Official Luthiers Forum!

I wanted to correct some things in a recent thread I started "Identify this Wood".

I did some more research on this wood. This wood was not BRW "Dalbergia Nigra" as many thought. One response from Shawn sparked my interest to dig a little deeper and I found some interesting facts. You can read the facts about the differences and see photos on our website at the following link:
Brazil Tonewoods current news..

Shawn wrote:
A recent controversy is whether people have been selling wood as Caviuna and shipping BRW which would violate CITES. There are alot of Spanish luthiers that refer to the wood used for their backs and sides as Caviuna, so as to not tip their hand that it is really BRW. Others have bought Caviuna, expecting BRW only to receive Pau Ferro...

So, Shawn..I have a question. Is Caviuna not restricted by CITES ?Brazilwood38594.4864467593

There was some controversy at the beginning of the year. Several makers and factories in Spain were raided by CITES and had their wood confiscated.

There seemed to be a conscensus that Dalbergia Nigra was being sold as "caviuna" to deceive CITES. This is the first I've heard of caviuna being anything but a deceptive undefined term to trade a banned wood under the radar.

The BBC did a report on this several months ago, you might try to search for it.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

Here's a link to that article about the confiscated Brazilian rosewood.
Brazilian rosewood confiscatedColonial Tonwds38594.5902083333

Thanks for the link...that was interesting. 33 Tons is a lot of BRW !! And maybe they were using the name Caviuna as a means to deceive authorities. Because it is definitely a different wood that exhists. That is why I posed the question, is Caviuna (Dalbergia miscolobium)listed in CITES I, CITES II or CITES III ? So, far I haven't found it. So, does anyone know ?Brazilwood38594.6367939815

If not, it would be legal to export, but you would have to have proof of it's species before doing so. Sounds like it could be a lot of red tape.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

My thinking is..if 33 Tons of BRW were shipped into Spain with the declaration of Caviuna..it obviously isn't in the CITES Treaty. Otherwise it would not have been allowed to enter the country as declared. Caviuna is so similar in all properties to BRW that the article posted on the link provided states: (the investigators turned to specialised laboratories at the Polytechnic University and the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid to identify it).I just bought a good deposit of "Caviuna" and have been preparing it for guitar sets for the construction of my guitars. It's some of the most beautiful wood I've ever used. Bar None ! Including (Dalbergia Nigra). And in my opinion, I don't think there are many (if any) in the field of Lutherie that could by sight or the old smell test distinguish the difference. It has unknowingly been bought and sold "By the best in the business" as BRW for years. I also was under the impression it was just a name used by many to deceive the "Officials". And without scientific testing...they had the burden of proof to prove otherwise. However, through a good source here who has been in the local wood trade for many years, I was able to actually discover this information. Just thought I'd share it because BRW is still such a mysterious and elusive subject.

I had a friend years ago who bought this "Caviuna" thinking it was BRW. When he discovered it was not he obviously told the person who had commissioned the guitar. The buyer insisted on keeping it cause it sounds as good if not better than BRW and the looks are awesome!

Thanks for that input Robbie. I'm sure you've had experiences similar to mine while living in Brazil. You know the dilemma and confusion of the different names used here. I don't think it is always intentional on the part of the sellers. It's more the lack of true knowledge of species and scientific classifications. Here they seem to mostly go by looks and what they've been told from their source. However, in my situation, I can't afford to do that. This is definitely plowing new ground for me. But, I want to be informed and if I can share what I learn with others, it will help them to make wiser decisions in the buying process. I want to be as fair and honest as possible and intend to establish long term relationships as a supplier of wood. So, it would be very detrimental for me to try and use deception. I am not in this for the monetary gain alone. I love working with wood and building instruments. And it takes the same amount of time and effort to build with plywood as it does premium woods. So, I prefer to use and deal in the best there is to offer. Even if the cost is a little higher, the wood can definitely increase the quality and value of the final instrument. So, in my opinion is well worth the investment. Obrigado / Boa Noite Rob..
How many of you would think at first look that this is Dalbergia Nigra ? It's actually Caviuna !
Brazilwood38594.8472685185

[QUOTE=Colonial Tonwds] Here's a link to that article about the confiscated Brazilian rosewood.
Brazilian rosewood confiscated[/QUOTE]

Not to confuse the issue and I will have to get out my almanac but I believe that the area of illegal logging sited in the article is the same area in which Al Queda has set up S.A. traning camps (hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong but it doesn't mitigate the main point). I will have to dig out my class notes from a couple of years ago.

The point is that it makes one wonder who profitted from the illegal logging. Just a thought. The press has been fairly brutal about "blood" diamonds from Africa so maybe this is a scandal awaiting exposure. What makes me suspicious is not the illegal activity but the scale of it.

Just a thought, Steve Brown

So if I understand this right many people have bought Caviuna as BRW when really Dalbergia Nigra is what should be referred to as BRW. But am I right that you guys are saying that Caviuna makes just as nice a guitar as Dalbergia Nigra.

I would like to purchase some BRW in the near future to make 1 or 2 special guitars. So I should probably be purchasing some DN. But I really like the look of the Caviuna. Is there much of a price difference between the two species? Can I get as much for a guitar made out of C as I would for a guitar made out of DN?

Josh

_________________
Josh House

Canadian Luthier Supply
http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com
https://www.facebook.com/canadianluthiersupply?ref=hl
House Guitars - Custom Built Acoustic Instruments.
http://www.houseguitars.com

Josh..your understanding is correct that much "Caviuna" has been sold as BRW. "Caviuna" is still sold here in Brazil as Brazilian Rosewood or the Portuguese name: "Jacaranda de Bahia" which in traditional language here means (Dalbergia Nigra). The best quality "Brazilian Rosewood"(DN) originated from the state of "Bahia" which is located in Central and East Central Brazil. It also came from the northern parts of "Rio de Janiero". It is more of a mountainous, rocky terrain, hot and probably less rainfall than other areas of Brazil. Because of this environment the trees grew very slow. Thus creating tighter grain patterns and harder wood. "Dalbergia Nigra" is found in many parts of Brazil but, the quality varies widely. And as I stated the best quality came and still comes from "Bahia". "Caviuana" also comes from Bahia.
As I understand it, the traditional name for "Dalbergia Nigra" (in the US and other countries)is "Brazilian Rosewood". So when someone uses that name, chances are they are referring to DN.
As for the end result of a "Caviuna" guitar...in my opinion, the quality is equal to or possibly better than "DN". And it would really all depend on the cut of the wood. As you know..there is excellent quality "BRW"(DN) and lesser qualities. Depends on the cut, the age, where it originated from and many other variables. And the same goes for "Caviuna". I just bought a cubic meter of "Caviuna" that originated in the "Bahia" region and within the pieces I have found some to be of lesser quality due to "worm holes"..mainly. A common problem also associated with "DN". But, as far as the appearance and tonal qualities there is no difference..it rings like a bell. When I put the first billet on the planer it sounded like cutting glass! I have worked a lot with "Brazilian Rosewood"(DN) and in my opinion there is no difference in the properties. And it has that ever present smell you look for to identify "BRW"(DN). As for the price of the resulting instrument made from "Caviuna", that's a million dollar question. I would wager you couldn't find one person who could tell you whether is was "Caviuna" or "BRW". And the ending result in the quality of the instrument would be the same with the right cut of wood.
As for the price...actually I can buy "DN" here in Brazil for less than I paid for the "Caviuna" but, there are also legal aspects of "BR" that you have to worry about. "Caviuna" is actually a little harder to acquire here than "DN". I believe it will be the next one of IBAMA's hit list so, I'm stocking up before that happens. Hope this hasn't confused you more than helped.

So I guess the question everyone is aiming at, is... where can we get this stff (Caviuna), and realistically what might we expect to pay for it?   

Do you know?

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Not just that, but would we face a pair of handcuffs if we bring it here?!! I'm totally against illegal activities like import BRW, unless done with legal paperwork etc. from the proper governing authorities. The issues I see here are the inability to distinguish the two different rosewoods. Which makes me wonder if one is really a subspecies of the other. If so, I imagine that they would both be covered under the CITES thing.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

I thought we had been alluding to the fact that Caviuna is legal to export while BRW (for the most part) is not. I guess I just presumed that Caviuna had a green light....

I agree with Don, I think everything needs to be square with the customs people..

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Jeff

Thanks this has been very helpful. And I will second Brocks question. It is possible that in the future we would be able to purchase these products legally through you?

Josh

_________________
Josh House

Canadian Luthier Supply
http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com
https://www.facebook.com/canadianluthiersupply?ref=hl
House Guitars - Custom Built Acoustic Instruments.
http://www.houseguitars.com

Hi Guys,

I did a lot research into this as well and my personal findings was that Cavuina was a term to describe wood which was similar to brazilian rosewood. Kind of like lacewood which can mean the brazilian, australian or london sycamore- but all with a characteristic ray fleck appearance.

So, Cavuina can mean Brazilian or it can mean Bolivian rosewood or it can mean D.Micro, as long as it resembles brazilian, it can be called Cavuina.

I really hate the term because it's wholly and inprecise... kinda like how the europeans love to call various rosewoods 'pallisader'.... which basically means bugger all to anyone because you don't know explicitly whether it's cocobolo or indian or ?

Now, bear in mind that D.Nigra is quite a diverse species- the wood from Minas Gerais is quite different from that which comes from Bahia. Also the naming of plant species is pretty poor, especially in the case of rare and cross bred species, I mean I've seen 1 species referred to by 3 different scientific names!

So, it may be entirely possible that it cavuina someone bought is really brazilian rosewood, or it may be something very similar to brazilian rosewood. But another possibility is a tree which is considered D.Nigra, but is not.(or maybe is....crossbred etc)

Occam's razor would imply that anything called Cavuina which is indistinguihable from brazilian rosewood and only varies by a little under the microscope would be a variety of Brazilian rosewood.

However, that doesn't detract from the fact that it looks greats and makes a great sounding guitar. I don't think the price should be too different from brazilian as all the stock I have seen is pretty slabby so the trees should be small-ish and hard to get usable sizes out of.

Besides, the CITES thing a bit of joke if you are in the US anyway. You don't need it to ship domestically.

Warmest regards,
Terence
www.goodacoustics.com

Pakhan, not quite sure where you did your research but, my research is far from your findings. Photo 1 (Dalbergia Nigra or BRW) Photo 2 (Dalbergia Miscolobium or Caviuna) Photo 3 (Caesalpinia ferrea-var. leiostachya or Pau Ferro) Do these look like one in the same or crossbreeds. The term "Caviuna" is anything but inprecise. You and others may use it as an inprecise term but, there are recognizable differences, otherwise it would have been tagged (Dalbergia Nigra and not Dalbergia Miscolobium). That is why the scientific names have been established, to determine one from the other. Though the sawn wood may be very similar in appearance, we have standards to recognize and differentiate them.

Maybe the stock you've seen was slabby and smallish but, the stock I have is very adequate to build Dread size guitars. If you want to learn more about the subject, one of the best sources is: "Brazilian Trees", and its author is Harry Lorenzi.
Best Regards,Brazilwood38595.46625

Brazilwood posted while I was composing. What I offer below is similar.

Common names, especially those used regionally, are often useless as species identifiers outside of a certain area. It's either a Latin binomial (Genus species) or it's questionable, period. Similarly, it can be difficult to nearly impossible to distinguish many closely related species by wood. If you have leaves and reproductive structures it's usually pretty easy.

> bear in mind that D.Nigra is quite a diverse species

The wood varies, yes, at least above the cellular level, because it is influenced by growing conditions. The species itself is unique, however, and readily identifiable as D. nigra while still a tree. Other Dalbergias will be similar, of course, but not the same.

> I mean I've seen 1 species referred to by 3 different scientific names!

I am sure that you've seen that, but it was wrong. Just because someone calls it something does not mean it is.

Lastly, Terrance please don't suggest that CITES (or CITIES) is a joke. It principally applies to exports for all countries (not just the US), nonetheless suggesting it as trivial is irresponsible because it could lead to trouble for someone.

Seems to me there are two main issues here: legality and ethics.

Legal issues:
Even if Dalbergia miscolobium is indeed a distinct species, and not a subspecies of Dalbergia nigra, what do you think will happen when customs agents see the wood? Since it is so difficult to distinguish "Cavuina" from BRW (again, assuming there is actually a genetic difference), it is quite likely that the wood will be confiscated, and fines levied. Then, the buyer may be able to start the legal battle.

Ethics:
The fact is that biologists saw a dire need to protect the remaining Dalbergia nigra, and it was listed in CITES Appendix I, the most stringent protection for a species on the planet. There have been other species that have been listed in Appendix I that have recovered sufficiently to lift the trade ban, but this is not yet true for Dalbergia nigra. One of the critical aspects of managing an endangered species toward recovery is in protecting the genetic diversity within the species. The following scientific article (not an easy read!) cites that Dalbergia nigra has "considerable genetic variation" which could be a clue that Cavuina is really a genetic variant and not a truly distinct species.

Genetic Variation in Remnant Populations of Dalbergia nigra (Papilionoideae), an Endangered Tree from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

It is estimated that 93% to 95% of Dalbergia nigra trees have been logged. There's not many species on Earth that can be said to have been more dramatically impacted by musical instrument manufacture. Regardless what the buying public wants, or has been led to believe is true, isn't it more ethical to enthusiastically support protection for endangered and threatened species? Shouldn't luthiers be educating buyers that there are literally hundreds of species that can be used to produce a guitar that equals or exceeds the sonic properties of Brazilian Rosewood?

(Sorry this is long-winded. I am trying to help redirect Brazilwood/Jeff's undeniable enthusism for sonically lively and aesthetically pleasing tonewoods away from Brazilian Rosewood, and toward the myriad species in Brazil that can take some of the pressure off of the well-known species. If you agree, maybe you could let Jeff know, and ask for and buy some lesser-known species from him.)

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Caviuna is a very nice tonewood and in many instances is confused with true BRW (Dalbergia Nigra). True BRW is also known as Cabiuna with a B instead of a V. There are many woods in Brazil known as Jacaranda or BRW that are not Dalbergia Nigra. There are also many woods known as Caviuna that are called BRW. That makes everything as clear as mud, right?   The BRW that the world has come to know comes from a state in Brazil called Bahia and is known locally as Jacaranda da Bahia. This wood has been exploited for the last 500 years with no attention being paid to conservation efforts. Until Brazil gets a grip on its own corruption issues (or there are no more trees left) then we will still see Dalbergia Nigra available. You can drive for miles and miles in Bahia these days and not see a single Dalbergia Nigra tree. However, while living in Brazil I saw literally tons of the stuff available for sale. The quality is nowhere near what it used to be even 20 years ago. What we work with these days the old timers used to discard as inferior quality. I used to run across 70 or 80 year old carpenters who would gather around the machinery and marvel at how long it had been since they had seen a piece of this Dalbergia Nigra, Caviuna, Pau Ferro, Cabiuna, Dalbergia Violacea, Jacranda etc. That’s right, they all had a different name for it and sometimes there were heated discussions as to the real name. For example, one species called Machaerium Scleroxylon is known as Caviuna in Sao Paulo, in Parana it is called Caviuna- vermelha, in Minas Gerais and Goiania it is called Pau Ferro and many commercial names are Suca, jacaranda da caatinga, jacaranda caviuna, jacaranda bico de pato, Pau ferro do cerrado etc. And this is just one sub species of the Machaerium!!
According to the book “Arvores e Madeiras Uteis do Brasil, Manual de Dendrologia Brasileira” there are over 120 species of Machaerium and many of them resemble Jacaranda.
Here are even a few more names for true BRW besides the Dalbergia Nigra we are all aware of: Jacaranda Preto, Jacaranda Rajado, Jacaranda Roxo. They even call purple heart in Brazil Jacaranda Violeta. The words Jacaranda, Dalbergia and Machaerium can mean a variety of different woods and species.
Now that we are all thoroughly confused, in my opinion there is a lot of wood out there being sold as true BRW that really isn’t. I have a bit of it myself. It will even pass the smell test. The upside is that many species look and sound every bit as good as the real deal IF NOT BETTER! The downside is that they will still mess up your lungs if you don’t use a dust mask. Now, let’s get back to building with whatever wood we are using!

[QUOTE=sfbrown] [QUOTE=Colonial Tonwds] Here's a link to that article about the confiscated Brazilian rosewood.
Brazilian rosewood confiscated[/QUOTE]

Not to confuse the issue and I will have to get out my almanac but I believe that the area of illegal logging sited in the article is the same area in which Al Queda has set up S.A. traning camps (hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong but it doesn't mitigate the main point). I will have to dig out my class notes from a couple of years ago.


Just a thought, Steve Brown[/QUOTE]

The borders of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil are very porous and farmland is very abundant and fertile. Immigration to this part of the world has been going on for many years by South Africans, Eastern Europeans and there is also a very large Arab influence there. I do know that past presidents have avoided the area on visits to South America because of security issues. Whether or not Al Queda actually set up a training camp there is unknown to me. I am sure there are many sympathizers there but there are many in the States as well.
Most of the reports I saw on illegal logging while in Brazil was done by large international companies, mainly Japanese and European using local Indian labor from Indian reservations that were more than willing to sell "their" trees. Many local authorities turned their heads but naturally had their palms out. The trees, literally thousands, are floated down the river into Peru and Columbia, milled and then exported.    

Thanks guys for all your input and support. And I hope you don't think I'm trying to use a razor to split hairs to divide and justify the selling of "Protected Species" of wood. We have rules and guidelines that we should all respect. That's what separates us from animals where there are no rules and only the strong survive. And as for the comment that CITES is a bit of a joke..well I don't agree with that entirely but, I can see his point. The way the guidelines are set up now...(I think is what Pakhan is suggesting is) if you can get it into the US by whatever means, then it's OK to sell it and ship it around domestically. If they are serious about protecting this species..it should be "Illegal" in any marketing or use of the wood. In essence a total ban !! This is truly the only way to protect this "Gift of Nature". The same should apply here in Brazil. Although it is illegal by the CITES I in International Trade...that hasn't reduced the harvesting of it here in Brazil. It's sad to say but, it is still being harvested, bought, sold and used on a daily basis. However, even Brazil has very strict laws in trading in BRW. If caught with it here you can be imprisoned for 20 years. However, the officials tend to look the other way in regards to the guitar industry because they realize this is only a very small percentage of the usage. They are more interested in the larger manufacturers of furniture, cabinetry and large production that has contributed to the mass harvesting. So, the CITES I is in theory a joke if the desired result is to preserve the species. IBAMA has also implemented a self imposed ban on any harvesting of Mahogany and Cedar. And it's not the "Guitar Industry" that has brought this about. Again it is the furniture companies that use this species in such a flagrant manner. Mahogany is still being harvested in other countries like Honduras, Peru, Bolivia and many more. So, Brazil has made a good decision I think. They now have the foresight to see what has happened to other species and are starting to direct their attention to many others so history doesn't repeat itself.

My research was based on:

-1 botanical text (albeit 10 years old)
-3 recent papers on dermatitis attributed to exposure to rosewood... as allergies are very specific to a particular allergen, hence species, the fact that sensitised woodworkers were only allergic to all brazilian rosewood yet only some samples of caviuna samples they brought in for RAST testing indicates to me that the allergens present in DN are not the same as all the wood sold as cavuina. Ergo, some wood sold as cavuina is DN, some are not.
-Anecdotally, my brazilian supplier and my wood contacts have said cavuina wood comes from a wide pool of trees and species.
-The spanish firm claimed that Cavuina was a subspecies of bolivian rosewood identical to brazilian. Yeah, right.


Of course, that could be because some of the more shady sawmills are adding species to the cavuina name/umbrella for export.

I understand that Linnaeus's logic behind the scientific naming of species, but there are a lot of unknowns and overlaps for the lesser known species. Take cocobolo for example, D.Retusa is a sexed tree and cross pollinates with D.bariensis. The wood from both look similar in texture but retusa is consistently a different shade from bariensis. Yet, bariensis if I remember correctly has been identified as being the same as Retusa (I'll need to trawl through my harddrive for that article-will get back to you when I find it). Just because a species has a scientific name does not mean it is definitely a distinct species from another.

I can't judge from pictures what species the trees are, that I will leave to experts! One point I'd like to make is that most folks who buy stock may not get to see the tree in situ- mostly logs or cants where the mixup could occur and dealers with few scruples could mix in similar woods.

Sorry I meant, the stock I have seen is slabby, so the trees are probably small. I did not mean to say that the stock I say was small. The stock may be large enough for J200s but if it's slab, that indicates to me that either someone is maximising yield or the tree was not large enough to yield (2 piece) quartersawn material large enough for backs.

I would say that I prefer to use scientific names if possible, but the standard nomenclature of indian/brazilian/cocobolo rules the day, especially if folks like yourself and I have different answers from different areas of research.

I encourage my customers to ask for a scientific name if they are unfamiliar with a trade name or a local name.

The wood you have looks great and I am sure will make a great guitar regardless of scientific, trade or maiden name we may give it!

PS. I need to get my hands on that Lorenzi book, thanks for the heads up Jeff.

PPSS, has Jacaranda in your experience, used exclusively to describe DN or more than 1 species?

Bob>>

"I am sure that you've seen that, but it was wrong. Just because someone calls it something does not mean it is."

In that case, it was definitely wrong, but there have been up to very recently, examples of flora and fauna with 2 speerate classifications... the best example I can remember was a rabbit in vietnam. My point is that scientific names are great and serve a fantastic purpose but one must always be ready to question them and put them through robust re-analysis when new data is available. "Just because someone calls it something does not mean it is." applies to scientific designations as well as labelling.

I did not mean to imply that CITES itself is a joke - I take it very seriously myself, but from my experience, the lack of internal controls on sales of brazilian rosewood is poor to the extent of being a joke. Take in point, the pre-cites stock. Many firms will buy out cheap, low grade brazilian rosewood for the pre-cites cert and re-apply it to newer, non-cert'd stock of a higher quality. This is possible because the pre-cites permits only define the amount of wood and when it was bought. There is no control over the specific sets of wood.

Furthermore, internationally, the control is poor as well. Every bit of brazilian needs to be accounted for. For example, certain makes come with a braz. headstock as standard but I have yet to see a CITES permit for one. Yes, headplates are actually specificed on a CITES permit/passport. I'm not even taking about b/s.

My opinion is that the intent of system is correct and the logic behind the treaty is sound, but the implementation is somewhat lacking.

IMHO, YVMV etc.

Warmest regards,
Terence
www.goodacoustics.com   

In Brazil Jacaranda is used to describe anything that resembles Brazilian Rosewood. That's much of the confusion I've been referring to.

For what it is worth, I am a wildlife biologist and my focus is on endangered species, so I feel pretty comfortable with the subject.

> "considerable genetic variation" which could be a clue that Cavuina is really a genetic variant and not a truly distinct species.

I can understand how you might suggest that, but all individuals within a species are genetically unique from each other, that does not make every individual a separate species.

> My point is that scientific names are great and serve a fantastic purpose but one must always be ready to question them and put them through robust re-analysis when new data is available.

I'm not sure how you can support that statement because few people have the background necessary to call a species designation into question. Sure, they are rarely split and rarely lumped, but that is far and away the exception rather than the rule. The issue here is loose naming--no one has called D. nigra into question that I am aware. Among those who deal with these issues, either you know and use the Latin binomial or you're ignored. Period.

Ultimately, point is that those harvesting and dealing in lumber often do not know the species they are handling themselves as it usually doesn't matter to them. For example, buy maple from the northern US and try to get the species; it's usually impossible because the folks at the mill call it by its _wood_ properties, either hard maple (Usually Acer saccharum but not always) or soft maple (usually A. rubrum but not always).

Botanists are the ones to ask about species, not lumbermen. That's not meant to slight folks doing the cutting or selling, only to suggest that their interests are different, so their focus varies.

I've said enough.