Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Sea turtle- Bows with frogs made of sea turtle coming from China?


GMM22
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just checked my notes and ebony has a dry sg. 0.96 compared to ivory at s.p 1.96,which is almost twice the weight. I dont know where these figures you got came from but they must be being a little short on materials(or very short on frog).

Sperm whale s.g= 2.088

Hippo" " =1.889

Hard ivory =1.811

soft ivory =1.752

mammoth =1.671

ebony =0.96

tortoiseshell =1.29

celloloid =1.38

vegetable ivory = 1.40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The figures came from Luscombe, I believe, though I'm not 100%

sure.  It was definitely from a high-end European or Canadian

dealer, not Chinese.

I assume "sg" means specific gravity, but what does "s.p." stand

for?

Hard to argue with your figures, but that sure is odd:  If an

Ebony frog is indeed around 16.7 grams (that sounds about right)

then, given your figures, a Mammoth-Ivory frog of the same size

would be about 14 grams heavier.  Yet, I see ivory-frogged

bows all the time at around 55 - 58 grams.  Why aren't they

over 70 grams?  

Maybe they hollow them out more inside?  If so, that still

blows your earlier argument.  -But thanks for those numbers.

 Good to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
brokenbow

Two issues in this thread that are not being distinguished

The first is an ANIMAL WELFARE issue that addresses how animals, regardless of their rarity should be treated by humans. These are the concerns of PETA, Humane Society, etc. Again, rarity of the species is not a concern here.

The second is a CONSERVATION issue that addresses the importance of preserving species. Note that this concern has little to do with how an individual animal is treated. A conservationist will quickly agree to the culling (killing) or hundreds of (individual) common whitetail deer to reduce their population to protect a plant species that is about to be eaten by the deer to extinction. These are concerns of organizations such as Audubon Society, Sierra Club, etc.

The reason that Conservationists are typically opposed to the use of accidentally killed rare and endangered species is that their use can and often does lead to faddish demands for the animal part being used. That is, other people see the tortoise shell frog and want one too. This can create a market demand, illicit or not, that results in further endangerment of a species. This is why it is illegal in the USA to buy and sell taxidermy or predatory birds (eagles, hawks, owls) even if they were just hit by a car. A few people displaying these mounts could lead to further demand, and illegal killing.


Excellent summary, brokenbow. The problem with all the disagreement, unfortunately, lies in the perception of "the Homo spaient in relation to Nature, and thus to other species". And most of the rationale given is based upon the supremacy of the human species to others, which I sincerely found quite laughable. Take the US for example, it is no doubt in such a capitalism country, and from I gathered, the social status is more or less based upon ones earning power or the size of ones bank account. If my perception is correct, then let's see just how many well-established intellectuals have the ability to commanded higher earning power than so-called stars? Let alone these "unknown" intellectuals. How many violins does Sam Z. have to make in order to match Kidman's Chanel commercial or Zeta-Jones's T-mobile commercial? We are not even talking about their earnings from movies they participate(d). A friend of mine got a ticket to Madona's concert in Chicago, which cost over $200.00. How many classical musicians can command such ticket price?

All things considered, are humans as intelligent as we want to believe?

There are some articles regarding global warming, which gives an interesting response to some posts:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/s...arctic.ap/index.html#

The video section and the related topic (Drilling into the past...) are worth visiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Allan Speers

The figures came from Luscombe, I believe, though I'm not 100%

sure. It was definitely from a high-end European or canadian

dealer, not Chinese.

I assume "sg" means specific gravity, but what does "s.p." stand

for?

Hard to argue with your figures, but that sure is odd: If an

Ebony frog is indeed around 16.7 grams (that sounds about right)

then, given your figures, a Mammoth-Ivory frog of the same size

would be about 14 grams heavier. Yet, I see ivory-frogged

bows all the time at around 55 - 58 grams. Why aren't they

over 70 grams?

Maybe they hollow them out more inside? If so, that still

blows your earlier argument. -But thanks for those numbers.

Good to have.

Sorry ,should be S.G not s.p

It depends on who made the frog, if we,re talking early French then they were often smaller in dimensions to your average factory made bow of today.I have several French bows that have frogs only 20mm high.They also didnt very often fully mount ivory frogs,they didnt have a heel plate or underslide.

A sort of average weight for a French frog i would put more at around 13-14gms with a stick around the late 30,s gms. Also old French bows have a stick length often in the low 720mm`s ,adding around 15-16mm for the adjuster gives around 736-738mm

.As opposed to most modern bows that are more like

>740 mm. total length.

Older makers didnt use heavier wire wrapping either and makers would get around using ivory by using thinner gauge silver,which can substantially cut the weight.

But i do agree that ivory being almost twice the density takes some thinking and getting your head around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can make since of it all....I have a dealer ship with some

overseas companies in violin bows. just as many american makers do

and even gibson guitars. We put our names on the bows hoping to

sell for a higher price. I own this company and me and my supplier

are friends. The cello that you found on ebay is not that of mine

but a copy of my workshop...anything coming from me will be branded

not on a label. There are many other american companies doing this

porcess, such as John Silwaoski the famous violin maker. He only

makes a few violins but most of his are chinese violin with his

name. also such as Gibson and epiphone...and martin has a line is

mexico now..its just american companies can't compete with the

driving industries of many over seas nations. Don't Run my credit

people....if you have questions contact me..Now I only sold a

tortoise shell bow with my name on it. Directly from me. The other

bows you see on there are of my bussiness partner..The cello you

see is of a friend that saw that my name sells since i am italian

and they put it in there violins now. Thanks Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homo sapiens is the scientific name for human beings. Homo is the genus and sapiens if the species. Like all scientific names for species it is written in Latin (a dead language) so that scientists around the world can communicate in any language and at least know what species they are referring to. For instance sugar maple (one of its common names) has only one scientific name (Acer saccharum). All species of maple have the genus Acer as the first part of their scientific name. The genus name is always capitalized and the species is not.

Hope this helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
dfxlr

That's exactly what I said. Miles has been using it a lot recently,

but I don't know what it is. (seriously inquiry)

Hi dfxlr,

Sorry for the belated reply; I am still trying to beat the bidding frenzy on camcorders/top cameras on eBay...No sign of sucess...

I meant Homo sapiens. My apology for the spelling mixed up (there was/is a software company called Sapient??? And my fingers weren't "thining" when I typed, especially when at the same time I was searching for video camera/camcorder... )

The reason for using Homo sapiens was to put human back in the "earth/universe" without dealing with emotion, which I've long suspected not to develop too well in my brain. I wonder whether there's an emotional IQ test or something...

Happy New Year, everyone! Now I am off to my camcorder/video camera hunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Allan Speers

Hey, maybe it SHOULD be an adjective, meaning "human like."

Works for me. You know:

"The gorilla is an extremely homosapient animal." or,

"Fiddlin' Ben isn't quite homosapient, even though he walks upright

on two legs"


How about Homo erectus for Fiddlin' Ben?

And Homo sapiens sentient morus for modern humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://147.208.132.198/onlineC.../181_1884307,0008.htm

This link to comments written by former Indian ambassador to Iraq between 1992 and 1994. Juxtaposing this article to others, one cannot but start wondering...Pentagon just asked for nearly $100 billion...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12...7600&pagewanted=print

Now back to my Homo sapiens camcorder-moronus symdrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos the environmental catastrophy that's ramping up to send all higher-order life including sea turtles and homo sapiens sapiens off to the fossil record to join homo sapiens neandertalensis:

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...,0,6670018,full.story

You have to register, but you can get a fake registration from www.bugmenot.com

Anyone who can read the article and not have their stomach start turning over from fear needs their head read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, bean_fidhleir.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...,0,2628678,print.story (the article cited by bean_fidhleir, but in a print form)

This article has consolidated and illustrated my posts regarding the dynamics of Nature:

quote:


Taken from LA times

In many places - the atolls of the Pacific, the shrimp beds of the Eastern Seaboard, the fiords of Norway - some of the most advanced forms of ocean life are struggling to survive while the most primitive are thriving and spreading. Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked. Where this pattern is most pronounced, scientists evoke a scenario of evolution running in reverse, returning to the primeval seas of hundreds of millions of years ago.


quote:


Taken from LA times

For many years, it was assumed that the oceans were too vast for humanity to damage in any lasting way. "Man marks the Earth with ruin," wrote the 19th century poet Lord Byron. "His control stops with the shore."

Even in modern times, when oil spills, chemical discharges and other industrial accidents heightened awareness of man's capacity to injure sea life, the damage was often regarded as temporary.

But over time, the accumulation of environmental pressures has altered the basic chemistry of the seas.

The causes are varied, but collectively they have made the ocean more hospitable to primitive organisms by putting too much food into the water.

Industrial society is overdosing the oceans with basic nutrients - the nitrogen, carbon, iron and phosphorous compounds that curl out of smokestacks and tailpipes, wash into the sea from fertilized lawns and cropland, seep out of septic tanks and gush from sewer pipes.

Modern industry and agriculture produce more fixed nitrogen - fertilizer, essentially - than all natural processes on land. Millions of tons of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, produced by burning fossil fuels, enter the ocean every day.

These pollutants feed excessive growth of harmful algae and bacteria.

At the same time, overfishing and destruction of wetlands have diminished the competing sea life and natural buffers that once held the microbes and weeds in check.

The consequences are evident worldwide.


quote:


Taken from LA times

Organisms such as the fireweed that torments the fishermen of Moreton Bay have been around for eons. They emerged from the primordial ooze and came to dominate ancient oceans that were mostly lifeless. Over time, higher forms of life gained supremacy. Now they are under siege.

Like other scientists, Jeremy Jackson, 63, was slow to perceive this latest shift in the biological order. He has spent a good part of his professional life underwater. Though he had seen firsthand that ocean habitats were deteriorating, he believed in the resilience of the seas, in their inexhaustible capacity to heal themselves.

.....

"We're pushing the oceans back to the dawn of evolution," Jackson said, "a half-billion years ago when the oceans were ruled by jellyfish and bacteria."


If the Homo sapiens species continues to "rape" Nature, the consequences might not be what the species can afford to bear even though all Homo sapiens think they are so intelligent and so privileged.

Yes, bean_fidhleir. Human as a whole has a lot to fear -- not only the external woes, but also the internal misconception and/or self-deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of the passages that was particularly figural for me, Miles (emphasis added):

quote:


Organisms such as the fireweed that torments the fishermen of Moreton Bay have been around for eons. They emerged from the primordial ooze and came to dominate ancient oceans that were mostly lifeless. Over time, higher forms of life gained supremacy. Now they are under siege.

Like other scientists, Jeremy Jackson, 63, was slow to perceive this latest shift in the biological order. He has spent a good part of his professional life underwater.
Though he had seen firsthand that ocean habitats were deteriorating, he believed in the resilience of the seas, in their inexhaustible capacity to heal themselves.

Then came the hurricane season of 1980. A Category 5 storm ripped through waters off the north coast of Jamaica, where Jackson had been studying corals since the late 1960s. A majestic stand of staghorn corals, known as "the Haystacks," was turned into rubble. Scientists gathered from around the world to examine the damage. They wrote a paper predicting that the corals would rebound quickly, as they had for thousands of years.

"We were the best ecologists, working on what was the best-studied coral reef in the world, and we got it 100% wrong,"
Jackson recalled.

The vividly colored reef, which had nurtured a wealth of fish species, never recovered.

"Why did I get it wrong?" Jackson asked. He now sees that the quiet creep of environmental decay, occurring largely unnoticed over many years, had drastically altered the ocean. As tourist resorts sprouted along the Jamaican coast, sewage, fertilizer and other nutrients washed into the sea. Overfishing removed most of the grazing fish that kept algae under control. Warmer waters encouraged bacterial growth and further stressed the corals.

For a time, these changes were masked by algae-eating sea urchins. But when disease greatly reduced their numbers, the reef was left defenseless. The corals were soon smothered by a carpet of algae and bacteria. Today, the reef is largely a boneyard of coral skeletons.

Many of the same forces have wiped out 80% of the corals in the Caribbean, despoiled two-thirds of the estuaries in the United States and destroyed 75% of California's kelp forests, once prime habitat for fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing is happening in australia's great barrier reef.

 A starfish-related organism called "crown of thornes" has

exploded in numbers due to fertilizer runoff, and is devouring all

the coral.  They have teams of divers working 7 days a week

trying to kill as many as possible, but they re losing the

battle.

-but you think THAT'S bad?  By some (believable) estimates,

there is now less than 80% of the blue-green algae in the sea

compared to the 1960's (when it was first studied.)  Guess

where we get almost all our oxygen from?  Hint:  It 'aint

the trees. When the algae goes, so do we, and no-one is

doing anything about it.

Now let's talk about the tons of nuclear waste that the former

USSR dumped deep into the Bearing Sea (where it is un-retrievable

even with modern technology) in plain steel barrels that are right

now rusting away.  That is the truth, boys & girls.

Soon there will be nothing left on our planet but cockroaches.

 Well, cockroaches and tiny B.Probuses.  All scurrying

about the vast wasteland .......

I think Nero had it right:  Just fiddle away while the place

burns to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Allan Speers

-but you think THAT'S bad? By some (believable) estimates,

there is now less than 80% of the blue-green algae in the sea

compared to the 1960's (when it was first studied.) Guess

where we get almost all our oxygen from? Hint: It 'aint

the trees. When the algae goes, so do we, and no-one is

doing anything about it.


Allan,

"[N]o one is goding anything about it?"

Am I suffering from ADD now? I remember a couple of (or a few?) earlier posters in this thread were talkng about eating algaes, no?

What really worries me is the wide-spread attitude throughout the Western history:

"We were the best [ecologists]...," Jackson recalled.

Compounded by the influence of powerful capitalists and politicians, how much truth was in his statement we got it 100% wrong"? The ground for such skeptism is not difficult to find.

In light of the former Indian ambassdor's statements about Saddam Hussein (dated Dec. 31, 2006), do we know how much was true in the "portrait" of him by the Whitehouse? Or alternatively, was the report intended to stir even more global anti-American sentiment? But, why? God help!

http://147.208.132.198/onlineC.../181_1884307,0008.htm

Another disaster?

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/..._id=35130&sid=11554553

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by: miles

. Take the US for example, it is no doubt in such a capitalism country, and from I gathered, the social status is more or less based upon ones earning power or the size of ones bank account. If my perception is correct, then let's see just how many well-established intellectuals have the ability to commanded higher earning power than so-called stars? Let alone these "unknown" intellectuals. How many violins does Sam Z. have to make in order to match Kidman's Chanel commercial or Zeta-Jones's T-mobile commercial? We are not even talking about their earnings from movies they participate(d).

]

If Miles is trying to imply, by example, that Americans are stupid he has provided some very bad examples. Nicole Kidman is Australian, and Chanel is a French company. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Welsh and T-Mobile is a German company. The only American is Sam Z.

I guess that anyone that we want to ridicule becomes American by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

If Miles is trying to imply, by example, that Americans are stupid he has provided some very bad examples. Nicole Kidman is Australian, and Chanel is a French company. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Welsh and T-Mobile is a German company. The only American is Sam Z.


No. I am not implying Americans are stupid, FINPROF. Rather, I don't see any intelligence in worshiping entertainers regardless what citizenship one holds.

That said, you are wrong about Nicole Kidman, FINPROF. She was born in Hawaii, and holds dual citizenship, one of which is US citizenship although she feels "inclined" to be Australian. Let's not forget that she was married to Tom Cruise for ten years and likely to live in the US for the most part (subject to correction). And also Madonda was/is American as well, whom you left out for some reason.

Yes, I know Zeta-Jones is Welsh, but she married an American. Although I am not sure about her citizenship, she might live, for the most part, in the US.

And yes, having lived in Germany before, I know very well T-mobile is a German company. However, it does business in the US, and as I understood (I might be wrong), it has emerged as one of the very top cell phone carries in the US in a short period of time. Like T-mobile, Chanel is also a leading brand in the fashion industry, and again like T-mobile, it does a lot of business in the US. Sorry, I don't use cosmetic all that much, and nothing Chanel in my possession I can verify. But I won't be surprised if they have manufactries in the US. If I understood taxes correctly, these foreign companies also have to register in the US and pay Uncle Sam.

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

I guess that anyone that we want to ridicule becomes American by default.


Am/was I trying to ridcule anyone? As I said twice in this forum and I will say it again, I am not comfortable with personal attack. But if you do honestly think I was/am, that is fine by me. No problem.

By the way, I also hold a US passport. Should it be a good reason not to speak up my mind or even to prevent other people from speaking up the facts/truth they believe in by all means?

[edited]

FINPROF,

If you think that I was trying to ridicule Kidman and Zeta-Jones, I am sorry to say that you've got my message wrong. Kidman, Zeta-Jones and Jolie are my favorite actresses still alive I can think of off the top of my head.

Zeta-Jones is an intelligent woman as I gathered from the little information I knew while standing in the long line at the Walgreens reading tabloids and newspapers. She certainly deserves her happiness (at least what we know about it). Jolie seems to have her life getting more and more together, and I hope Pitt would not let her fans down.

Knowing Kidman was walked on by her ex-husband while 3-month pregnant, and got into another marital mess, I cannot be any more sympathetic toward this beautiful being. How could I have the heart to ridicule her even though I don't like to let emotion get in the way of discussions.

"A thing of beauty is a joy forever." May the joy survives all.

Happy New Year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FinProf, Miles can speak for herself of course, but my impression was that she was criticising capitalism wherever it's located, and the US only because it is the "apex (capitalist) predator".

Capitalism as practiced is based on the belief that the world is both an inexaustible garden and an uncloggable sewer. As Paul Hawken among others has illuminated, capitalism refuses to account for all its costs. The costs expressed as pollution are ignored, but pollution cleanup is considered a positive value, which is crazy!

But Earth tallies up the costs accurately even if the accountants don't, and she's made it increasingly obvious that she's going to get rid of us completely unless we get our act together SOON. Yet we show every sign of still not listening. We have intelligent, mentally healthy professionals like yourself, with kids and grandkids who will bear the brunt of Earth's displeasure, still apparently not tuned in.

Paul Ehrlich remarked in an interview that every scientist he knows is "scared sh****ss" right now, and it's not hard to see why.

Happy New Year (I hope) to all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...