To Jump or Not To Jump

I will have to admit jumping in a tad late and didnt read this whole thread word for word. I actually agree with all parties to some extent. Is this really misrpresenting his animal by calling it a "pastel" ?? To me no. Why ? Everyone is getting all their pants bunched up over this. "Pastel Jungle" IS the term used to describe the desired co-dominant trait, not just "Pastel". So if you want to go and qoute a name thats established to a certain trait, then the whole word needs to be used, in my book. So, by him only calling it a Pastel doesnt mean he's saying its a "Pastel Jungle". Pastel Jungle was termed to descibe not only the color, BUT also the pattern. I believe Greg traded a pair of baby Albino Burms for the first Pastel Jungle. Once it was proven genetic, then the prices sky rocketed. Go to ALL the big breeders websites and see for yourself. All label them as "Pastel Jungles", "Super Pastel Jungles" and "Lemon Pastels".

OK let me give you a close example. Jeff Ronnie has a proven line of "Pastel Dreams". If someone gets in a import and calls it a "Pastel Dream" then I have a problem with it. If they just say Pastel Boa, its not referring to the "Pastel Dream" line in my book and only using the name to describe the color.

Now, back to "what if a novice didnt know any better ??" Well, if they are a novice, then chances are they wouldnt know what a "Pastel Jungle" is now would they ?? They would be buying the animal because of its color, not so much the name. So, how could they be mislead ?? If they are a novice and know of "Pastel Jungles" then they would know to at least ask if its the same co-dominant gene or have at least seen one to know the the snake being labled as a "Pastel" is not the samething. Another clue ?? If they are aware of genetics and terms used, they would have to know that a fresh import cannot be labled as a "Pastel Jungle" until proven out. IMO.

Bottomline. Do I think naming it a "Pastel" is wrong and is misleading in the wording ?? If you want to be techincial, then no. Would I call it a "Pastel" ?? NO. Why ?? For the very reason this thread has started.

Joe Dembinski

Im getting in some imports as well. If I get a striped Ball Python, then can I call it a "Striped Ball Python" or will someone say that Im scamming someone because its not like Clarks proven strain ? I will tell you this I will be calling it a "Striped Ball Python" because it is. Im not calling it a "Genetic Stripe" which is the proper term when refering to Clarks strain. Thats why when you see Adam or others selling hets, they are calling it "Het. For Genetic Stripe". I agree dealers are getting out of hand with some of these names, but the public is also getting out of hand, with the naming as well. Just my 2 cents for the day.

Glad I'm not totally in disagreement with everyone. I think Joe's example of the striped ball is great. Can it be called striped? Yes, it has a freaking stripe on it. Can I call mine pastel? Yes, it has a pastel phenotype.

Joe, assuming average price for a Jungle pastel (now that we have been reminded of the proper term - can't believe I forgot that) is around $1500. You think that the genotype is worth $1450 of that price. I disagree with that logic. I think people spend at least somewhat more of that money because of how the snake actually looks. What if someone wants to buy my snake simply based on looks and never wants to breed it. That is certainly how I would represent it. Does it's value then become more than that of the "average" ball python?

If not, then every single one of the snakes you've shown is not worth more than $50. It's the piece of paper that comes with it that makes it worth the other $1450. That's fine and I DO understand (or get it, as you like to say) that people spend money for genetics. You need to get that people also spend money based of looks and on the snake they actually get. I'll try for a couple of examples here. The albino anaconda that was in Reptiles several years back. It's estimated value was around $25k I believe, why not much more? Because, it was still a freaking anaconda. Up until last year I owed what I believe was the world's only true striped African rock python (not reverse stripe like the one's for sale on Kingsnake), an absolutely stunning animal. Problem was it was a rock python, an undesirable snake. I couldn't even get $400 for it. In fact, I couldn't even get a Tiger retic for it (value of about $325). Even if I had proved out the striping as genetic the snake's value would not have instantly become some astronomical number. People buy based on more than just genetics. You may not, but you are not the only person in the world buying ball pythons.

Looks do count, otherwise, why are red amazon tree boas worth so much more than green and brown ones? There is no evidence whatsoever that a red to red breeding produces red babies, but people still pay more of the red ones.

To most of those people, if they were to look at my snake and the one posted by Tom side by side they could not tell the difference. The genotype only matters if one plans to breed the snake. And if someone is as into balls as you and Tom and Alvaro sees my snake they will ask the questions you already have. When they do, they will get 100% honest answers from me.

What if they don't ask? What if they just heard or read about the pastels (or "pastel jungle") from a friend and think that buying that ball python for $500 is the deal of the century? Would you be comfortable with that?

I'm going back to my explanation of previous pages. In general people that buy ball pythons at high prices and with names recognized by the industry as morphs. They do so with the intention of, in a more or less distant future, breeding the animal and selling the offspring. The only problem is that once he breeds them back and wants to sell the offspring they are going to be worth $50 a piece tops.

The striped balls is a different issue. The animal is just sold for the looks. The fact is there were non-genetic striped animals for sale before the true genetic stripe appeared in the market.

Regards.

No, back-up. You're still assuming I'm trying to deceive people about the genotype of this animal. I would absolutely tell them this is by no means a pastel jungle (genotypically proven). It will be described as a nonproven phenotypic pastel. I just refuse to believe that genes are worth $1450 of the Jungle pastel price. I believe that my snake will sell quite easily for somewhere around $200, maybe more, if the color intensifies after a few sheds as it sometimes does.

One of you guys tackle that question I asked Seamus: How much was the founder Pastel Jungle worth before the genetics were proven? I don't think $50 is an honest answer.

No, back-up. You're still assuming I'm trying to deceive people about the genotype of this animal.

Brian,

Sorry if it came that way, I didn't mean it. That's the problem with e-mails. Any ways, even if you don't mean it the outcome will be similar.

I would absolutely tell them this is by no means a pastel jungle (genotypically proven). It will be described as a nonproven phenotypic pastel.

What if they don't ask?

I just refuse to believe that genes are worth $1450 of the Jungle pastel price.

You have your point there. But just remember that behind that price tag of $1450 there are years of breeding efforts. That price tag is offering the guarantee that once you breed this animal to a normal very likely half of the litter will resemble him/her in what is termed a co-dominant way of inheritance.

You don't believe in what genes are worth but, and I can believe that. Nevertheless you do believe that a nice looking baby ball python that came in a shipment from Africa (apologies in advance if it din't come from Africa) with a price tag of under $8 each is now worth $200 or maybe more? Don't you think there is more work, expenses, research and the like on the CB ball pythons that either of the big breeders sell?

We're selling something in which the "value" is based upon the individual who is buying's perception of value. Each customer is different, are they buying as a breeding investment, additon to a collection, or a pet? For a genetically proven snake the "correct price" is set at 3 different levels for the above person without a thing changing with the snake. For the investment breeder the genes add to the price, for the collector the markings and color set the value, for the pet owner it's a $50 snake no matter the gene make up.

If I sell a Nissan pick up truck and the driver does a 130 MPH down a curvy hill and wrecks it. Am I at fault for selling it a increased price because I labeled it "sporty" or "sports truck" (due to some fancy grill and light work)? Not a "true" sports vehicle (ie mustang, porcsche etc) that would have handled the curves correctly. Is it my fault the buyer did not research the true levels of the capability of the vehicle before pushing the extremes?

We usually take a display animal or two to shows we do. Just as eye candy and to draw the attention. Usually I've put signs on stating they are for just "display" but have been thinking of putting one our Nosy Be Chameleons for $1,000. Just to get the gossip started, not to actually drive a sale. Now normally a Nosy Be goes for around $250 and I would not expect anyone to pay a $1000 for a nosy be. If someone came up and offered to take him for that I would sell him. He's proven. He's 100% Nosy Be. Looks awesome. I don't think he's worth $1000 based on what you can pay others for a similiar animal, but if a customer is willing to pay then he's moving.

I agree completely with BPC. If your going to use a name (in any industry) to denote a genetic trait you need to be specific (pastel genotype, snakekeeper pastel, pastel jungle, etc). <sarcasm>Either that or everyone needs to stop selling "yellow" dragons because we have a "Scales Yellin' Yellow" and I'll get a number of breeders together to say they are "yellow" dragons making it an industry standard. </sarcasm>

The last sentence was a sarcastic joke but the forum removed my sarcasm tags I had put around it.

I do not have extensive knowledge of balls, I don't know if you would consider my knowledge above or below average. I certainly could pick out a piebald or an albino or a leucistic. I could probably even find the Axanthic one (lacking yellow right) I probably wouldn' know a clown if it bit me on the nose, and jungle is just another confusing adjective to me. Of all the pictures posted so far heres what I think.

If you lined all these snakes up and asked me to pick out the pastels, without telling me how many there were or that there may be other morphs besides normals and pastels. I would have picked the one that Seamus linked to, and I would have been wrong but that is a different morph so it really is kind of a curve thrown in there. In the one picture that Python dreams posts (with the 4 snakes) I would pick out the smaller one on the right side for sure, the bright yellow one. (I think that is the one in the single picture he posted first if I am not mistaken.) I can't really say that I would pick out any others from that group, and based on the second picture (which was supposed to make it more obvious) I probably wouldn't have picked any but that could have just been the picture. I think I picked the right one simply because he said there was one in there. I would also probably pick the bottom one in Brian's picture. What does all this mean? Nothing really to anyone else except me. Brian could use it I suppose to back up his argument and I wouldn't mind. I couldn't tell, or more accuratley to describe my situation thats what it looked like to me. Personally, in order of preference for which snake I would buy if they were all priced the same and I knew nothing of the genetics or morphs would be as follows

1. The one Seamus linked to
2. The bright yellow one Python dreams posted
3. The bottom one in Brians picture.
4. the top one in Brians picture
5. None of the other ones stand out to me.

I still think that Brian labeling his snake as a pastel is somewhat misleading simply because the term pastel has come to have an accepted meaning to many people. If I saw it on his table labled as a pastel at say $200.00, knowing that what others consider pastels and sell for much higher I would probably think he is trying to pull a scam. If If I saw it for $200.00 but it wasn't labeled as a pastel I might consider buying it simply because I liked the color, and if it were on a table with PythonDreams yellow one (which I assume would be labeled as a pastel and priced much higher than $200.00 I would buy Brians) I think that if someone likes the color of the snake they will buy it if the genetics are proven or not. This assumes that they do not want to breed it and produce their own pastels that fit everybody elses accepted deffinition, and that they can afford it. If it were me I would call it something else simply to avoid the confusion, and to avoid the danger of someone thinking I am misrepresenting an animal.

This is prcisely the reason that I can't get myself interested in balls (other than breeding normals) or corn snakes. Too much subjectivity involved. Thinking you may have one thing only to have your ballon busted by someone who thinks they are (and may be) more of an expert than you. Or having someone jack the price of their snakes up simply because they have something that looks different than the run of the mill normal and expects everyone else to go gaa gaa over it. I see ads for snakes all the time with price ranges listed (50.00 - 150.00 for example) the reason they give is it depends on the color. Thats fine, if they think something is worth more because it is a different color they can ask more for it but at least they are not saying "Oh thats $150.00 because its a pinstripe double super coffee latte morph, unproven of course. If it were proven it would be $1500.00" It is acceptable to think something is worth more simply because it is prettier than the rest. It doesn't have to have a label.

Steve Schindler

Sorry, I should have added this:

To PythonDreams my examples were meant in no way to slight your snakes. I am sure they are everything you say they are. Its just that I call them as I see them. If I were to see them in person I may have a different view.

Steve Schindler