Ugliest shells - what a good question.  Mine is an Acmaea mitra in which
the inner and outer surfaces are all pustuled like cottage cheese.  For a
long time I thought it was a different species.  If we were going to offer
a vote on ugliest, the one you mentioned sounds hard to beat!
 
Nora Bryan
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA
 
Paul Monfils wrote:
 
> In my experience, the distribution of sales among the various families
> of shells depends on whether a dealer's clientele are largely new
> collectors or more experienced in the hobby.  Beginning collectors
> are more likely to be generalists.  Some will remain generalists
> throughout their collecting careers, but of course many advanced
> collectors tend to become more specialized over time.  If your
> mailing list includes a lot of generalists, especially beginning
> ones, you are going to sell a lot of those shells which just have to
> be included in every general collection - Epitonium scalare,
> Thatcheria mirabilis, Tibia fusus, Stellaria solaris, Scaphella
> junonia, Cypraea mappa, Conus textile, etc.  A second factor is that
> beginners are often younger folks with very limited budgets.  Some
> years back, I used to advertise in Boy's Life magazine, and as a
> result I did a lot of business with youngsters who were just starting
> out in collecting.  (Interestingly, about 75% of the customers I got
> through those ads were girls, even though it was a boys' magazine.)
> I have always tried to offer a wide range of species, including the
> very commonest ones (who else is crazy enough to list 100 species of
> Nassariidae??), so beginning collectors, especially young ones, could
> find many things within their budget.  And that, I believe, is a major
> factor determining who buys what.  If a dealer does a lot of business
> with new collectors, then such species as Architectonica (sundials),
> Cancellaria (nutmegs), Trochidae (top shells) amd Naticidae (moon
> snails) will be good sellers.  However, more advanced collectors,
> statistically, are less likely to purchase such shells.  Beginning
> collectors also frequently like to obtain as many new species for
> their dollar as possible.  If a youngster gets $20.00 in a birthday
> card, she would typically rather exchange it for 10 or 12 sparkling,
> colorful olives and cowries than one $20.00 shell.  As a result,
> beginners often purchase a lot of low-priced shells like Nassariidae,
> Columbellidae, Cerithiidae, Olividae, and Neritidae.  Within the more
> popular families, there is a similar trend.  Novices purchase a lot
> of cowries and olive shells, fewer cones and murex, and almost no
> volutes.  Among the more advanced collectors, I sell more cones and
> murex, again because many of them specialize, while the generalists
> are also interested in these groups.  I have also noticed that during
> on-line shell auctions, the cones and murex seem to induce
> particularly competitive bidding.
> I did a little comparative study, based on my data base of shells in
> my current stock, which I think sheds some light on this.  Of 130
> species/subspecies of Olividae, over 85% list for $5.00 or less.  In
> Cypraeidae (150 species), 63% fall in that price range.  This I
> believe is one attribute that makes themse families attractive to
> beginners.  Among the cones (200 species), only 49% make the $5.00
> and under bracket.  In Murex (125 species, excluding all the little
> rock shells like Drupa, Thais, Acanthina, Morula, etc.), only 20% are
> in that price range.  And for the volutes (90 species), a mere 4%.
> Hate to close on an ugly note, BUT - several folks have alluded to
> "ugly but precious" specimens they possess.  Maybe some others would
> care to share about the ugliest shell in your collection, and why you
> keep it.  Dealers - the ugliest shell you have ever sold?  Mine was a
> specimen of Spondylus calcifer, from west Mexico.  The specimen was
> about 9 inches (22 cm) wide, and weighed 12 pounds (5.5 kg), with the
> lower valve about a pound heavier than the upper.  The upper valve was
> almost 2 inches (5 cm) thick, with an additional layer of encrustation
> at least an inch thick.  When closed, it looked like a coral-encrusted
> canon ball.  Sticking out of the center of the upper valve was the
> 4-inch lower valve of a Chama mexicana, equally encrusted.  It made a
> handy handle for lifting off the top valve of the Spondylus.
> Eventually someone purchased it, and hopefully it still has a good
> home on a strong shelf somewhere.
> Regards,
> Paul M.
> Rhode Island