Very well said David.

I guess there are always many different ways to read someones comments here.  I did n't take what Herb said to mean that he did n't care about conservation.  I have an accoustic with rosewood back and sides and an ebony fret board.  I have 2 Gibsons that have mahogany and rosewood in them.  I plan on keeping them, it's going to be harder to get real wood in a couple of decades.  And yes, the value of these instruments will probably go up as tone wood gets harder and more expensive to buy.

All of these historically desired tone woods are becoming more scarse these days.  I read somewhere that guitars are not the main use of these select woods, but rather that it is furniture.  The guitar manufactures have tried to come up with alternatives to woods which the public has yet to embrace.  For instance the low end Martin is made from high pressure laminate on the back and sides and a synthetic fret board.  It does n't sound too bad, but nothing like the all wood real original.  I think the only way that you will see a major shift in types of materials used in guitars, is if the public demand for materials changes.  I am not sure I see that happening anytime soon.  We musicians like the best sounding tone woods we can get and we are pretty traditional with these choices.  Shoot, the only reason vaccume tubes are still around is because of our use in musical equipement.

I suggested to my brother several years ago, who has several farms in Minnesota, that he should start growing some select hardwoods on the parts of the land that can not be farmed.  I would have loved to see him plant a grove of Walnut trees that could be used for instruments and furniture someday.  I think it would be a good investment for the future. 

Leave my Maple and Walnut trees alone!!!!!

Must go listen to some Rush now...

Maple and Oaks, different subject all together.    Incidentally, love my mostly maple Ric 4003.

Trees grow. It may take 25 years to grow wood that should be grown, not waiting for the next forest fire and then planting trees that necessarily don't meet the needs over what could be planted for trees. And all of those woods have and could be grown here instead of getting them from foreign Countries. All the paperwork if you listen to what the head of Gibson says (whether he is good or bad) is also adding to all the confusion. Someone makes a mistake and all of a sudden the company should have known that the clerk made a clerical error and troops come in with armed guns into a factory taking the wood and factory over. The wood can be grown here also and has been to some extent. I am not on either side of the debate or regulations just an observer that people can not wait 25 years to grow trees and make money, but still it should be done on plantations for trees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-taqM5Sk0

I agree with pretty much eveything you have said here Spacealf; especially that trees are a renewable resource.  I am not on either side of this issue either.  I can see how Gibson was just trying to produce more guitars with the same materials and in the same way they have been for decades.  I can understand how India wants to protect there natural resources. 

I read an article from Taylor guitars a few years ago, on this whole subject and it was very good.  It sounded as if most of the guitar manufacturers were very involved in the conservation of tone woods.  Also very involved in trying to grow more wood.  It only makes sense that they would be.

Shad I hope it's alright to post...
I admire your position or rather how you present it. Ignorance is the major reason
I've become involved with some many different projects...just wanting to know more.

Big business acquisitions and liquidations are beyond my scope of reasoning due
to lack of interest but - it's funny to me how perspectives can be so diverse.

The one that I find so strange is..based on the main topic being Gibson purchase ethics and legal proceedings and the legal system ...is mine LOL.

The way I see it- Gibson had legal and ethical issues purchasing wood to satisfy marketing needs/demands. The marketing needs are musical instruments that have Ebony and Rosewood -most specifically for bridges, head laminates and fretboards.

Now what is it that I find so strange and somewhat funny?

I believe if there was a room full of blindfolded musicians that there may possibly
be a few that could correctly guess what type of wood the instrument was made of.
Especially if the guitars were made with all the variations that independent luthiers
may use along with the mass marketing major players.

Could it be true that all this is showing us more than questionable business and legal
ethical issues with Gibson and our legal system?

I, without doubt can answer yes but as I said...perspective, and now there could be a
new can of worms.

So, why are Ebony and Rosewood so important? Just how ignorant are we?

I believe if there was a room full of blindfolded musicians that there may possibly
be a few that could correctly guess what type of wood the instrument was made of.
Especially if the guitars were made with all the variations that independent luthiers
may use along with the mass marketing major players.

 
Spacey, I think that would be very true especially with electric guitars and basses.  I would venture to guess that the majority of any persons tone comes from the pickups, the amp and the way they play.
 
Where I think one easily notices the difference in woods, is with acoustic guitars.  If I was to strum a solid maple acoustic and a solid rosewood instrument, there would be a noticable difference in sound to me.  The maple would play much brighter and tighter.  Same is true with laminated bodies and solid wood bodies.
 
Again, I am not picking sides.  I see some fault from both sides here.  I think that Gibson was probably well aware that the wood was mislabeled to pass through customs.  On the other hand, it is clear that India would not have had a problem selling this wood if it would have been labeled correctly and they had gotten the labor for finishing the wood.  It does n't appear to be the wood that is the issue but who was going to get the labor to finish the wood.  From a trade show perspective, which is the buisness that I am in, I run in to this type of labor jurousdiction issue every day.  Especially in New York.  One of 5 unions may claim that it is "their work" depending on the fine print.
 
 

MakeShift

I believe if there was a room full of blindfolded musicians that there may possibly
be a few that could correctly guess what type of wood the instrument was made of.
Especially if the guitars were made with all the variations that independent luthiers
may use along with the mass marketing major players.

 
Spacey, I think that would be very true especially with electric guitars and basses.  I would venture to guess that the majority of any persons tone comes from the pickups, the amp and the way they play.
 
Where I think one easily notices the difference in woods, is with acoustic guitars.  If I was to strum a solid maple acoustic and a solid rosewood instrument, there would be a noticable difference in sound to me.  The maple would play much brighter and tighter.  Same is true with laminated bodies and solid wood bodies.
 
Again, I am not picking sides.  I see some fault from both sides here.  I think that Gibson was probably well aware that the wood was mislabeled to pass through customs.  On the other hand, it is clear that India would not have had a problem selling this wood if it would have been labeled correctly and they had gotten the labor for finishing the wood.  It does n't appear to be the wood that is the issue but who was going to get the labor to finish the wood.  From a trade show perspective, which is the buisness that I am in, I run in to this type of labor jurousdiction issue every day.  Especially in New York.  One of 5 unions may claim that it is "their work" depending on the fine print.
 
 

Mike I think I made it clear that I wasn't taking sides either. I'm not savy with business decisions
and/or the lumber industry so I'm sure staying clear of that.
 
But I do know a enough to understand when things aren't right.
 
I also know that my question(s) I previously asked haven't been answered and I honestly didn't
expect them to be.
 
Without getting to far off base- wood species are important to us and that is the
main issue that I'm referring to- not the business or legalities.
 
You state you can probably tell the difference between two woods. I proposed that 
it would be near impossible for one to tell the difference if MANY species were presented to
blindfolded musicians.
The point is that many woods are available. Perfectly fine alternatives.
Douglas Fir is an excellent example. Many luthiers that won't use anything but the best
will use it. How many guitarists here have acoustics made with it? Most are hung up on
Spruce. What they are spoon fed by manufacturers.
Raise the price of Douglas Fir higher than German Spruce and then guess what...
 
So if we consider that there is a supply issue with Ebony and Rosewood and that they are
both very important for the construction of a quality instrument then why are those woods
used for constructing instruments that are not of a quality to warrant their use?
 
Do we really think little Tommy needs a beautiful Ebony or Rosewood neck on his 99 dollar
guitar so he can learn his little C triads? Apparently so, people buy them everyday.
Oh yes we do and to the point that laws have to be created to protect the trees...!...man that
is just nuts. No way around that IMO.
 
Now I could go on about the many things that I see and feel are way pass ignorant and just
plain stupid...but who cares?
 
I personally see that the ignorant public supporting manufacturers doing stupid **** as the
real problem. Then to top it off they're going to decide what's right or wrong with an issue that
they don't even know all the details and legalities?.....just perfect.
 
Pesonally I feel one may be much better off with their head in the sand rather than look around
and see just what condition or condition is in.