[ A2 ] DESIGNATION

Welcome To Garthe's Insect Gradebook Homepage -- condition grading of specimens [ A1 ex-pupae ] DESIGNATION [ A1 ] DESIGNATION [ A1- ] DESIGNATION [ A- ] DESIGNATION [ A2 ] DESIGNATION [ B ] DESIGNATION S U M M A R Y (Photostrip) Cedar Oil Cedar Oil --pg. 2 Mounting Tips S U M M A R Y (Text )&(Guestbook) Visitor's Images for Grading Input Rarities I Rarities II More Special Leps Artistically Enhanced Specimens Still more rarities My Photos FISH......

Grading specimens as [ A2 ] ----- for 50% to 75% of Top Dollar

1.  This specimen is largely intact, but NOT even near to perfect.

2.  It has obvious wear, flight wear, imperfections.

3.  One partial or missing tail is allowed or both tails can be broken off if included.

4.  Noticable nicks, tears, rubs, chips, that DO detract some from the appearance  are allowed. 

5.  It is as though it flew for many days evident.  Missing one or more of an antenna or tail is allowable. 

6.  Specimens that are 'repaired' to better represent that given form are allowable if so- marked at the listing.

7.  (if mounted), larger than size 0 pin holes or even mounting slits from slippage are allowed.  Broken veins, larger crimpage in veins, or 'sloppier' general mounting is allowed.  

8. This specimen is damaged to some degree and is  F  A  R  from anything close to A1, A1-, or even A-.    It is generally thought to be a 'fair' representative of that given species form.

 

 

 

[ A2 ] Ornithoptera croesus

This specimen looks worn, has multiple imperfections on all four wings, and a couple of repairs to the edges of the FWs. 

[ A2 ] Papilio lowi

This butterfly is generally good on the outer wing areas and edges, but has flaws in towards the body.  The reason for an A2 designation is that both costa veins are crimped (folded/bent) near the thorax causing the top of the thorax to not show.  The specimen became A2 upon mounting:(  Such breaks in the main veins showing up as they do are not conducive to any higher grade than A2. 

[ A2 ] Papilio palamedes

There are smudges on the two HWs, two large chips and one small nick missing on the two FWs, a missing tail and a twisted tail, with small chips in the HWs.  There is also a large split extending far into the left HW with a chip missing.  This butterfly has been 'around' and (while there are worse A2s), too much is imperfect for it to be graded as anything but an A2.  I also noticed an irregularity at the tip of the left FW when compared to the right FW.   Had the missing tail been the only flaw, it would have remained in the A- area.  Putting the missing tail with the numerous other flaws causes a down-grade to A2.

[ A2 ] Heliconius charitonius tuckeri

This butterfly is 'ok', but has a few nicks on the outer wings, a bit of wing wear, and 2/3 of one antenna is missing.  It does a 'fair' job of representing the species, but is not near an A- or A1- designation.