bapu

Jonbouy

Fox News:

Fair and balanced?

It must be given the source.

Actually though this is where opinion ended.  In the court.

 “As a result of this investigation and criminal enforcement agreement, Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit overharvesting and conserve valuable wood species from Madagascar, a country which has been severely impacted by deforestation,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “Gibson has ceased acquisitions of wood species from Madagascar and recognizes its duty under the U.S. Lacey Act to guard against the acquisition of wood of illegal origin by verifying the circumstances of its harvest and export, which is good for American business and American consumers.”

I always suggest to people that they should watch and follow multiple news sources, decifer the information for themselves and come up with their own conclusions to obtaining all of the facts. 

All of the news sources are not really interested in facts anymore, they are more interested in ratings and what sells viewers.

I think that was the previous case where they got busted and actually copped a plea.

This latest one which was officially "dropped" after Gibson paid the fine was a repeat offense.



:-)

I'm smiling broadly while thinking about a producer from FOX not being able to reach any one at the Indian Embassy. That's a fact I can accept at face value.

"Tell them I'm not here."

:-)

Actually, I have always enjoyed The Sun, for its pix. 

"Guitarhacker


http://weeklyworldnews.co...-all-acoustic-guitars/  "

That's a great link... here's an excerpted quote from September 8, 2011: "The Feds are going to raid Taylor, Martin and Collings guitars and all Guitar Centers around the country in the next few days."


well, gee whiz.... that turned out to be a outright lie. Why would you provide a link from a spineless liar as proof of concept?

That's not working for me.

http://www.examiner.com/a...certs-to-seize-guitars

Here's a fun quote excerpted from that piece of trash "Administration officials have threatened to raid summer concerts in order to seize what it deems to be illegal guitars made from wood that has been banned."

Who reads this stuff?

That's pathetic... Where's the actual quote and the attribution to an actual real life human "Administration official".

I dislike liars... and the author is a liar. Bummer.

Got any better links?

"Personally, I have not heard of any individuals having instruments seized at customs crossings."

Roger that, neither have I.

"I think if I understood correctly in one of the stories, that has been corrected by a Senator."

I think it's more like a Senator said he did that.

quote>>> The threat was enough to send U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., quickly leaping into action to make sure the government is prevented from seizing guitars made with forbidden wood provided they were manufactured prior to 2008. A law passed 112 years ago in order to regulate bird feathers used in hats was amended in 2008 to protect wood in "protected forests."

When you put it that way it sort of makes it seem exciting... like when pre '98 full autos got grandfathered in.

I think the price of my '92 SG just went through the roof. Thanks Lamar! I think.


Does anyone know of any post 1998 guitars that have been confiscated from individuals?

Does anyone know of any guitar owner who has had to contact their Senator about a personally owned guitar that has been confiscated?

"It was in the original intent of this law to seize guitars in this manner."

That's like... not true. Not even close to true.

The 2008 updates were intended to empower the feds to kick in our doors and confiscate our hard wood floors.

Why do so many guitarists think we are the center of the universe? Bummer.

The guitar trade is a tiny fraction of the USA's imported wood consumption... the thought that a law was crafted so some one could confiscate guitars seems like oh-so-much self flattery.

Actually, The intent of the law is to discourage the trade of illegally harvested wood.

Does anyone know anyone who has had their doors kicked in and their hard wood floors confiscated by force?

 

"I did understand that the feds did, however, seize guitars already made at the Gibson factory and I do not recall the details if this included any that were back to the factory for repairs that fit that category." 

That's an incredible stretch of the imagination. This should be easy.

How many people have claimed to have lost their personal guitars from the raid at Gibson?

None? Zero? Zilch? Or more than that?






I think it would have made a great episode for "Cops"... then we could all see what really happened.

:-)


all the best,
mike

"I don't care if it was made from the last mahogany tree on the planet."

Now we're getting down to some straight forward communication.

I can respect that you have an opinion. Mine's different.

I don't understand why you would post those links to the liars instead of just telling it like it is.

Take care.

all the best,
mike

Conservation is absolutely futile. Unless we get a grip on overpopulation, everything on this planet will be consumed anyway, so what does it matter if a wood species goes extinct now, 10 years from now, or 50. It is inevitable, so we might as well enjoy it while it lasts. I say let Gibson have its wood. In 100 years when there is nothing left, those with a fine Mahogany guitar will appreciate them all the more on their long trip to colonize Titan.

Is this open and shut case of original, hardshell construction?

I was wrong, it is no longer worth $400,000 now it is worth $750,000. Price in 1959 - $275! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjGaJj_-itE Got one in your attic in a brown hardwood case perhaps?? (or similiar)

Conservation is absolutely futile. Unless we get a grip on overpopulation

No doubt. But overpopulation and environmental destruction both stem from the same basic problem, which Guitarhacker has eloquently expressed in his metaphor about his guitar, " I don't care if it was made from the last mahogany tree on the planet." The problem is not that there are too many of us (although there are) but that there are too many of us who do not care about anything except what we personally want to own. The massive deforestation of the North American continent in the last three hundred years is just a large scale application of the primitive slash and burn mentality that brought humans out of the caves. 

In sparsely populated regions of the planet, the few people available still tend to exploit the resources as aggressively as their (in some cases primitive) technology will allow. The myth of the spiritually superior noble savage who only hunted what he and his family could eat, was given the lie by the introduction of snowmobiles and high powered rifles. Given the option to hunt their prey to extinction and sell anything they could not eat themselves, members of "traditional cultures" have become among the most destructive of our species. We were just as destructive in our hearts when our numbers were small, and our powers were weak. Now we are many and powerful and just as short-sighted and greedy as we were when we first took up tools.

The desire to make many children in spite of the limit to the planet's ability to support them is not so different from the desire to cure our impotence with rhinocerous horn, or cut the last mahogany tree to make a guitar. What I do find interesting, however is the overlap between people who demand that we stop collecting taxes to help our neighbors, because doing so will burden our childre with crushing debt, and those who find no problem following a destructively selfish course of action that will leave those children with a barren planet. 

So yes, I agree that conservation will eventually fail. The greed and lack of compassion and imagination that is our behavioral heritage as a species acts as a constant ratchet that locks every destructive action against the possibilty of backsliding into preserving what we cannot create, or even just letting it be. Still knowing that we will all die does not mean we should accept murder.

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. 

Must go listen to some Rush now...

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

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?

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.