Warren Yates - Posted - 08/31/2011:  19:21:52

---

As for Ebony, I have always used west african ebony from LMII. lmii.com/CartTwo/thirdproducts...ngerboard
I am not a fan of Honduran Rosewood but I can change if I have to.
Are there any restrictions on mother of pearl?

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/31/2011:  19:36:56

---

MOP's not listed so has no restrictions as such, only declaration requirements if crossing the U.S. border (see long post just a couple back).

DantheBanjoMan - Posted - 08/31/2011:  22:49:06

---

I did a little--very little--checking online,and it seems that although persimmon grows in the U.S. we are not one of the top producers and for all I know when I get a hunk of persimmon it has come from Brazil.  I like the idea of a using only American wood in instruments, so does anyone have a source for American persimmon?

---

Originally posted by coelhoe



 

I don't know why American builders don't use persimmon instead of ebony. It is essentially the same tree, just as hard but lighter in color, which can solved by using a dye.

---

 

Warren Yates - Posted - 09/01/2011:  09:17:14

---

If I understand it, if I go in my yard and cut down my pine tree and build something out of it, I must have sepcial permits to prove where it came from. Otherwise, if I go out of the country it can be taken away from me for a perminant investigation along with the cloths on my back made of cotten. If this is the case, and Gibson has the documents, we all need to find a way to stand up for Gibson.

pickNgrin - Posted - 09/01/2011:  09:59:49

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warren Yates

If I understand it, if I go in my yard and cut down my pine tree and build something out of it, I must have sepcial permits to prove where it came from. 

---

I don't really have a dog in this race. But I don't think that your statement is not quite correct because pine is not an endangered wood. If you had an ebony tree in your backyard, then that is where you might run into a problem. But I may be wrong.... that is just my understanding of it. The rules apply only to specific woods that are in danger of going extinct from overuse.

-matt

---

Edited by - pickNgrin on 09/01/2011 10:07:59

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011:  11:27:41

---

It's confusing for everyone.  You're perfectly free to chop down and use a pine tree, but only if it's done legally (not on someone else's property without permission, not if it adversely affects adjoining property, not if it's listed as a "Heritage" tree, not from a wildlife sanctuary, etc.).  But if a guitar made from it gets to the U.S. border it will need to be declared with correct documents if involved in a commercial transaction, while if only a "personal effect" no special paperwork is needed (unless it also contains CITES I, II, or III listed wood in other parts such as fingerboard or bridge, or has an ivory nut or shell inlays).  Even then, if an agent challenges what it's made from, you'd need to come up with proof of origin.

---

Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 09/01/2011 11:30:41

Kurtzz3 - Posted - 09/01/2011:  13:19:18

---

The day the music died.

Mike Casey - Posted - 09/01/2011:  15:21:56

---

Gibson did not give enough money to you know who. You know who old good old you know who comes by to see.

---

Edited by - Mike Casey on 09/01/2011 15:22:27

lazlototh - Posted - 09/01/2011:  15:46:11

---

This does get confusing.

I have to ask the question, how do we know where any instrument from overseas (or from a small builder in this country) has gotten materials from.
We need a dossier on every instrument, new and old, in existence?

Tom in Maine

JohnTheWhite - Posted - 09/01/2011:  15:55:44

---

Warren Posted, "If I understand it, if I go in my yard and cut down my pine tree and build something out of it, I must have sepcial permits to prove where it came from. Otherwise, if I go out of the country it can be taken away from me for a perminant investigation along with the cloths on my back made of cotten. If this is the case, and Gibson has the documents, we all need to find a way to stand up for Gibson."

I won't quote Duke's response, but I sort of get from it that you are correct!

A safer solution might be to cut down your tree and turn it into wood pellets. Then sell the pellets in New England where people used to heat their homes with fuel oil before the US started trading it to Germany in return for gasoline. Normally, the pellets would not sell for enough to actually buy a board, however you will also be able to claim a "Green Energy" tax credit from the US Government for turning your tree into saw dust. Finally, you could send the money to China, and in return have them send you a cut piece of wood in a nice plastic shrink wrap with "Product of China" stamped on it. Of course, the board you get will cost more than simply buying the finished product from Walmart.

In the future things could be even better. Instead of cutting down your tree, you might instead be issued "offsetting Carbon credits for allowing it to grow. Then you could trade the credits to China to offset the environmental damage that results from people over there having jobs.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011:  15:59:43

---

A Letter From NAMM to President Obama and Members of the U.S. Congress

September 1, 2011

We are writing today on behalf of the music products industry to express deep frustration over a regulation that is impacting music products manufacturers as well as retailers and owners of musical instruments in the U.S. The National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) is a 110-year-old trade association representing the interests of manufacturers, retailers and distributors of musical instruments. Many of NAMM's nearly 9,000 member companies are being negatively impacted by the Lacey Act, a well-intentioned law, but one with unintended consequences that we feel are damaging to our industry and the economy.

The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900 and amended most recently in May of 2008 to include criminal liability for importing, owning, transporting or selling plant material that is illegally harvested, the wide range of interpretation possible in the law and lack of regulatory clarity has resulted in great difficulty in compliance. The confusion is due in large part to the law's ambitious scope, including enforcement of the laws from all other countries that are the source of these natural materials

The recent high profile raid (multiple federal agencies with automatic weapons) of Gibson Guitars, a leading NAMM member company in Tennessee, compounded with the slow response on needed guidance for compliance that we have been seeking has created fear and uncertainty for all those involved in the manufacturing, distribution and retailing of instruments and increasingly, artists and owners of musical instruments.

NAMM members care deeply and are committed to the ecologically sustainable use of tone woods for the production of musical instruments.

We understand that long-term success depends upon future availability of these materials to build and sell the iconic instruments that have defined America's popular music traditions. NAMM member products are valued and played around the world and are some of our country's most recognizable exports. Most NAMM members are small businesses employing local artisans and others who are passionate about music and music education. They produce jobs, pay taxes and support their communities.

We cannot state strongly enough the impact that this confusion, uncertainty and threat of criminality are having on our industry even when intentions of due care and compliance are followed and documented. We have concrete ideas on how to improve the law and are ready to work with Members of Congress and federal agencies to make positive changes that will fulfill the intended vision of the Lacey Act and preserve not only the world's forests, but the vital work of U.S. manufacturing and commerce in the music products industry.

Sincerely,

Kevin Cranle

Chairman, NAMM

President, Willis Music Company

Joe Lamond

President and CEO, NAMM 

sideways - Posted - 09/01/2011:  16:35:45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Casey

Gibson did not give enough money to you know who. You know who old good old you know who comes by to see.

---

 Makes me like Gibson even BETTER!!!

desert rose - Posted - 09/01/2011:  17:51:21

---

Worthwhile to read and listen

 

npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/0...ent?sc=tw

 

Scott

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011:  19:06:20

---

It's good that NPR is paying attention to the issue, bad that the reporting was so scantily researched (if at all).  This report lumps both the 2009 and 2011 raids together as though just because Gibson is involved they must be addressing the same issue.  It's critical to realize that there are two almost unrelated issues involved with the Gibson raids and alleged violations.  It's very possible they'll be found guilty of the Madagascar activities while being completely exonerated on the Indian issues -- that's my guess.  But none of the latter is really about Gibson, since for almost 20 years virtually 100% of the U.S. guitar industry has been dependent on government controlled, sustainably harvested, non-endangered woods coming from India with the government's blessings -- the wood industry in India depends as much on us as we do on them, and to cut off that flow would severely damage a major industry and the lives of many workers on both continents (to say nothing of the criminalization of anyone owning a guitar containing those woods, including most imports).  That's insane, and would amount to an abusive use of regulatory power. 

Wing It - Posted - 09/01/2011:  19:52:37

---

Another interesting article.

"Environmentalist groups vouch for Gibson’s commitment to forest preservation"

hotair.com/archives/2011/09/01...ervation/

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011:  00:13:08

---

Here's a statement from Natalie Swango at Luthiers Mercantile International (LMII), who imported the wood involved in Gibson's latest raids:

“The exporter entered the correct code for his country's export according to Indian customs.  I incorrectly listed Gibson as the consignee on the Lacey paperwork...the material was destined for them, but at this time LMI owns and is (was, ?) warehousing it.  The broker made a mistake and listed the material as veneers, although all other paperwork correctly listed it as fingerboards (they have remedied this with an oops letter).  The warehouse employee incorrectly informed the feds as to the ownership (although they bill me for the storage fees).  The officers incorrectly came to the conclusion that we are smuggling wood.”

kmangelos - Posted - 09/02/2011:  07:27:24

---

This is the side of the business and all business in general that is unfortunately a sign of the times - the new world order. Government has gotten involved in every facet of our lives. I don't like it, I'm sure many of you don't like it, but unfortunately it is the way it is. Our congressional leaders have slowly instituted/allowed this to happen over the past 10-20 years. There are aspects of it that make sense but there are obvious pitfalls and loopholes that are being improperly enforced. It's a sad state of affairs. I'm still glad I live in this country, but it's certainly a different country than the one I was born into.

ptyg
kma

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011:  14:18:54

---

I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.”

Sgtp3pp3r - Posted - 09/02/2011:  16:25:23

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.”

---

Based on what you told us earlier, F&WL is contending that FINGERBOARDS (with frets etc.) are "finished Goods," whereas FINGERBOARD BLANKS are NOT "finished goods," and therefore their export violates Indian export law.  If LMII and Gibson could get the same Indian Deputy Director of Foreign Trade to certify that FINGERBOARD BLANKS are freely exportable because they are considered finished goods under Indian law, that would in theory satisfy F & WL - does that make sense?

--Steve

---

Edited by - Sgtp3pp3r on 09/02/2011 16:28:19

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011:  17:15:13

---

You got it.  Other than the several paperwork glitches involved (and federal forms are not where you want to make mistakes!), the main problem seems to be the USFWS claim that fingerboard blanks aren't "finished" instrument parts.  But this is a U.S. agent's interpretation of Indian regs which nowhere contain the word "finished".  And USFWS's  issues about defining "fingerboard", "fingerboard blank", and "fretboard" are also terms not found in any regulations but are only more interpretive spins by the government.  If the Indian government proclaims fingerboard (blanks) to be "fingerboards" under the HS 9209.92.00 (instrument parts) tariff classification rather than the HS 4407 "sawn logs" the fed is insisting on, Lacey does not allow the U.S. to argue about it.  Lacey requires that no foreign law be violated, so if India is specifically O.K. with an export item it should be "case closed". 

banjobart - Posted - 09/02/2011:  20:45:50

---

I have a banjo company for sale, cheap!!!!

Come and get it, bring a little cash. I want out.

bjango53 - Posted - 09/03/2011:  05:15:09

---

So any Banjo /musical inst is only worth the paper it's written on ;(

randytelecaster - Posted - 09/03/2011:  10:34:48

---

Since the main woods in American banjo's are from America I say develop a wood or synthetic hybrid fom our own sources. It could be done and forget these other country's woods !

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/03/2011:  13:12:59

---

All this discussion but I don't see Roger Thunam mentioned once. If it is true, as reported, that Gibson employees traveled to Madagascar and reported back to Gibson mgmt that all exports of ebony and rosewood from that country were illegal, but that they could get "gray market" wood from the infamous Thunam via Nagel, then someone at Gibson is guilty as hell.

Sounds like the govt will be showing it's hand shortly, and when they do, it may not be pretty for Henry & co. Meanwhile, the WSJ and the rest of Murdoch's media try to turn this story on its head and make it into something it's not.

banjobart - Posted - 09/03/2011:  21:34:06

---

We were using paper based phenolic resin plastics for "ebonol" or "ebonite" fingerboards 35 years ago. Players wrinkled their noses at the thought! The plastic was a much better choice in every and all respects. The only reason I have used ebony for the last 35 years is that it is much cheaper than "Ebonal, Ebonite" or any modern phenolic similar to the 19 th century invention "Bakelite" (used in telephones). Bakelite was one of the first plastics along with "Ivoroid".

I buy today high quality ebony, completely legal and sanctioned/approved by the Indian goverment as a sustainable resource and partial by product of the tea industry for a fraction of what it cost in 1976 dollars. Ebony costs a fraction of plastic!

Off the record, a non-political comment follows:

Bottom line is that it is ironic that a few bureaucrats sitting in an air conditoned office eating a catered lunch in NYC are telling half starved indigenous citizens that they cannot cut a tree on their own property and sell it to feed their familes and buy school books!

jbalch - Posted - 09/04/2011:  06:13:30

---

I think Bart makes great points about alternative materials. It is one thing to find something that might work as well as the traditional woods.  But it is another thing to sell that to the banjo-buying consumer and at a higher price to boot.  Folks will resist it and want their old wood banjos. The banjo maker will be hard-pressed to sell anything new. Who wants to buy a new 1880 Dobson-style banjo or a Gibson-style neck to convert a pre-war tenor  ... with a plastic fingerboard?

My question is this:  The way I read the complaint against Gibson...the US FWS says it is illegal, under Indian law, to export sawn ebony boards thicker than 6mm.  It doesn't matter if it came from a managed sustainable forest. It is a labor issue...not conservation. The importer for Gibson says they have paperwork from Indian government defining the ebony blanks as legally exportable.  But our US FWS says NO. 

 What am I missing?  If they are going to interpret and enforce the law this way...how is any supply of Indian ebony legal?

 

 

---

Edited by - jbalch on 09/04/2011 06:17:48

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/04/2011:  08:28:12

---

You understand correctly.  I have copies of the latest (July 13, 2011) Indian ruling on fingerboards being legal to export, and that official Clarification is something that can't be argued by the U.S. government or anyone else.  This ruling is nothing new, since India has allowed many millions of fingerboards to be exported for decades with no problem.  There are also other factors involved:

1) The U.S. has absolutely no laws prohibiting the use of Indian (or Madagascar!) rosewood and ebony as such, only general laws that require no tribal, state, national or international laws have been violated.

2) None of this has anything at all to do with overharvesting, illegal logging, or any other environmental issues.  Veneers, guitars or anything else made of these same Indian woods would have been completely legal.

3) The supposed violations named in Special Agent Rayfield's warrant affidavit concern his private interpretation of Indian law about semi-finished raw materials or component parts.  Lacey doesn't allow the U.S. to disagree or argue about another country's regulations, only to enforce their compliance (which in the matter of India were being complied with according to their own written document).

4) Lacey is what's called a "fact-based" as opposed to a "document-based" statute.  In other words, simply possessing legitimate-looking paperwork  won't protect anyone from confiscation, fines or imprisonment if indeed laws really were broken.  It's the same legal principle that has always applied in U.S. mining law, that it's not how technically accurate the filed paperwork description of a claim's boundaries are but how it's actually marked out and posted on the ground.

Several complicating and confusing glitches were made on the paperwork from LMII's Indian ebony shipment, but what counts is whether or not any actual regulations were violated.  They don't seem to have been (in the case of India, at least), but it's up to the courts and not us to decide guilt or innocence.  Hopefully, they'll toss this one out no matter how foolish it makes Special Agent Rayfield and the USFWS appear.

The Madagascar wood remains problematic since it does involve endangered trees, logging in a national forest, and a questionable state of political unrest in the country at the time the wood was exported with questions about the government's validity as a legitimately recognized power.

---

Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 09/04/2011 08:32:01

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/04/2011:  09:08:53

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbalch

My question is this:  The way I read the complaint against Gibson...the US FWS says it is illegal, under Indian law, to export sawn ebony boards thicker than 6mm.  It doesn't matter if it came from a managed sustainable forest.
 

---

Exactly.

It doesn't answer this question, but it's interesting to note that the FSC certification for Atheena (the Indian supplier) includes veneers but excludes sawn boards over 6mm thick:

info.fsc.org/PublicCertificate...05tyYTAAY

(you will need to click the "Product Data" tab on the site above.)

---

Edited by - sugarinthegourd on 09/04/2011 09:09:28

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/04/2011:  09:21:50

---

To repeat: I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.”

That is the official Indian regulatory statement clarifying their own law regarding the fingerboard blanks. 

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/04/2011:  09:42:42

---

Thanks, Duke of Pearl, for all your input into this very interesting topic.

I will try to write more later, when I have more time, on what I believe to be the intention of the Lacey Act, and why it might make sense for a law like this to be based on the written law of another country rather than what's written on a document or manifest.

But in short, I believe that it doesn't matter that much what Daya Shankar or anyone else wrote on a piece of paper. Individuals from stevedores to customs agents all the way up to senior government ministers are so easily bribed. What matters, and why the Lacey Act was written the way it was, is what the law says about exportability.

This sounds like a much grayer case for Gibson (and LMII) as compared to the Madagascar case. It's not clear from what's in the public domain that they knew they were doing anything wrong. (Other facts could emerge that would dramatically change this picture -- the US gov't MAY have some of these facts, and is likely at this very instant looking for more on the seized computers.)

I agree with others that IF the DOJ decides that unworked ebony over 6mm thick cannot be legally exported from India, it will have a big impact on US instrument makers, unless and until India changes their written law.

 

 

bricklifter - Posted - 09/04/2011:  12:43:52

---

There is now some suggestion that Gibson may have had employees in the areas where these woods are being logged, trying to arrange a way to export these materials to the US. This is NOT an issue of big brother keeping down honest, hardworking American companies, this may be a matter of illegal export of a endangered species of wood. Yes, I dislke bureaucrats as much as the next guy, but they are for now part of the process of law enforcement. FACTS: ebony is in short supply because the 1st world has a high demand while the 3rd world is uninterested/unable to provide a sustainable supply. I tire of discussions that start to lean toward American manifest destiny of consumption--we are not entitled to these materials when we can soon see a day when they are completely depleted. If we keep doing what we have always done, these wood will be gone: it is irrelevant whether you are a tree hugger, democrat, republican, or otherwise.

Oh, and by the way.... I use to be a logger and forest fire fighter. I have no love for USDA, Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife, but seeing the extinction of a species trumps whether or not I get to have a banjo with a pretty fretboard.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/04/2011:  13:32:25

---

"FACTS: ebony is in short supply because the 1st world has a high demand while the 3rd world is uninterested/unable to provide a sustainable supply. "

---

NOT a fact, at least in the case of Indian Rosewood and ebony.  This wood is from sustainable sources which are tightly regulated by the Indian government, and not from endangered or protected forests, and responsible management has yielded millions of fingerboards for decades.  And it's not just governmental permission that's involved but approval from deep-ecology non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that have done intensive on-site investigations from the trees to the mills right on through the entire custodial chain of those who have anything to do with handling the woods.  For instance, certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, at fsc.org), or the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA, at eia-global.org and forestlegality.org).   These various watch-dog groups are working tightly with the guitar industry (among others) to provide trustworthy documentation for legally and responsibly harvested materials, while making it as hard as possible for suspect suppliers to survive. 

---

Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 09/04/2011 13:39:35

DanielT - Posted - 09/04/2011:  14:51:25

---

quote:

---

political quote excised--BR

No, as I said in another thread, I believe the bottom line is that "the investigation happened because there was the appearance of, or reasonable suspicion of violation.  Of course Gibson got cranky about being investigated, so their PR team quickly marketed a version of their story to a largely conservative media base to rally support for their cause."

---

Edited by - Bill Rogers on 09/05/2011 00:13:29

banjobart - Posted - 09/04/2011:  19:22:32

---

High quality ebony is much cheaper and easier to purchase today than it was 35 years ago. And it now comes from sustainable forests!



35 years ago ebony was packed out to the road on the back of human being. Now it is transported in a 4x4 or other motorized vehicle. It is now cut with a power saw, 35 years ago ti was still cut with a handsaw. 

We used to buy ebony bundled in hand sewn burlap (hemp) sacks. For the last 20 years Indian ebony fingerboards have come individually sealed in a plastic  bag.



There is plenty of ebony to go around for centuries to come. Thanks to good management in India, both the government and corporations there involved in the wood trade.

---

Edited by - banjobart on 09/04/2011 19:27:43

Kenneth Logsdon - Posted - 09/04/2011:  21:07:43

---

How come I keep getting an image of a small child talking to his teacher.. "My dog ate my homework and I have a note from mother to prove it?????

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/05/2011:  21:09:37

---

Just discovered (thanks to Lance Peck) is that counter to what I'd run across in a court decision about another agency, the Lacey Act DOES after all allow the U.S. to interpret another country's laws differently than they themselves do. There can be a violation even if the foreign law isn't enforced in that country, and even though the violation may not be a criminal one in the foreign country it will be here. (see: aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/la...rimer.pdf). In other words, you could be totally compliant according to foreign law as required by Lacey, and yet be arrested because the U.S. decides to interpret those laws differently! Am I missing something here?

The Lacey primer also states that for both paper and electronic submissions, the steps used in processing any submission will include: 

"Declarations vetted for accuracy and compliance."

"Importer contacted if vetting reveals errors."

But Natalie at LMI says this not only didn't happen, but that FWS refused to talk to them when LMI found the error and tried to get it corrected:

"The broker for LMI had someone new working in their office who listed the "entry" as veneers <6mm despite all other paperwork listing it as sawn wood and fingerboards in excess of 6mm. The broker sent a letter explaining the error and attempted to contact FWS to correct the entry, but they refused to speak to him. A copy of the letter was sent to LMI as well as FWS.”

My apologies for the error.  If you’ve passed that earlier  info along, please also forward this correction – there’s enough wrong stuff circulating already without us adding to it! 

Wing It - Posted - 09/05/2011:  22:20:49

---

CEO of Gibson: Feds Told Us to Leave U.S.

Wing It - Posted - 09/05/2011:  22:49:42

---

First they came after Gibson and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Gibson owner.
Then they came for the Luthiers and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Luthier.
Then they came for the Guitars and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Guitar Player.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

BDCA - Posted - 09/06/2011:  04:34:34

---

I have owned and played a US made CA all carbon guitar for the past 5 years and it compares very favorably with my vintage D-28, but it's louder, stays in tune through all weathers and looks brand new after years of touring. Fellow musicians can't believe it's carbon until they get close.

The fret board is carbon and has absolutely no wear to be seen, refrets as easily as ebony, doesn't require an adjustable truss rod and takes inlays like ebony. It simply doesn't move.

Natural woods are beautiful but maybe it's time to tell the third world to take their wood and put it where the sun don't shine??!! Once they start having to make ebony toothpicks because the demand for fret boards dried up, maybe they will be a bit more "flexible" (no pun intended)

China has us by the balls because of our craving for cheap consumer goods. Maybe it's time to make a stand with fret boards!? Maybe a few of our local luthiers could produce a neck with a carbon fret board to test for tonal qualities using American woods for the neck. Maybe a 100% American made banjo is what we need to be targeting???

 

Cya!

Bob

---

Edited by - BDCA on 09/06/2011 04:38:17

DanielT - Posted - 09/06/2011:  06:30:14

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It

First they came after Gibson ...

---

Wow, Wing It, not only is this a perversion of Martin Niemöller's old statement about the holocaust, but in adapting it you've displayed a painful to watch misunderstanding of what's going on here.

Wing It - Posted - 09/06/2011:  07:50:43

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It

First they came after Gibson ...

---

Wow, Wing It, not only is this a perversion of Martin Niemöller's old statement about the holocaust, but in adapting it you've displayed a painful to watch misunderstanding of what's going on here.

---

Have I misunderstood what is going on here? I think not and I believe that as time passes you will see that I hit the nail right on the head. If you believe this issue is only about the wood, the environment of the world's forests, and saving the planet, you are sadly mistaken. The purpose of our laws is to "promote the general welfare" of our nation; in other words, to create an environment in which our businesses and our citizens can flourish  and prosper. Now our DOJ has told Gibson to leave the United States and build their instruments in another nation. How does that "promote the general welfare" of US citizens?   

BDCA - Posted - 09/06/2011:  08:11:15

---

Have I misunderstood what is going on here?

I think so. If the so called New World Order wanted to start escalating the process of citizen submission to the imagined conspiracy, they wouldn't be starting with ebony and a guitar company. SInce the supposed quote regarding Gibson moving overseas is totally out of context, it is ludicrous to even quote it.

Misappropriating a quotation regarding the accession to power of a Fascist government for what appears to be bureaucratic bungling by both sides is also inane.

But you have every right to believe in any conspiracy that tickles your fancy so keep your cellar stocked and your automatic weapons loaded (oops forgot you are in Massachusetts but banjos make great weapons) and get ready for the breakdown of society as we know it.

Wishing you a nice day!

Bob

DanielT - Posted - 09/06/2011:  08:21:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It



Now our DOJ has told Gibson to leave the United States and build their instruments in another nation. How does that "promote the general welfare" of US citizens?   

---

The original source of this statement was Gibson's CEO (you said it yourself), and it's been propagated by a largely conservative media base (this has been discussed broadly in another thread, btw).  Really - find me a genuine DOJ press release that boldly orders Gibson out (in those words) and I will relent. 

Before you do that, though, ask yourself this: why is taking the word of the guy in trouble who has a vested financial interest in getting his way properly understanding the situation?  If you dig deeper into what's available as far as "facts" and also look at the Lacey literature, you'll see that there are important inconsistencies in Gibson's story.  Because Gibson is already in trouble for a 2009 violation, the inconsistencies in this case gave the appearance of and hence a reasonable suspicion of another violation.  Maybe Gibson did nothing wrong, maybe they did - nobody knows for sure at this point - but saying that episode this is the harbinger of some grand societal deevolution is weakly imaginative invective at best.

gottasmilealot - Posted - 09/06/2011:  08:30:30

---

Well, if a search warrant was secured, it was because a judge was shown evidence of reasonable cause for it to be issued. I also don't buy into the conspiracy theories that are being hand fed to those who will repeat them.  Let the legal process take its course.

rexhunt - Posted - 09/06/2011:  08:33:11

---

There are two sides to every story - and somewhere in between lies the truth!

Rex

DanielT - Posted - 09/06/2011:  10:22:51

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rexhunt

There are two sides to every story - and somewhere in between lies the truth!

---

And so far, Gibson's side is the only side most people are aware of!

banjoak - Posted - 09/06/2011:  13:20:12

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It

 

Now our DOJ has told Gibson to leave the United States and build their instruments in another nation.   

---

Where could I find actual document that the DOJ actually said that?

wpmills - Posted - 09/07/2011:  06:01:47

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It

 

Now our DOJ has told Gibson to leave the United States and build their instruments in another nation.   

---

Where could I find actual document that the DOJ actually said that?

---

kmj580.com/pages/landing?blockID=546848

rexhunt - Posted - 09/07/2011:  06:36:35

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wpmills

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing It

 

Now our DOJ has told Gibson to leave the United States and build their instruments in another nation.   

---

Where could I find actual document that the DOJ actually said that?

---

kmj580.com/pages/landing?blockID=546848

---

Sorry, no cigar.  Just more of Gibson's side of the story.

Rex