No More Ivory On Pipes...And No Resell Of Estates With Ivory

[zack24]

No one would argue that eliminating illegal trade in elephant ivory is a worthwhile goal- Many pipemakers in the US use "Pre-ban" ivory for shank extensions or stem details- purchased from dealers who go to great pains to make sure that what they sell meets the rules. Pre-ban means that the ivory was imported prior to 1990 or is antique. In my case, I have a couple of pounds of ivory I bought in the early 80's- I've been leery of incorporating it in many of my pipes because I thought this rule would be coming. An executive order was signed yesterday that when implemented will effectively ban the domestic sale of all ivory from any source across state lines. If I'm reading it correctly, it will also make it nearly impossible to use Fossilized Mammoth ivory because it can be very difficult to prove the provenance. Think it doesn't affect you? If you own an estate pipe from any artisan carver with any ivory detail , you better enjoy it, because it will be illegal to sell across state lines or inside a state if you don't have documentation proving that the ivory detail was from pre-ban ivory...An interesting exemption allows one pair of tusks a year to be imported as trophies by sport hunters- sounds like some lobbyist worked really hard on that detail Executive Order Banning Ivory Trade

 

[papipeguy]

As usual with this administration, the intent is, perhaps, laudable but the execution (no pun intended) is flawed.

Must have been a slow day in D.C..

 

[zack24]

The unintended consequences will be amazing- an antique violin with ivory detail on the pegs- illegal to sell. A Meucci pool cue with ivory detail from the 70's- you'll be selling it in a dark alley. Your Grandmother's antique piano with ivory keys? Set it out by the curb- you can't sell it outside state lines....

 

[Perique]

With the urgency of getting the Washington Redskins name changed, I'm surprised our leaders had time to tackle such a critical issue as pre-ban ivory.

 

[anglesey]

Surely you could still sell, it'd just be a bit more awkward. As long as the sale itself takes place within state lines, i.e, money and goods change hands, then surely it constitutes a legal sale, provided the seller can prove it was imported or whatever prior to 1990.

 

[zack24]

provided the seller can prove it was imported or whatever prior to 1990

...and that's the problem....easy to prove with a hundred year old piano. Impossible to document with items from the 70's or 80s. Back in the early 80's the ivory I bought came with a certificate and number stamped into it to prove it was legal. I lost that certificate somewhere over the past 30 years and have no idea how to prove that a particular piece of ivory came from that source...
...It just cost Gibson Guitar millions of dollars in fines and legal fees for running afoul of these same types of wide reaching regulations on their fretboards- and they actually thought they were in compliance...

 

[anglesey]

You can probably get an expert to validate it. It doesn't actually say you have to have documentation, only that you can demonstratewhen it was from

 

[wcannoy]

Sounds like a good backdoor excuse to "inspect" domestic packages...

 

[brdavidson]

Anglesey how would you demonstrate without documents? Just cart around an ivory expert to talk to random government officials? Seems a strange law to be implementing considering the major issues that abound in the US currently.

 

[zack24]

Walt, you would be correct...and I can just see getting inspected at the airport on the way to an out-of-state pipe show with a bag full of pipes and getting nailed for violating interstate commerce rules....Oh, well..Fortunately, I have a bunch of exotic hardwoods that I can use for detailing...(Be right back- I hear 30 guys in Tactical gear knocking at the door...)

 

[anglesey]

Get an ivory specialist or whatever to date it, then write an affidavit claiming as much, under their expertise and authority. Antiques dealers in the UK do stuff like that, or, if you had a pipe for example that could easily be dated, documentary evidence with the pipe to prove when it was made, by model number or markings or whatever, would suffice.

 

[zack24]

Anglesey, I'm sure all that could theoretically be done, but at a serious cost in time and money. The key is that if this goes to implementation, the value of an estate pipe from any of the masters will crater due to the difficulty of complying and the strict limitation to in state sales.
In Florida, we just dodged a bullet on pipe manufacturing- the intent was to eliminate the production of pipes intended for drug consumption and made it illegal to manufacture, advertise, or sell them. Fortunately, there was an exemption created that included briar pipes or pipes intended for tobacco use. This kind of far reaching legislation often creates more problems than it solves.

 

[mso489]

Executive Orders, like legistlation, can and should be hammered into shape over time. I'm for conservation of

ivory-bearing animals, a number of which are going to be extinct soon anyway because of pouching and shrinking

gene pools. It would be nice for our grandchildren catch a glimpse of a living un-mutilated rhino or African elephant

in their lifetimes. Great-grandkids, probably no chance. But as for picky regulations enforced with obsessive

ardor, these need to be fixed. As for me, if I have a chance to purchase any pipes with that kind of exquisite

detail (not really my price level now) I would really go for the exotic wood and pass on the ivory.
Have to throw in this: During World War II, General George Patton wore trademark twin pistols, 1911 .45's as I

recall. A reporter asked him about his "pearl-handled" pistols, and General George reared back in anger.

"Pearl-handled! Only a pimp in a New Orleans whore house would wear pearl-handled pistols. These handles

are ivory, man." That would have been an assignment, to go confiscate George's ivory-handled pistols. I'm

sure they could have amended the Executive Order promptly and with great precision to eliminate that assignment.

 

[grouchydog]

Patton's pistols were Colt Single Action Army on the right and a Smith & Wesson model 27 on the left. 8)

 

[woodsroad]

When did the Executive Branch gain Legislative powers? Unconstitutional Executive Orders of this kind an affront to our freedom and a direct attack on our liberties. I don't give a damn how noble the cause. That's where they start, after all, with causes that are difficult not to agree with. But, as with so many things done by the gubbmint in the name of good faith, benevolence and custodial responsibility, their real motive lies elsewhere. Right on the money about inspecting goods and detaining suspects at state and international borders. That is just the obvious beginning.
All of my wife's cello bows have ivory as an integral part of their construction. Replace the ivory and you change the bow for the worst. For her, the bows are part of her artistry, but for us, they are also part of our retirement. This Executive order is, for us a "taking". It has diminished the value of our assets, and thus is an attack on our liberty.
Will the frog ever realize just how hot the water has become?

 

[mso489]

grouchydog, you are really on it! Thank you. Were the pistols correctly portrayed in the film "Patton" with

George C. Scott? I don't remember them being revolvers, but maybe I just didn't pick up on them.

Single action, wow, he really was a history buff. In the combat zone, I would have wanted the 1911, but

I won't argue with General George. He certainly got his job done. I think some of his hell fire was

a dramatic personae. He was also a scholarly guy, spoke fluent French, was a serious scholar of ancient

history, Greek and Roman. On the other hand, he did have anger management issues, which he used

to good purpose, though it limited his career. Eisenhower, who was probably every bit as tightly wound,

used his self-restraint to power through the tonnage of detail that made D-Day and after work. George

couldn't have worked with Churchill, let alone Stalin. Or FDR, for that matter.

 

[grouchydog]

Patton was an interesting character for sure! As I recall, for a while he carried a 1911 in his belt but had an accidental discharge with it in a bar and replaced it with the SAA. Not sure on that though. And I can't remember whether the film was accurate or not - good excuse to dust it off for a viewing.
On topic, the CITES treaty and restrictions on ivory trade have been an issue and problem with bagpipers for a good while (yes, a little esoteric...) A lot of old pipes have elephant ivory ornamentation, and over the years a good many very valuable instruments have been confiscated on overseas trips because of treaty restrictions on travelling with ivory. Of course, I'm sure the confiscating agents disposed of them quite properly and never even considered fencing them for personal gain... And here we are on the cusp of similar regulation inside our own borders.
The speed at which the foundations of our republic are crumbling is breathtaking.

 

[romeowood]

This kind of far reaching legislation often creates more problems than it solves.

...Thus ensuring the need for more lawyers and legislation. :crazy:

 

[woodsroad]

Thus ensuring the need for more lawyers and legislation

We would be fortunate if that was the extent of the problem.

 

[kcghost]

This is just classic stuff from this administration. If you don't want to go through the legislative process just issue an Executive Order.