When is it wrong?

Psychographic

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
141
Reaction score
5
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
After reading two threads on here, I have to ask. When is it wrong to make as much as possible off of a coral?

The threads that brought this to mind are the "How do you feel about?" and the "My Miami" thread. There are people defending the $1500 pricetag on a coral that came in as a free hitchiker, using the get what you can idea, and yet when someone else is trying to make a buck using a name for profit, it's unethical.

Am I the only one who thinks this is hypocrtical? What makes one way of making money Ok, but not the other one?
 
Last edited:
While I do have certain visceral reactions to some of the high prices, in the end I feel one has to respect the right of consumers to set their prices. As Victor said in the My Miami thread, people have offered him $1,500 for a frag and he has turned them down. He didn't approach them asking for it. (yet?)

I have seen this discussion come up many times. I recently went through this with someone via email, and below is part of what I said.

"As to prices, yes, there are many perversions in the marketplace, I agree, but as with art or anything of beauty or value, some things will hold a higher value than others, and at least some cost is associated with getting and keeping anything alive. Most people pay it, some complain and go without. Clove polyps are not a rare species, but some color forms are rarer than others. If red and neon green cloves came in with regular orders, most assuredly you and others (and I) would simply go buy them there and get a rock with 100+ polyps for $30. I manage a local retailer, and I know from 15 years experience that they do not. Palythoas are also not rare, but to anyone who says this and claims the price of true Armageddon Palythoas, or any other “rarity†within the hobby is unjustified, let them go to their lfs and try to buy some for $20 for a rock and then let them sell--or give--me some in good spirit. Again, working in retail, doing imports from around the world, I know that in thousands of rocks of cherry zoas, only a few ever turn out as nice as something like an Armageddon or captain America, or Chong Bong, or Zenon Red. They are a rare morph, or they would be everywhere and would be cheap, and we could all come by some easily enough. On the contrary, I have yet to find one of these people preaching that brand of gospel that has all these “common†palys to sell to me for a few bucks. Again, no need to take offense, just my views and experiences. This is a common academic discussion that comes up pretty often.

The thing is, much as many hobbyists want to take the dollar out of the hobby, the same principles apply here as in the free market economy at large. Without a “rewardâ€, without compensation, there would be no motivation for anyone to bring in new corals, or do anything. Divers in Indonesia will not and cannot collect corals and send them here out of the goodness of their hearts, even ugly ones. Importers, wholesalers, and retailers cannot and would not bring in these corals and distribute them for the enjoyment of mankind, and the courier services of the US would not send them about for free simply to spread the beauty. If we want beautiful and especially colorful corals, then there must be a higher compensation associated with finding, obtaining and distributing them, and this will in turn encourage the continued import of new and ever more wonderful finds. If people would only ever pay the price of a rock of brown zoas, then that’s all they’d ever get, and in large part why more lfs’ don’t get anything more than that."

So to be perfectly honest, I don't think it would be right at all to limit the take a seller can obtain for his goods, yet I somehow feel some common sense would limit a person from asking above a certain amount. Like, it just doesn't seem right to ask for over $1,000 for a single polyp of a coral with 20+ polyps on it. Then again, this common sense could be asked of the buyers too, and we shouldn't complain because we're not up for the expense right away.
 
In economics, they call this the "invisible hand" the consumer is going to set the price by having the purchasing power to say yes or no to a price. If it is too high, they won't buy and the seller will either come down in price or not sell at all. If the price is too low, the demand will out strip the supply and the price will go up because the frag will not be available.

As long as there are reefers willing to pay the price, they will buy it.

Now is it ethical for a person to sell it for as much as they can? Why not? They have a commodity that someone wants and is willing to pay for it.
 
Please read the actual question in the original post.

The question has nothing to do with prices, but why is one practice considered ethical while the other is not.
 
Well as to the ethics portion, I think that's easy. As said, the market being what it is, people use their freedom to set "what a person can get". Nothing really treading on ethics here. On the other hand I think it is wrong to use someone's name (basically stealing it) to sell your coral when it is not legitimately the same. If it were of that lineage then you would have just as much right to use the name and profit from it. To naming in general, I don't really think names sell corals when the names are for an original coral, though that can change once others see what that coral fetches. Again, this is more of an issue of stealing another coral's rep. I've never bought a new coral just cause it had a cool name. That would be dumb. However, if a new corals get a big rep because it is super-freaky cool, and I see pics, and then it gets a deserving name, then I will search for that name. In this day and age you also have to be careful the coral is named legitimately, but assuming everyone were honest, then searching by name would be a simpler way of finding the "IT" coral. Better than "I want the coral from Joe with the pink spots on a blue base with green edge, but not the one with the pink eyes, the one with the yellow eyes." Know what I mean?
 
another thread but different wording but same concept , same people = no solution

NO COMMENT as this will not stop and we can all argue back and forth till we all die and there is no solution ...

:D
 
Well as to the ethics portion, I think that's easy. As said, the market being what it is, people use their freedom to set "what a person can get". Nothing really treading on ethics here. On the other hand I think it is wrong to use someone's name (basically stealing it) to sell your coral when it is not legitimately the same. If it were of that lineage then you would have just as much right to use the name and profit from it. To naming in general, I don't really think names sell corals when the names are for an original coral, though that can change once others see what that coral fetches. Again, this is more of an issue of stealing another coral's rep. I've never bought a new coral just cause it had a cool name. That would be dumb. However, if a new corals get a big rep because it is super-freaky cool, and I see pics, and then it gets a deserving name, then I will search for that name. In this day and age you also have to be careful the coral is named legitimately, but assuming everyone were honest, then searching by name would be a simpler way of finding the "IT" coral. Better than "I want the coral from Joe with the pink spots on a blue base with green edge, but not the one with the pink eyes, the one with the yellow eyes." Know what I mean?


Very well put.
 
Ya know, Pnoy, AMEN.

Personally I want all my coral (heck, my cars and other stuff too) to be of the highest caliber and lowest price. Let me know when that happens.
 
One is stealing for profit, the other is not.

End of subject.
 
another thread but different wording but same concept , same people = no solution

NO COMMENT as this will not stop and we can all argue back and forth till we all die and there is no solution ...

:D

It's not the same concept, this has nothing to do with the actual pricing of anything. But there are people on here who defend some for trying to squeeze every penny out of their product. Yet the sentiment changes when someone steps on the toes of possibly the same person/people by using their name for a coral.

You dont see the hypocrisy in this?
 
Last edited:
How is it stealing? No one has the legal rights to these common names. I agree calling something, let's say Tyree xxx, when it's not is wrong. But I have no problem with calling it Smith's xxx.
 
At what point is using a name stealing? If a person has something as common as Radioactive Dragon Eye Zoa's for sale, should they not be able to use that name to sell them? At what point is it stealing and at what point is it a simple name for identification?
 
It's not the same concept, this has nothing to do with the actual pricing of anything. But there are people on here who defend some for trying to squeeze every penny out of their product. Yet the sentiment changes when someone steps on the toes of possibly the same person/people by using their name for a coral.

You dont see the hypocrysy in this?

Reason I said its the same thing ,same concept as drama will be on this thread as well.. it seems like some people create some threads that are all about the same thing ... it gets tiring and I do hope you find all your answers .. You know me and I know you at one point ...
 
Last edited:
popcorn.gif
popcorn.gif
 
At what point is it stealing and at what point is it a simple name for identification?

That's not where the line is being drawn. No one really has copyrights on these names, but other people come to rely on these names to identify a certain lineage of coral which they are seeking. If another person tries to take advantage by using that name, knowing full well that they don't have the coral of that lineage, but they use the same name, that's really not very up-front/honest/ethical. I use names to identify lineage. What I hate is when I have to wade through all the counterfeits to find a legit specimen of the lineage I want. More often then not the others are NOT the same.

Personally I feel like the trend of everyone trying to "Identify" their corals is a little off. Not every zoanthid out there deserves a name. Names used to mean something because it signified a certain line of coral that had become well-respected and in-demand due to a truly exceptional quality. Of course, over time the natural tendency will be fore more and more exceptional pieces to be introduced and flood the market with names anyway. So, to each their own.
 
It's not the same concept, this has nothing to do with the actual pricing of anything. But there are people on here who defend some for trying to squeeze every penny out of their product. Yet the sentiment changes when someone steps on the toes of possibly the same person/people by using their name for a coral.

You dont see the hypocrisy in this?

One is deceptive in practice, the other is not. Not sure I see where you are going with this. That's like saying I can't believe they charge an extra $25,000 for the Roush edition of the Mustang but won't let won't let me trick out a stock Mustang and slap a Roush sticker on it and sell it for $25,000 more.
 
One is deceptive in practice, the other is not. Not sure I see where you are going with this. That's like saying I can't believe they charge an extra $25,000 for the Roush edition of the Mustang but won't let won't let me trick out a stock Mustang and slap a Roush sticker on it and sell it for $25,000 more.

Guess what, this is somewhat happening. With the attention to Barret Jackson, there are tons of people who think their rusted out 72 4 door Chevelle is now worth a lot more than it is, because an LS sold on BJ for 100,00. Ask any car guy into muscle, classic, custom or street rods because they love these cars, they will tell you this is not good for the hobby because it blocks a lot of people from getting into or staying in this hobby.

But the price of anything was not the point of this thread, nor was it for drama as Steve said.

Like I said, at what point do people think using a name is stealing? Let's take the Watermelon Chalice name as this is fairly recent. When it first was used, I would consider other than the original person who named it, anyone who used it would be considered stealing the name. But now it is nothing more than an ID as there are so many watermelon chalices.
 
Guess what, this is somewhat happening. With the attention to Barret Jackson, there are tons of people who think their rusted out 72 4 door Chevelle is now worth a lot more than it is, because an LS sold on BJ for 100,00. Ask any car guy into muscle, classic, custom or street rods because they love these cars, they will tell you this is not good for the hobby because it blocks a lot of people from getting into or staying in this hobby.

But the price of anything was not the point of this thread, nor was it for drama as Steve said.

Like I said, at what point do people think using a name is stealing? Let's take the Watermelon Chalice name as this is fairly recent. When it first was used, I would consider other than the original person who named it, anyone who used it would be considered stealing the name. But now it is nothing more than an ID as there are so many watermelon chalices.

My post had nothing to do with the price but about the increase in price or perceived increase in value with a name attached to the item. IMO it is never acceptable to use a name with a coral if there is no leneage.
 
Any time something is labeled rare, limited quantity,one of kind ect doesn't matter what it is there are people out there that just "have to have it".And those selling those products be it animal or mineral ect know this and it is called marketing. Is it right ? Well if you are stupid enough and have enough money and willing to pay the inflated price its a free country. Those of us that have good sense won't. But there are hundreds that will and that is what keep this kind of market going. You have fads in every market whether its fish, coral,cars, cell phones ect..and you have people that have to have it just for the sake of bragging they got one........

I have a rare piece and through time and much effort have got it to live, thrive and propagate, I can see charging for my time and effort but reasonably. But that is objective because what is a fair price to me for my time,effort and knowledge may be outrageously high to someone else.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top