Material quality criteria

But I wonder how anyone understands the existing gradations A1, A1 -, A -, A2, etc.?
Are there any generally accepted evaluation criteria or is all this purely subjective?..

So I just thought to create a topic with the same question and call it "quality criteria". Probably worth it to do this!? But you were the first to ask this question, and in order not to engage in plagiarism, I will gladly give you the legal right (if, of course, there is a desire), and I will be happy to take part in your topic already!

I hope that the right topic will be created and Mr. Bolivar will move our discussion there.

For me, this is the quality scale;
A1 is a very rare material caught in nature(the fringe is intact, without spots and scuffs) or bred from pupae (without defects and liquid spots)
A - most common when fishing in nature.(broken fringe, slightly faded butterfly).
C-torn wings, missing parts(antennae and legs do not count), spots and scuffs.

The concepts A1 -, A2 are quite complex.It all depends on the degree of damage, scuffs.

A - I catch and put in collections.In exchange, I have this basic quality.I don't take quality B at all.

As for the genus of jaundice, the bulk is quality A - (A1 -, A2) because of the tenderness of this butterfly.On the 2-3 - th day of summer, it is almost impossible to find a whole fringe, 4-5 days of fading, scuffing, tears.This is not oak parnassus, which in a week is only threatened with fading.

A1-perfect quality
A - - minor damage-butterflies have a scratch on the wing or a broken fringe, beetles lack a segment of the tendril or a broken leg, but lying next to it )
A2 - more severe damage
B-fairly severe damage-butterflies have potholes or visible scuff marks. beetles lack any pieces of limbs or have a cracked carapace..

Sort of..

Oh!a topic was created,and I'm all in Magadan babochkah

As far as I know, the Japanese have their own system for determining quality:
in one place, several scales on the fringe are missing-A -, in two-A2;
one vein glistens - A -, two-A2, etc.
Almost under a magnifying glass, they look at the material, MANIACS, and their waste is large. But they can afford it, and thank God.
Personally, I'm not such a maniac, but after a few purchases of A2 at the price of A+, all desire to cooperate disappears.
Here are two egg yolks I caught on the same day:



The right one according to my criteria is A-, and the left one (it's good that I didn't throw it away, it came in handy), not taking into account the lack of a mustache (I caught it and didn't notice it right away), in my opinion, is already A2-or lower. This topic is good because having come to some common denominator, in the future we will simplify the purchase and exchange procedures, as I would, for example, be upset by buying such a (left) yolk marked A1

P.S. sorry for the quality of the image. It's hard to focus after Friday

This post was edited by Jarik - 03/14/2009 14: 35

where is the right-A - ?? 7

there are of course maniacs .which are considered under the microscope - but these are pure show-offs. What the fuck is the difference if you can't see a couple of scales under a microscope, if you can't see it with an unarmed eye, he'll never notice it, especially a Japanese man ^_^

a grandmother without a mustache and with minor damage on the wings - for example, scuff and fringe can be considered as B

where is the right-A -??7
a grandmother without a mustache and with minor damage on the wings - for example, scuff and fringe can be considered a B

If you look at the magnification, you can see that the right fringe is not intact everywhere, that is, it is no longer A+ no matter how you twist it. This is also noticeable if you look at it live without zooming in. There are no scuffs on either one or the other.
In yolks and parnassus, as far as I know, the degree of flyability is determined precisely by the integrity of the fringe.
I put up this photo to find out other opinions, not just my own, subjective ones.

This post was edited by Jarik - 03/14/2009 17: 17

A1-perfect quality
A - - minor damage-butterflies have a scratch on the wing or a broken fringe, beetles lack a segment of the tendril or a broken leg, but lying next to it )
A2 - more severe damage
B-fairly severe damage-butterflies have potholes or visible scuff marks. beetles lack any pieces of limbs or have a cracked carapace..

Sort of..

As for Zhukov, I am generally in solidarity. Unless you can add: a broken claw, a tentacle, or the absence of one or two segments on the antennae-A- . If there are a couple of such defects, or a broken limb that is available, then-A2. Then it goes already as In-

In general, comrade taler correctly noted that A1 is a rare material in collections.
I manage to catch A1 only in the first days of departure of the type, i.e. at one point you catch the first departed instances, the next day at the same point you catch new ones that appeared overnight, etc., until you understand the required number, and even then, on the third day you get broken instances that you missed in previous days.
Well, the second option is to output.

Here I have this question: (and the topic will be pulled out a little)

When buying straightened copies, does the quality of straightening affect the quality of the material and, accordingly, the price of the copy?

Here I have this question: (and the topic will be pulled out a little)

When buying straightened copies, does the quality of straightening affect the quality of the material and, accordingly, the price of the copy?

If there is damage during straightening, it affects..and if the butterfly can simply be rearranged, then it all depends on how you agree with the seller.

Of course, you can re-spread it, but in the case of brood hawkmoth and Saturnia, when re-spreading, the risk that the butterfly will become fat increases (for example, artemis and selena turn almost 100% yellow when re-spreading). The butterfly can certainly be washed, but the appearance of "fluffy" butterflies will suffer. And it's no longer worth the money you paid. It's much easier to work with daytime accounts in this regard.
If the butterfly needs to be rearranged,then in fact you buy a tattoo. And when you buy a straightened copy, you overpay for the straightening itself.

As far as I know, the Japanese have their own system for determining quality:
in one place, several scales on the fringe are missing-A -, in two-A2;
one vein glistens - A -, two-A2, etc.
Almost under a magnifying glass, they look at the material, MANIACS, and their waste is large. But they can afford it, and thank God.
Personally, I'm not such a maniac, but after a few purchases of A2 at the price of A+, all desire to cooperate disappears.
Here are two egg yolks I caught on the same day:



The right one according to my criteria is A-, and the left one (it's good that I didn't throw it away, it came in handy), not taking into account the lack of a mustache (I caught it and didn't notice it right away), in my opinion, is already A2-or lower. This topic is good because having come to some common denominator, in the future we will simplify the purchase and exchange procedures, as I would, for example, be upset by buying such a (left) yolk marked A1

P.S. sorry for the quality of the image. It's hard to focus after Friday

A, A1, A1 -, A2....... hmm ??? and in my opinion(and not only!) "The freshness of the second is unprecedented !"

The butterfly can certainly be washed, but the appearance of "fluffy" butterflies will suffer.

Very simple and well fluffed butterflies, I have half the collection of bombycoid skimmed and the quality is the same as before degreasing.

As far as I know, the Japanese have their own system for determining quality:
in one place, several scales on the fringe are missing-A -, in two-A2;
one vein glistens - A -, two-A2, etc.
Almost under a magnifying glass, they look at the material, MANIACS, and their waste is large. But they can afford it, and thank God.
Personally, I'm not such a maniac, but after a few purchases of A2 at the price of A+, all desire to cooperate disappears.
Here are two egg yolks I caught on the same day:



The right one according to my criteria is A-, and the left one (it's good that I didn't throw it away, it came in handy), not taking into account the lack of a mustache (I caught it and didn't notice it right away), in my opinion, is already A2-or lower. This topic is good because having come to some common denominator, in the future we will simplify the purchase and exchange procedures, as I would, for example, be upset by buying such a (left) yolk marked A1

P.S. sorry for the quality of the image. It's hard to focus after Friday

Yes, this is exactly the people Zazhralis in my opinion))) What kind of frayed fringe is there? You what? No...maybe, of course, lepidopterologists-maniacs have a special system for controlling the quality of fees, but this is just ridiculous)))

Although most likely it depends on the goal pursued during the collection. If your goal is a scientific collection, then I don't see the point in such strict gradations. But if you need to collect a collection of "perfect" copies for your own aesthetic self-affirmation, then everything is clear)

I don't know about you, dear colleagues, but I personally reject all broken beetles. If there is a possibility of "resuscitation", then why not. So one day, catching 6 copies. Dytiscus, after a night of organ transplants, eventually collected 3.

I don't know about you, dear colleagues, but I personally reject all broken beetles. If there is a possibility of "resuscitation", then why not. So one day, catching 6 copies. Dytiscus, after a night of organ transplants, eventually collected 3 out of 6.

That's what the collector's vicious practice is called. Thus, often limbs from one similar species end up on top of another. And then the taxonomist breaks his head over such a centaur, collected from several species, and does not understand why this beetle has such strange legs and antennae.

well, yes, the mustache and paws are glued, and the signs on the paws and mustache are fun ))
it all depends on the case, but sometimes it is better not to glue.

It is better not to glue anything at all from another instance

And the taxonomist can't see any traces of gluing together?

If the gluer has done some jewelry work on a large beetle, they may not notice it.

Strictly speaking, any(!) instance has a" minus sign " without exception. It all depends on the" depth of peering", the freedom of interpretation and the desire to find it (minus sign). Follow in the footsteps of the Japanese even further and count the number of hairs on the fringe on the right and left - their number will be different. At best, this is an innate asymmetry, and it can already be considered a minus sign by the same strict criteria. Since there is no complete symmetry, the hairs don't even need to be counted. And if the hairs/scales have crumbled (the butterfly necessarily loses some of them even when leaving the pupa), then all the more negative. Absurd? Yes, it is.

The morphology of insects itself is such that it is designed for permanent loss of non-vital structures from birth and throughout life without significant consequences (I observed how a Crimean ground beetle with three legs and stumps instead of whiskers first pushed its fellow snails eating snails, and after sating, without ceremony with its tribesmen, turned to the female-obviously her injuries not much hindered, and judging by the fact that it came across from day to day, even helped, because collectors did not get angry... )

At the very least, it is strange to demand from natural and in most cases very active objects that they should be like factory stamping, assembled on a good(apparently Japanese) conveyor.

I myself respect high-quality material in entomology, but pedantry is useful if it is meaningful, and not maniacal.

As for gluing together parts from other instances/species... it probably has the right to be considered an "unavoidable evil" in some cases. For example, what is called "for yourself", so that "the eye does not ache", if the copy is rare or unique and it is not known whether it will ever be replaced with a full-fledged one. I do not think that for a specialist of the current, and even more so of the future, it will be a problem to use optics to identify the most masterly gluing and exclude the attached part from the study.
And, of course, it is acceptable in entomological souvenirs, there are other purposes, purely aesthetic.

If we talk about hidden gluing of commercial material without informing the buyer, then this can only be regarded as fraud.(it is impossible to prove, so there is only one way out – to have no more cases).

I myself respect high-quality material in entomology, but pedantry is useful if it is meaningful, and not maniacal.

I totally agree! It is clear to a fool that Sunday is a holiday, and the desire to have perfect copies in the collection is not negotiable. However, the question of the permissibility of putting so-called "broken" instances in the collection is not clearly solved. Let's say there is a specimen of a beetle without a single tendril or paw (I'm not talking about the absence of a claw on one of the legs - these are generally small things) from some point where you haven't found it anymore. So, if there are whole instances of the same species, but from other points, I should reject it (and in Russian, throw it away)? No, it's not for me. Much depends on the collector's goal. If it is, first of all, not aesthetic, but scientific (and for most of us, rather, cognitive), then the question of culling permissible (let's say) damaged copies is not worth it. And as for gluing together monsters from "spare parts" from different instances - in my opinion, this is absolutely unacceptable. You can only attach what has fallen off to an instance.

It is interesting that the trend of prioritizing the quality of collectibles over the completeness and, consequently, the scientific value of the collection is now increasingly popular in various areas of collecting. A private collection is not a museum, and each collector decides for himself which copies to put in it.
Quality is the main criterion if the subject is considered as an investment object. In order to sell copies for the "right" money, all these A1's and so on were invented. From this point of view, you can understand the Japanese - after all, they are probably ready to pay decent money for an impeccable copy, which will be worth the money if it remains so.
If you catch the specimens yourself, or exchange them for fished ones, and collect the collection for your own pleasure or for scientific purposes, then it seems to me that it is quite possible to put ordinary, negative specimens.

This post was edited by vicgrr - 15.09.2009 15: 29

That's what the collector's vicious practice is called. Thus, often limbs from one similar species end up on top of another. And then the taxonomist breaks his head over such a centaur, collected from several species, and does not understand why this beetle has such strange legs and antennae.

In Ditiskus, the signs do not lie in the paws and antennae.

The lack of claws in specimens is already a reason to reject, especially if it is a banal species. At the same time, you should not confuse broken (in nature or as a result of improper handling) and underdeveloped copies. So I have in my collection a specimen of Carabus arcensis with a shortened paw, i.e. one leg is shorter than the other, while all the claws are in place.

In Ditiskus, the signs do not lie in the paws and antennae.

But that's not the point in the first place. If, in your opinion, the absence of a claw is already a significant reason for culling, then a beetle assembled from spare parts from different specimens (no matter what - at least ditiskus, at least not ditiskus) is generally suitable only for decorative wall frames (subject to jewelry gluing). Don't forget: the collector's item is labeled, and the label documents the location of this particular item, not a group of similar items found in the same place. In short, my personal opinion is unequivocal - assembling an instance from several of them and putting it in a collection is unprofessional.

The lack of claws in specimens is already a reason to reject, especially if it is a banal species.

This again depends on the collector's goal. If the goal of having a named instance of this type is to fully represent the systematic group in the collection , then maybe yes (but not for everyone). And if the goal is to reflect in the collection the prevalence (range) of the species, possible variability, completeness of collections from a specific point where the collector (collector) was lucky enough to visit, etc., then the absence of a claw is such a trifle!

 
At the same time, you should not confuse broken (in nature or as a result of improper handling) and underdeveloped copies. So I have in my collection a specimen of Carabus arcensis with a shortened paw, i.e. one leg is shorter than the other, while all the claws are in place.

Duc, in my opinion, no one here confuses these concepts. Broken copy - it is also broken in Africa .

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 09/16/2009 11: 52

For the first time I encountered such a problem ... I got a beetle like A1 (male of a rather rare Phanaeus). Externally, it fully corresponds to the declared quality. But when it came to the punishment, it turned out that his genitals were removed and, alas, not attached. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the taxon is "genital", since there are twin species, they are practically indistinguishable externally, and now it is not possible to determine/double-check the definition. The option of retrieving the extracted file is not feasible, nor is it possible to return or replace the instance. Perhaps, who knows what quality category it should be assigned to?

Well, it definitely can't be attributed to A1. But something else is possible - if the genitals were removed and there is a definition of a beetle, then most likely the specialist determined the type by genitals. Write to your supplier why the genitals were removed, whether they can be obtained - and be sure to say who determined it - if the determinant is a reliable person, then the type is reliable, and on the label with the names write who determined it (you can also write how for documentation). If all this does not work - and the supplier refuses to give the name of the person who determined it, or something else - demand a refund of the amount or part of the money, or let them send another bug with genitals (in short, let them compensate)

But for me, the material is high-quality, if it is properly labelled. And there are no other criteria for its quality

But for me, the material is high-quality, if it is properly labelled. And there are no other criteria for its quality

Well, in this particular case, it is impossible to say whether the material is labeled correctly. After all, there are no genitals. And without them, the accuracy of the definition is questionable.

It's amazing how similar the topics discussed on entomology forums are. Different continents, but people care about the same thing. So American philatelists from entomology help each other distinguish A1 from A1+
http://www.insectnet.com/dcforum/DCForumID7/804.html#3

So American philatelists from entomology help each other distinguish A1 from A1+

+5!!!

For the first time I encountered such a problem ... I got a beetle like A1 (male of a rather rare Phanaeus). Externally, it fully corresponds to the declared quality. But when it came to the punishment, it turned out that his genitals were removed and, alas, not attached. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the taxon is "genital", since there are twin species, they are practically indistinguishable externally, and now it is not possible to determine/double-check the definition. The option of retrieving the extracted file is not feasible, nor is it possible to return or replace the instance.

In my humble practice of mounting beetles, there were cases when males had no genitals. They just weren't there. For some reason, the males lost them while still in nature. No one has ever touched them before! Very rare, but it happens. Although, it still doesn't hurt to contact the seller, let him explain the situation.

In my humble practice of mounting beetles, there were cases when males had no genitals. They just weren't there. For some reason, the males lost them while still in nature. No one has ever touched them before! Very rare, but it happens. Although, it still doesn't hurt to contact the seller, let him explain the situation.

Such individuals are often found in representatives of the Nutcracker family. It is possible that they are born without genitals, which is caused by mutations.

I would like to pay attention to the" quality criteria " of mottled lepidoptera.
I don't take the output material into account.
So, an important quality criterion may be the condition of the pronotum of the specimen. It should not be very flattened from the sides. Such an instance is both problematic to deal with and unsightly to look at. Well, imagine some fat woman at night, flattened to the thickness of a nymphalid.
Antennae, of course, are extremely important, because they are important in determining, especially in complex births.
Somewhat secondary is the condition of "hairiness" of the pronotum, fringe, etc. Often raznoustye collected, for example, in the light, are active and can be frayed. Disadvantages of this nature are only of aesthetic significance, but no one will be against carefully assembled and straightened butterflies.

For me, the quality criterion is:
1st class )If the beetle has 6 whole legs, a head, 2 whole whiskers, elytra, abdomen, and genitals, as well as a detailed label.
2nd class) If the Beetle has 5 legs, 1.5 whiskers, head, elytra, abdomen, genitals and a detailed label
3-The smallest class or class " B "(when they see a beetle of this class, they say the word in B) 6-0 paws, 2-0 whiskers, head, elytra ,abdomen , genitals (and all this separately from each other ) and without a label.

  
3-The smallest class or class " B "(when they see a beetle of this class, they say the word in B) 6-0 paws, 2-0 whiskers, head, elytra ,abdomen , genitals (and all this separately from each other ) and without a label.  

Without a label , this is not a material at all (outside the evaluation criteria, regardless of the presence of limbs, whiskers,or genitals). At least for me personally.

For me, the quality criterion is:
1st class )If the beetle has 6 whole legs, a head, 2 whole whiskers, elytra, abdomen, and genitals, as well as a detailed label.
2nd class) If the Beetle has 5 legs, 1.5 whiskers, head, elytra, abdomen, genitals and a detailed label
3-The smallest class or class " B "(when they see a beetle of this class, they say the word in B) 6-0 paws, 2-0 whiskers, head, elytra ,abdomen , genitals (and all this separately from each other ) and without a label.  

They usually say the G-word

and "without a label" is not even considered.