|
19 May 02 - 10:03 AM (#713409) Subject: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Found this site a while ago and thought some of you guitar players might like to check it out. The Fik makes bridge pins etc. from fossilized ivory. Real nice looking stuff. fossilivory.com. Some of the Alaskan mudcats may already know of this guy. Don't freak out as it's all perfectly legal, the animals have been long dead and their bones turned to rocks nearly. |
|
19 May 02 - 10:19 AM (#713417) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: catspaw49 Ah yes....Fossilized snot....Gotta' love it! JP recently had a vintage piece completely redone in it and the sound he says is fantastic. Spaw |
|
19 May 02 - 10:31 AM (#713421) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Really? Bridge pins made from ancient walrus tusks make that much difference? |
|
19 May 02 - 10:39 AM (#713424) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: catspaw49 And a saddle and a nut.....(:<)).......on a vintage Martin...... Spaw |
|
19 May 02 - 10:46 AM (#713430) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Heck, there's more value in the hardware than there is in the whole guitar;~) |
|
19 May 02 - 11:02 AM (#713435) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Ebbie Seldovia is a long way from here, more than 500 air miles, and since I don't recognize Mickelson from his photo, I don't believe he attends the Folk Festival. Anahootz may know more about him. What interests me is that as an apparent non-native he is permitted to craft objects from fossilized ivory. Evidently there are more facets and qualifiers to the law than I understand. |
|
19 May 02 - 11:29 AM (#713443) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Jeri Ebbie, there's a page on the laws at the website Tweed linked to. It says the fossilised walrus ivory pre-dates the 1972 law, so is exempt. I wonder just how much of a difference to the sound the bridge pins alone make. A guy at my local guitar shop said they wouldn't make any difference and the pins were mainly just cosmetic/prestige. I think he's wrong, but I suspect the difference in sound wouldn't be very detectable by most people. Fossilised ivory is also quite expensive - not a big bang/buck ratio. Even getting the whole set-up wouldn't matter with my level of playing. With JP's skill level, it could very well be a Big Deal. |
|
19 May 02 - 11:32 AM (#713444) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Ebbie Thanks, Jeri. |
|
19 May 02 - 12:31 PM (#713485) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed I think he (Mikelson) buys the raw materials from the locals who know where to find it. Somewhere on his site is an extensive article on an island where there are stacks and stacks of mammoth and other creatures bones...time out, I'll go hunt it up.... Here's an excerpt from the text on that page: Hedenstrom explored Liakoff's island in 1809 and discovered that". .. the quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths sticking up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been lying on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action. The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted public attention the most. The islands contained an incredible mixture of bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they would assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they lie flung upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up? And here's a link to read the rest of it if you like. It brings some pretty wild visions of what might have caused such a thing to happen so long ago in my own pore cashew sized brain. |
|
19 May 02 - 12:31 PM (#713486) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Justa Picker 'Spaw's right. I recently took the plunge on 2 of my guitars. Had the nuts, saddles and bridgepins all replaced with f.w.i. I have zero regrets. They sound and play better than before when they had comparable bone equivalents. Not a cheap process, and I had a luthier very accustomed to working with this material, do all of the cutting, polishing, bevelling, compensation of the saddles, and the setups. If you interested, you can see a few photos of the work. (These are all "after" shots.) 1947 OOO 21: Nut Front shot of bridge Bridge - another angle and 1998 Custom D-42: Nut Front shot of bridge Bridge - another angle |
|
19 May 02 - 12:49 PM (#713508) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: catspaw49 Hey JP.....I meant to write you back when I saw the photos before because they just reek of quality craftsmanship. Just a beautiful job! Spaw |
|
19 May 02 - 01:13 PM (#713532) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Sure is a beautiful job! Did you get the parts from Stew-Mac or John Mikelson? Just wondering as the reason I got off on this thing today was while looking for reso cones at stewmac.com I saw they now offer fossilized bridge pins and thought of John Mikelson's site again. He's the only one that I've ever heard of that manufactures these exotic creations and I wonder if he's found a national outlet for his work. Nice pics, Picker! |
|
19 May 02 - 01:21 PM (#713543) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Justa Picker Thanks. No, I ordered the f.w.i. from these guys...as I had a connection through another forum I frequent, resulting in a discount, with the proprietor. |
|
19 May 02 - 02:04 PM (#713578) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) The Inuit use a lot of "fossil ivory" in their sculptures and other carvings which are sold through native crafts shops in the US and Canada and abroad as well. The term includes all of the material that is found in skeletal form and which is fairly widespread in the Canadian and Russian Arctic. The completely fossilized material (bone replaced by mineral) is not what is meant or is it usable in the same way. The term is applied to skeletal materials found on shore, not hunted and killed, material. |
|
19 May 02 - 02:31 PM (#713595) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Yes but the material has absorbed some minerals, right? I'd think that after 10,000 years laying up there it would be starting to change. Not exactly like rock but getting close. Mebbe that's what causes better sound. |
|
19 May 02 - 05:04 PM (#713670) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: JohnInKansas Tweed - Dicho got it right. Ivory is one material that can survive for a very long time without changing its composition. The correct term is "fossil ivory," which, in this case, means ivory old enough not to be covered by endangered species laws. Mammoths/Mastodons actually existed recently enough that it is rare to find fully fossilized remains of any kind. The bones are porous enough to have undergone some replacement mineralization, but a fossil, in the archaeological sense of "a rock in the shape of the bone that was there" is very rare. If the material was actually fossilized (fossilised for the Brits) it would mostly resemble whatever rock is common in the area - and unless you thing that a set of chalk or granite pegs would be a good thing, would be useless on a guitar. Hey - has anybody tried granite??? John |
|
19 May 02 - 06:08 PM (#713687) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Jon Freeman These things have been mentioned on alt.banjo from time to time and I got the general feeling that most people reckoned it made no difference and I'm sure I read mention that you can you run the risk of getting real (illegal) ivory sold as fossilised ivory... The last time it cropped up was in a thread starting with something to do with tortoishell. I find this post particulary interesting and perhaps of relevance at least to the areas, tweed, John In Kansass, etc seem to be getting into. Jon |
|
19 May 02 - 07:00 PM (#713700) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Thanks John. I get it now, it's the word fossilized that's causing the confusion. I'll concede that it's not completely accurate, but the term gives the reader a fair idea of what sort of product he or she is reading about or about to buy. Anybody check out the link to the graveyard of the mastodons or hear of it before? If such a place still exists there must be tons of fossil...er..very old ivory still there. |
|
19 May 02 - 07:44 PM (#713711) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: JohnInKansas Every kid who ever read a Tarzan book (or comic book) knows more about the "Elephant Burial Ground" than is known by all the people who ever actually looked for it. I suspect the same holds true for the "Mammoth Burial Ground." So far as I have reason to suspect, the Mastodons were not members of an organized religion that required a "dying trip to OomGala" for their salvation. (Had they been so inclined, there would probably be at least a few members of some resurection of their "sect" still practicing today - although I'm not that familiar with the smaller religions for places like France...) Being herbivores, we would expect them to be somewhat migratory - much like the historically recent large herds of elephants or bison. The best one might expect would be where a natural "disaster" both confined and killed a single herd. Buffalo (bison) graveyards resulting from the (known but rare) Native American hunting practice of stampeding whole herds off a cliff seldom left bones of more than a few hundred animals, and it is unlikely that the mastodon ever "herded" in groups as large as the bison. In a herd of more than a few hundred, the ones in the middle would starve because the "front ranks" ate everything. Wearing my physicist/mechanic's hat, I would have to venture the suggestion that the "much better" sound from fossil/antique material in pegs and bridges probably comes more from good installation than from the material. If you buy workmanship "worthy" of the outrageous expense of these parts, you'll get a better sound - even if you use more conventional (and more appropriate?) materials. John |
|
19 May 02 - 07:54 PM (#713714) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Although the use of elephant ivory has been banned in most western countries, there are still countries where it is being used, fueling the poaching for ivory. If the instrument is made in USA or Canada, or the pins are made and packaged in those countries, you may be certain that the ivory is "fossil" and came from skeletal remains of animals that died natural deaths a long time ago. Permafrost conditions are such that some mammoth tissues and hair have been preserved, along with the bones and tusks. As John in Kansas has pointed out, the mastodons lived until fairly recently, when they were wiped out by hunters about 10000 years ago. Another type of material with a much longer preservational life is the exine, or covering of plant pollen and spores, and some unicelled animals. These materials are used by palynologists to date sedimentary rocks as old as 500 million years. The rock itself is dissolved in hydrofluoric and other acids to free these remains which are concentrated and studied under the microscope. Palynologists started working on these remains in the labs of the major oil companied some 60 years ago, building on scattered academic studies going back about 130 years. Although chemically changed, these materials have retained sufficient organic characteristics that they are not mineralized or "fossilized" in the usual sense. |
|
19 May 02 - 08:40 PM (#713725) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed John I.K., that essay's not talking about a herd, it's saying that the entire island is made of the skeletal remains of many ancient herds (mammoths, hippos and rhinocerous) and that the bones are not laying in neat order where anyone could sort them out, but spread jumbled and mixed with the remains of uprooted trees. Since there was no food source in the Arctic circle at that time, that could support such an enormous number of herbivores, I think they are suggesting that the land itself somehow shifted there from a more temporate clime at a high rate of speed carrying and shredding the animals as it slid, skidded or rolled to it's present location. Maybe the whole story is false and some sort of mid 19th century investment scheme but it would be something if such a place was really there. |
|
19 May 02 - 09:16 PM (#713731) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Tweed, the story is nonsense, to say the least. 1. There is no great bone bed or "graveyard" either modern or ancient, for elephants/mastodons anywhere. There has been no great land shift within the history of the mammoth/elephant. I have been a paleontologist in Canada, employed as such there for 30 years, for part of that time involved with Arctic materials. 2. Climatic shifts every few thousands of years (and sometimes more frequently, and with many less important variations) led to the expansion and contraction of grasslands and trees. Mammoths, as John IK has mentioned, migrated with the seasons, much as the bison and caribou in historical time. 3. There is still much grazing land in the Arctic in summer (supporting caribou, etc.) and there has been even more in past episodes. It should also be mentioned that grazing is possible in winter, where snow build-up is slight. Precipitation is low in the Arctic, it just stays around longer. 4. During the last glacial period, both men and mammoths were moved further south. Between the major periods of glaciation, there were warmer periods, when Arctic Canada was essentially ice-free. Similar shifts in climate took place in Siberia, but not necessarily in synchroneity. Animals and man would move with these shifts. |
|
19 May 02 - 09:47 PM (#713738) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Well shoot, Dicho, now you're confusing the issue with facts based on science! ;~) |
|
20 May 02 - 10:20 AM (#713862) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: mack/misophist The confusion about 'fossilized ivory' stems from the fact that it isn't truly fossilized, which would turn it to stone, but heavily 'mineralized'. I know people who've been carving it for years and they assure me it's much harder than ivory. It tends to be washed downstream, like alluvial gold, which might explain the pile ups. |
|
20 May 02 - 11:05 AM (#713892) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Bill D as a woodturner, I met a guy at a craft show who does scrimshaw and has permits to own certain amounts of fossil ivory...He asked me to make several pen & pencil sets from small bits he had, and when those turned out well, he asked me to make a lid for a silver cream pitcher from a Mammoth tusk. "gulp"...so I did---with him watching over my shoulder! He said the piece..about 3 1/2" diameter..was worth about $150 in unfinished state. It seemed to please him, and I suppose he sold that cream pitcher for hundreds of $$$. It was interesting, but I doubt I'll ever get to do it again. Ivory turns very well if you have a solid chunk and is very nice to polish ...(I practiced by working on pieces of Corian, the artifical countertop material) |
|
20 May 02 - 11:17 AM (#713901) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: mack/misophist I'm not a luthier, not by any stretch of the imagination, but after looking at the pictures of the work done for Justa Picker, I suspect he got took. The material's not that expensive [at least it wasn't last year] and it works easily with diamond tools. Someone at your local Gem and Mineral Society would probably make a nut and a bridge for you for under a hundred,US. For that matter, jade would look nice and could be even cheaper. It's even denser and developes a very hard surface when worked. |
|
20 May 02 - 11:58 AM (#713927) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Bat Goddess Back in the "old days" (in this case, the 1970s) what you're calling fossilized ivory was referred to as "mud ivory." Linn |
|
20 May 02 - 12:18 PM (#713942) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Fortunato Does anyone know of testing results or data that demonstrates that one material is superior (criteria?) for pins, bridges and nuts? Anecdotal evidence is interesting and persuasive when it comes from mudcatters...but what do we know scientifically? |
|
20 May 02 - 12:35 PM (#713955) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Get ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) to work on it. |
|
20 May 02 - 01:01 PM (#713967) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: GUEST Information on the legalities of collection, uses, and sale of Alaskan fossilized ivory can be found here: Bering Land Bridge National Preserve http://www.nps.gov/bela/html/heritage.htm#ivory The above discusses the laws regulating Alaska fossilized ivory as it relates to archaelogical sites. The site below is a pdf site for the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. www.nctc.fws.gov/library/Pubs9/Marine_Mammal97.pdf |
|
20 May 02 - 02:18 PM (#714024) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: GUEST,Tweed at work Good link Guest. From the sounds of it the government goes to greater lengths to preserve ivory laying on the ground than they do for that which is still attached to a living beast. At what point would old ivory be considered a part of an archaeological site? Would there have to be evidence of knife cuts or other human sign on it? I'd think that "The People" (Inuit)would benefit somewhat from being able to use the raw materials left behind for their art without doing tons of paperwork. |
|
20 May 02 - 02:29 PM (#714031) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: catspaw49 I hear you can get Ivory really easily from elephants in the United States. The best thing to do is go to Alabama where the Tuscaloosa................ Sorry Spaw |
|
20 May 02 - 02:47 PM (#714038) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Just a guess. I think the use of "fossil" ivory on modern instruments is due more to tradition (and appearance) than to any properties of the material. Ivory used to be put on piano keys but plastics are used now. Billiard balls used to be ivory (I remember being permitted to use ivory cue balls at a local club many years ago) instead of the new, much cheaper composition balls); what differences they had in response to those of modern balls I don't know. The Canadian Inuit use large quantities of "fossil" ivory in their carvings. Some is obtained from Russian sources as well as Canadian. Canadian seal fur products are barred from entry into the U. S. but whether these regulations extend to "fossil" ivory, I don't know. The carvings may be sold in Canada and into the Japanese and European markets. Canada follows the U. S. position on eagle feathers (can't sell any artifact bearing eagle feathers, regardless of age or provenance- some cases in the appeals courts now). |
|
20 May 02 - 03:56 PM (#714066) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: GUEST What I didn't include was links on the use of ivory from endangered species, which is prohibited. There are also laws against trading in arts and crafts made from ivory, claiming to be made by Native American/Alaskan/Inuits that aren't, which I didn't include links to either. By definition, fossilized ivory can't be harvested from endangered species (I know that seems self-evident, but apparently it isn't to everyone), so I didn't include information on the above because it was irrelevant to the discussion here. |
|
20 May 02 - 04:49 PM (#714093) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Grab On this theme, the latest Elderly catalogue is advertising "500 year old fossil mammoth ivory" bridge pins. Now, maybe I never was too good on my history lessons at school, but I've got a nagging feeling that old Chris Columbus and woolly mammoths weren't contemporaries... Graham. |
|
20 May 02 - 04:52 PM (#714097) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Guest, I presume that you are talking about U. S. rules, which would not apply to the Inuit in Canada. An exception is walrus ivory, which is protected under a Convention signed by both US and Canada (must be shown to be pre-1975). Looking on the internet, a business in Nevada making scrimshaw, etc. with fossil ivory, sells scrimshawed guitar picks for $75 U. S. Ivory Jack's Trading Co, in Alaska sells all kinds of fossil ivory items: Ivory Jack This concern uses Hong Kong carvers. |
|
20 May 02 - 05:04 PM (#714103) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Collecting "fossil" ivory: "Fossil ivory may be collected on private lands with the permission of the land owner, and is not regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Fossil ivory does not have to be tagged or registered. Natives may sell fossil ivory to non-natives without first handcrafting it." US Fish and Wildlife Service: Marine mammals |
|
20 May 02 - 05:18 PM (#714114) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: mack/misophist Just to stir the pot, another material widely used in netsuke carving is hippo tooth. As far as I know, it's not restricted. The few pieces I've seen have a nice dense grain. |
|
20 May 02 - 06:17 PM (#714142) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed Dang 'Spawz, that was terrible! ;~) I had a slice of what I figure must've been elephant tusk and made a new nut for a friend's Telecaster. It was very good to work with and after polishing even so small a fragment, revealed small growth patterns in the "grain". I'd had this piece since the early seventies and it was bought by a friend at a yard or rummage sale. I think there's something about having a bit of a large powerful animal in your guitar or on your person that mebbe goes back a long way in our past. The fragment I had no doubt was gleaned by hunters or poachers before 1972 and that doesn't make it right, but it certainly was an exotic material and if I had the money I'd surely have no second thoughts about acquiring a set of the jewels that are offered from extinct mammoths for my old Gibson. They certainly are beautiful and have a great history behind them. I wondered about Ivory Jack's claim that many of his works started out as old axe heads etc. These would surely be archaeological items and therefore taboo? |
|
20 May 02 - 07:24 PM (#714190) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: GUEST Dicho, FYI here are some sites that might help clarify the issues. This is a US Fish & Wildlife ivory FAQ site, explaining US law: http://www.r7.fws.gov/mmm/faq.html The international laws governing ivory trade (for the most part) is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). That site is here: http://www.cites.org/ CITES Canada site is here: http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/cites/html/eng/sct0/index_e.htm And a Canadian Inuit site with one Inuit perspective on CITES and the US'Marine Mammal Protection Act: http://www.tapirisat.ca/page2html/OTHERhtml/Acts/acts.html |
|
20 May 02 - 08:07 PM (#714222) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Jeep man To get back to "Does it make a difference?).What's the first thing you want your strings to touch,Plastic or bone?(ivory). Jeep |
|
20 May 02 - 08:34 PM (#714242) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) My blue clickie was to the US Fish and Wildlife website, directly to the FAQ (frequently asked questions). This thread concerns "fossil" ivory, not ivory under the endangered species acts, etc., but the FAQ has information on many other aspects of collection, sale, restrictions, etc. Canadian Inuit ivory carvings from the Inuit co-ops are given a unique number that identifies the carver and the location of the co-op, i. e. Baker Lake, etc. This protects the purchaser from cheap oriental imitations since the ID is kept on permanent file. Initial (but not subsequent) sale of quality registered carvings is through select authorized dealers. Only "fossil" ivory items may be legally shipped to the United States. |
|
20 May 02 - 08:35 PM (#714243) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Tweed BONE(or fossil ivory if I can get it)! |
|
20 May 02 - 10:27 PM (#714290) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: catspaw49 Thanks Tweed and my thanks to Groucho....It's a great line that is tough to find a place to use. And to renew the topic again .... Ivory and Ebony both have a rather neat property...more true of Ivory. They are self-lubricating which is a major benefit to the string crossing the nut and saddle. Spaw |
|
21 May 02 - 12:25 PM (#714659) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Bill D "self lubricating", Spaw?...with what?...I thought they were simply extremely hard and smooth, thus reducing friction. Some woods (Lignumvitae, Verawood, Olive...etc.) have natural oils which make them naturally self-lubricating, and thus, prone to clog sandpaper badly...but having turned both Ivory and Ebony, I have never seen this happen. Ebony does produce tiny, dusty residue (very much like graphite particles) when sanded, so I can see how it might seem like it was 'slick'....maybe that is all you meant...*shrug* |
|
21 May 02 - 02:14 PM (#714730) Subject: RE: BS: Fossilized Ivory From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) I don't think "fossil" ivory would retain any oils. Very fresh beach-collected walrus ivory might. Ivory, very dense, hard, and when well-polished "feels" oily, but that is imparted by the natural oil in your skin. I have to agree with Bill D. My wife bought an ebony box with a part missing. I obtained some ebony that matched in color (some has brown streaks) and started to do the first cut before I shaped it. I didn't get sawdust; I got carbon and a hell of a burning odor- I was burning my way because of the friction from the saw. The odor stayed in the workroom for days. It took me a while to figure out how to handle the material before I got it right. |
