How can we agree?

OK here goes.

A week or two ago I conversed with Rich on Kingsnakes.com, I suggested somone buck up and produce a picture book that best described all know morphs of corns. I agree with him that it would take time and would probably be out of date at production, but lets face it, I cant stand looking at some people's stock and have them tell me this is such and such. I dont have enough high quality stock to do it, but some of you do. If you guys could agree on a picture perfect example and maybe some B and C,D,F grades a lot more people would be honest. It is so hard to judge a juvenile that an accurate representation from the founding stock is necessary these days. I personaly try to have at least good quality pics of the parents with me at an exbo ( the little ones we have here in New Mexico ) if not the parents themselves. Most of the people I sell to like to see the lineage and appreciate looking at what I work with. I also breed two kinds of dogs, pitbulls and staffordshire terriers. My puppies start at $1000.00 and go to $1500.00 and I sure as hell wouldn't tell someone that they couldn't look at my dogs before buying a puppy. I know that most cornsnakes dont range there but Rich has some lavs for $500 and up. I think if he finds something new the price could be in the thousands and rightly so, but once again it brings us to the question of what is worth $500 and what is only worth $50 or $5. Let me hear everyones opinion.

Are you sure it was Rich Z., AKA [BLEEP] on KS??? :eek1:

oreo said:

If you guys could agree on a picture perfect example and maybe some B and C,D,F grades a lot more people would be honest.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with grading them is that right now some of the names are applied to a specific genetic combo. The difference between any normal cornsnake and any snow cornsnake is only two genes. IMO it wouldn't be reasonable to grade snows because they either are or are not expressing amel and anery. Some people prefer the plain pink and white ones, others prefer the more colorful snows.

A lot of other names are just something an individual slapped on a deli cup because people will be more likely to buy them.

I could see a standard for long-standing and widely-known names like Candycane, Sunglow, Okeetee and Miami. But that would only make a little folding pamphlet, not a book.

I agree with Serp. It really comes down to 1) the fact that no two corns are going to be the same, and 2) my B grade may be your F grade. Everyone has an opinion on what is "nice"....

He is onto something....

I think Orea is onto something. There is definitely a need for a new cornsnake book. I bet Kathy Love could produce a 2nd Edition with much more ease than someone producing a new book from scratch. Although it is still a difficult task that requires a lot of time, which she may not want to devote. Who ever is up for the challenge would need access to a large number of corns but it could be worth it. How about it Rich? I would buy one, along with countless numbers of others....it could be a gold mine waiting to happen. Maybe some of the top dealers are waiting one last new morph to be produced before beginning the project. WHO KNOWS!?!

PS....i won't go on about grading corns other than agreeing with what Serp said.

a little more detail

OK here is the real problem, yes your "B" grade could be a "F" grade to some one else or my whatever could be whatever to yours but there isn't any way one of us would know at this point due to a lack of info and standards. Like I said about my dogs, I try to breed for conformity to set standard. Puppies are hard to tell just how great they can be but we can judge from parents conformity to the breed standard. These standards have changed throughout the years in the bull breed dogs just due to a judge's lack of actual knowledge. I dont think we have that problem in snakes as we are not judging bone, scale and size structure. It's more of an issue with coloration and pattern or the lack thereof. Yes there can be a lot of variation, we can however lay a standard to what could be called something. I also agree with serp on the fact that some names are based on genetics. Doesn't anyone think that just because the guy down the street bred an emori to an E.g.g. he can call it a creamsicle even though its ugly, yes he can but if he had a standard to work for he might be inclined to work a little harder at selecting future stock form his offspring. I believe Rich and Kathy allready do this. They also happen to be the top breeders (not saying there isnt more like Don) but most of us are just trying to emulate their results. They should be the judge of what is a bloodred or a butter or whatever. I just dont want to have to argue with someone when I purchase something that isnt worth the money because they dont know any better.

CAV said:

Are you sure it was Rich Z., AKA [BLEEP] on KS??? :eek1:

Click to expand...

Kingsnakes.com is Rich Zs site for King & Milk snakes.

With a new edition of the CSM in the works that should cover most of the newer animals. I don't believe you will ever be able to put a grade on most. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Blizzards are a good example. I like the ones with some yellow and others want a pure white animal. Who gets to judge and say one is better then another

I didn't notice the -s

Kingsnakes.com is Rich Zs site for King & Milk snakes

Click to expand...

:shrugs: Shows what I know!

While I agree that Rich, Kathy, Don and others are qualified to set standards, I don't know that I want someone else telling me what is the "gold" standard. Part of the fun and challange of breeding these animals is to produce something you like or find attractive.

"GOLD" standard

If you don't want someone telling you what the gold standard is, then why try to sell something that is not up to the name representing it. If you dont agree on it sell it as a spinoff of that name. Alot of us allready do sell stuff not quite as good or named something different. I just pointing out that the guy who might be selling the pitbull down the street without papers shouldn't get what my triple registered dogs or my single registered dogs bring. Why? Because that person isn't striving for the "standards" I do. His dog might be beautiful but it doesn't mean he can call his black dog with a hue of grey "BLUE" when my dogs are actually the proper color silver blue that represents that term, hence why I try to purchase the best I can to produce the best offspring. Wether it be snake or dog, if I deem it a substandard animal my price reflects it. I can accept the fact that everything cannot be perfect all the time and price it accordingly.

Er... you're a tad confusing here.

If you don't want someone telling you what the gold standard is, then why try to sell something that is not up to the name representing it.

Click to expand...

Basically you're saying that whether a person believes in a standard or not, they should always follow it?

If you dont agree on it sell it as a spinoff of that name.

Click to expand...

I disagree... there are enough morph names out there that we don't need additional phase names unless a specific standard for those phase names can be set.

A while back, someone was selling 'Tallahasee' phase (forgive me if I misspelled the name) corns. When asked what qualifies a corn to be that phase, that person couldn't answer. If they, the originator of such a phase, cannot describe what makes that phase, then it's not a valid phase.

To use the blizzard example... the only true standard here is that blizzards are homozygous for charcoal and amelanism, with no other genetic combinations visible. You could take the oddest-looking blizzard in the world, but as long as it carried two copies of both of those genes, it's still a blizzard.

Popular preference has been for blizzards that are as close to solid white as possible. But that doesn't mean that blizzards with lots of yellow should be called something other than blizzards. Yes, we could coin a phase name for yellow blizzards, but it would be a phase name, rather than a morph. A person selling a yellow blizzard should not be forced to call it a 'lemon slushie' corn, rather than a blizzard, just because it has yellow. It still fits the basic definition of blizzard.

There is no AKC registry for cornsnakes. It's already been noted that creating one would be far too much work for the creators to have support from ANY of the major breeders. There is no 'gold standard' for what the 'best' specimins of any morph should look like. Certain phases and phase/morph combinations DO have loose standards, but there's no discrete dividing line.

MOST cornsnake morphs, the price is fairly constant. If you buy an amel, it's going to cost you the same whether you buy an ugly amel or a pretty amel. Unless someone's selling an absolutely outstanding amel, they're gonna charge about the same. The only morphs and phases which seem to have a higher variance of price based on quality are Bloodreds and Bloodred-based morphs, Miamis and Miami-based morphs, and Okeetees.

The biggest problem with switching to quality-of-appearance-based pricing is that most hatchlings do NOT give any hint of how nice they will turn out as adults. Dump two clutches of freshly hatched amels together, one from totally ooogly amel parents and one from stunning amel parents. Goodluck trying to sort them out again till after they're months old.

The only form of authority that's held over breeders' heads in the cornsnake world is the force of peer pressure. If enough people are unhappy with someone referring to their line as being a particular phase or morph, the majority will speak with their wallets and voice their opinions to others. This creates pressure on the seller, who is still totally free to change or stay the same.

-Kat

why try to sell something that is not up to the name representing it

Click to expand...

If I sell a Snow, I am making no claim except that the animal is homozygous for Amelanistic and Anerytheristic "A".

if I deem it a substandard animal my price reflects it

Click to expand...

I agree, but regardless of how unappealing it may be visually, the animal is still a snow as long as it is homo for Amel and Anery A.


EDIT: Kat bet me to the post while I was typing. I concede the floor to my distinguished colleague from Colorado

The thing about these standards is that it's someones opinion, period. You know what they say about opinions.......

The idea behind setting these standards is a good one but flawed. Registries do not assure that you are getting a quality animal. Papers can be and are forged. Sadly there are crooks in every aspect of the animal trade As long as there are dishonest people there will be animals misrepresented.

I'm sure your dogs are wonderful but as far as their being worth more then the unregistered one down the street......well that depends on who's buying

Standard vs. Scales....

Well, there seems to be alot of comparison to dog breeds lately. I try to read past that since I don't really agree with the comparisons. Either way, I think many people approach the issue from the standpoint that grading or judging corns is too subjective, BUT if it is on a scale then what difference does it make if a Miami phase is a 1 vs. a 10 on such a scale. Either ends of the spectrum will attract people and there is no stigma with having a 'gold' vs 'silver' standard or 'A' vs. 'B, C, D, or F' grade.

IF only facts are given in the scale, then the buyer could determine what suits their interests. There has to be several traits that could contribute to a scale that everyone looks for when selecting a corn, such as border width or amount of white present or dorsal pattern consistancy, or belly pattern.

For example:
Border Thickness:
10 = okeetee with exceptional super thick black borders.
5 = run of the mill normal with average border thickness.
1 = very minimal traces of a border.
0 = does not apply or no borders (perfect blizzard).

Amout of White:
10 = all white Blizzard.
7-8 = high white okeetee
5 = average amel
1-3 sunglow or okeetee with white flecks around borders
0 - no white whatsoever... okeetee or miami or whatever

Pattern Regularity:
10 - dorsal pattern with perfect blotches down its back
5 - a few irregularities in pattern
1 - zig zag or aztec with very irregular pattern
0 - does not apply (stripes, blizzards)

Pattern Visibility:
10 - Bloodred or Blizzard with no visible patterns
7-8 - pattern present but fading
5 - average visibility
1 - fully visible pattern

Now before anyone jumps all over this, I wrote it very quickly and did not put much thought into it. My only thought about dogs in this whole issue is that while I type this my 85lb dog was relentlessly pestering me to play frisbee. HOWEVER, if thought was put into a scale that was measurable, then it might be arguable that it could work.

We cannot even get people to follow the "rules" on using the current names of morphs and phases in this community. How in the world do we ever suspect we could all agree on a gradation scale within those names.

I know that Kathy Love breeds amel bloodreds, and so does Don Soderberg. They are VERY different in their appearance, for the most part. Kathy's lines, in my limited experience, tend to have more of their white borders intact around their saddles, while Don's tend to be more uniformly pattern-free. Kathy's tend more toward the orange end of the spectrum, and Don's are more red.

Which are better? I suppose it depends upon the person to whom you are speaking. Some really like Kathy's lines, while others prefer Don's. Neither is quantifiably "better" than the other, but, because they are both simply animals homozygous for amelanism and bloodred, they are both listed as amel bloodreds.

The best of Kathy's line may be a 10 or a 1, depending one whose standard of judgment you are using to examine it, and the very same could be said of Don's animals. It is all subjective, and just because someone breeds a lot more of these critters than I do, their subjectivity is no better than mine. The one caveat being that I would definitely give extra credence to the person(s) responsible for introducing a morph in the first place.

As was alluded to earlier ... Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one; but some of them are deep and profound!

:argue:

Re: Standard vs. Scales....

carl3 said:

Now before anyone jumps all over this, I wrote it very quickly and did not put much thought into it. My only thought about dogs in this whole issue is that while I type this my 85lb dog was relentlessly pestering me to play frisbee. HOWEVER, if thought was put into a scale that was measurable, then it might be arguable that it could work.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone will jump all over your idea. Exchanging information is what it's all about.

Standards or scales, I see the same problems for both. People see things differently and I don't think that's going to change. I don't believe anyone can be totally fair in assigning a grade or a number. I believe in theory it's a nice idea, I just don't see it as fair.

I agree with all the points Kat brought up in her post.

PROPS TO Carl3

That IS my point and thank you for spelling it out. I have been trying to get this across as such. Yes there are plenty of variations in snake to snake, but you would be a little more at ease purchasing a juvenile that had parental stock of known or judgable quality. The reference to the dogs is for easier understanding of the concerns. Furthermore the different phrase names is a little much if continually adding. I just think we ALL would be better off scaling certain looks of certain morphs. I think Carl3 had it hit on the head. Now that doesn't seem to be too much of a problem to solve. Anyone can sell a "Blizzard" as it is named, but I want an animal that lives up to the name. If the parents have yellow or some pattern chances are the offspring will too, so why pay for the "perfect" blizzard ( yes there is a chance it won't mature to "perfect") when the parents are not of that quality. Everyone is entitled to like something different, I personaly stand on accuracy. Anal? Yes. Wrong? No.

I am a little long winded and appreciate that you all take the time to debate this opinon or idea, whatever you may see it as.

Why? Because the "perfect" blizzard may very well be a completely white snake with brilliantly lemon-yellow pattern outlines all down its dorsum.

The "perfect" blizzard does not exist.

Several dozen "perfect" blizzards can be found, but none of them look exactly alike. Each person, has in his/her mind's eye, what the "perfect" example of a morph may be. However, they differ greatly from all others' opinions. You are simply not ever going to be able to clear that hurdle of individual preferrences.

Quite frankly, I don't want us to be able to clear it . . .

This idea of standards is a good one that has been discussed many many many times. Each time it's discussed the consensus is that it's a good idea and it would be too expensive and time consuming to do. Think of trying to organize something like the AKC from scratch. It would be a awesome task that would take a large group (probably hundreds) of well funded, devoted people. It's a good idea that just isn't going to happen. IMO

Re: PROPS TO Carl3

oreo said:

Anyone can sell a "Blizzard" as it is named, but I want an animal that lives up to the name. If the parents have yellow or some pattern chances are the offspring will too, so why pay for the "perfect" blizzard ( yes there is a chance it won't mature to "perfect") when the parents are not of that quality. Everyone is entitled to like something different, I personaly stand on accuracy. Anal? Yes. Wrong? No.

Click to expand...

No, it's not wrong to have your idea or opinion of a perfect Blizzard. What's wrong is for you to force your idea or opinion on to others. I have a different opinion of what the perfect Blizzard looks like. I should not be forced to offer my animal as downgraded because it doesn't fit your criteria. If you buy an animal and it doesn't turn out the way you want, sell it. Someone else out there may find it perfect for their needs

I agree with Darin, as far as I can see there is no "perfect" of any morph. Just an opinion of "perfect" in each persons mind.

As Tim has already brought up, it's doubtful that any written standards will happen. It would be a hugh task.

I have to say I hope it's a task that stays too big to tackle