Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Historics & Reissues' started by goodvibes, Dec 11, 2016.
Most of the Posts, on this Forum, on this Topic are laughable to say the least.
I've just been reading this, which came out today from Madinter as a guide for musicians and builders:
According to this, the rules apply to the sale of wood whether raw or in a finished product:
Starting January 2nd 2017, when one buys wood or finished products containing any Dalbergia or Bubinga wood in a country outside the European Union, the supplier must obtain a CITES export or re-export permit, and the purchaser will have to apply for an import permit. (p. 11)
On travelling with your guitar:
I am a musician and I have an Indian Rosewood guitar (Dalbergia latifolia). I want to travel with my guitar outside the European Union. Do I need a CITES permit?
No. Dalbergias and Bubinga have a #15 CITES annotation. This annotation includes an exception for "non-commercial exports of a maximum total weight of 10 kg per shipment". This means that you can travel the world with your guitar without any CITES permits, as long as you do not sell it.
It does not matter if you earn money playing your guitar abroad. The only thing you cannot do is sell the guitar during the trip.
Only Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra) needs a CITES permit for a non- commercial export, for example, if you are travelling with your guitar. (pp. 17-18)
What this suggests you can't do is to sell raw wood or something with rosewood in it without paperwork across borders.
As a builder, I'll be declaring my Indian rosewood and bubinga supplies sometime in the coming year (Jan 2018 is the deadline). I've probably got 10-15 fingerboards and a bunch of back and side sets for acoustics and ukuleles. Even if I never send the wood or instruments built with it out of the country, somebody might do so one day.
I'm guilty of that, rosewood on a Fender does nothing for me.
Involves getting TWO permits: one from the USDA(P621) and one from the FWS agency(3-200-32 application) - I'm in the middle of doing that right now after speaking to the U.S. National CITES Coordinator at the USDA. Yea, it's a major pain!
From what I have read, this will be pretty devastating for international business as a dealer. Many of us have already taken a pretty big hit as the dollar in many countries is not doing very well. I'm wondering if there is an easier way to do this as from what I gathered from the Fretboard Journal podcast it's $75 and a 45-90 day wait to get the proper permits. No one wants to pay for something that might not even sell internationally, and no one wants there guitars to sit around in the shop. We try not to let our used guitars sit for longer than 100 days.
I agree and foresaw that as well, but I think the point IS to make it difficult and as non profitable as they can. They want too kill the trade all together. and its really aimed at the furniture industry. Not so much the guitar industry. Unintended victim...or collateral damage
First question: So do these new regulations apply to ALL instruments, regardless of year of manufacture? A guitar made in 1982 with Brazilian rosewood would be an issue to take abroad?
Second question: Let's say that someone had a guitar made in Brazil with Brazilian rosewood from after 1992 (previous CITES regulation issue?). Is it legal to purchase such an instrument in a private sale (Ebay) within the USA without any CITES paperwork that proves it was legally imported (imported post 1992)?
2nd ? 1st paragraph: you need to provide a cites cert to take instrument abroad as far as I know.
As far as buying in US, you can buy all day long in the US without CITES. It's when leaving the country you need to provide. But tell em is a maple neck when it's RW or BRW and you're good to go
Glad my Junior has an ebony fretboard, that'll make it to up even more too
Joking aside, I'd say many of us have thought about cutting that corner so hoping they won't check is a bit risky. Certainly in the kick off period anyway.
It will certainly put a lot of overseas buyers off that's for sure. By the same token it will put a lot of sellers off who were shipping overseas.
I'd say the best thing to do is sit back and let the dust settle for a bit. There is going to be an initial panic and as explained in the podcast the paper trail will be backlogged for about a year.
I guess if you are still planning to sell overseas you'll have to make it clear to buyers that there is going to be a wait. If a buyer is keen then I'd be asking for a good deposit before you do any paperwork. Say at least 25%. A lot can change in 2 months.
I live in Canada.
If I go take a trip to the US for a couple of days and purchase a guitar out there or get one shipped within the US to my trip destination, can I cross back into Canada without an issue?
I'm confused as I've read that travelers can pass through customs with a certain weight restriction of rosewood.
Would I need a permit to cross back into Canada or would I be fine to purchase a guitar in the states and cross back over?
let them issue the CITES documents and have them with you when crossing the border. No problem if the guys at the customs know their stuff.
Session, one of the bigger dealers in Germay, is supplying those documents but they say that they don't have experience how long it will take. They say that for example a swiss buyer needs documents on the import side too. They will provide the paperwork and the buyer in Switzerland has to go to his local customs office to have them stamped, sent back to session because they have to run with the guitar shipped. If you don't bring a guitar into the US but leave with one, you better have your homework done. Check your local authorities, they should be able to help.
Once there are enough processes done, it will be a piece of cake. OK, it's not nice or convinient, but as long as it helps to preserve a bit of our nature, I will happily go the extra mile
Sounds like a big money grab for those that voted this one in.
I know wood has to be protected, properly bought and documented but this charging for all rosewood documents, other than Brazilian and a few others, really seems like more about money than anything else.
Plantation Indian rosewood, etc..., most guitar builders use these days, is not endangered at all. It's a sustainable source.
If other sources other than guitar manufacturers are endangering the future of these resources then let them deal with the extra documentation and leave the guitar manufacturers alone.
Guitar wood used is minuscule compared to many other sources.
It's pretty common knowledge that most woods are not endangered because of guitars anyway. Most of it is due to furniture, wood flooring, etc....
You need to listen to the podcast to understand why ALL rosewood is listed in appendix 2.
Maybe so, I have not listened to the podcast, but seems like ebony would be more of a concern that plentiful/sustainable plantation rosewood.
Just seems like a money grab IMO. If not, then why charge so much for a single application and why not restrict it to those that use major bulk like furniture, flooring builders, etc....
Major guitar manufacturers building bulk is nothing compared to those other markets.
processing and selling sustainable planted wood species isn't a problem at all. The plantation issues CITES documents and the makers devide this quantity into the fraction used for the specific instrument and issue a CITES document themselves. Once they are used to it, it's quite easy and not that much of additional work to be done.
And protecting all rosewood species makes sense, because no one can really tell the difference between the single subspecies.
The "what rosewood" might not work because this one might be an acoustic with the sides and rear and fretboard 100% incredible BRW. I say "might", because who am I to judge what sort of RW they would have used to manufacture a guitar in Brazil. Could be Australian for all I know, or maybe it would come from Alaska.
Of course, I don't know anyone who bought such a guitar in the late 90's without knowing anything of CITES regulations at the time. This is all just hypothetical on my part.
Care to elaborate??