lineage and names?

[CalmSeasQuest]

I'm not saying that people can't make a fair profit off of their tanks. I'm attacking the practice, not the individual, not the hobbiest.

I agree with most every point you made - We see it play out virtually every day. The only issues I have revolve around the above quote, and how the hobbyist seems to get a free pass.

Caveat Emptor.

It applies to every product, service...everything. It's the buyers right (and responsibility) to research a purchase to determine fair value and make their independent buying decision. I don't beleive it's fair to blame a seller for a case of irrational exuberance on the part of a buyer (or buyers.)

Case in point - If you had dozen "widgets" that were selling everywhere for $100 each (if you could find them) why, without other influence (charity, Quid pro quo or other outside factor...) would you sell them for less than $100? Again, from a business perspective, many (including myself) would look for ways to capitalize on the demand and create marketing opportunities or value-add propositions to increase the sale price further.

Another to support the naming issue. You purchase a piece of art at a garage sale for $10. You later find out it's valued at $1,000,000 (the artists NAME was Picasso ) How's your fair profit rule apply. Most would argue a 100% margin to be fair - Would you be willing to sell that painting for $20? or are you influenced by the fact someone else thinks it's worth $1,000,000?

The other issue I have is the term "Fair Profit." From a business perspective (irrespective of the coral industry) I would wholeheartedly reject anyone telling me how much, or how little profit to which I am entitled.

You can easily argue those examples are a bit of a reach, but I think it makes for interesting discussion.

[schminksbro]

I too agree that personal attacks are not ok. It is worth remembering that written word does not always include intended expression. I have been guilty of this myself at times. Sarcasm in the name of humor doesn't always translate well in type. I only ask that before you get angry at someone for a particular post make sure that the intent wasn't just humor.

I have noticed tons of corals are given common names. Many times the intent is to make a buck. I will concede that point. Being that I don't begrudge anyone for trying to make a buck the practice doesn't bother me. That said I have also noticed that many times the name someone attaches to a coral doesn't "stick". A week later nobody uses the name and the coral fails to gain any popularity. Was there any real damage done? I would argue no. The only time I see names being widely used is when a coral gains popularity and this is usually because it is a desirable coral.
I have noticed throughout this thread that the target keeps moving. At some points the evil doers are newbie hobbyists. At other points the evil doer is Steve Tyree. At some points they are any hobbyist who sells coral at any time. Then at other points there is no problem with a hobbyist selling a few frags or a business making a profit.
For example some of the most vicious things have been said about Steve Tyree. Then in the next post it is ok for a business to make a "fair" profit. It is the hobbyist we are talking about. Then it is ok for a hobbyist to sell a few frags but we are concerned about the newbie who is getting filthy rich from "butchering" corals.
It has actually been posted that this hobby has been "ruined". I am just trying to narrow down who actually "ruined" it.

If you take the example below where a fictional newbie buys a rock of zoas for $29.00 and thinks he has something. He then takes the rock home. (presumably the rock is fiction as well because it has been said time and time again that you can't buy a rock of zoas anymore especially for $29.00) For this example we will move past that and come back to it later. So this newbie affectionately called JPP cuts each individual polyp off the rock and sells them for enormous amounts of money. If JPP accomplishes this amazing feat he must have scored a pretty special zoa. After all he has succeeded at convincing 50 people to pay him huge sums of money to get their hands on this amazing polyp that somehow slipped past the LFS employees and all the customers who saw it before JPP. I would venture to guess that JPP is also guilty of taking great pictures of this zoa and those who buy it do so based on those pics. Presumably 50 reefers just plopped down their hard earned money to some total unknown on the internet. Not someone with a reputation but a total newb. After all the coral has a name. Is that about right? Is this the epidemic that we are talking about?

Wow! Lots going on last night. I whole heartedly agree with Jim. This thread is not/should not be about attacking anyone personally. We're talking about a practice in the hobby that has become common place, and perhaps needs to be addressed by hobbiests, sticking a name/linage to a coral and jacking the price up as a result. Simply for the record once again to make my position clear. I'm not attacking anyone personly. I'm not saying that people can't make a fair profit off of their tanks. I'm attacking the practice, not the individual, not the hobbiest.



To a degree, I agree with this. Price of fuel is higher, cost of living is higher, makes sense that cost of corals should be a bit higher as well. However, that does not justify the actual price jump that has actually occurred in the hobby.



And therein, at least lies the problem. Some have made the point that an aquacultured coral, 3rd or 4th generation is better suited to life in our tanks, and therefore has a higher survival rate, therefore it should command a higher price. For the sake of discussion, I can agree with that. The problem is, that that isn't exactly what is happening. Lets look for just a second at the real picture.

I find a polyp on a transhipment (which I don't do by the way, this is just for the sake of discussion). I've never seen this particular polyp anywhere before. I place it in my tank and for at least a year, I allow that polyp to grow out (1st generation of acclimation). After a year the colony has grown large, I split it up, place it in several different tanks and grow it out (2nd generation of acclimation; technically not true, as the new polyps are all clones of the original, since reproduction is asexual, but for the sake of discussion we'll go with it). I now name the coral by submitting it to one of the recognized coral common name libraries, and sale off some of my 2nd generation polyps. This has taken at least a year, maybe two or more to accomplish. Those corals have now been aquacultured, linaged back to me, and have a name, so I charge a bit more for my frags. Frags go out on the market, people are impressed, so frags sell well and people are asking for more. Meanwhile JPP goes into his local LFS, see a colony of 50 zoas for sale for $29.99, buys it, brings it home, jumps onto the coral common name libraries or his favorite forum, posts up a picture and asks for an ID. Someone says that it looks pretty similar to mine, so JPP carves up the colony into 1 polyp frags, superglues them all to frag plug and starts offering them up as my polyp for $29.99 a frag.

Thats whats really happening in this hobby right now time after time after time. All the arguments for aquaculturing and healthier corals go right out the window in the face of this practice. Retailers are in on it too, as was stated above. They tranship in a coral, take the ones that are nice looking, carve em up, give a name and post em up for sale. They are not being aquacultured, they didn't cost any more money than all the others. Do most of you have any idea how often a poster will go from a please ID my polyp I bought a nice rock of from my local LFS thread to a buy my "Tubs Blue", "Ultimate Chaos", etc. etc. etc.
thread in a matter of mere days? Retailers do it all the time. Just got a new shipment in, check out these great colors, frags available this weekend.

[schminksbro]

If the example above is who we are actually talking about then I have a few questions.

1. Do the 50 people who bought these polyps have any responsibility at all in this scenario? Who are these people?

2. Is the problem in this scenario A. JPP's experience level B. the size of the frags C. the price of the frags
D. The profit that JPP is making

3. What are the actual odds that this very special zoa made it past everyone to be sold for $29 to JPP who doesn't know anything?

4. Would it be better if JPP simply kept the rock in his tank and nobody else ever got this special zoa?

5. Do you really think this is a scenario that has reached epidemic proportions so great that the hobby has been ruined?

[Wy Renegade]

I have noticed tons of corals are given common names. Many times the intent is to make a buck. I will concede that point. Being that I don't begrudge anyone for trying to make a buck the practice doesn't bother me. That said I have also noticed that many times the name someone attaches to a coral doesn't "stick". A week later nobody uses the name and the coral fails to gain any popularity. Was there any real damage done? I would argue no. The only time I see names being widely used is when a coral gains popularity and this is usually because it is a desirable coral.

Fair enough. Can we all agree that the naming practice is often used to make extra $$?

I have noticed throughout this thread that the target keeps moving. At some points the evil doers are newbie hobbyists. At other points the evil doer is Steve Tyree. At some points they are any hobbyist who sells coral at any time. Then at other points there is no problem with a hobbyist selling a few frags or a business making a profit.

I would say that is true, I think it depends on who is posting and what their opinion is. I think the "newbie hobbyists was from your side, as they are responsible for their actions. Steve Tyree was mentioned several times by me. I pointed out several times that he does not aquaculture all the corals he brands with the Tyree name and gave factual examples to support that. I stand by the points that I made, and you have chosen to ignore those examples. Never have I stated anywhere in this thread that I have a problem with the hobbyiest selling a few frags, or with a buisness making a fair profit.

For example some of the most vicious things have been said about Steve Tyree. Then in the next post it is ok for a business to make a "fair" profit. It is the hobbyist we are talking about. Then it is ok for a hobbyist to sell a few frags but we are concerned about the newbie who is getting filthy rich from "butchering" corals.
It has actually been posted that this hobby has been "ruined". I am just trying to narrow down who actually "ruined" it.

Again, I don't think its a particular who, I think its the fault of the practice which has become common place throughout the hobby.

If you take the example below where a fictional newbie buys a rock of zoas for $29.00 and thinks he has something. He then takes the rock home. (presumably the rock is fiction as well because it has been said time and time again that you can't buy a rock of zoas anymore especially for $29.00) For this example we will move past that and come back to it later. So this newbie affectionately called JPP cuts each individual polyp off the rock and sells them for enormous amounts of money. If JPP accomplishes this amazing feat he must have scored a pretty special zoa. After all he has succeeded at convincing 50 people to pay him huge sums of money to get their hands on this amazing polyp that somehow slipped past the LFS employees and all the customers who saw it before JPP. I would venture to guess that JPP is also guilty of taking great pictures of this zoa and those who buy it do so based on those pics. Presumably 50 reefers just plopped down their hard earned money to some total unknown on the internet. Not someone with a reputation but a total newb. After all the coral has a name. Is that about right? Is this the epidemic that we are talking about?

Who said it was a newbie? Nowhere in my post did I state that JPP was a newbie.

If the example above is who we are actually talking about then I have a few questions.

1. Do the 50 people who bought these polyps have any responsibility at all in this scenario? Who are these people?

Yes, I do agree that those people who bought the polyps do have some responsibility.

My question in return; If they are never made aware of the error that they made other than through the hard experience of buying these frags and having them melt, how can we expect them (usually (but not always) newbies who think they are getting the newest, greatest frag to hit the market) how can we expect them to know better? Its been stated that its their responsibility to do the research and make better decisions. Aren't threads like this part of the that process?

2. Is the problem in this scenario A. JPP's experience level B. the size of the frags C. the price of the frags
D. The profit that JPP is making

That would probably depend on the exact scenario wouldn't it? In the example I posted, I see the problem as being a combination of B C and D. (B) The size of the frags - IMHO not healthy for the coral. (C) the price of the coral - way too high for that particular corals percieved value (the piece is not aquacultured, has no established longevity, and there is no evidence it will continue to hold its color). And (D) IMO I would not consider that to be a "fair" profit.

3. What are the actual odds that this very special zoa made it past everyone to be sold for $29 to JPP who doesn't know anything?

Who said JPP doesn't know anything? I didn't. Maybe he bought it because he recognized its resemblence to posts of the pictures of my coral, and the whole ID thread was just to hype and get verification that others agreed that it looked similar to my coral?

4. Would it be better if JPP simply kept the rock in his tank and nobody else ever got this special zoa?

Why do you have to assume nobody else ever gets it? Maybe if JPP had kept the rock in his own tank, all the polyps would have melted in his tank (since it was a transhipped coral) or maybe it would have survived, he could have gone through the same process I did, and when he eventually offerred up some frags for sale, they would be viable instead of preprogramed to crash.

Which is better for the zoa? Or do we not care about the fate of the coral at all?

5. Do you really think this is a scenario that has reached epidemic proportions so great that the hobby has been ruined?

Andy, I could in fact, in a matter of minutes, off of a single forum, link you to at least five actual threads of this scenario or something very similar to it in the last two months. I'm not going to, not because I can't, but because I'm not pointing fingers at individuals.

Andy how much looking around have you actually done? Or are you arguing just based on what you think is actually happening or based on the people in the hobby that you actually know?

[Wy Renegade]

I agree with most every point you made - We see it play out virtually every day. The only issues I have revolve around the above quote, and how the hobbyist seems to get a free pass.

I personally don't think the hobbiest gets a free pass. I think that the practice which has become common place throughout the entire hobby (hobbiests and vendors alike).

Caveat Emptor.

It applies to every product, service...everything. It's the buyers right (and responsibility) to research a purchase to determine fair value and make their independent buying decision. I don't beleive it's fair to blame a seller for a case of irrational exuberance on the part of a buyer (or buyers.)

While I agree that it is infact the buyers right (and responsibility) to research a purchase and make their own independent buying decisions, I disagree that the seller is blameless. S/He knew exactly what they were doing when they did it, this business of placing the blame on the poor sucker who bought it doesn't work. Thats why laws like the lemonlaw and full disclosure got passed in this country. Does the buyer have a responsibility? Yes. Does the seller also have a responsibility? Yes; to be honest and not misrepresent his product. My opinion, others may disagree.

Case in point - If you had dozen "widgets" that were selling everywhere for $100 each (if you could find them) why, without other influence (charity, Quid pro quo or other outside factor...) would you sell them for less than $100? Again, from a business perspective, many (including myself) would look for ways to capitalize on the demand and create marketing opportunities or value-add propositions to increase the sale price further.

Are my widgets, true widgets? Thats part of the problem that is being pointed out; just cause I call it a widget, doesn't mean that it is. Too many are looking for ways to capitalize on the demand and not being honest about their widgets.

Another to support the naming issue. You purchase a piece of art at a garage sale for $10. You later find out it's valued at $1,000,000 (the artists NAME was Picasso ) How's your fair profit rule apply. Most would argue a 100% margin to be fair - Would you be willing to sell that painting for $20? or are you influenced by the fact someone else thinks it's worth $1,000,000?

If I bought the piece of art at a garage sale, I bought it because I like it and because I have a particular spot in my home picked out for it. Therefore, its not for sale. Again, I don't see that we are comparing apples to apples. A blue zoa with brown skirts harvested out of the ocean is not necessarily a Tubs blue, but people sell them as Tubs Blues all the time. Just because it appears the same does it have the same value? To use your point. If I paint a copy of the art and sign it Picasso, is it worth the same price as the original print?

The other issue I have is the term "Fair Profit." From a business perspective (irrespective of the coral industry) I would wholeheartedly reject anyone telling me how much, or how little profit to which I am entitled.

Agreed. I uneqivically stated earlier in this thread that I personally am not qualified to determine what is a "fair" profit. However, that said, I am qualified to determine (at least for myself) what I see as a unfair profit.

You can easily argue those examples are a bit of a reach, but I think it makes for interesting discussion.

Agreed, and I love a good discussion. I don't have to be all right, and I don't have to be all wrong. I can tell you that just participating in this thread has influeced me as a person.

[Sharkboy87]

Thanks again to everyone who made a point to post their opinions in this thread. I know personally it has opened the eyes of many new reefers. Thats what i tried to make a point to do from the begining. Thanks again mark for starting this thread idea. I am glad to have been a part of it. Thanks again to Mucho Reef for all that you do.

Sharkboy signing out.

[MUCHO REEF]

I too would like to thank everyone for their input in this great discussion. It was very refreshing and equally enlightening. Lets keep this kind of involvement going throughout all the forums here. Again, much respect to all who posted and viewed this thread.

Mucho Reef

[schminksbro]

I would also like to echo those sentiments. Vigorous debate is a good thing and I sincerely hope that we all part the discussion as friends.

[Wy Renegade]

I also would like to express my sincere thanks to all who participated in this thread, and like the others I also hope we can part as friends. I hold no grudges from what I have viewed as a great debate between gentlemen (and ladies), and hope I have offended no one personally with my posts. I have enjoyed the debate and intelligent discussion from both sides greatly and appreciate everyones participation. I wish everyone success in their future reefing ventures.

[schminksbro]

And now a rousing rendition of Kumbaya!