we have already done with tortoise shell picks). There are other great options. But really, most of us need to just play the guitars we already own.
-J

Perhaps I failed to mention that their wood came from old furniture...real old. So I disagree with not being able to use something that has already been harvested. You can get into an environmental, and economics debate, but I try to deal more in reality. Reality is small builders using old BRW that was harvested before you were probably born is not the issue and never has been the issue. Also, I have a more imminent fear of repaying 17.5 trillion than I do of being burnt up by the sun.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by Shoreline Music

The Fretboard Journal article is from 6 years ago.

Here's an update.

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/blog...rt-will-travel

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/blog...ites-provision

[posternutbag]

I am certain that many of the large guitar manufacturers are elated. Thousands of high-end guitars are essentially unsalable as of the end of June. Supply side contraction by law.