Regarding the definition of "museum quality", I have no idea what this
means and I spend a fair amount of time at the Carnegie Museum.  When I
accession material the "quality" is of much less importance that the
"data".  A shell that would be considered a good shell (with data) would
be of more worth than a gem shell (without data).  From a research point
of view the data are what makes the shell useful to someones research.
 
Someone recently requested information about several shells that were
supposed to be found in a river in Alabama.  We had many of each of the
four taxa that he was inquiring about, but only the ones that were from
this river are of interest to him.  It is not important whether these were
to best preserved specimens in our collection nor the largest, he just
needed ones from a certain locality.  The data was important in this case.
 
Now, for an exhibit I would want to display the finest specimens that I
could find in the collection.  To most patrons labeling a shell as
"Florida" versus "collected off of Sanibel Island, Florida, Gulf of
Mexico, at a depth of 25 fathoms
on sandy bottom, taken by scuba, 11/25/1994" would make no difference.
They are drawn by the display and then learn something from the labels.
Listing the shell as from Florida and then including somethings about the
biology of the specimen is probably going to get a message across better
than pinpointing with GPS accuracy where the specimen came from.
 
Thus, what museum quality means is uncertain to me.  If I buy a shell I
prefer buying from a reliable dealer, or trading with a reliable collector
who uses the standard good-fair-gem designation.
 
Charlie
******************************************************************************
Charlie Sturm, Jr
Research Associate - Section of Invertebrate Zoology
                     Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA
Assistant Professor - Family Medicine
 
[log in to unmask]