About three things;
    1: I know you are all sophisticated enough to recognize a scam when you see
one. BUT lately, I (and maybe some other shell people) have been getting offers of
millions from Africa, Indonesia, etc. What the whole thing ends up is: give me
your phone number, your bank-account number, and send me enough money in cash for
an airline ticket.
    2. Ross and Jim;-
        Great start to a discussion for all. (Q'man should'a started it.) Should
the standard be hard and fast for all shells or should standards be held family by
family? A lot of "Gems" are found on the beach. (O. sayana for one). Is it "Gem"
or "Beach".
I shall limit my comments to applause for both of you---since I am getting used to
being wrong---no matter what I think. (Ask my wife.)
    3. More applause for the new "Of Sea and Shore" If you don't get it---get it!
Now both great printed domestic magazines are edited by "Toms". ---Rice, Eichorst,
and Thumb.
        Art

Ross Mayhew wrote:

> Jim Cordi has opined that "You really have to know your species to grade
> them.".  I am afraid i must disagree: it is quite confusing to hold
> different species up to different standards, based upon how often they
> achive a very high quality condition - if a certain species almost
> always lives in a rough neighbourhood, or if they live in sand and
> therefore become eroded at the top with age, then they will simply
> virtually never achieve an F++ to Gem standard - but what is wrong with
> that?  Nature is a harsh mistress at times, and if some species nearly
> always get the short end of the stick so far as the aesthetics of their
> exoskeletons go, so be it: to use a different grading standard for these
> can cause endless confusion: one orders a gem- shell only to find it is
> objectively-speaking only on the high side of F+.  You ask the sender
> what gives, and he/she/it replies that it is "gem- for the species,
> which is almost never perfect" - nope: this is a recipie for disputes
> and disappointments for certain.  All shells should be held up to the
> same standard: this is the only fair way to proceed, for a variety of reasons.
>
> >From Thunderstormcentral,
> Ross M.