Buying old, vintage Guilds

jmascis

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
jedzep - just on a whim, tuned the JF30 down a full step last night, played for awhile, then went up a half step... really surprised me, both
the difference in tone - definitely deeper, but not unpleasant at all! - and fretting was indeed easier - and also
singing songs that are on the brink of being out-of-vocal range were certainly easier. Thinking I might just leave this one tuned down and
enjoy the difference in sound and character... thanks for suggesting.

I've tuned guitars down 4 steps to A bass string...it sounds really interesting and good in an unorthodox way.

Here's a video of Leon Redbone tuned down 1 step...he played the entire show in that tuning, and that guitar (CF-100e) is from the 50s. When seeing that, I wondered if he down tuned because the guitar was structurally compromised. Either way, if you tune up to G and play it, it doesn't sound as cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ReQSCi24S8
 

jedzep

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
691
Location
Cooperstown
13's, which I've sworn I'd never use on my old small bods, have become a great ally in tuning down a full. Extra torque on the top equals tone and all... Even use them now on my delicate '31 L0.

Love ol' Leon.
 
Last edited:

jmascis

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
13's, which I've sworn I'd never use on my old small bods, have become a great ally in tuning down a full. Extra torque on the top equals tone and all... Even use them now on my delicate '31 L0.

Love ol' Leon.

Yeah, definitely need .13s to tune down effectively in my experience.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
The truth is very complicated. It involves market manipulation by some Governments (ie. Brazil), unnecessary (and in many ways, miguided) regulation by unelected officials (ie. UN), and the vanity of guitar buyers.
For the second time, the UN has nothing to do with CITES enforcement or construction of the treaty clauses.
It just so happens that all signatories are also members of the UN.
All CITES activity is conducted outside the UN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES


Brazilian rosewood is not endangered.
Can you cite a source that confirms that in the face of so much credible published opinion to the contrary?

Brazilians are cutting down more rosewood than all of the guitar world could ever use. They have been clear cutting tropical rain forests, with a lot of Brazilian rosewood being cut down as well, for decades.
And you don't think that might be part of the reason for scarcity right there? Again, source please?
MY source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalbergia_nigra
"Conservational status[edit]
Dalbergia nigra is listed as vulnerable on the international IUCN Red List.[4] The trees' regeneration rates among existing populations are poor, possibly because the seeds of the few remaining fruiting trees are heavily predated by rodents.[2] In addition it is threatened by habitat loss, since most of the plant's forest habitats have been converted to farmland. Due to its endangered status, it was CITES-listed on Nov. 6, 1992, in Appendix I (the most protected), and trade in it is restricted.[5]"

and The trees are not used in any way
Right, they burn it. The ashes of slash and burn agriculture act like fertilizer, for maybe a couple of years. Then they have to move on because the soil's depleted and of poor quality that's not suitable for crops or grassland for cattle grazing.
It's cheaper to move on than to supplement the soil with humus, in particular.
, but the export of this wood requires the Brazilian government to certify the wood. They will, for a very substantial price; it is a significant source of income.

They are not issuing a lot of certifications, therefore the wood is scarce; not due to the tree being endangered, but because it cannot be legally exported out of Brazil.
Those 2 statement seem contradictory:
If they stand to make a lot of money on certificates and the wood really isn't scarce, why not issue as many licenses as they can?
It is not good in that it has been applied retroactively.
It is NOT "Applied retroactively".
It provides exemptions from seizure for articles which were built or contain wood that was harvested before the listing for the species in question occurred.
And guess what? A guitar containing Brazilian rosewood is still exempt from seizure when carried across borders by its owner with the accompanying certificate, and rosewood listed under Appendix II is exempt for up to 10kg of personal transport without needing a certificate at all.
PRECISELY to allow freedom of non-commercial transport of personal instruments (and furniture).
So, is every customs agent at every border just supposed to go ahead and take every Tom Dick and Harry's word for the content of their instrument?
If I try to cross a border without a valid passport is the customs agent just supposed to take my word for it that I have one?
If I'm carrying a drug that is over-the-counter in country A into country B where it requires a prescription, is the customs agent supposed to simply let me keep it?
Is he supposed to take my word that I don't have anything to declare?
If I drive without my license in a country that has a reciprocal validity agreement with US, is the traffic cop just supposed to take my word for it that I have one?
Should driver's licenses be issued for free, ie, on the taxpayer's buck?
It's exactly the same principle as charging a fee for an exemption certificate.
Nope, bureaucracies operate on the principle of paperwork making things easily verified but it costs money and man-hours.
No tickee, no laundry.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Having just revisited this thread and coincidentally reviewing my last post, I realize I may have come down a bit hard on fellow member Kostask, and wish to apologize.
Kostas, I think somebody offered you up some particularly tasty Koolaid and you drank of it, but if I'm wrong I'm still wide open to seeing some references to evidence supporting your statements...in the meantime, "pax, brother"?
 

kostask

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
484
Al:

From your own Wikipedia link:

"....since most of the plant's forest habitats have been converted to farmland".

Sort of going along with my previous statements. As for the scarcity of the wood, let me ask the following question:

If "....most of the forest habitats have been converted to farmland" what happened to the trees? Were they all burned up? Doubt it. Why is stump wood so easily available compared to trunk wood? If the stumps are there, where it the rest of the tree?

As for the "being applied retroactively", it is, and it is in effect now. One of my luthier buddies deals in guitars. You can no longer ship guitars with rosewood fretboards (not just back and sides), only fretboards, over the border without having them seized. Doesn't matter if the guitar was made in 1953, or in 1923 for that matter. It will get seized. You need to get a "a passport" to ship it. So the rules are being applied retroactively. Same goes for any guitar with a mahogamy back and sides; again, doesn't matter when it was made. Sp. retpractively, yes. Same goes for East Indian Rosewood, which is also on the CITES list, but it s a sustainably farmed wood. Ebony, which is not on the CITES list, is arguably far more endangered than Mahogany, or EI Rosewood.

I still don't understand your point. Guitars were going across the border freely until January of this year. Now, everything needs a "passport". All of a sudden, with the stroke of a pen, all of these previously built guitars are now contributing to species extinction. All of them have become threats to the Brazilian rainforest.

And yes, to add more opinion, the Brazilian rosewood trees that were cut down for the farmland are, for the most part, still in existence. I am willing to bet that there is a vast hoard to very high quality trees in a warehouse, or multiple warehouses, in Brazil, and that the Brazilian government knows they are there. The wood suppliers, along with the Brazilian government, are limiting the supply of Brazilian rosewood by keeping export quantities low. The wood dealers get maximum dollars for the wood, and the Brazilian gov't gets to make significant amounts of money issuing permits, and the permits, and the wood itself, continues to increase in value.

As for the other examples, I won't comment. I can say straight out that more than one guitar has been seized, erroneously, by customs agents, and even though the guitar was completely legal, customs still has it, eight years after seizure, even though lawyers have been involved, and the original manufacturer has the necessary paperwork to prove the guitar is legal.

You should not need an exemption certificate for a guitar that is completely legal. And if the customs agents cannot verify that a guitar is legal or not, you need better customs agents, or you need to stop seizing guitars due to ignorance. Even in today's society, full of fake news, half truths and general bull**** all over the place, legally you are still innocent until proven guilty. When a customs agent is not able to verify that a guitar was built previous to the CITES dates, they should turn it over to somebody who can, not seize it.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Al:

From your own Wikipedia link:

"....since most of the plant's forest habitats have been converted to farmland".

Sort of going along with my previous statements. As for the scarcity of the wood, let me ask the following question:

If "....most of the forest habitats have been converted to farmland" what happened to the trees? Were they all burned up? Doubt it. Why is stump wood so easily available compared to trunk wood? If the stumps are there, where it the rest of the tree?
The point being, sure there may be a whole lot of harvested wood, but how's it going to get replaced going forward?
You're talking about harvested wood.
CITES is concerned with ongoing survival of a species, living trees.
Loss of habitat IS the problem.


As for the "being applied retroactively", it is, and it is in effect now. One of my luthier buddies deals in guitars. You can no longer ship guitars with rosewood fretboards (not just back and sides), only fretboards, over the border without having them seized. Doesn't matter if the guitar was made in 1953, or in 1923 for that matter. It will get seized. You need to get a "a passport" to ship it.
Again, that's the point, there is an exemption process.
If seizure was being applied retroactively there wouldn't even be an exemption process available.

So the rules are being applied retroactively. Same goes for any guitar with a mahogamy back and sides; again, doesn't matter when it was made.
And it'll all get through customs just fine with the correct paperwork.
All this griping arises from the onerous task of proving a wood's source and waiting for the appropriate certificate where that requirement didn't exist before or was poorly enforced.
Ebony, which is not on the CITES list, is arguably far more endangered than Mahogany, or EI Rosewood.

Madagascan Ebony is CITES listed as of Dec '11:
https://www.fws.gov/international/plants/current-cites-listings-of-tree-species.html
See article 2 under the scientific name Dyospyros.
Again, I call attention to the letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service which details how to successfully navigate the new rules.
https://www.fws.gov/international/p...appendix-II-timber-listings-December-2016.pdf

Note the specific distinctions made between personal transport of an instrument and shipment for profit it regardless of quantity, especially in questions 47-50.


I still don't understand your point. Guitars were going across the border freely until January of this year
No they weren't.
They just weren't being scrutinized as carefully.
Anything that was CITES listed before Jan '17 still needed the appropriate certificate, ESPECIALLY Brazilian Rosewood.
Look at the listing dates of the various woods in the listing(S). ANYTHING that was CITES listed before Jan '17 still needed certification, it just wasn't as relevant to guitars back then.
All that happened was that remaining unlisted species of rosewood were added to Article 2 starting in Jan '17.
THAT is the reason for the sudden stricter scrutiny of guitars.
The certification process is a means of proving the guitars were made or the wood was legally imported into country of manufacture before it became subject to CITES controls.
Another point:
Gibson suffered 2 hugely publicized wood seizures in the last 5 years, one of them predicated on paperwork not being properly filled out by their customs broker.
A previous one was for EIR fretboard stock not being in conformance with India's export regs, and the US performing reciprocal enforcement of India's regs.
So this really is nothing new.

Now, everything needs a "passport".
Let's clarify the difference between "passport" which is only available to the owner of an instrument who wants to personally carry his instrument and doesn't intend to sell it, and an export authorization permit which is issued by the government of the country from which a listed species is being exported, stating that the export is legally allowed.
That type of permit is for commercial quantities of materials or any commercial shipment of an individual piece.
The same rules also apply to furniture and there's a known huge asian maker that hasn't always been conscientious about vetting the sources of their raw materials.
Let's not forget as well that a BIG element of illegal trade is exotic animals, where the profit on an individual may far outclass anything typically made on a guitar sale..
It's just the same processes applied to woods and simply hasn't been a big impact on guitar trade until last January.
If it's coming through via a common carrier (unless you're shipping it to yourself) it automatically needs documentation.

All of a sudden, with the stroke of a pen, all of these previously built guitars are now contributing to species extinction.
That's hyperbole.
Again, I think you're missing the point. All the previously built guitars now require proof that they were built before the woods they contain were CITES listed.
And that's actually nothing new, it's just that now more types of wood fall under the scope of scrutiny.
All of them have become threats to the Brazilian rainforest.
NO, the unregulated trade of newly listed species is a threat to Madagascan, Caribbean,and SE Asian rain forests.
And please, nobody says the guitars are a threat, only the illegitimate harvesters of materials used to make 'em.
Guitars are a mere footnote compared to the furniture trade, which instruments are actually considered to be part of.
And EIR IS still harvested illegally in SE Asia in spite of the existence of sustainably harvested sources.
So certification allows continued trade in those sources instead of making it all illegal.
And yes, to add more opinion, the Brazilian rosewood trees that were cut down for the farmland are, for the most part, still in existence. I am willing to bet that there is a vast hoard to very high quality trees in a warehouse, or multiple warehouses, in Brazil, and that the Brazilian government knows they are there.
As pointed out above, those aren't trees anymore, they're harvested wood, which may also explain why such tight reigns are being placed on its export, if it can't be replaced.
I'm willing to concede that perhaps there are plenty of living harvestable trees out there, but the existence of substantial quantities of harvested wood doesn't prove it.
In fact I think now we've been confusing the issue by not making that distinction clear.
What you've been meaning is: There's tons of harvest.
I have no reason to doubt that.
What I've been meaning is: "There's substantial loss of habitat", and I have no reason to doubt that, either.
Bu it means that since the current harvested material may not be readily replaced, it IS in shortage, by definition.
The wood suppliers, along with the Brazilian government, are limiting the supply of Brazilian rosewood by keeping export quantities low. The wood dealers get maximum dollars for the wood, and the Brazilian gov't gets to make significant amounts of money issuing permits, and the permits, and the wood itself, continues to increase in value.
And I can't blame anybody for that.
IF what they've got can't be replaced, why shouldn't they get what the market will bear?
The fact that they're doing that at all still seems to support the fact that there is in fact a shortage due to unsustainable harvesting, that what they sell can't be replaced.
As for the other examples, I won't comment. I can say straight out that more than one guitar has been seized, erroneously, by customs agents, and even though the guitar was completely legal, customs still has it, eight years after seizure, even though lawyers have been involved, and the original manufacturer has the necessary paperwork to prove the guitar is legal.
The way I understand what was sent in the pm, the instrument was shipped into the US without any paperwork identifying the MOP as MOP.
Technically that was a requirement at the time, but I'm sympathetic to the probability that the need for such paperwork wasn't understood.
I do think it's draconian that the guitar hasn't been releasedin spite of all the subsequent documentation submitted, but if lawyers have tried and failed, I'd suspect there's something else we aren't aware of going on here.

You should not need an exemption certificate for a guitar that is completely legal.
Again, how to prove it's legal?
And if the customs agents cannot verify that a guitar is legal or not, you need better customs agents, or you need to stop seizing guitars due to ignorance.
NO, it should be taken out of the customs inspector's discretion.
Thousands of different guitars and hundreds of wood species, I think it's completely unrealistic to expect customs inspectors to be experts in guitar and wood identification.
On top of which, the time consumed in performing that task would be unacceptably costly.
Bite the bullet and get the documentation.
Like I said before it's about the same as getting a driver's license.
Even in today's society, full of fake news, half truths and general bull**** all over the place, legally you are still innocent until proven guilty. When a customs agent is not able to verify that a guitar was built previous to the CITES dates, they should turn it over to somebody who can, not seize it.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Al,

As always, we are good.

Thanks, and I think the real root of the "debate" is right here, as I mentioned above:
"In fact I think now we've been confusing the issue by not making that distinction clear.
What you've been meaning is: 'There's tons of harvest'.
I have no reason to doubt that.
What I've been meaning is: 'There's substantial loss of habitat', and I have no reason to doubt that, either."


They're not mutually exclusive propositions, but I still think the loss of habitat (and thus, source) is what makes the existing harvested supply increasingly scarce and more valuable.
Another thing to bear in mind is that Brazil started restricting the export of rosewood in the late '60's.
CITES was ratified in '75, but D. Nigra, true Brazilian Rosewood, wasn't CITES listed until '92.
That tells me that by then they realized the golden goose might just be about to kick the bucket.
CITES listing occurs at the request of the source country when they see a need to enlist the aid of other treaty parties in gaining control over unsustainable harvesting, by restricting trade.
The basic methodology is that the other member countries will not accept imports of a listed species without the export authorization documentation of the listing country.
Again, there's varying levels of listing, Article 1, where Brazilian is, has the greatest restrictions on trade because the species are deemed to be demonstrably threatened with extinction.
Elephant ivory was one of the prime original targets.
Article 2 covers the vast majority of timber species and is designed with trade controls intended to maintain healthy populations before it's too late.
 
Last edited:
Top