Jim and All:  Take Jim's suggestion to have a group of collectors rate
shells, in hope that it produces consensus.  I bet that it will, and
there is analogous experience among other collectors to back that.  So
why not have COA rating events to see if this works out in practice?  Do
it with some knowledgeable referees who establish a baseline rating,
following by "blind voting" on the grade from the audience.  It could be
done simultaneously with F+ through G, and with 1 through 10.  Then see
what an F++ "is" numerically, and what an 8 is in F and plusses.  And
post these results with good photographs and the on-site vote results.
Then one can also turn loose the website onlookers to vote.  Since eBay
and auctions are increasingly important, it could become a schooling on
how to read ratings from shell pic's.  Valuable.

Russell Renka

Russell D. Renka
Professor of Political Science
Mail Stop 2920, Carnahan 211-L
Southeast Missouri State University
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701-4799
office:  573/651-2692
Home:  573/334-0039
FAX:  573/651-2695
URL:  http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka
E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jim Miller
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grading Sea Shells

>Under the present system, some folks would rate a given shell fine+
>while others would rate the same shell fine or fine ++.  Only one
>degree of difference. Under a 10-grade system, some would rate a given
>shell 7 while others would rate the same shell anywhere from 5 through
>9.  One or two degrees of difference, though the same amount of
>variation, expressed as percentage.  The system is very subjective, and

>some individuals are more conservative graders than others. This will
>always be true, regardless of the grading system used.

Hi Paul,

That's certainly true. We could introduce a 1-100 system and some
dealers would rate a shell 50, while another gives it a 75, though I
think that's definitely a stretch. However, I still maintain that a
10-point system (which is actually a 19-poimt system, since you could
grade something a 7.5, for instance) gets us closer to a "ballpark
figure" we can all live with. Ultimately, shell collectors (also knows
as "the consumers" or "the customers") will decide if a dealer is
overgrading his or her shells. If I buy a shell rated F++ and I feel
it's barely F or F+, I might be tempted to buy another shell from that
dealer if the price is right, but after getting burned a second time,
they won't get any more of my business.

You can easily make the point that the same holds true for guitars and
cameras, the only two collector's items I have any experience with
besides shells. The dealers who are still in business today tend to be
very conservative. The ones who consistently overgraded their stock have
gone belly up. The reason? Buyers talk to each other (we have this cool
thing called e-mail now) and they are quick to let others know when
they've been misled. Of course, vintage guitars usually cost thousands
of dollars, while shells (and most cameras) are way cheaper. But the
bottom line is that the system works because it's consumer driven.

In the 1960s and '70s, when I had my first big shell collection, there
was no such thing as grading. I walked into a shell shop (I was lucky
enough to live in South Florida where there were plenty of shell shops
back then) and looked at the shells (I was hot into volutes and cowries
back then) and made up my own mind. Is that shell worth $15? But I could
hold it in my hand before making the call.

Now that dealers can put a shell up on their web site or on eBay and
reach thousands of prospective buyers, I believe it's even more
important that we have a system that works. Making the argument that no
two people will ever agree on a rating doesn't make the ten-point system
unmanageable, and certainly doesn't make the existing system somehow
inviolable. It just gives us a bit more play. I'm betting that I could
get any ten people together, give them ten shells to grade using the
10-point system, and most of the time, you'd see no more than a
two-point difference between any of them, if that.
However, the odds of me getting ten shell collectors together in a room
right now are slim, so I can't possibly win that particular bet.

Look, all of us who buy shells know which dealers grade accurately. A
10-point system wouldn't change the market at all. It would just give us
a better way to express a shell's condition. However, having lived
through the turbulent 1960s and early '70s, where anyone who thought
change was a good thing was labelled a radical, a communist or in league
with the devil, I can see where my proposal would feel like I'm rocking
the boat. By all means, let's hang on to our old, outmoded grading
system if that's what everyone wants. I have my own boat, so I can rock
it all I want. Well, more accurately, the bank owns the boat, but I
still get to rock it.

Best regards,
Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and click leave
the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------