Hi Tom,

     Bravo!  Couldn't have said this better myself.  I especially like your limiting of pluses and
minuses to not more than one.  The use of Fine++ or Fine+++ is really splitting hairs.  And I
completely agree with your view of "gem for the species".  The system you outline is clear and
user friendly. :)

Tim Blackwood

--- Tom Eichhorst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jim and others,
>
> I applaud you on trying to ignite something, but I believe we are beating a
> dead horse.  Shell grading is, after all is said and done, subjective.
> Applying hard numbers; whether 1-10, 0-100, or good-fair-gem with half-step
> pluses and minuses is, to quote an old and horrible phrase, "like nailing
> jell-o to the wall" - just won't work.  The present system, if limited to
> good, fair, and gem with pluses and minus (singles only, please), leaves us
> 8 categories, or 3-10 of Jim's system (and would 1 or 2 ever really be
> used?).  Actually, as I can't see using a plus or minus with "good," I guess
> it leaves us with six categories.  Still, this ought to be sufficient with
> such a subjective enterprise.  If we all adhere to as firm a standard as
> possible within this system, i.e.
>
> gem = mature with NO flaws;
> gem- = a minor flaw not readily discernable;
> fine+ = a discernable minor flaw or two,
> fine = a readily apparent flaw or two or a filed lip
> fine- = large "reef scar," other evident flaws, broken spire, filed lip;
> good = beached, worn with faded colors, major flaws;
>
> poor = I had to add this as I have a couple of shells that are closer to
> rocks than shells.  I have a Cypraea valentia that I paid $10 for (I just
> had to see what a $10 C. valentia would look like).  Whatever you think, it
> is worse.
>
> Anyway, using this system (with none of this "gem for the species nonsense),
> I have very few gem shells.  Gem seems mostly limited to Cypraea and
> Marginella.  The species in most other genera always seem to have one or two
> minor flaws; a tiny chip, surface scratch, etc., thus F+.  I have seen only
> a couple of gem cones.  If you pick up a mature naticid or turrid and cannot
> SEE a flaw, than it is genuinely a gem.  If you can find a minor flaw under
> magnification, then gem-, etc.
>
> I find that when an established shell dealer says a shell is gem or fine+, I
> know what to expect.  It is kind of a gestalt process, and while far from a
> perfect system, it does seem that we all (globally) pretty much understand
> it.  That alone is worth something.
>
> Tom Eichhorst


Timothy J. Blackwood
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (218)328-6272
Home Address:
120 N.W. 5th Street Apt. #101
Cohasset, Minnesota, USA 55721

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------