Official Luthiers Forum!

CITES is reviewing a proposal to list all rosewoods, including Indian, some of which is farmed, as an Appendix II material. Quite possibly the beginning of the end....

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/prop/060216/E-CoP17-Prop-55.pdf

Might not be a bad idea actually...too much wood is being used to make "trash" guitars at low costs from that 'other' country...OK, not all are trash, but still, a LOT of wood is being used (and most likely hoarded) than even 10 years ago...at least it appears as such.

Hopefully somebody with half a brain, and perhaps needing to be 'free' of 'control', will recognize that farmed woods shouldn't be included (which will of course require certificates (read more revenue)).

Thing is, in reality, most of the woods are being used for things other than tonewoods...

In the big picture, what's more important is preserving the supply of top woods in some fashion...it rather sickens me to see mass deforesting for the use of framing lumber...bleh...though as Brent from Alaska Specialty Woods pointed out to me, not much of old growth Sitka is suitable for guitar tops...still...

What concerns me is how the US laws are set up to implement this. In particular, I hope that some means will be found to 'grandfather' existing stocks. We've seen the difficulties that have come out of that lack in the case of Brazilian, where wood that was harvested and in this country long before the listing in 1992 is not fully 'legal' because of a lack of the sort of paperwork that is now required. Some system of registration would facilitate clarity in future enforcement of the law.

This is not entirely true. There was plenty of warning back in 1992 when it was listed for folks to get paperwork together and no one paid attention. When the 2008 Lacey Act amendments were passed and a bunch of us met with USFWS and APHIS, they said they'd back paper any sets for which you could provide a pre-1992 receipt. I realize that its hard, and folks didn't plan for any of this, but that is the reality. I didn't plan on this specifically, but have all my business records since I started -- every and all receipts.

In 20 or 30 years, there won't be much wood left to build guitars with. Going to have to settle for HPL instruments or carbon fiber or something else. Overpopulation of the planet in general is wiping out out natural resources, and China now (like the U.S. 100 years ago) is leading the way in consumption. They are also ruthless in their endeavors to get the things they want...

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

OTOH, it was nice to read that someone along with Pacific Rim Tonewoods was planting Koa saplings in Hawaii to create a future for that species. Unfortunately, where rosewoods naturally grow, there is little money and interest to do the same thing.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Agreed, Don. China is a key player in illegal logging (as have historically been the Germans and Dutch).

Such a shame David. Such a shame. I think I'll hold on to all my rosewood, so that it will become worthless someday!

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

So does that mean any EIR laminate guitar that cross a border is going to need a permit?

I think this makes a lot of sense in South America and SE Asia, but not so much in India where the Indian government has made an effort to control the export of Indian Rosewood and Ebony, and much of the Indian Rosewood is now plantation grown. This would have a significant impact on the legal Indian wood exporting businesses so I dare say India will have something to say about this. A CITES listing will list the countries where the rules apply, so India can be left out. In SE Asia, there is a big problem of rampant illegal logging of rosewood species that are then sent mostly to China to make furniture. National parks are being logged and just about cleaned out of rosewood. Not much, if any, ends up in musical instruments. However, a listing in CITES Appendix II is not going to make any difference if China does not police illegal imports of wood.

Allen, the proposal is to list on Appendix II, so I don't understand what the problem is. It is not going to affect the legality of stockpiles of Rosewood unless it gets listed on Appendix I. Mahogany is on appendix II, and nobody seems to be concerned about that. It is just getting scarce because it is illegal to import from countries within it's native range.



No, Appendix II only applies to raw wood, finished items are not affected.

This change is being requested by Brazil, Kenya and Guatemala. I expect that India would object. As Peter mentioned, it's not going to affect much in the immediate, but it could make it harder to get materials.

We just want to thank our friend David Berkowitz for his persistence in learning about these things and then letting us all know.

Many thanks David!!!!

_________________
Ann Arbor Guitars

So with this in mind, if it goes through and indeed rosewood becomes much more difficult to get. What are some woods that we as luthiers can look to for the future?

I recall seeing alot of really excellent Oak guitars in the domestic wood guitar thread. What are some other woods that we can invest in?

I personally don't think that wood will ever go out of style honestly, there were claims in the 70s that by 1994 the world would run out of gasoline. People will do what people always do, science the heck out of things.

There are lots of "alternative" woods that make great guitars, but for the small custom builder, the problem is getting their clientele to buy into the non-traditional woods. I think QS oak guitars are as nice looking as any exotic, and I can drive to my lumberyard in 10min. and buy it for $6.50/bf.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

A few thoughts:

1. The decimation of the world's forests is a serious problem, and politically, I support efforts to stop it. I would do that even if it meant I could not get some woods for guitar building. There are alternatives.

2. Compared to the other uses of tropical hardwoods, instrument making is a small part of the market. So, even though I worry about deforestation globally, I don't feel terribly guilty about using some of the wood to make guitars. Comparatively speaking, we are a pretty low impact part of the wood market.

3. I will keep using the woods I like until I can't. I like EIR for sides and backs, and it is not prohibitively expensive, so I keep using it. I like Honduran Mahogany for necks and internal structures. I can still get it and not go broke, so I keep using it. Brazilian is too rich for my blood, so I stay away from it. No tears shed over having to make that choice.

4. If all of the EIR and Honduran Mahogany stopped flowing or became prohibitively expensive, I would just switch to other things and make the best of the situation. We have maple, walnut, cherry, laurel, oak, and a few other domestic hardwoods that work just fine for guitars. Most of the oomph comes from the top, anyway. The folks in Australia build great guitars out of their domestic hardwoods. We can do the same easily enough.

5. If the economics speak loudly enough, the buyers of custom instruments will become more open to alternative woods. If EIR becomes as expensive as Brazilian, then a walnut guitar will suddenly be good enough. So, I would not worry too much about the custom buyer. That will work itself out eventually.

I don't think this will be a problem.
If the Law demands that we guitar makers are forced to use what ever wood is legal.
Then, the customer will have to accept the constrains we guitar makers are stuck with.

Any idea what the proposed implementation date is?
It would be nice to keep the paperwork for wood that has been legally purchased (at the time) but becomes illegal to some retroactive date, similar to what happened with nigra. Probably a good time to start scanning receipts that have been kept for the IRS and pray my computer never crashes.

I recently talked to my Indian rosewood supplier in Mumbai who knew nothing about this proposal. For him, the supply of Indian rosewood is plentiful and well managed, so he couldn't understand what the fuss was about. If he suddenly has to obtain paperwork to export his material, he will be a very sad camper. Interestingly, this proposal does NOT list India as a state which was consulted during the draft stage, despite their obvious economic interest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is important to remember the distinction between cites I and cites II. Cites I (brazilian and ivory) is a complete ban on any and all trade whereas cites II concerns only trade in raw lumber. This undoubtedly will result in higher prices as all raw lumber to be imported must be accompanied by a permit but it is not necessarily the end of the world (yet)

He should read the draft proposal and the reason for the fuss is pretty dang obvious and is likely to put him out of business if passed with no objections from India. While India does not contribute to the problems, this draft applies to all Dalbergia species in all countries, no exceptions, and is supported by a majority of countries consulted, so the likelihood of it being implemented is high. It is interesting that India was not consulted since they are likely to be the only country likely to object. If your Indian rosewood supplier wants to stay in business then he should start kicking up a fuss with the Indian authorities and spread the work among other Indian Rosewood suppliers. Historically, the legal trade of raw products in species listed in Appendix II becomes commercially extinct or at least very much reduced after listing. That after all is the main reason for listing on CITES.

I note that my country (Australia) was consulted but we don't have any native Dalbergia species that are logged commercially so is a bit pointless. Why was India not consulted?

Yep, pretty much exactly what I wrote to him.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I could be wrong about this, but I believe I remember reading that Indian Law prohibits the export of raw lumber, it must receive some amount of milling in India, by Indian labor, before it can be exported.
Backs and sides are classified as veneers, and fretboard blanks are classified as musical instrument parts. Restricting the trade of rosewood in raw lumber form will not significantly affect India, possibly why they weren't consulted.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

True, there are restrictions on export of Rosewood from India. Unprocessed logs are banned, and I think there is a maximum thickness allowed. However, veneer is not a finished item under CITES. Guitar back and sides are treated the same as any other form of raw lumber, so India will be affected. Raw fingerboard blanks or bridge blanks are also not a finished item under CITES. A finished guitar is ok.

Another important point is that CITES is an international treaty, and it's implementation depends on the laws of each country.
In the US, it's the Lacey Act.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon