HELP!-S-100 refused shipping due to "Mother of Pearl" Inlays

[Zelja]

So I won an auction just over a week ago & got it shipped to a freight forwarding company myus.com in Florida which I had joined. First time I've used these guys as I though I'd spare my brother in NJ the hassle of re-shipping to me (& because he's probably jack of it). The idea of the company is that you can buy stuff in the US, get it sent to a US address & then they forward it on to you in Australia (or wherever) at a cheaper rate, no size restrictions like USPS, you can consolidate packages etc.

Anyway, I get an email today which says:

We have received merchandise on your behalf which requires special handling. This item cannot be shipped until the issue is resolved.
Prohibited Item. Mother of Pearl on guitar neck

:shock: :? :evil: :roll:

So the questions I have are:
1. Are the neck inlays on a 1972 S-100 actually "Mother of Pearl" or are they "pearloid" i.e plastic? What about he headstock inlays "GUILD" & chesterfield logos?
2. I understand that there could be restrictions in exporting/importing actual raw "mother of Pearl" but this is intrinsic to a guitar which was made 40 years ago. Why is this even an issue? Anyone know any more about the legalities?

Surely new guitars are exported from the USA & into Australia today & they have "Mother of Pearl" inlays etc?

I have asked them a few questions & will see what comes back but this is a real worry for me.
Any help, especially confirming the exact nature of the inlays, would be appreciated.

 

[tjmangum]

I shipped several vintage banjos to Australia last year and I don't recall any mention of MOP being on the "no" list. ??

 

[Los Angeles]

Oh no!

Bummer, man.

EDIT: Boy, was I wrong. Sorry for the misinformation.

 

[Hammer]

I'm wondering why they're cracking open your package in the first place. :?

 

[hansmoust]

Are the neck inlays on a 1972 S-100 actually "Mother of Pearl" or are they "pearloid" i.e plastic? What about he headstock inlays "GUILD" & chesterfield logos?

Hello Zelja,

There's not one piece of 'Mother of Pearl' to be found on the entire guitar.
The fingerboard however, may very well be made of Brazilian rosewood, which could cause the same problems as 'Mother of Pearl' , but if they don't mention it, maybe you shouldn't say anything about it.

Good luck!

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[Zelja]

There's not one piece of 'Mother of Pearl' to be found on the entire guitar.
The fingerboard however, may very well be made of Brazilian rosewood, which could cause the same problems as 'Mother of Pearl' , but if they don't mention it, maybe you shouldn't say anything about it.

Good luck!

Thanks Hans. So the inlays are plain old plastic? I may need to get some proof of that either from Guild themselves or maybe from an expert (that would be be you ). I really don't what they will accept.

I have been looking into this & it seems it's all to do with the international CITES agreement & also the US Lacey Act. Under these regulations, the only substances used for inlays which have restrictions placed on them are South African Abalone and White Abalone. Problem is a customs agent can mis-identify some inlays as "white abalone" & the burden of proof is on you to convince them that it isn't.

The other items which are are prohibited on completed instruments are:

Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra)
Mammoth ivory and elephant ivory
Tortoise shell from the Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)

Under these acts, apparently your instrument can be seized at the border & not returned. You can't just remove your ivory bridge pins, saddle & nut & then take your guitar - nope, the whole instrument is confiscated apparently!

Some links:
http://www.acousticmusic.org/CITES-and-ESA-sp-78.html
http://www.fretboardjournal.com/feature ... ion-treaty
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... p=10972179

I shipped several vintage banjos to Australia last year and I don't recall any mention of MOP being on the "no" list. ??

When I started investigating this one of the first things that came up was this thread on a banjo forum: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/214624

I'm wondering why they're cracking open your package in the first place.

I was surprised at that too, but maybe they're checking to see if teh contents arrived in good or order or maybe they're making sure I'm not smuggling contraband. :roll:


Oh yeah the proper word for "Mother of Pearl" is "nacre". You learn something new everyday, though I wish circumstance did not lead me to this piece of info!

 

[Zelja]

Double post.

 

[Russian Guy]

We have received merchandise on your behalf which requires special handling. This item cannot be shipped until the issue is resolved. Prohibited Item. Mother of Pearl on guitar neck

Hey, mate. That is really messed up sh*t right there. I mean obviously you had your '77 S-100 shipped to you but not teleported via some new hi-tech device.

To ship my S-300AD and my (now sold) Ovation Viper I used a company that provided a similar service but the thing is I used their storage and their US office to do that. They did however offer a service called "mail forwarding" which I didn't use.

Both times I had them repack the guitar for extra safety and not one time something as ridiculous as this happened. However S-300 and Viper have dot position markers which is of course of no significance since supposedly mother of pearl is a material the shipping of which to another country is prohibited. Mother of pearl is mother of pearl no matter in which numbers it's being transported.

And since it's not even mother of pearl but plastic I don't know what the f is going on. Simple ignorance? Keep us posted.

 

[DasBeef]

Well, I don't see 'Mother of Pearl' anywhere on this list.
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4369.asp#e1045

I do see novelty erasers that resemble food in scent or appearance. Oh, you Aussies.
Anyhoo, there's an e-mail address there. I'd check that there's no issue with importing mother of pearl to Aus. Guitars get sent out of the US all the time, so surely the issue can't be there. Once you have proved yourself that there is no reason the guitar can't be shipped, inform the company that they are 'at it', and ask if it is their personal preference not to ship MoP.
Guitars get shipped all over the word. This just doesn't add up for me.....

EDIT:
Can't see MoP here either.....

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacat ... ricted.xml

 

[jazzmang]

Yeah its not MoP. Mother of toilet-seat, maybe. :lol:

 

[Zelja]

Thanks for the links Beef. MoP isn't on any CITES list AFAIK. As stated in a post above & some links above, "white abalone" is & MoP is often mis-identified as "white abalone" but you then you have to prove to them that it isn't white abalone i.e you need to prove your innocence rather than them proving your guilt - just seems wrong to me but...

Now the thing is that the guitar isn't being stopped by customs but by the freight forwarding company. Maybe someone is being a bit too keen or over-cautious. I might get an email tomorrow saying "all is cool" & "sorry about the misunderstanding" or I might get one saying "we can fix this issue for the price of $???". If it's the latter then I will feel like I'm being scammed. We'll see what their response is & take it from there.

The thing that may be relevant to us all is that musicians are in danger of getting their guitars confiscated when crossing international borders if their guitars contain the prohibited substances (braz rosewood, white abalone, ivory). There are cases of guitars being confiscated when travelling between the US & Canada for instance (have a read of some of the links I posted earlier).

Now I can understand that you want to prohibit the import/export of rare & endangered items in their raw form or in new instruments. What I fail to understand is applying this to a Martin built in 1930 or a Guild in 1972 - that horse has already bolted & I can't see how it protects the endangered resource or acts as a deterrent against the present day exploitation of the item.

Vadim, yeah, hard to see the sense in it all. It could just be the freight forwarders playing silly buggers. Whether that's just out of ignorance, over-zealousness or something more sinister... well, I'll guess I'll find out soon...

 

[Zelja]

Yeah its not MoP. Mother of toilet-seat, maybe. :lol:

Well I told them that it was pearloid i.e plastic & asked who identified it as MoP. Regardless, MoP is not on the prohibited list as far as I can see. Their reply tomorrow will be interesting. Time for some shut-eye.

 

[fronobulax]

The CITES treaties and Lacey Act as they apply to guitars have been discussed at great length. The bottom line is that they seem to be poorly written and understood and confuse a lot of guitarists and customs agents. Since it is your shipping company that is asking I would continue to press them about what their problem is and how you can help solve it. It is quite possible that they have had problems in the past with inlay material mistaken for something else and they are trying to protect you from having the guitar seized. At least you are dealing with a private company and not a U.S. Customs agent. But the situation smacks of unfairness and is just wrong, IMO.

 

[griehund]

Yeah its not MoP. Mother of toilet-seat, maybe. :lol:

Hey, I resemble that remark. :lol:

 

[SFIV1967]

Zelja,
maybe that one helps?

Pearloid is a plastic that is intended to resemble mother of pearl. It is commonly used in making musical instruments, especially for pickguards, electric guitars, and accordions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearloid

Ralf

 

[Zelja]

^^^^
Thanks Ralf! I told them it was pearloid so this bit of evidence should help.
I was actually searching for a 1972 Guild catalogue but couldn't find anything. Do you know the year this page came from?

Frono, I agree with your assessment/comments. I have responded to them yesterday but no reply this morning Oz time, which is about 5pm Monday their time. Curious. I checked & you guys don't seem to have a public holiday for Easter Monday like we do here so I would have expected a reply by now. I'll send the catalogue as further proof & await their positive reply & apologies for scaring the crap out of me.

 

[Russian Guy]

I was actually searching for a 1972 Guild catalogue but couldn't find anything. Do you know the year this page came from?

This is actually from a 1975 catalog. I have a page with S-100 on a 1971 catalog but there is no mention about the position block markers.

 

[SFIV1967]

I was actually searching for a 1972 Guild catalogue but couldn't find anything. Do you know the year this page came from?

This is actually from a 1975 catalog. I have a page with S-100 on a 1971 catalog but there is no mention about the position block markers.

Correct. Vadim had actually shown that catalog to me some days ago! It was the only on that clearly stated "Pearloid" for the block inlays. The S-100 Standard page also had a wrong description (as checked with Hans), hence I posted the DeLuxe page.
Ralf

 

[Zelja]

Cheers guys!

 

[adorshki]

Since it is your shipping company that is asking I would continue to press them about what their problem is and how you can help solve it. It is quite possible that they have had problems in the past with inlay material mistaken for something else and they are trying to protect you from having the guitar seized.

Absolutely no "snarkiness" intended but I suspect they're far more concerned with trying to prevent any problems for themselves, with customs. As the actual shipper/"freight forwarder", they have to fill out a customs declaration, and even honest errors can have nightmarish consequences.
That was an important issue in the Gibson seizure: There was inaccurate info on a forwarder's paperwork and whether or not it was accidental or intentional had no bearing on the contraband status of the wood. It was seized.
Zelja: PM sent