On the Wisdom of Faux-Rosewood (or indeed Faux anything)

[Tavy]

As you will all know by now, CITES has caused all kinds of issues with using Rosewood on our instruments. As a workaround, I notice that UK supplier Rocklite has launched a faux-rosewood material for fretboards - which I have to say looks excellent.

However, that got me thinking, which frankly is always a bad sign

Consider, that the rationale for listing all Rosewood species, is that customs agents can't tell the difference between sustainably harvested Indian Rosewood, and endangered, and/or illegally plundered Asian or South American material. If we now throw a new material into the mix which frankly looks identical to the real thing, where does that leave us? I see two issues:

* Synthetic/faux material gets confiscated incorrectly.
* Endangered and/or illegally harvested material gets fraudulently labelled on customs declarations into order to escape the law.

Since I like the look of neither of those, I've reluctantly decided I can't use the new material however eco-friendly it may actually be.

BUT... I am of course a well known hypocrite who happily uses Rocklite's ebony substitute for fretboards (it's excellent BTW), not to mention lashings of faux-tortoiseshell. Fortunately, IMO the appearance of the latter has diverged from real tortoiseshell over the last 100 years or so, so hopefully much less confusion there at least.

The road to CITES hell is paved with good intentions it seems.

One last musing and then I'll shut up.... it's always been interesting to me how liberal minded eco-warrior musical friends of mine who normally wouldn't hurt a tsetsi infested fly, go weak at the knees at the sight of faux-TS binding, only to be quite genuinely disappointed to discover that it's "plastic". Of course they're not necessarily familiar with just how endangered the turtles are... but I find it interesting and amusing all the same.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in hearing your collective takes on this...

[tonydxn]

The whole CITES thing is doing my head in. I'm thinking in terms of just avoiding anything that's on the list at all. Someone gave me a couple of pieces of leadwood (Combretum imberbe) which I've used for fingerboards on a couple of instruments. It's a similar colour to walnut but it's as hard as ebony and the grain is quite nice if quarter-sawn.

Luthiers used to use Brazilian rosewood all the time, but when it became rare, we just switched to other things and no-one missed it very much. Plenty of other woods we can use.

[northfolk]

I was of the understanding that as long you PAID for the proper CITES permits you could bypass this entire issue; the permits are expensive of course?????

[Ivan Kelsall]

In the aircraft industry,as with several other industries where material strength & ''suitability for purpose'' is critical, ALL materials used in construction, have to be ulimately traceable right back to the manufacturers,& every aspect of the material is logged in the accompanying documentation. I can't see why this can't be done for 'wood' in general - or is it already done ??.

Any shipment of 'wood' should have it's own 'passport' document,with it's name (species) / place of origin (Country / area) & destination (country). On arrival at it's destination,it should be 'logged in' as a consignment of ''what & where from'',& any of that consignment sold to 'whoever', should carry a copy of the 'passport' including the date of sale & the name of the seller.

Only in that way,could we have ultimate traceability of the wood from source to it's final user. That very thing is done in other industries,so why not with wood ?.

Addressing Tavy's point - 'Rocklite' material. That in itself should arrive at the user with a copy of the manufacturer's specification of the material,which should make it clear that it's immitation, & a copy of that spec. should accompany all instruments that it's used on. If customs folk can't tell the difference,that's unfortunate - but the accompanying copy of the material spec.should ease the way.
However,we apparently still have folk who believe that the earth is 'flat' - so ....... ??,
Ivan

[Tavy]

In the aircraft industry,as with several other industries where material strength & ''suitability for purpose'' is critical, ALL materials used in construction, have to be ulimately traceable right back to the manufacturers,& every aspect of the material is logged in the accompanying documentation. I can't see why this can't be done for 'wood' in general - or is it already done ??.

Not at present - or at least not in any way that reaches the end customer.

Any shipment of 'wood' should have it's own 'passport' document,with it's name (species) / place of origin (Country / area) & destination (country). On arrival at it's destination,it should be 'logged in' as a consignment of ''what & where from'',& any of that consignment sold to 'whoever', should carry a copy of the 'passport' including the date of sale & the name of the seller.

Only in that way,could we have ultimate traceability of the wood from source to it's final user. That very thing is done in other industries,so why not with wood ?.

Cost. You wouldn't want your mandolin to cost as much as a light aircraft

Of course this could probably be done trivially easily with a blockchain based e-system, the difficulty with any system though, is that the whole world has to agree on a common standard, and that's going to take some considerable time I suspect.

And of course if you're a factory shipping out instruments by the container load, you just hire a compliance officer to take care of the paperwork.... there's some cost to the end user, but maybe not so much as they will notice. You can't do that as a single individual where every instrument is different though.

Addressing Tavy's point - 'Rocklite' material. That in itself should arrive at the user with a copy of the manufacturer's specification of the material,which should make it clear that it's immitation, & a copy of that spec. should accompany all instruments that it's used on. If customs folk can't tell the difference,that's unfortunate - but the accompanying copy of the material spec.should ease the way.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If a "copy of the specification" is enough to get past customs, then any rogue trader could just use the same old copy for material that came from Amazonian clear felling.

[Paul Busman]

Anyone know how customs inspectors identify prohibited woods? Do they just say "looks like Rosewood to me"? I've used many
different woods for my penny whistles over the years and quite a few of them look like some of the Rosewoods I've used.
If you just identify and instrument as "mandolin" on the customs form, how likely are they to actually open the package and check out the wood?

[Tavy]

Anyone know how customs inspectors identify prohibited woods? Do they just say "looks like Rosewood to me"? I've used many
different woods for my penny whistles over the years and quite a few of them look like some of the Rosewoods I've used.
If you just identify and instrument as "mandolin" on the customs form, how likely are they to actually open the package and check out the wood?

I suspect they open parcels fairly rarely, but it does happen because at least one instrument coming to me had been opened and re-packed by UK customs. So yes, if you're willing to take your chances you can avoid the law I guess, but that's not really the point.

[Ivan Kelsall]

One thing that we all need to know about our Customs folk,is that they have very far reaching powers,maybe even more so than our Police forces. They can open any item they wish to & seize it if they think fit. If they think you're hiding any Gold fillings,they'll pull them out as well. These guys have the power & authority to seize entire ships until a cargo has been inspected.

Re. 'documentation' - a few years back,i had to have a wall in my backyard re-built = i had to buy a load of new bricks. They arrived complete with a document stating the manufacturer & which batch & when (date) that they came from. If that can be done for a stack of 'non-protected' bricks,surely it's not beyond the wit of mankind to do the same thing for wood ?,
Ivan

[ProfChris]

Re. 'documentation' - a few years back,i had to have a wall in my backyard re-built = i had to buy a load of new bricks. They arrived complete with a document stating the manufacturer & which batch & when (date) that they came from. If that can be done for a stack of 'non-protected' bricks,surely it's not beyond the wit of mankind to do the same thing for wood ?,
Ivan

That works nicely for a load (a few thousand?) bricks, because the load is tracked and certified as a whole.

Now imagine if every single brick needed accompanying paperwork. This is the case for wood, which might be sold by the single plank.Or if the plank is resawn and thickness before being sold to a luthier, the resawer needs to generate additional paperwork (and copy the original). And so on.

I've recently sold my aircraft (glider) - just as one example, a tyre which would cost under £10 for a wheelbarrow cost me £85 with all the aviation paperwork (no discernible difference). Bolts (6mm) cost around £5 each.

[Ivan Kelsall]

The bricks in question were bought from a wholesaler,not the manufacturer. The wholsealer delivered a copy of the manufacturer's documentation.

If a consignment of wood of a specific species is shipped from country to country,then it should have it's own accompanying documentation which will arrive with it,specifying the species of wood & from where it was harvested & when. Any portion of that consignment sold & delivered to a.n.other,should have a copy of the documentation delivered with it - & so on,wherever the wood goes. We seem to do it for cars & other items as a legal requirement & we can do it for wood if we have the mind to. The only thing stopping us is 'us'.

Regarding the price of 'aircraft components' - I worked in the aircraft industry for 45 years in both design & manufacture (manufacturing engineer). You'd most likely find that the wheel for a wheelbarrow,costing £10 was 'maybe' tested,but you'd find that even if it was the same tyre,which was to be fitted to any type of aircraft,it would come with a huge amount of rigorous testing & inspection behind it, & the relevant documentation. That's one reason why aircraft components cost so much.They're inspected rigorously at every stage of assembly = time & money.

If the illegal harvesting of rare species of wood is so important to irradicate,then making excuses 'not to do something' isn't an option !. Just the way i see it,
Ivan

[Paul Busman]

I suspect they open parcels fairly rarely, but it does happen because at least one instrument coming to me had been opened and re-packed by UK customs. So yes, if you're willing to take your chances you can avoid the law I guess, but that's not really the point.

I wasn't planning on it, just curious. I no longer send prohibited woods out of the US.

[HoGo]

Regarding the price of 'aircraft components' - I worked in the aircraft industry for 45 years in both design & manufacture (manufacturing engineer). You'd most likely find that the wheel for a wheelbarrow,costing £10 was 'maybe' tested,but you'd find that even if it was the same tyre,which was to be fitted to any type of aircraft,it would come with a huge amount of rigorous testing & inspection behind it, & the relevant documentation. That's one reason why aircraft components cost so much.They're inspected rigorously at every stage of assembly = time & money.

Ivan

Ivan I don't think each and every tyre gets close inspection... it's mostly just some quality check for the production process and the final product will just get quick QC. Perhaps the most important parts of jet engines get x-rays and such so each piece is certified.
There are only few certified manufacturers of items for aircraft but thousands of loggers for exotic wood such certificate would be required for each piece sawn from any log any time till it's used up. Pretty much impossible if you think that one large log can be sawn into hundreds of instrument sets and additional bridge blanks and zillion of small pieces used for accesories.... each one requiring the paperwork. I think there would be more wood needed to produce the paper for documentation than amount of wood in the original exotic log....
The only way to go around this would be system of few certified exporters and importers who would then cut it into pieces and sell to registered retailers...
I remember the thing that started all this RW ban was that the total logging volume and exports of RW differed from total imports of RW by hundred percent or so...

[ProfChris]

The bricks in question were bought from a wholesaler,not the manufacturer. The wholsealer delivered a copy of the manufacturer's documentation.

A copy yes. But not a usable copy for CITES compliance.

You received a copy (for your information) of the information supplied by your supplier's supplier. That's fine if it's just to inform you. But if you'd wanted to export those bricks, or prove their origin, would that document have sufficed? I can confidently predicttfat most Customs authorities would refuse to accept it because there is insufficient evidential connection between the document you have and the provider of the information.

Customs could change their practices, and accept photocopies (or emails) without any further investigation, but that would do nothing to eradicate the illegal trade because I can make multiple copies of the same document and use/sell them for different bricks.

Or states could establish a form of accreditation as a CITES document issuer, at which point the cost of documentation will become significant (and my experience as an academic and practising lawyer tells me that the system is likely to exclude, in practice, small suppliers).

I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying "don't do this thing because it won't work".

The answer might lie in a combination of Internet of Things (RFID chips for every plank!) and blockchain, and I'm actively researching that at present for a different industry sector, focusing on sustainability and the supply chain. Maybe I'll know in 6 months or so.

[dhergert]

I'm not a builder and I'm not planning to export large numbers of instruments. But as a personal owner of a number of old and new instruments which contain rosewood, I'd like to be free to travel with them without having them confiscated.

The most daunting issue to me is that all subscribing CITES countries have different form and payment requirements of people traveling with their instruments. For example, I'm a USA citizen and while I can get in and out of the USA with a specific form and payment for each instrument that I want to travel with, those forms and payments mean nothing to other countries. Similarly if I travel to the UK and have provided the right UK CITES forms and payments, and then decide to take an unplanned trip to France, I may lose my rosewood bearing instruments on entering France.

There needs to be CITES form and payment standardization before this is going to work. My understanding is that the USA Fish and Game department has made a request for this, but I haven't heard if it is going to fly.

Without this standardization, the only result is suppression of international movement of musical instruments except on the black market or between non-CITES subscriber countries.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Adrian - " Ivan I don't think each and every tyre gets close inspection... ". They have to - no option !

Here :- "Dissect an aircraft tyre and you'll find that it's one of the strongest and toughest pneumatic tyres made. It must withstand high speeds and very heavy static and dynamic loads. For example, the main gear tyres of a four-engine jet transport are required to withstand landing speeds up to 250 mph, as well as static and dynamic loads as high as 22 and 33 tons respectively."

Many items fitted to aircraft are tested to the point of destruction to determine just what they'll stand, & that includes tyres. Every tyre leaving the manufacturer, must comply with their own specifications & have the documentation to prove that they do so. The failure of an aircraft tyre on take-off or landing can lead to a catastrophe for the whole aircraft,as can the failure of any other part of the main undercarriage,
Ivan

[HoGo]

Without this standardization, the only result is suppression of international movement of musical instruments except on the black market or between non-CITES subscriber countries.

I was really surprised when searching for artificial substitutes for ivory that there are still REAL elephant ivory pieces publicly sold in the US.... They claim they have documentation they are from pre-ban tusks... I was shocked as this kind of sales can easily sell illegal ivory in between. Paperwork is easy to fake and with some "effort" you can turn 10 pound tusk into 20 pounds of ivory pen blanks for sale...
Even if suply was limited to sales of blanks certified directly at producer side hat would lead to lots of waste... When I bought some ebony for fingerboards I managed to cut one violoncello blank into 6 or 8 mandolin boards and left with enough ebony for several bridges. How could I supply certificates for that?

[dhergert]

I agree. I'm not sure it's what you're referring to, but there are lots of forms of "fossil ivory" and other similar materials that are traded and used throughout the world. How many times have we seen a description of a "nut made of fossil ivory" on an instrument? I see it pretty frequently. Where did that come from?

Which raises an interesting question which is more on topic. Are CITES agents astute enough to recognize the difference between ivory and ivoroid?

[Tavy]

Even if suply was limited to sales of blanks certified directly at producer side hat would lead to lots of waste... When I bought some ebony for fingerboards I managed to cut one violoncello blank into 6 or 8 mandolin boards and left with enough ebony for several bridges. How could I supply certificates for that?

Indeed. I also do the same with Rocklite's faux-ebony boards: one large bass blank is enough for 2 mandolins and 2 OM's or mandolas.

Now... there is a way to do this with CITES protected woods in the UK, but you have to weigh and document every piece you use, and make sure that you label every offcut and scrap so you can account for those too. Then you have to submit annual "accounts" to the powers that be (and pay for that), in addition to the documentation you provide for each instrument (and yes you have to pay for that too). IMO unless there is a very substantial increase in instrument prices (think double), it's not a viable business model at the present time.

[Tavy]

I agree. I'm not sure it's what you're referring to, but there are lots of forms of "fossil ivory" and other similar materials that are traded and used throughout the world. How many times have we seen a description of a "nut made of fossil ivory" on an instrument? I see it pretty frequently. Where did that come from?

While I accept that fossil ivory does exist (in very limited amounts), that's not something I'm comfortable with.

Which raises an interesting question which is more on topic. Are CITES agents astute enough to recognize the difference between ivory and ivoroid?

I've never handled real ivory, but IMO "ivoroid" looks like fancy plastic, it's not hard like ivory would be either.

[dhergert]

Some of the ivoroid banjo tuner buttons that I've seen around in the wild have seemed pretty convincing to me. Disassembly might be helpful to prove that they are synthetic. Or a melt test. No doubt that ivoroid binding would be pretty recognizable.

[allenhopkins]

While I accept that fossil ivory does exist (in very limited amounts)...

Even with the depredations of elephant poaching, still many more elephants than mastodons, IMHO.

Any opinions on the Tusq artificial ivory used for nuts and bridge saddles? The main use of what was called "ivoroid" was for bindings, I believe. Nuts and saddles went from ivory to bone, in many cases, and you can get all the bone you want from your neighborhood meat processor. Not aware that ivory has significant advantage over bone, but willing to be instructed on the subject.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Allen - I'm sure that i read somewhere that ''unbleached'' bone has a degree of 'self lubricating' properties. Maybe why it wasn't used as much as Ivory in the past,is because of it's 'porous' look ie. the 'speckles' in it which go dark with age. I used to make banjo nuts from bones given to me by my local butcher. I scrubbed them clean & baked then in the oven for a couple of hours. After that,the bone was as hard as hades !!. It was very easy to saw & shape,even with basic tools,
Ivan

[pops1]

Ivan, baking bone does make it hard, it also makes it brittle. I try not to get the bone hot when working with it to avoid it becoming brittle.