Problem is, who would buy anything rated less than 7 (or for that matter,
even a 7)? If you were a dealer, would you even tie up capital to inventory
anything less than an 8? With this hobby's compulsive fanaticism over
having to have the biggest and most gem-like shells, what would be the point
of having a 10-point system? All you'd ever see on the market would be 8's
(good), 9's (fair) and 10's (gem) with a few 8+, 9++ and 10- thrown in.
The system is driven by the market culture. By whatever rating nomenclature
used, the market will only pay for the top most ratings and to justify
optimal pricing dealers will finagle with +'s and -'s in one form or the
other.
Jim, you're whistling in the wind. But, good luck in you quest.
Marlo
-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim
Miller
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Grading Sea Shells
Greetings all,
First off, I want to say how sad I am at the state of Conch-L right
now. I remember years ago when things were really peaking and we had
some terrific back and forth discussions on many topics. Many was the
day when I'd have 5 or 6 messages in my mailbox or even more. Now
they dribble in and it's almost like we all ran out of gas.
Well, on to my main subject: The grading of sea shells. Folks, I
think it's time that we seriously look at changing the way a shell is
rated in terms of its overall condition. We really have only three
grades, which is Good (or Acceptable), Fine and Gem, plus our little
"+" signs. If this system is go great, why do we see shells grades
"F++" or "Gem-"? Wouldn't a "Gem-" be a "F+"?
I propose the following (and let's face it, this "hobby" isn't one
that takes change very well):
We grade shells like we grade (or rate) everything in life, which is
very simply one through ten. Or 1-10 if you prefer. It's how vintage
guitars are rated. So when a 1967 Fender Telecaster is rate 7 out of
10, we know exactly where it rates in terms of overall quality. So
even if I see the guitar as a 7 and you see it and rate it as a 6, we
are still not far off. While in our old system, I constantly see
shells that are graded "F++/Gem" and to be they are only F+.
Personally, I cannot see what is essentially a perfect shell having
to be "honestly" graded F+ because it has a few growth marks. Many
species are never really Gem. Our of the hundreds of Junonias I
pulled off the scallop boat lines, none was a Gem. There were three I
got that had perfect lips, but all had growth marks and healed scars.
But personally, I'd call those Gem, simply because they are the best
I saw. Under my proposed grading, those shells would be a 9 (out of
10).
We rate all sorts of things by this scale, like the "10 best football
teams" or the "10 best movies" and so forth. Heck, even when I go to
the doctor for my migraines, the first question they ask is: "On a
scale of 1-10, where do you rate the pain?" When I say "8" they
pretty well know it's bad and when I say "10" they know it's really,
really terrible.
So why not abandon our old, outdated grading system for one that is
far more intuitive?
Now, let's throw open the floor for comment.....
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
