Official Luthiers Forum!
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/

MOP Substitutes?
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=51215		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Andy Birko [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  MOP Substitutes?
Anyone have any leads on mother of pearl substitutes? I contacted the Duke of Pearl and he said that he's working on something but it's still months away.
Author:  Clay S. [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Isn't Pearloid (mother of toilet seat) the classic substitute?

http://masecraftsupply-com.3dcartstores ... c_273.html
Author:  banjopicks [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
I'd like to find some to use as purfling. I want to build something that looks like a D45 someday just for myself.
Author:  bluescreek [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/20STRIPS-PEARL ... rk:41:pf:0
Author:  Mark Fogleman [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
https://www.rothkoandfrost.com/materials-c25/sheets-c26/incudo-pearloid-celluloid-sheet-p402#attribute%5B3%5D=88
Author:  Woodie G [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Abalam and Zip-Flex are poor substitutes for real shell in terms of appearance, and I have not seen plastic substitutes that possessed any sort of charm beyond melting or bursting into flame when exposed to heat. Perhaps commit to solid shell...not difficult and certainly by far the most attractive option. Having helped with three 42-style projects, I cannot imagine investing the work in an instrument and settling for a distant second-best material.
Author:  banjopicks [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Woodie G wrote:
Abalam and Zip-Flex are poor substitutes for real shell in terms of appearance, and I have not seen plastic substitutes that possessed any sort of charm beyond melting or bursting into flame when exposed to heat. Perhaps commit to solid shell...not difficult and certainly by far the most attractive option. having helped with three 42-style projects, I cannot imagine investing the work in an instrument and settling for a distant second-best material.


I know this isn't my thread but here's my 2 cents anyway. It's the cost the stops me. Maybe on #4 or 5 when I have some experience getting a guitar completed. I wouldn't hesitate to use the stuff John posted on my second one. I have herringbone for my first. Now if someone is willing to pay for it that's a different story. I need to get through number 1 first.
Author:  Freeman [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Andy Birko wrote:
Anyone have any leads on mother of pearl substitutes? I contacted the Duke of Pearl and he said that he's working on something but it's still months away.


MOP (and MOTS) are whitish pearl that I believe comes from oyster shells. Abalone (paua) is the greenish inlay that you mostly see on style 41/45 guitars. Both are on the CITES appendix II list but being by products of the shellfish industry can be imported (and exported) with the proper paperwork. I buy all my shell materials from Andy DePaule.

banjopicks wrote:
I know this isn't my thread but here's my 2 cents anyway. It's the cost the stops me. Maybe on #4 or 5 when I have some experience getting a guitar completed. I wouldn't hesitate to use the stuff John posted on my second one. I have herringbone for my first. Now if someone is willing to pay for it that's a different story. I need to get through number 1 first.


My third guitar was a small bodied 12 string and I did style 41 type purfling with the help from John Hall. I've since done a few "girlie" guitars with abalone inlay - its really not all that difficult

Image
Author:  Andy Birko [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
To elaborate a bit - I'm looking for non-shell alternatives to MOP for the purpose of exporting. Getting proper paperwork for shell is cost prohibitive. Abalam and whatever other laminated shell products don't fit the bill because they still need CITES paperwork.

MOT - is nitroceluloid or something like that - basically old school nitro based plastic and it contains no shell. So far, that seems to be the only alternative at the moment. I've made hundreds of vintage style trapezoid inlay with this stuff but no one will ever mistake it for real MOP.
Author:  jfmckenna [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Hmmmm.... I rather like ZipFlex. I think it looks fine.
Author:  peter.coombe [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
MOP and Paua Abalone are not on CITES. Pearl oysters are grown by the millions in Pearl farms in my country, and Paua is also grown on farms and wild Paua Abalone is strictly controlled by the NZ government. Problems with import/export of shell is only confined to the USA, it is not because of CITES. I can import and export shell to any other country without the ridiculous paperwork required by the US. MOP and Paua are not endangered.
Author:  Clay S. [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Lacey? That is the other thing that usually gets in the way.
I bought a kilogram of abalone scrap for cheap, quite a few years ago, so I'm committed to using real shell for awhile.For doing the typical line work I snap the pieces with end nippers to avoid the dust. I think ablam and zip flex when done right look fine. Celluloid can look nice too - it just ages poorly.
Author:  Freeman [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Andy Birko wrote:
To elaborate a bit - I'm looking for non-shell alternatives to MOP for the purpose of exporting. Getting proper paperwork for shell is cost prohibitive. Abalam and whatever other laminated shell products don't fit the bill because they still need CITES paperwork.


Andy, when I sent a guitar to Austria a few years ago it had MOP inlay from DePaule. Andy furnished me at no cost or hassle with a statement that the material was a by product of the shell fish industry and tracking. When I listed the materials that the guitar was built out on the invoice I attached a copy. That guitar sailed thru customs. Maybe things have changed but it would be worth contacting him.
Author:  Brad Goodman [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Don't be shellfish....
Author:  Woodie G [ Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Based on what I can find from FWS, MOP has the following status per Federal law re: import and export:

Quote:
Mother of pearl
Mother of pearl, or nacre, is a material produced from the inner shell layer of many mollusks. Mother of pearl is strong and iridescent, and is used in manufacturing a wide range of products, including buttons, jewelry, and decorative accents on musical instruments. Although mother of pearl is a wildlife product, it is not listed under the ESA or CITES, and may be traded internationally without permits. However, like other wildlife shipments, commercial imports (emphasis added) of mother of pearl must be declared to the Service and must be imported through specific ports of entry. Visit http://www.fws.gov/le for more information.


https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-musical-instruments.pdf

Then why the insistence on the part of vendors to sell/ship these products only to domestic users? My guess is that other countries have import restrictions which apply beyond FWS's implementation of the Lacey Act and other statutes, so commercial vendors likely eschew the massive paperwork and permitting workload of dealing with the 170 or so polities with functional customs and border policing. Also, state laws may apply within the US, with often confusing, sometimes impossible-to-satisfy statutes criminalizing transfer or even possession-with-intent of certain materials legal in other states.

Re: my preference for solid shell, I don't believe most customers care, if Martin's success in selling guitars made largely from countertop material is any indication. I suspect I am in a minority here, but prefer to imagine that it is at least a very tasteful one. ;)
Author:  Andy Birko [ Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
peter.coombe wrote:
MOP and Paua Abalone are not on CITES. ... Problems with import/export of shell is only confined to the USA, ....


Be that as it may, I have non-US customers that are asking for non-shell inlay that looks like shell in order to not have to deal with any of the nonsense related to importing/exporting shell. I'm not selling finished guitars, simply guitar parts with inlay and I imagine that having too long a paper trail can be a hassle, especially if you're selling 300 - 400 guitars a year and don't know which ones will go to the U.S., which might go somewhere else.

For as much as I love the look of MOP and Abalone, I'll be happy when we get a good synthetic substitute.
Author:  peter.coombe [ Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Yes, some of us need non shell materials but only so we can export our instruments to the USA and avoid the fees and paperwork. However, I can get shell from Vietnam or Australia and export my instruments to any country in the world with no paperwork, except the USA. Other countries do not have import restrictions on shell, so long as it is the shell only. Only the USA has these stupid rules. The paperwork and fees associated with shell in the USA is ridiculous because it serves no purpose other than to make it difficult and expensive. I also prefer solid shell, and use solid shell which makes exporting to the USA a PITA. No problems sending instruments anywhere else. As far as "commercial" goes, different countries have different definitions so it gets complicated, but if one or both parties is conducting a business, then it is a commercial transaction according to the US rules. This applies to any quantity, even if it is just a few grams. My country's definition includes a significant quantity for "commercial" so makes a lot more sense. The reason why commercial vendors in the US only deal domestically is because each export of shell no matter the quantity requires a permit which costs around $100, so the cost of the permit and the cost of the labour to get the permits is prohibitive for small quantities of shell. In other words it ain't worth it.

Most commercial MOP comes from the pearl oyster. The main reason for that is the pearl oyster grows big shells, and they are readily available as a by product from the pearl industry from countries such as my own. To make decent size blanks you need a big thick shell. Other oyster species shells are smaller.
Author:  dzsmith [ Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Not to veer off subject, but I believe all shell products were put in the Lacey act due to Abalone poaching on the West coast. I would not consider this a stupid rule.
I reckon they included all shell products for the same reason all Rosewoods are in the Cites list which is difficulty determining an exact species.
Author:  bobgramann [ Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
Not that it will satisfy your customers who want pearl, but I decided a few years ago that pearl just wasn’t worth the trouble. I have some holly, a very white wood, and use it any place where I might have used pearl. It’s different, it’s white, and it fits in with my simple aesthetic.
Author:  Clay S. [ Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOP Substitutes?
"I reckon they included all shell products for the same reason all Rosewoods are in the Cites list which is difficulty determining an exact species."

Not to pick a fight, but rather express a divergence of opinion - mother of pearl doesn't even look anything like abalone, so there shouldn't be any confusion with it. Using that reasoning why not ban all wood because rosewood is wood? And polished bone looks quite a bit like ivory to the untrained eye. If the government wants to ban something to protect it, they should at least know how to identify it. I don't support blanket banning of entire genera because they are too lazy or ignorant to identify things properly. Taken one step farther they will ban mother of toilet seat.
Holly is a fairly white wood and has been used for "stringing" in furniture for a few hundred years. White Corian might be a good replacement for the ivory rings that Martin used in some of it's high end rosettes. Plastics may be the wave of the future, and considering the Pacific gyre may some day be considered a "Marine product". The ban we truly need is on disposable plastic products. gaah (where is the soap box emoji ?)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/