tortoise shell and me
Vernon Ursenbach
made from tortoise shell. I don't think it's right to kill an endangered
animal just to satisfy human wants. I also think it's very important to
honor the laws of the land.
The previous post about tortoise shell thumbpicks was just for interest
purposes and not for any application. I was just curious and wanted to know
if anyone had the answer. Just because I want to know how to do some that
might be illegal does not mean I want to do it. I also like to know how to
make bombs. That does not mean I want to make one. I'm very curious type
of person. That's all.
I wouldn't personally own anything made of tortoise shell. Please don't
prosecute me for my curiosity.
Yes, I was told that the 5 picks I saw in 5 different people's hands were
real tortoise shell, but I had my doubts. The people that have them
obtained them by chance and have no intention of getting any more.
Therefore, what's done is done and prosecution will not change the future
any. However, the experience did perk up my curiosity about tortoise shell.
That's it. That's all. I'm sorry if even the conversation of tortoise
shell thumbpicks upset some people. That was not my intention.
pixel
see the land turtles dead shells all over the place, not to mention road
kill, but interesting question. It would be nice to know how it was done
back in the old days, more for the history's sake.
Short story,
Back in the 70's my folks bought a house on the beach, and walking one day
in the early am I ran across a dead sea turtle. Apparently dead quite some
time as there was no meat inside, just an empty shell, a big one though. I
thought it would be a neat thing to have at a beach house but it was to big
for me to carry, so I left it there...
Now days, the turtles lay their eggs right there on the same beach and thank
goodness, there are volunteers ?) who look out for the nests, and mark them
as it is wonderful to watch them hatch and scramble to the sea and know we
are doing something to give back to the ocean!
What does this have to do with Banjos you ask, not much but I still practice
on the deck and run for cover when the seagulls fly over head and bomb your
beer mug!
Practice, Practice & Practice even more, will it ever get any better, who
cares, it's all fun..........
Pixel
"Vernon Ursenbach" <flyfish...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:549v8.15236$L1.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sean Barry
: The previous post about tortoise shell thumbpicks was just for interest
: purposes and not for any application. I was just curious and wanted to know
: if anyone had the answer. Just because I want to know how to do some that
: might be illegal does not mean I want to do it. I also like to know how to
: make bombs. That does not mean I want to make one. I'm very curious type
: of person. That's all.
What prompted my response was 1) your uncritical repetition and
perpetuation of long-discredited notions about the "superiority" of
tortoise shell picks; 2) your apparent failure to appreciate the cost to
the turtle, in that all you did was repeat those notions in a very
positive way.
You wrote:
> However, for the other question on why use tortoise shell, for the sound
> and lack of wearing down.
> The lower strings, like the "D" string, becomes a much more rich sound
> while making no change in sound to the higher strings.
> A tortoise shell thumbpick will last for years while a normal pick does
> not. Why is this important when one tortoise shell pick is almost 100
> times more expensive than a normal pick? As a pick wears down the feel
> of the pick changes. These changes effect slight changes in the playing.
> When a new pick is needed, an adjustment period helps until the new pick
> feels comfortable. It's like an old pair of shoes. The idea is to
> prevent from changing the pick for as long of a time as possible for
> comfort and familiar reasons. The thumbpick becomes a good friend that
> you hate to give up or change.
Once again, the above is pure bull, and even if every bit of it were
widely acknowledged as provably correct, it would hardly be worth the
demise of a 300+ pound, 50-year old animal. Last point to be made is that
all of those illegal picks that are still making their way here from Japan
do come from formerly living animals, which are still being killed by the
thousands in the western Pacific despite international treaties and laws
that prohibit it. As long as there exists an international market, no
matter how small, someone out there will continue to kill sea turtles,
enough of which already die in shrimp nets and enough of whose eggs are
excavated on remote beaches in the tropics.
What you wrote is pure myth. Stop repeating and believing in myths, and
start doing the things that will make you a better player. Practice.
Sean Barry
Vernon Ursenbach
Sean Barry wrote:
> (snip)
> What you wrote is pure myth. Stop repeating and believing in myths, and
> start doing the things that will make you a better player. Practice.
>
I hear what you and others are saying about it all being crap, the same
people that have not personally used tortoise picks. However, I also hear
just the opposite to be true from those people that have used or still use
tortoise picks. Who am I to say one person is correct and the other is not?
Your, post also makes the assumption that I don't practice. I practice
every day. I only work 3 hours a day. That's one of the best parts of
being in show business. I have the rest of the time for practicing,
contemplating, and visiting with friends.
You are becoming very arrogant about your opinions and dictating actions
from others. Who made you God to tell me what I must do? Telling me to,
"stop repeating and believing in myths" is very pretentious especially since
I don't know it is myth just because you said so. Am I to ignore what
others say just because you tell me to?
Sean Barry
: I hear what you and others are saying about it all being crap, the same
: people that have not personally used tortoise picks.
Many of the most negative replies to your original query were from people
who have used tortoise shell picks, and that includes me.
: However, I also hear
: just the opposite to be true from those people that have used or still use
: tortoise picks. Who am I to say one person is correct and the other is not?
Well, in reality you have little choice unless you want to do a small but
not insignificant part in perpetuating the trade in hawksbill tortoise
shell. During the 1960's music stores couldn't _give_ tortoise shell
picks away because they were 3-10 times the cost of celluloid picks and
because most players could not see or hear any difference. When they
became illegal to sell or transfer in the US in 1968, and then became
illegal to ship internationally without a CITES permit in 1973, some
players moaned and wailed and suddenly took an interest in something they
had previously ignored. I guess it's unfortunately human to want
something that you can't have, so that an entire new mythology grows up
around whatever that might be. There was hardly any interest and no
mythology about tortoise shell picks prior to the late 1960's, and for
that matter there was no mythology about Brazilian rosewood until Martin
discontinued it in 1970.
: Your, post also makes the assumption that I don't practice. I practice
: every day. I only work 3 hours a day. That's one of the best parts of
: being in show business. I have the rest of the time for practicing,
: contemplating, and visiting with friends.
No, I never assumed you don't practice. Read my post again--I said that
practice is actually effective in improving your tone and musicianship. A
tortoise shell pick is not.
: You are becoming very arrogant about your opinions and dictating actions
: from others. Who made you God to tell me what I must do? Telling me to,
: "stop repeating and believing in myths" is very pretentious especially since
: I don't know it is myth just because you said so. Am I to ignore what
: others say just because you tell me to?
Believe what you want--I was addressing your apparent lack of concern for
the fact that an unproven and obviously extremely marginal "benefit" to
your playing comes at the expense of an entire large, highly specialized
wild animal that is already in danger of extinction from a variety of
causes. For every experienced person who is willing to say that tortoise
shell picks are superior, there is at least one (and probably more like
100) who will tell you that that it makes no difference. Given that the
legal and ethical scale tilts in a very specific direction, I would have
thought that the choice is clear. If it's not, just remember that tens of
thousands of very accomplished players have never been near a tortoise
shell pick, yet they somehow muddle through and make great music.
Sean Barry
ODJennings
Believe what you want--I was addressing your apparent lack of concern for
the fact that an unproven and obviously extremely marginal "benefit" to
your playing comes at the expense of an entire large, highly specialized
wild animal that is already in danger of extinction >>
This thread should, perhaps, give us all a moment's pause. Our concern for
endangered animals is great, but we're stretching animal skin heads over banjos
made from exotic hardwoods harvested from rainforests which are being destroyed
by the square mile every day. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .
. .
Vernon Ursenbach
My first post was just a question on how to bend the stuff.
This thread was to be an explanation of my intent regarding the first post.
If you want me to say it's wrong. YES, IT IS WRONG. I've said nothing but
that. However, the interest is still there on how things are done.
If you want me to say they make no difference to the sound or playability, I
cannot. I've never used one to make that decision. I never intend to use
one.
I'm Switzerland. I choose not to take sides in the argument. I choose to
validate both sides comments and invalidate nothing. Therefore, I have to
believe you believe what you are saying to be true. I also have to believe
that what the other side is saying is also believed to be true. It's like a
religious war. I refuse to take sides. I think we all see that there are
no winners in ideological wars. Just look at the Middle East.
The whole thing was not to be about right or wrong. Everyone can all figure
that one out on their own. I'm not going to argue with you. I think the
answer is quite clear and I think we agree on that.
Talking about them and how they are made, however, is not wrong. Or,
talking about if there is a difference is not wrong. Even if there is a
substantial difference in the sound or playability, I'm NOT saying there is
though some have, that does not mean it's right to use them. I'm not
condoning their use but just interested in how they are made. I just don't
want you to act as though I'm doing something bad by being inquisitive.
That's all. Being inquisitive is not a bad thing even if it's about
something that is bad.
"Sean Barry" <sjb...@runner.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:a9mlmi$m7l$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Sean Barry
: I don't want this to become a war. That would be my last intent.
Mine too. In reviewing what I wrote I agree that I could have toned
things down a bit and should not have been so "correct." Obviously I do
feel strongly about that particular issue, and I'm frustrated that there
still seems to be any interest at all in shell picks. Nevertheless, I
think you have a valid point or two of your own, so I'll concede that I
should have stopped a post or two before I did. Sorry.
Sean Barry
DEDCENTER
real "sorry" on both sides. C'mon boys, this is a nice post area. Besides....
I'm still wondering if the guy ate the penguins or his ship mates. Shows how
slow I am.
Ded
Peter Roehling
>
> Sean Barry wrote:
> > (snip)
> > What you wrote is pure myth. Stop repeating and believing in myths, and
> > start doing the things that will make you a better player. Practice.
> >
>
> I hear what you and others are saying about it all being crap, the same
> people that have not personally used tortoise picks.
NOT TRUE! I used tortoise picks on and off for many years. (I never even
had to buy any, as I'd frequently find 'em in the cases of old
instruments that were temporarily mine.)
I agree with Sean that they have no advantage over plastic picks, Dunlop
Tortex in particular. Absolutely none.
> You are becoming very arrogant about your opinions and dictating actions
> from others. Who made you God to tell me what I must do? Telling me to,
> "stop repeating and believing in myths" is very pretentious especially since
> I don't know it is myth just because you said so. Am I to ignore what
> others say just because you tell me to?
If you've got any sense, yes. Sean has been building and playing
professionally since way back when, and he knows *exactly* what he's
talking about. He's not merely posting opinions, he's talking about
facts.
And speaking of facts, in all the time I've been reading his posts both
here and on BANJO-L (which he started, BTW), I've not ONCE seen him give
bad advise.
You have either mistaken real expertise for arrogance, or you simply
don't care that there's a difference between the two.
P.
Peter Roehling
>
> This thread should, perhaps, give us all a moment's pause. Our concern for
> endangered animals is great, but we're stretching animal skin heads over banjos
> made from exotic hardwoods harvested from rainforests which are being destroyed
> by the square mile every day.
Well, no. Not even close.
Skin heads are made from calfskin, and the domestic bovine is in no
danger of extinction at last report (although McDonalds is doing their
best).
Banjo pots are made of maple, a north American hardwood that grows quite
rapidly, and is similarly not endangered.
Necks and resonators are generally maple (see above), mahogany, or
walnut. Both mahogany and walnut are getting expensive, but both are
also being farmed now, and should be available for the foreseeable
future.
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Okay. Stand just a little to the left... ;)
P.
Paulsv
>Well, no. Not even close.
>
>Necks and resonators are generally maple (see above), mahogany, or
>walnut.
And fingerboards and peghead laminations are made of ebony and rosewood.
Sounds "close" to me! (If we ignore the fact that, for the most part,
deforestation is not caused by cutting hardwood for lumber, but by burning the
forests so that they can be farmed for a year or two, until the soil becomes
depleted, at which point they go and burn another 100 acres.)
Paul Vander Woude
Chicago, IL
Born to Tinker
Forced to Work
Brittles
<<<<This thread should, perhaps, give us all a moment's pause. Our concern for
endangered animals is great, but we're stretching animal skin heads over banjos
made from exotic hardwoods harvested from rainforests which are being destroyed
by the square mile every day.>>>>
Peter told OD:
<<<Well, no. Not even close.>>>
(snip)
<<<Skin heads are made from calfskin, and the domestic bovine is in no danger
of extinction at last report (although McDonalds is doing their best).>>>
Which is, supposedly, the difference between a "renewable" resource - and an
"endangered" one.
Pete goes on:
<<<Necks and resonators are generally maple ..., mahogany, or walnut. >>>
Also supposedly "renewable"... However *Mahogany* depends on "which kind -
from where?"
<< pau...@aol.comnojunk (Paulsv) >>
Replied:
<< And fingerboards and peghead laminations are made of ebony and rosewood.
Sounds "close" to me! (If we ignore the fact that, for the most part,
deforestation is not caused by cutting hardwood for lumber, but by burning the
forests so that they can be farmed for a year or two, until the soil becomes
depleted, at which point they go and burn another 100 acres.) >>
And a good deal of rainforest land, is ALSO "cleared" - to graze
bovineburgers... So we've come full circle.
Much of the tropical woods that manage to escape the fires - are sold to veneer
mills - to turn into cheap paneling, "fashion" furniture, (and cheap
instruments) - which get thown out, when the next new trend comes along.
The actual amount of "endangered" tropical hardwoods - used for making
*quality* stringed instruments - is pitifully small, by comparison. And many
of the quality makers are more concerned with maintaining it - as a "renewable"
resource - than anyone is.
At least a good instrument will last a lifetime (or more) - if taken care of
properly.
But, as OD and Barry correctly point out it - even when used conscientiously -
it STILL creates a "mythical" demand for rare resources.
And that's exactly why I *ONLY* use Fiberskyn heads on my ebony-fingerboarded,
gold-plated, pearl-encrusted banjos... As I always say: "Think globally - act
locally"... ;-)
(I think Donald Trump has the same motto...)
Best-
Ed Britt
Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me.
Paulsv
>Much of the tropical woods that manage to escape the fires - are sold to
>veneer
>mills - to turn into cheap paneling, "fashion" furniture, (and cheap
>instruments) - which get thown out, when the next new trend comes along.
>
>The actual amount of "endangered" tropical hardwoods - used for making
>*quality* stringed instruments - is pitifully small, by comparison. And many
>of the quality makers are more concerned with maintaining it - as a
>"renewable"
>resource - than anyone is.
Ed, I'd like to add my perspective on just a few points. The lower quality
veneers are used as you say, but decent quality veneers are very expensive (as
much as $20 or even more per square foot, at 1/40" thicknesses) and highly
sought after by the makers of the finest furniture. Veneer was initially used
by makers of cheaper furniture, and so it got a bad reputation, but today, with
wood becoming more scarce, adhesives and veneering technology getting better,
and consumer acceptance changing, it is more often found on higher end
furniture. And the use of veneer instead of solid wood, of course, stretches
the resource. The veneer sellers were among the first wood importers to commit
to selling what is now referred to as "Green Wood", which means that it is
certified, by independent sources, as having come from sustainable yield
forests. It is my impression that importers and users of fine woods in all
industries and arts are about equally committed to this, not just instrument
makers.
Brittles
<< Much of the tropical woods that manage to escape the fires - are sold to
veneer mills - to turn into cheap paneling, "fashion" furniture, (and cheap
instruments) - which get thown out, when the next new trend comes along.>>
<< pau...@aol.comnojunk (Paulsv) >>
Replied:
<< The lower qualityveneers are used as you say, but decent quality veneers are
very expensive (as much as $20 or even more per square foot, at 1/40"
thicknesses) and highly sought after by the makers of the finest furniture.
Veneer was initially used by makers of cheaper furniture, and so it got a bad
reputation, but today, with wood becoming more scarce, adhesives and veneering
technology getting better, and consumer acceptance changing, it is more often
found on higher end furniture. And the use of veneer instead of solid wood, of
course, stretches the resource. >>
Hi Paul-
The veneering of high quality furniture has been done since the 1500's. And is
*USUALLY* found on the highest quality furniture. Veneering - in and of itself
- isn't a "QUALITY" issue.
I was commenting on a "conscientious" use of the resources in question.
Useful, quality products, are generally "recycled" - often due to their
"intrinsic" value - as being "too good" to throw away.
They become heirlooms, that are handed down through generations, and "antiques"
that are resold, and therefore, preserved.
Products of lower quality, or that are of trendy or faddish design, or
technolgically "unstable" (they become obsolete before they are made) - are
disposed-of at a prodigious rate, in our consumer culture. (And yet, they can
be made of extremely expensive materials.)
Rarely, are they truly "recycled". (Where DID that "old" Pentum 286 wind up,
anyway? This jacaranda paneling is just so "80's" - light woods are in,
now...)
To use non-renewable resources for such things - is simply adding insult to
injury - and totally absurd, to me.
Believe me, as a product designer - who helps to design instantaneously
obsolete high-tech equipment - I'm well aware of our culture's
"God-given-right" to use anything we want, in any way we want. As long as we
make a profit for our stockholders.
I simply find it inherently wasteful, and foolish to do so.
My personal goal is to design useful objects, and tools, (including banjos)
that can still be appreciated generations from now. In today's business
environment, I don't often get the chance to even apply those guidelines - much
less actually meet the goals.
But who cares? My cell phone is smaller than yours... ;-P
Best-
Ed Britt - C.L.
(Certified Luddite)
ODJennings
Skin heads are made from calfskin, and the domestic bovine is in no
danger of extinction at last report >>
Tell that to PETA or any of the other animal right's groups (calf=veal=baby
cows). According to a vocal minority of the population your skin head makes you
a baby cow killer. My point is that it's all a matter of perception. 99.99% of
the population in the USA would shudder at killing sea turtles these
days--maybe in another 40 years when we're all eating soy burgers people will
be asking the old-timers about the old days when we actually killed cows to
make banjo heads.
An old joke: Forest ranger catches a guy roasting and eating a bald eagle. As
he's arresting him he can't resist asking him "so, what does a bald eagle
actually taste like?"
Guy thinks a minute then says "well, a little like whooping crane, and a little
like spotted owl."
Paulsv
Well-said! Actually, I believe I recently read about the discovery of an
Egyptian artifact that used veneering (albeit 1/8" thick) many years B.C.
I'm curious- Would you (or anyone else that wants to comment) use Ivory in
making a banjo, if you could ascertain that it was imported prior to the ban,
and therefore legal to use?
OLDRETIREDCHIEF
I tried using a tortoise shell pick, but the damn turtle was a snapping one and
kept getting me off beat!
Brittles
asked:
<< I'm curious- Would you (or anyone else that wants to comment) use Ivory in
making a banjo, if you could ascertain that it was imported prior to the ban,
and therefore legal to use? >>
Hi Paul-
No, yes, no, and yes.
I had a custom Martin 00-45 12-fret, made back in '86. I was *originally*
planning to having carved ivory bridge pins, and tuning buttons, custom-made
for it.
The whole "poachers blasting elephants with machineguns - and chopping-off
tusks with chainsaws" story broke, just about the time the guitar was done.
NO - I just couldn't bring myself to "create a demand" which caused that kind
of carnage. I decided against it. The guitar still has plastic ones, to this
day.
YES - because in '92, I had "fossil" ivory used on my OME prototype - for the
nut and pip - not for anything else.
NO - because I decide after the OME - that EVEN the use of "fossil" ivory -
still "created demand" for ivory. (It's supposedly *mastodon* - which is VERY
difficult to verify - unless you dig it out, yourself.)
YES - in '94 I helped restore the only known example of a Fairbanks Whyte
Laydie "custom-grade" banjo. (I was project leader, and engraving designer.)
Originally, this banjo had carved Ivory tuning pegs - but they were long-since
missing.
From the rest of the banjo, we assumed they would have been highly ornate, and
one-of-a-kind design - like the rest of the banjo.
But since we had no "precedent" for the peg's ornamental "motif" - we decided
to be "consevative", and try to find a set of orginal ivory pegs - of the
"typical" design used on WL#7's of the period (1902).
Sounded like a good idea.
After contacting collectors around the country - I located 4 complete "spare"
sets (and a few singles), of the pegs I needed. But they are so rare, that I
could not get ANYONE to sell even one peg - for $150 apiece.
At that price, we were capable of making exact repros. It went against my
grain, but here was a case of an exceedingly rare banjo - that required them,
for a complete restoration.
We dicussed molded versions, bone versions, walrus and hippo teeth - we went
through the pros and cons of every possibility. (There are stress issues, if
the pegs are used for anything other than display - and even then there are
problems...)
One of our team-members had a section of tusk - that he had bought back in the
1970's - to make parts for vintage repairs.
With the knowledge that it WAS from a "pre-ban" source. I decided that this
was the one type of use which "existing" sources should be used for. It STILL
was not an easy decision. The final tab on the pegs was over $800.
Now, it is the ONLY type of use I will consider - and at that, the ivory must
be from a completely "varifiable" source. My preference is to use "imitation"
- even in restoration, whenever possible.
Dang bleeding-heart, cry-baby liberals... Make up yer mind...
Best-
Ed Britt
Peter Roehling
>
> I'm curious- Would you (or anyone else that wants to comment) use Ivory in
> making a banjo, if you could ascertain that it was imported prior to the ban,
> and therefore legal to use?
Yes, but why would you want to? Bone works just as well or better than
ivory for any banjoistic purposes.
Pete (Who has a stash of Woolly Mammoth ivory lying around unused.)
Peter Roehling
>
> NO - because I decide after the OME - that EVEN the use of "fossil" ivory -
> still "created demand" for ivory. (It's supposedly *mastodon* - which is VERY
> difficult to verify - unless you dig it out, yourself.)
But easy to tell if it's from a Woolly Mammoth.
Mammoth tusks grew in concentric rings of ivory with thin layers of
organic material (dentine?) separating the layers of ivory. An old
Mammoth tusk will come apart like an onion, the layers of ivory usually
being circa 1/4" thick.
Elephant tusks are solid ivory all the way through.
P.
Peter Roehling
>
> Tell that to PETA or any of the other animal right's groups (calf=veal=baby
> cows). According to a vocal minority of the population your skin head makes you
> a baby cow killer.
Good. Tasty little buggers. As for PETA, I'm not planning on running my
life according to their primitive superstitions (or anyone else's
either).
> My point is that it's all a matter of perception.
'Taint so, Magee. Using material from endangered species is an entirely
different (and evil) thing, not just a "matter of perception". In one
case you're helping a species to extinction and in the other you're not.
P.
Peter Roehling
>
> And fingerboards and peghead laminations are made of ebony and rosewood.
Some still are, but you're going to see less and less of that as time
goes on. There are LOTS of good substitutes out there, so it matters
not.
> Sounds "close" to me! (If we ignore the fact that, for the most part,
> deforestation is not caused by cutting hardwood for lumber, but by burning the
> forests so that they can be farmed for a year or two, until the soil becomes
> depleted, at which point they go and burn another 100 acres.)
Well, that and the fact that fingerboards and overlays use relativly
tiny amounts of wood.
P.
Brittles
<< (It's supposedly *mastodon* - which is VERY
difficult to verify - unless you dig it out, yourself.)>>
Pete added:
<< But easy to tell if it's from a Woolly Mammoth. >>
I may have mis-spoke (?) It could be mammoth - (only way to tell is if there
us a clovis point stuck in it?)
<<Mammoth tusks grew in concentric rings of ivory with thin layers of organic
material (dentine?) separating the layers of ivory. An old Mammoth tusk will
come apart like an onion, the layers of ivory usually
being circa 1/4" thick.>>
<<Elephant tusks are solid ivory all the way through.>>
But even the elephant ivory has growth rings - which might do the same after
weathering.
Any mammoth/mastodon/elephant experts in the audience?
I do know that if you look at an elephant tusk in cross-section you see a
distinct criss-crossing pattern of arcs - very similar to the pattern in the
center of a sunflower.
I don't know if Mastodon or mamoths had the same pattern,
From what I've seen - walrus, hippo, and whale teeth do not.
There is a unsubstantiated story, that sailors carved the the fancy banjo pegs
from walrus and whales teeth.
Then sold them when they came ashore on leave.
Could be possible - I've seen plenty of objects they DID carve (mostly from
whalebone) in New England museums.
And there are the famous French-prisoner-of-war ship models of bone -which are
quite intricate.
But I've never seen any reference to it - from a reliable source - in any
period news or magazine articles, etc.
Ther IS the famous whale-bone banjo (c1840-50) that was in the Ruebens
collection and is now owned by the Kendal Whaling Museum (south of Boston).
It's currently on display in the banjo exhibit in Lexington.(MA)
Bob Gregory
> I don't want this to become a war. That would be my last intent...
One fact of Usenet is that regardless of what you might want, you can't
control how folks respond, or where the discussion leads. To me, this has
been one of the more interesting threads in this newsgroup recently, and
I've learned a lot. Also will add that I had a genuine shell pick for many
years (acquired in the mid-60's) and it is not, in my opinion, superior to
many commercial hard plastic picks. My $.02.
-Bob
Sean Barry
: << (It's supposedly *mastodon* - which is VERY
: difficult to verify - unless you dig it out, yourself.)>>
: << But easy to tell if it's from a Woolly Mammoth. >>
: <<Elephant tusks are solid ivory all the way through.>>
: But even the elephant ivory has growth rings - which might do the same after
: weathering.
: Any mammoth/mastodon/elephant experts in the audience?
Hesitantly I step forward, and admit that I'm no expert but I am a
professional biologist and I've worked with all of the ivories at one time
or another as a biologist/museum curator and as a luthier. Ivory tusks
are nothing but large to very large, specialized rooted mammalian teeth,
complete with two or more distinct layers (depending on species)
anatomically classified as hard enamel, transition layer, cementum,
primary dentine, secondary dentine, and pulp cavity. All tusks are at
least partially hollow because of the pulp cavity. The dentine typically
shows one or more fine laminations that appear to be "growth lines,"
though it has never been proven that these accumulate one per year.
What most people notice about most ivories is the cross-hatch pattern in
the dentine. This cross-hatch pattern is known as "Schreger angles," and
they are a pretty dependable way to differentiate mastodon (aka mammoth,
for our purposes) ivory from modern elephant ivory. Photocopy the
cross-section of a tusk, and measure the _outer_ Schreger angles by
extending their lines with a pencil on the photocopy and using a
protractor to determine several angles of intersection. ID: modern
elephant Schreger angles average at least 115 degrees (usually more), and
mastodon/mammoth Schreger angles average 90 degrees of less (often much
less). The various other ivories have distinctive structures and
cross-sectional shapes that identify them easily (e.g., walrus ivory has a
distinct transition ring and marble-like secondary dentine, hippopotamus
tusks are deeply indented on the inside surface, the narwhal tusk looks
like DNA (a spiral) and has numerous indentations in cross section because
of that). Most experienced people can tell mastodon from elephant ivories
at a glance by the staining, open fissures, and relative softness of the
fossil tusk, but sometimes the differences are subtle and the Schreger
angles solve the question.
At the moment, importation into the US or other CITES-signatory nations of
most ivories from extant animals is difficult or impossible, requires
various permits, and in most cases can't be done for commercial purposes.
Publicity about unrelenting elephant poaching for the ivory market during
the 1980s has also made most ivory socially unacceptable, and so there is
simply little or no market for newly smuggled ivory. Thus, at least in the
US most available ivory is probably "pre-ban" (the US Fish and Wildlife
Service does continue to confiscate unworked tusks at various ports of
entry, but under current law this material will never be sold
commercially). Whether we should use that "pre-ban" material is
problematic, and under current conditions is more a matter of individual
conscience than conservation. My feeling is that ivory should be used
only to restore historically-important instruments that will probably
never be played again (and so will never wear out and require still more
ivory for restoration). The previously-mentioned ivory friction pegs are
a good example, as would be the restoration of an ivory-bound 19th century
Martin guitar. The material is otherwise too precious, and to use it for
routine fittings seems to me to be unacceptable. Just my opinion though.
Note that I am referring strictly to legally possessed "pre-ban" warthog,
hippo, or African elephant ivory. Other extant ivory species (walrus,
sperm whale, narwhal, Indian elephant) carry even more conservation
problems and have been banned far longer than the first three. They also
have never been used commercially in lutherie, so restoration would not be
an issue (I once saw a set of authentic Scottish bagpipes fitted with
narwhal ivory, and they were spectactular to say the least. Completely
irreplaceable too). There is absolutely no valid conservation reason not
to use so-called fossil walrus, Stellar sea cow, or mastodon/mammoth
ivory, though I think they may be a bit soft for nuts and saddles.
"Fossil" is a misnomer for this material--it's just very old and the
animals from whence it came died, often of natural causes, from a few
hundred to several thousand years ago (authentic fossilization is the
mineralization of formerly living material--the fossil ivories are still
ivory, just old and deteriorating).
Hint: properly degreased cow bone is every bit as useful and pretty
(except for the Schreger angles) as white ivory for most applications and
carries none of the social stigma or conservation problems. And it's a
heck of a lot easier to get. Also, for a thorough discussion of the
various ivories and their characteristics, consult the ivory
identification website of the US Fish and Wildlife Service National
Forensic Lab:
http://www.lab.fws.gov/Ivory/index.htm
Sean Barry
DEDCENTER
and
kept getting me off beat!>>
Now that is the kind of useful posts I usually send up. I'm losin' my edge,
man.
Ded
Peter Roehling
>
> Various people wrote a number of incorrect things, including:
>
Okay, let's put it this way: I've never seen Elephant ivory delaminate
into (many) layers as does Mammoth ivory. Elephant ivory cracks as it
shrinks, but it cracks from the outer surface of the tusk straight
inwards towards the center, not in onion-like concentric shells as in
the Mammoth's case. Now the difference between the two MIGHT be because
the mammoth ivory is so old, but I've never seen a Mammoth tusk that
*hasn't* delaminated, and I've yet to see it happen to Elephant ivory.
So far, for me, this has proven to be an infallible way of telling the
two apart. After all, even if it's only an indicator of age it's going
to tell you what you're looking at: The odds of coming across a ten
thousand year old Elephant tusk are poor to say the least, and they
haven't been making new Mammoths for quite some time now.
P.
Peter Roehling
You can have this tuning joke for free:
"I tried one of them tortoise-shell picks once, but I had to give it up.
The little legs kept getting in my way..."
P.
Brittles
Dang! I just LOVE this group! I knew SOMEONE would have the "goods" on the
types of ivories! "Schreger angles" - Hot damn!
Bravo, Sean! (thunderous applause...)
<< Sean Barry sjb...@runner.ucdavis.edu >>
Educated us all, with:
<< Hesitantly I step forward, and admit that I'm no expert but I am a
professional biologist and I've worked with all of the ivories at one time or
another as a biologist/museum curator and as a luthier. >>
<< What most people notice about most ivories is the cross-hatch pattern in the
dentine. This cross-hatch pattern is known as "Schreger angles," andthey are a
pretty dependable way to differentiate mastodon (aka mammoth, for our purposes)
ivory from modern elephant ivory. Photocopy the cross-section of a tusk, and
measure the _outer_ Schreger angles by extending their lines with a pencil on
the photocopy and using a protractor to determine several angles of
intersection. ID: modern elephant Schreger angles average at least 115
degrees (usually more), and mastodon/mammoth Schreger angles average 90 degrees
of less (often much less). The various other ivories have distinctive
structures and cross-sectional shapes that identify them easily (e.g., walrus
ivory has a distinct transition ring and marble-like secondary dentine,
hippopotamus tusks are deeply indented on the inside surface, ....>>
Sean went on to say:
<< Other extant ivory species (walrus, sperm whale, narwhal, Indian elephant)
carry even more conservation problems and have been banned far longer than the
first three. They also have never been used commercially in lutherie, so
restoration would not be an issue >>
Sean -
Sometime I'll have to send you some "macro" photos of a few of the 19th century
ivory pegs, in Jim Bollman's collection.
Some definitely do NOT have "Schreger angles" - and the "conventional wisdom"
is, that they are walrus ivory, or whale ivory. These are MOSTLY found on
high-end banjos, made here in Boston from the late 1870's to about 1910.
Hence, the folktale that "sailors carved them"
I'd be very interested in ways of identifying them. We can take this off-line
- so we don't bore folks with all the technical details - but what specific
features should I look for, when photographing them?
I'm fairly familiar with what most of the tusks/teeth you mention, look like
"in the raw" (and even in cross-section) but what characteristics help to
determine the type of ivory used - when all you have are small instrument
"fittings" (nuts, inlay, pegs, etc.).
And in keeping with the thread, so far - this info is for the purpose of
identifying and verifying existing historical artifacts - NOT for
part-production purposes.
Thanks!
DEDCENTER
mammoth-aholic. Ever since one day she watched that Discovery Channel thing
about finding the frozen mammoth and removing it from the Arctic with a
helicopter. It was 3 hours long and she never blinked the whole time.
Needless to say we took her to see the movie Ice Age. Great little movie even
for grumpy old grownups.
Amazing what some of we banjo players know about.
Ded
Banjo Kevin
pick.
Kevin
"Bob Gregory" <b...@nospam.old-timers.com> wrote in message
news:uc1n1ci...@corp.supernews.com...
Sean Barry
: Okay, let's put it this way: I've never seen Elephant ivory delaminate
: into (many) layers as does Mammoth ivory. Elephant ivory cracks as it
: shrinks, but it cracks from the outer surface of the tusk straight
: inwards towards the center, not in onion-like concentric shells as in
: the Mammoth's case. Now the difference between the two MIGHT be because
: the mammoth ivory is so old, but I've never seen a Mammoth tusk that
: *hasn't* delaminated, and I've yet to see it happen to Elephant ivory.
: So far, for me, this has proven to be an infallible way of telling the
: two apart. After all, even if it's only an indicator of age it's going
: to tell you what you're looking at
For practical purposes you're absolutely right--most available "fossil"
ivory has partial delaminations along dentine lines or sometimes at
"growth junctions." However, this is seen most often in tusks that have
been exposed to water for long periods, and my point is that as such it's
not a character of the ivory itself but of its preservation, which can
vary considerably. The Schreger angles are definitive, but not always
available to us because they're ambiguous except along the outer section
of the tusk.
Seems to me that from a lutherie perspective this matters only if some
unscrupulous vendor was trying to pass off fossil ivory as modern elephant
ivory--it's unlikely that anyone would try to do the opposite and sell us
"fossil ivory" that was really the much more valuable and scarce elephant
ivory. The easy way to avoid any problems with such fraud is to avoid
purchasing modern ivory at all, except for the aforementioned rare but
historically important instrument restoration, and most of us aren't
qualified to do that type of work anyway. The Fish and Wildlife Service
is confronted from time to time with questionable ivory that is claimed to
be of "fossil" origin, so they have developed the forensic techniques to
differentiate those, and to identify the various other species, which are
covered by various, somewhat divergent laws and treaties (CITES, US
Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act).
Sean Barry
R
R
"OLDRETIREDCHIEF" <oldreti...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020419171954...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Peter Roehling
>
> My 6 year old daughter would be proud of us discussing Mammoths. She is a
> mammoth-aholic.
Would she like a small chunk of Mammoth tusk for her very own? If so,
I'd be happy to send you one.
Future biologists should be encouraged. (Even if they *do* turn out like
Sean!)
P.
Peter Roehling
>
> Seems to me that from a lutherie perspective this matters only if some
> unscrupulous vendor was trying to pass off fossil ivory as modern elephant
> ivory--it's unlikely that anyone would try to do the opposite and sell us
> "fossil ivory" that was really the much more valuable and scarce elephant
> ivory.
Interestingly enough, I had a customer just today who told me that
that's what's happening in the gun world: sleaze balls are now selling
the unstained cores of mammoth tusks as being "elephant ivory", and are
doing so at a tremendous profit.
As far as I'm concerned, I find it hard to work up any sympathy for the
poor souls who're being taken to the cleaners on this. They *think* that
they're buying tusk from an endangered species, so getting ripped off is
the nicest thing that should happen to them.
P.
DEDCENTER
Sean!)>>
Yes, well I like old Sean. He has a passion and I think a good heart. But you
are right about my daughter's interest. Like I said she has Aaron
Burnett's(Keystone Bluegrass Quartet) kids' bluegrass album where every song is
about a particular animal.
When asked what she wants to be she says "A movie star teacher veteranarian."
She's 5.
Ded
Sean Barry
: Sometime I'll have to send you some "macro" photos of a few of the 19th
: century : ivory pegs, in Jim Bollman's collection.
: Some definitely do NOT have "Schreger angles" - and the "conventional wisdom"
: is, that they are walrus ivory, or whale ivory. These are MOSTLY found on
: high-end banjos, made here in Boston from the late 1870's to about 1910.
: Hence, the folktale that "sailors carved them"
Odds are very strong that they're all elephant ivory. African elephant
ivory was the commercial ivory mainstay for 400 years, and was imported
into the US by the very long ton during the 19th and most of the 20th
centuries. None of the other ivories was available in anything like those
quantities.
: I'd be very interested in ways of identifying them.
but what specific
: features should I look for, when photographing them?
: "in the raw" (and even in cross-section) but what characteristics help to
: determine the type of ivory used - when all you have are small instrument
: "fittings" (nuts, inlay, pegs, etc.).
True that Schreger lines (angles) are found only in elephant or mastodon
ivory, but also true that these lines are often absent in the dense
interior of the tusk, particularly in large tusks. Sometimes they show
under 5-10x magnification or under polarized light, but their
complete absence is not evidence that the ivory came from some other
species. In fact there is no way to identify a piece of plain white ivory
to species. It's all dentine, and if the piece is small enough and came
from a tusk large enough, it will be identifiable as ivory but
unidentifiable to species.
I'd be surprised if Fairbanks or Martin deliberately ignored the ready
elephant ivory supply in favor of some scarce, expensive, arcane source,
particularly because many of those 19th century friction tuners are
clearly of elephant origin. Not impossible, but very unlikely, or so it
seems to me.
Sean Barry
Brittles
wrote about his daughter:
<< When asked what she wants to be she says "A movie star teacher
veteranarian.">>
Sign 'er up for "Wild Kingdom"!
We could use a replacement for Marlin Perkins.
("While Jim wrestles the mighty alligator....")
Best-
Brittles
In reply to my questions about identifying various ivories - supposedly used in
19th C banjo pegs.
<< Sean Barry sjb...@runner.ucdavis.edu >>
Wrote:
<< Odds are very strong that they're all elephant ivory...>>
<<True that Schreger lines (angles) are found only in elephant or mastodon
ivory, but also true that these lines are often absent in the dense
interior of the tusk, particularly in large tusks. Sometimes they show
under 5-10x magnification or under polarized light, but their
complete absence is not evidence that the ivory came from some other
species. In fact there is no way to identify a piece of plain white ivory
to species. It's all dentine, and if the piece is small enough and came
from a tusk large enough, it will be identifiable as ivory but
unidentifiable to species.>>
Interesting... I was sort of afraid of that...
Just out of scientific curiosity - are there any types of laboratory analysis
that can tell? Chemical, DNA, gas chromatograph, carbon dating... that sort of
thing. Which might even be "destructive" - but could identify it by species?
<<I'd be surprised if Fairbanks or Martin deliberately ignored the ready
elephant ivory supply in favor of some scarce, expensive, arcane source,
particularly because many of those 19th century friction tuners are
clearly of elephant origin. Not impossible, but very unlikely, or so it
seems to me.>>
I agree. (Or at least ONE of me, does. ;-) I've always counted the
"sailor-carved" stories as folk tales. However, I've also found there IS
sometimes a small aspect of truth that originally generated the folk story -
but which becomes confused, or misinterpreted, over time.
I've done a bit of oral history over the years. When some of these kinds of
stories are chased down - there often IS some real happening, that relates -
just not quite in the same way as told by the "informant".
And I've only heard the "walrus ivory" story relating to Boston-made banjos.
While there are plenty of "folktales" about old Martins - I've never heard any
similar ones about the ivory they used. (Even on their very early guitars).
I am (slowly) trying to research the pearl cutting, ivory carving, and
engraving trades in the Boston area. Hoping to write an article about them,
sometime. A friend supposedly has a 1890's business card from a Boston pearl
cutter/engraver - if he can ever remember where he put it!
Thanks!
Sean Barry
: Just out of scientific curiosity - are there any types of laboratory
: analysis that can tell? Chemical, DNA, gas chromatograph, carbon
: dating... that sort of thing. Which might even be "destructive" - but
: could identify it by species?
Sure--DNA sequence analysis and fingerprinting could give definitive
answers, but there are several problems involved in developing such
assays. First is that unless your slab of ivory includes at least a tiny
part of the pulp cavity and has never been cleaned by anything but water,
it's unlikely to contain enough extractable DNA to be useful. What little
DNA there is in Really Old Ivory is likely to be degraded, and you need
intact sequence to work up good assays and to repeat them. After that,
there are the small problems of working up assay primer systems that
distinguish more or less unerringly among the various species ($), which
involve in turn investment in agarose ($) or acrylamide ($$) gel systems,
not to mention a "PCR machine" (thermal cycler) ($$$$), reagents to run
the system ($$), the services of a sequencing lab ($$), or a sequencing
system of your own ($$$$ to $$$$$$$$$$). If you have the impression that
setup would be expensive, you're correct. Still, all of these techniques
have become progessively less expensive, and extraction techniques have
improved dramatically the past several years, so to my mind it's possible
that such analyses could become available with minimal investment in
reagents and equipment. Now, if we could lick that "salary and benefits"
thing....
Sean Barry
Brittles
: Just out of scientific curiosity - are there any types of laboratory analysis
that can tell? Chemical, DNA, gas chromatograph, carbon dating... that sort of
thing. >>
<< Sean Barry sjb...@runner.ucdavis.edu >>
Answered:
<< Sure--DNA sequence analysis and fingerprinting could give definitive
answers... >>
<<... ($$$$ to $$$$$$$$$$). If you have the impression that setup would be
expensive, you're correct... >>
Hey - no problem! just sell...um... trade... the remaining pegs - to test
one... ;-)
<<... it's possible that such analyses could become available with minimal
investment in reagents and equipment... >>
Thanks Sean! Appreciate the info.
Paulsv
>tiny amounts of wood.
>
But a thumbpick uses an even smaller amount of tortoise shell.
Paul
Peter Roehling
Those tiny amounts of wood come largely from old or recycled stock these
days. To the best of my knowledge, there is no underground trade in
illicit hardwoods as there is in Rhino horn, Elephant ivory, and
Tortoise shell; possibly because it's a bit harder to smuggle the tree
trunks.
P.
Paulsv
>days.
As far as I know, this is only true of brazilian rosewood, because of brazil's
ban on its export. The other rosewoods and both gaboon and macassar ebony, are
still being imported and are available, tho in smaller sizes than formerly
available. I guess what I should do is see if there are imports of these woods
available from sources which are certified as having come from sustainable
yield forests.
Paul Vander Woude
Chicago, IL
Born to Tinker
Forced to Work
Sean Barry
:>Those tiny amounts of wood come largely from old or recycled stock these
:>days.
: As far as I know, this is only true of brazilian rosewood, because of
: brazil's : ban on its export. The other rosewoods and both gaboon and
: macassar ebony, are : still being imported and are available, tho in
: smaller sizes than formerly : available. I guess what I should do is
: see if there are imports of these woods : available from sources which
: are certified as having come from sustainable : yield forests.
In reality, for all intents and purposes in lutherie Brazilian Rosewood
was gone back in 1970, Honduras Mahogany is on its way out, and the days
of the various other tropical hardwoods in lutherie are numbered. Some of
those numbers are larger than others, but it wouldn't surprise me that
some of those numbers (particularly any of the ebonies and Indian
rosewood) might be less than 3650. It wouldn't be an issue, I think, if
there weren't so many of us now plying the craft (tens of thousands now as
opposed to fives of dozens 20 years ago), in competition with the
furniture industries and with all those people in tropical countries who
believe that they need that land to farm and to live (and who are we to
say they don't). The time is now to develop domestic wood sources, and we
might as well start with persimmon (aka American ebony) for fingerboards.
Sean Barry
Peter Roehling
>
> In reality, for all intents and purposes in lutherie Brazilian Rosewood
> was gone back in 1970, Honduras Mahogany is on its way out, and the days
> of the various other tropical hardwoods in lutherie are numbered. Some of
> those numbers are larger than others, but it wouldn't surprise me that
> some of those numbers (particularly any of the ebonies and Indian
> rosewood) might be less than 3650.
What a cool way to say ten years! And you're probably right.
Ten years ago I could get entire ebony tree trunks if I wanted them. Now
it's down to little chunks with bad color and iffy quality.
P.
Mirek Patek
> Talking about them and how they are made, however, is not wrong. Or,
> talking about if there is a difference is not wrong.
Vernon, THAT is the key point. I think that talking about them can be
wrong - at least from the perspective of tortoises. The initial post
and all the following debates can simulate attention, interest, desire
and even action to get these picks. Is that "right"?
Of course, there is one broader perspective - the principle of U.S.
first amendment. Even if we cause with our question or "talking" some
more deaths of tortoises, the freedom of speech is above all.
Therefore we cannot tell someone "please, do not ask". Anyway, I would
not ask next time.
Mirek Patek
Czech Republic
Vernon Ursenbach
If someone else wants to do something wrong, buy a tortoise shell pick,
because of what I said sprung interest in them, all I can say is, they have
no integrity built up in them from all their life experiences up to that
point. Don't blame me for their lack of humanity.
I was just talking to my oldest son the other day about integrity and how
important it is. Integrity to do what it right when it's hard. Integrity
to always do what you promise even if it takes more than you anticipated.
Integrity to always tell the truth especially when you have done something
wrong. Integrity to help others even if it's a burden.
Yes, the world is going to pot. The general population is thinking less and
less about their fellow citizens and more and more about themselves. I view
this as the problem and not a simple conversation.
If we were to point fingers, I think we can only point at the perpetrators
of these acts and not at those that talk about them.
Yes, talk can spring an interest in others to obtain tortoise shell picks.
However, talk can also help save the lives of tortoises by informing people
of what's going on so they can become activists.
Talk is just that, talk. It is not action. Action comes from desire and
integrity or the lack there of.
"Mirek Patek" <drp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa498812.02042...@posting.google.com...
Mirek Patek
> attention, interest, desire and even action to get these picks.
OOPS - of course I ment STIMULATE.
Mirek Patek
Michael Richard Stanger
The use of alternate woods in instrument making will really depend more
on the buyers than the makers. If enough buyers demand instrument wood
that is sustainable, there will be lots of new instruments made from
those woods.
But the current situation is just the other way around. When I first
came back to Gibson, I asked why we weren't making any Smartwood guitars
now. (The Smartwood program is one that was established a few years ago
to provide sustainable sources of good instrument wood). Gibson offered
a good line of Smartwood guitars a couple of years ago in several
different Smartwood species. I was answered by "The wood cost more, and
there was no demand for them. People still want mahogany and rosewood."
The costs of Smartwood would go down if there was more demand, I think,
because more sawyers and tree growers in the tropics would seek these
woods out. But as long as the public won't buy them, all we can really
expect is increasing scarcity of the woods now used and steadily higher
prices for instruments made from them. Expect the wood to get worse and
worse, too. Will the situation change in 10 years? I think not, but hope
for the best.
Regards,
Stanger