Further to my observations about CITES in
  http://mmd.foxtail.com/Archives/Digests/200005/2000.05.20.01.html

The full text of the CITES Agreement can be read in total at
  http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml

In particular, see Article VII, paragraph 2, which states:

"2. Where a Management Authority of the State of export or re-export
is satisfied that a specimen was acquired before the provisions of the
present Convention applied to that specimen, the provisions of Articles
III, IV and V shall not apply to that specimen where the Management
Authority issues a certificate to that effect."

Basically, this says that ivory piano keytops, worked prior to 1977,
are exempt from the provisions of CITES.

US and Canada Customs agents do not ordinarily interpret this
legislation and its provisions.  This interpretation is under the
jurisdiction of US Fish & Wildlife in the USA and the Environmental
Protection Agency in Canada.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has published an information bulletin,
dated 1999, dealing with African Elephant Ivory.  See:
  http://library.fws.gov/IA_Pubs/african_elephant_ivory99.pdf

Within this information bulletin, it states:

  "What African Elephant Ivory, Other Than Antiques, Can I Export From
the United States?

Worked ivory acquired (i.e., taken from the wild) before February 4,
1977, can be exported for commercial or noncommercial purposes with
a Pre-Convention Certificate from this office."

From this, it would appear reasonable that proof of year of
manufacture, such as that contained within the universally recognized
authority, Michel's [Pierce] Piano Atlas, should be satisfactory for
the issuance of a Pre-Convention Certificate.  See:
  http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-23.pdf

The above assumes export of a piano from the USA to a CITES signatory
nation.

Does the above help to shed some light on this controversial
topic?

Some years back, from my home in Canada, I successfully sold a couple
of grand pianos, still equipped with ivory keytops, to a USA person.
I recall finding equivalent provisions within Canada's Environmental
Protection Agency and its legislation, regulations and documentation.
I recall it was a painful adventure because the people I had to deal
with had no idea of what I was talking about.

I ended up knowing more about this obscure situation than they did,
which in reality wasn't really that much to brag about.  But at the
time, it worked.

Regards,
Terry Smythe
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
http://members.shaw.ca/smythe/rebirth.htm