Paul is certainly right about the inevitable decrease in (cash) value of shells over time. This doesn't matter to me, since cash value has nothing to do with the value I place on specimens I own. Like any commodity, shells must have an assigned monetary value in order to exchange hands, and as in other commodities, that value reflects current supply and demand. As Paul indicated, the supply of a given shell will almost certainly increase over time, so if the demand remains fairly constant, the cash value will thereby decrease. If you want to collect something as a financial investment, shells are therefore a singularly poor choice. And, it is precisely because of that fact that most shell collectors (in contrast to collectors of many other kinds of objects) are not in the hobby because of the monetary angle. A price on a shell is a necessary evil, something we have to grin and bear, a means of accessing the true value. But the true value of a $300.00 golden cowrie, or of a $1.00 dawn cowrie, lies in the shell itself, in how it looks, how it feels in the palm of my hand, how it affects my psyche and my imagination when I hold it - not in the dollars I paid to obtain it. The two species just mentioned are two of my personal favorites, which is to say both of them are highly valued by me. It is like purchasing a comfortable chair. You have to part with dollars to get it, but once you have it, the momentary, objective MEANS of obtaining it becomes irrelevant, in light of the enduring, subjective REASON you obtained it. Those who collect objects only as a financial investment cannot appreciate this aspect of collecting. The real value of my own specimens will always remain the same, regardless of how many dollars other collectors are exchanging for similar specimens. If I collected as an investment, the value of my specimens would depend entirely on the current market exchange rate. That is such a depressing thought, I don't even want to dwell on it. As for collecting stamps with pictures of shells on them, I do not have a real appreciation of stamp collecting, nor an understanding of the subjective aspects of that pursuit, so I cannot be objectively critical. However, subjectively speaking, as an admitted philatelic ignoramus, collecting mere manmade pictures of something, whether it be on postage stamps, coffee mugs, jewelry, or whatever, has little in common with collecting the actual entity. A postage stamp, no matter how rare, is TO ME a mere scrap of manmade paper on which a manmade machine has impressed some manmade colored ink. Comparing that to the intrinsic wonder of a natural object created in the depths of the ocean by incredibly complex processes that have been in operation for millions of years, and which humans are only beginning to comprehend, somehow seems bordering on sacrilege. What relationship is there between a Renoir hanging in the Louvre, and a piece of sticky colored paper, created as a receipt of payment for services, depicting that same work of art? Please! - I am NOT bashing stamp collectors! They obviously see something in their objects of interest that I am incapable of seeing. These are only my own subjective thoughts, and pertain only to ME! Regards, Paul Monfils