Official Luthiers Forum!

Looks like we are now off the hook for shipping finished instruments around the world made from CITES materials.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/27/75450968 ... ed-rosewoo

"They got their wish Monday as a key CITES committee approved it. If finalized as expected this week, the exemption will allow finished musical instruments as well as parts and accessories containing rosewood to be transported freely around the world without permits."

Parts and accessories are being included? Does that mean back and side sets, fingerboards, etc. will be allowed to come into the country? When does a piece of wood become a "part"?

The article says that raw material rosewood would still be subject to regulation and permit.

It isn't finished yet and you will need to wait and see what is actually passed. But it is good news that they are where they are on it.
Don't think you will be able to bring in raw wood but people will be able to sell their instruments internationally again, which should help the industry.

Yeah exactly the way I read it too. Now for example you can build a guitar with your legal stash of BRW and sell it any where you want. Also if you have a vintage guitar you can sell as well. And this is helpful for traveling musicians too.

It says 'transported freely', not 'sold freely'.

The idea behind CITES is that if a resource has no market value in international trade it won't be traded. They can't stop trade within a country; that's a matter for national laws, not an international treaty. Buying and selling BRW guitars within the US is legal, so long as you don't run afoul of the Lacey Act, but you can't make/buy one here and sell it in Japan or Europe. They're not going to change that.

What they can do is make it possible for you to carry your BRW guitar with ivory nut and saddle along when you travel to Europe or Japan, so long as you don't intend to sell it when you get there. That's where things could get sticky. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail: as far as Customs and Border Protection is concerned, you're a smuggler until you prove that you're not. One thing you can do is stop off at US Customs on the way out and get the little form they have (I forget the number) to register the item. You're supposed to do this with any valuable you carry abroad. You fill in your name and so on, and identify the object (Martin OM-28 #65xxx, say) and sign the form. Customs stamps it, and you're good to go. When you bring it back into the country there's no question that it's yours, and you didn't buy it there to smuggle in.

There's also supposed to be an 'instrument passport' that you can get, I think from the Fish and Wildlife Service (which administers CITES in the US). It serves a similar function, but demonstrates that you're not carrying the thing out of the country to sell. This new reg seems aimed at simplifying things: you should not have to go through as much paper work, and possibly ship through designated ports, to carry your personal guitar over seas. But they're still not going to allow you to sell it there.

Well, now I'm not so sure. Here's a link to the actual change in the regulation:
https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-52.pdf

It does seem to ease up on 'trade', but note that BRW, which is on CITES 1, is not covered. I imagine that goes for ivory too.

Ah ok so Appendix 1 is still off limits.

Mammoth Ivory still remains legal.
No rules against listing an extinct animal as endangered, but it would seem weird.
Registering Mammoth Ivory seems like a good step.

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

I heard the story on the radio. Its about time they fixed this.

Actually Mammoth ivory is illegal to buy or sell, import or export in California.

I heard that just about everything is illegal to buy or sell, import or export in California. /slight sarcasm

_________________
-Marcus
http://www.bailieguitars.com
Instagram | YouTube

Several states have passed that sort of law, so you'll need to check. New York is one, I believe.

Does anyone know when this goes into effect?

Ed, new regs take effect in approx. 90 days

_________________
Guitar Maker and Purveyor of the World's Finest Tonewoods
http://www.aaronhixguitars.com/
http://stores.ebay.com/A-Hix-Tonewood-a ... r-Supplies

Dang! Not soon enough but still good news...

CITES was relatively easy to deal with compared to Lacey. Any news about Lacey?

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Anyone know if this change applies to bubinga too? I've read through this stuff and I can't work it out.

_________________
nigel

http://www.theluthierblog.com

Yes, it does. The Canada/EU proposal referenced earlier by Alan was amended slightly. The official decision adopted by CITES on 28.07.19 is available on their website, and included in the meeting summary:
https://www.cites.org/eng/updates_decisions_cop18_species_proposals
Note also that Padauk and ALL species of Cedrela are now on Appendix II.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Padauk? Is this new?

It’s new, but also a bit confusing. The adopted amendment, proposed by Malawi, was for “African Padauk”, Pterocarpus tinctorius. At least some North American dealers are listing their instrument Padauk as P. soyauxii, also known as African Padauk, so i’m not sure how this applies. There are at least 35 species recognized in this genus.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’re correct that this is confusing. Heck, CITES doesn’t even have a clear definition of “musical instrument”. Past application has established that “finished parts” include back and side pieces, fingerboard blanks, bridge blanks, neck blanks, etc., ready for use in manufacturing of instruments. It does not include rough dimensioned lumber.
But recall that it was exactly this sort of thing that caused a dispute between Gibson and the US government. As I recall, fingerboard blanks were classified as “finished parts” by Indian authorities, and therefore legal for export under Indian regulations. The US government disagreed and therefore tried to call the material “illegal”, despite export approval from the Indian government.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk