Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
Eye candy desde Brasil
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Andy Culpepper
Posts: 3019
Joined: Mar. 30 2009
From: NY, USA
|
 RE: Eye candy desde Brasil (in reply to Andy Culpepper)
|
|
|
Those are great questions Ricardo, I don't mind answering here...
So with regards to the authenticity. I have the original export permit from Brazil. I got the sets from a longtime friend who I trust and I believe in the chain of custody. Beyond that, any luthier's eyes, ears and nose can verify that this is dalbergia nigra. It has a very distinctive smell (it was originally harvested for perfume after all). Certain grain patterns, the glassy taptone, it all adds up to a high degree of certainty.
Now with regards to travelling with a BRW guitar, 99% of the time I'm sure no one will ever ask you anything. If you're risk averse though, it's a better idea to just not travel internationally with a BRW guitar, because as you mentioned there is always the chance someone gets suspicious. Maybe in half of the one percent scenarios having a copy of the permit would help, and maybe in the other half it wouldn't, I really don't know. But if you don't want the risk I would just leave it at home.
Shipping or travelling with the guitar inside the US should be perfectly fine. If I send one overseas it gets a little more complicated with obtaining permits, I've even had to do that in the past with Indian Rosewood before they changed the rules on it.
_____________________________
Andy Culpepper, luthier
http://www.andyculpepper.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2023 1:45:11
 |
|
kitarist
Posts: 1680
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: Eye candy desde Brasil (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
this thread would be a good reference
OK, then I will add a bit more to explain why it is legal to sell some BRW even now, as well as what/where the rules are in general and why, with references. This assumes essentially zero knowledge of the subject matter. Sorry for the length.
CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [of Wild Fauna and Flora] (full text here: https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php )
Created in 1973, the principal aim is to address the fact that unrestricted international trade (export-import) is the main driver for over-harvesting/killing of various (wild) plants and animals to such an extent that it threatens them with extinction.
CITES was put together as an international agreement to address that by preventing/restricting import and export of these species, which presumably would remove the impetus for their over-harvesting/killing.
(This is implemented, in practice, at the national level for each signatory country; one can find the CITES authority for one's country by looking it up on the CITES website: https://cites.org/eng/parties/country-profiles/national-authorities ).
Domestic trade in these species is not restricted by CITES, presumably because it was not a big factor in what was driving the over-harvesting/killing problem. In fact, "Trade" is a defined word in CITES 'Article I: Definitions" to mean specifically "export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea".
BRW (Dalbergia Nigra) is listed in Appendix I - which is the list with the most restrictions for [international] trade. CITES Article III provides the general rules for App. I species ( https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#III ), which are that any international trade would have to be done with export and import permits; however, they can only be obtained (or are not needed) in some very limited circumstances as outlined in Article VII ( https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#VII ):
No import/export permits are needed, for example, in the case:
VII.1: when species are in transit while remaining in customs control;
VII.2: when species were acquired (harvested) before being included on the CITES list (as long as a certificate to that effect is issued by the relevant national authority);
VII.3: when species are personal or household effects;
and so on, a few other exemptions, like for specimens bred in captivity; for a non-commercial loan/exchange between scientists.
As a consequence, the only way BRW and guitars made out of it can still be moved between countries for the commercial purpose of trade is if it can be proved that the BRW was felled before it landed in App. I of CITES. When did this happen, exactly?
CITES's 8th meeting (called "CoP8" = CITES "Conference of the Parties, 8th meeting") was held Mar 2-13, 1992, in Kyoto, Japan. One of the proposals ( https://cites.org/eng/cop/08/prop/index.php ) adopted at that meeting was from Brazil, for including BRW in Appendix I (CoP8 Proposal 91 PDF). That 4-page proposal also provides biological and trade data, national protection status, and info on similar species, with references.
That Brazilian proposal (among others) was adopted by CoP8, valid from Jun 11, 1992 (Amendments to Appendices I and II adopted at CoP8 (pdf)).
Therefore, any BRW proved to have been harvested before Jun 11, 1992, would be 'pre-convention BRW' for which Article VII.2 exemption would apply - as long as a certificate to that effect is issued by the relevant national authority.
In practice, Andy above has the original export document which apparently is dated before Jun 11, 1992, thus proving that the BRW must have been harvested before that date. This would be the main evidence likely sufficient to apply under Article VII.2 to the (in this case) US CITES authority for an official certificate to that effect. That certificate would then be the evidence needed for any buyer of guitars made from that BRW to apply and easily get a 'Musical Instrument Certificate' for each guitar. Alternatively, things can be left at the 'export permit' level, which will be needed (by guitar seller) later for any guitar to demonstrate pre-convention status for its sale abroad, and for getting a musical instrument certificate for later movement (by guitar buyer).
Finally, one thing to add regarding the Musical Instrument Certificate is that CITES clarified recently that using such an instrument for paid performances (travelling musician) does not affect the granting of that certificate - it is not a violation of CITES to move such an instrument between countries for the purposes of paid work. This makes sense because CITES's 'commercial purposes' restriction is specifically about the [international] trade of the endangered species [and products made from it] itself. Making money from playing a BRW guitar abroad is not an act of trading BRW.
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2023 19:45:31
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3394
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Eye candy desde Brasil (in reply to Andy Culpepper)
|
|
|
Not long after I retired at the end of 2009 I traveled to Vancouver and Victoria, Canada to buy some Brazilian rosewood furniture. The furniture was made in Denmark in the 1950s-60s. It was the Scandinavians who used up all the Brazilian rosewood, not the guitar makers.
The heirs of the original purchsers are selling off mid-century Modern. I'm as old as their parents, and nostalgic.
Before paying I asked the dealer how he proposed to export the furniture to the USA. I was thinking about the CITES rules, and the lack of certification for the merchandise.
The dealer replied that they waited until they accumulated a van load to be exported, loaded it up, and drove it to Bremerton, Washington, where they turned it over to U.S. shipping companies.
"What about U.S. Customs?" I asked. The dealer said that Customs had confiscated a van load of stuff, asserting it was Dalbergia Nigra. The dealer hired a professor from a Vancouver university and contested the confiscation. Things went back and forth for a while, until U.S. Customs finally admitted they were unable to prove it was Dalbergia Nigra. Microscopic cell photos of other species resembled Dalbergia too closely.
After that, U.S. Customs had ignored subsequent van loads.
The stuff I bought arrived in Texas unmolested.
The dealer usually had a substantial stock of used Scandinavian rosewood furniture, had sigificant sales in the USA, and could afford to fight U.S. Customs. A lone guitar maker or traveling musician would likely be in a different position.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2023 19:52:05
|
|
Andy Culpepper
Posts: 3019
Joined: Mar. 30 2009
From: NY, USA
|
|
RE: Eye candy desde Brasil (in reply to Andy Culpepper)
|
|
|
Since we are collecting information here, I found this very informative. Got permission from my anonymous friend (the BRW Santa Claus) to copy and paste:
"As background — Firstly, any Brazilian being shipped overseas needs 2 cites permits (export and import with the receiving country) regardless of when it was harvested. The pre 1992 thing just means that if you can prove it was harvested before then, they’ll likely issue you a permit based off that information—but you still need to apply for the permits regardless. That’s a mistake a lot of people make and think they can ship Brazilian with a paper saying “this was harvested before 1992”—the only reason that ever works is because nobody checks it. If it was actually scrutinized it could get confiscated temporarily depending on the degree to which the country has adopted cites.
Cites is a non binding international gathering of various people who put out guidelines and propose legislature that countries can adopt… the catch being those guidelines and “laws” mean absolutely nothing unless a country acts to adopt that into their local regulations. So there is a wide range of following depending on the country. The ones you apparently have to lookout for are most of the wealthier European nations; Germany, England, Spain, France Italy and sweeden/Denmark are going to be the most voracious at following the guidelines. America to some degree but not as much. To clarify, you technically do need a cites export permit from the FWS for Brazilian in our country.
So yes, you can ship a guitar that you make with that Brazilian and you would include in the cites application for FWS the original cites permit plus a chain of custody letter for what happened after the permit or something similar… that should be sufficient documentation, because the fact that it got a permit basically covers the chain of custody before that time. Don’t take this as iron clad law but that would be my reasoning as to what would constitute a successful application. You would also need to do an import permit for the country you’re shipping to but the substantiating evidence would be the same.
That’s how you would ship a Brazilian guitar internationally without any worry that it might get confiscated. Most luthiers I know, unfortunately, break the law and include some silly paper that only draws more attention to the Brazilian, or lie about it and say it’s Honduran or something. I personally wouldn’t risk it as it’s very possible to get the permits if you just give yourself 3-6 months lead up. The reason more guitars don’t get confiscated is simply because they’re generally not looking for cities 1 items at customs — more like bombs, drugs and humans — but many countries are pretty spun up and it could be a bad day if you get an agent who knows their stuff and furthermore gets ticked off that you’re lying etc.
As far as when it was actually harvested, it’s unlikely that those trees were cut anytime after the 70’s. They wouldn’t have gotten a permit if the trees had just been cut down. But I don’t have access to that documentation besides the permit itself, nor would we be able to. By the 70’s, most Brazilian was becoming scarce and the quality of most of those sets is more akin to what they were harvesting at the turn of the century. I’ve heard from some that even by the early 1900’s it was becoming very scarce because of its use in the furniture industry."
_____________________________
Andy Culpepper, luthier
http://www.andyculpepper.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2023 23:37:27
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.0859375 secs.
|
Printable Version
