Chilobrachys electric blue

[advan]

"



Real simple Chad, "Only brought in the hobby and given a hobby name to help sell it better". That is an opinion that it was given a hobby name to help sell better. One could argue it could sell the same given a sp. name or anything else with an incredible photo shot (some times species speak for themselves to the individual). In fact, one could further argue that there are some individuals who don't like any hobby name or common name and are turned off by this. I had costumers that hated the term pumpkin patch (paid a lot for the first of these as well) and would not touch them LOL For many a common name is fun and entertaining and may have nothing to do with marketing purposes. I love the term "munchkin patch" (paid many $$ for the first of these also), but never would say it was for marketing purposes or to sell better....just a fun name. Others despise the name and that is o.k. they are entitled to their opinion.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I still wanted to clarify why I disagree Chad. You also state, "The polish who collected them that dubbed them as 'electric blue' ..." FYI as well it was not only those quoted who collected them and they were not the first to market/sell them in the hobby. If it interest you feel free to give me a call and I can let you know the real background as you have my number. If not then no worries, you /apple /others/ have the right to your opinion or pass on the specie, I will enjoy their beauty, and again we can professionally agree to disagree.

On apples comment, I disagree the spider is dull pictured, a pet hole, and I like the specie and find it very attractive....hence my beauty is in the eye of the beholder speech. Also, I believe he meant *one of the 7 deadly sins and again....an opinion many don't agree with yet it further backs up why one might be turned of by a common name.

The reason I agree with the Berrios post is one can argue over and over that a species is over priced, just given a name for marketing, not worth the value, been around for years with one picture, etc... The fact comes down to what someone is willing to pay, if they like the species, and if the agree with a high valued hobby or not. To each their own and again opinions including mine are just that.....I for one spend the big $ for the pretty creatures and like them priced as "diamonds and gold" not valued as coal.

I should clarify "only brought in" was retaining to just last year.

I'd much rather have locale attached to a hobby name than some word like 'electric' to give the species more notice. Why not Chilobrachys sp. 'Khao Sok blue' or something close?

So the polish that claimed to be the first to find and collect this species back in Feb. 2015 are lying? Doesn't surprise me but why would they?

Direct quote from them- "A new species in Hobby Chilobrachys SP Electric Blue, searching my (effect) and <edit>, Thailand 2015. Thanks for those who kept their fingers crossed we are proud that we managed to find them, many have tried - Poland won."

No calls possible at the moment. I'm in the Caribbean on a beautiful island wondering why I'm on a forum. Haha.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Yeah yeah, the Polish are first to market with a new species. Who is the lucky arachnologist(s) who get to describe it and publish the species description?

 

[advan]

Yeah yeah, the Polish are first to market with a new species. Who is the lucky arachnologist(s) who get to describe it and publish the species description?

West and Nunn with the help of Wirth are working on a revision of Selenocosmiinae. Will this species be included? I don't know.

 

[JoeRossi]

I should clarify "only brought in" was retaining to just last year.

I'd much rather have locale attached to a hobby name than some word like 'electric' to give the species more notice. Why not Chilobrachys sp. 'Khao Sok blue' or something close?

So the polish that claimed to be the first to find and collect this species back in Feb. 2015 are lying? Doesn't surprise me but why would they?

Direct quote from them- "A new species in Hobby Chilobrachys SP Electric Blue, searching my (effect) and <edit>, Thailand 2015. Thanks for those who kept their fingers crossed we are proud that we managed to find them, many have tried - Poland won."

No calls possible at the moment. I'm in the Caribbean on a beautiful island wondering why I'm on a forum. Haha.

Your opinion, "I'd much rather have locale attached to a hobby name" has been shared by many on the forum. However, it is just not agreed by many new hobbiest, others who have not learned all scientific, and those that simply like a common name. Believe me when I say I have used only scientific on lists before at shows for example and it make's it extremely difficult to communicate. It has nothing to do with marketing for many they just relate a tarantula to a common name and don't know the scientific. Shall we say to all, "you don't know Brachypelma smithi scientific name you are deemed un-worthy go away" (we all were newbies at some point in the hobby). Many times I am not selling there, but trying educate on the Mexican Red Knee. Many just simply like saying common names and can't pronounce immediately the scientific as it is a learning process for all. I love scientific names, but understand the need for common as well. Another example, perhaps it is different in other states with other brokers or fish/wild, but in CA when we bring in they require us to list a common name on every specie we can. Why? Perhaps because many checking don't know some scientific names and or want to see if what they have as common matches?

I never said they were not the first to find, I simply alluded they were not the "only" first.

Thanks for the clarify on "only brought in", enjoy your time in the "electric" blue waters of the caribbean lol, and feel free to buzz me when you return if further details are of interest.

 

[Poec54]

I look for the rare or first of its kind based apon how I feel about a specimen. For example, bought first M. balfouri that came in 350.00+, bought first E. olivacia to come in 350.00 +, first Xeneth. sp. blue 450.00 +, the list goes on and on. It is great to get a return if you can breed, but many of the rare specimens it never happens or does not by the time individuals devaluize them as what happen's with anything. Much of my "profit", if any lol, goes to buy immediate new high end species because that is what I like.

Agreed. The people buying the pricey new introductions really should be breeders: they have a strong incentive to recoup their money and put every specimen 'to work.' They get more slings out in the hobby so more people can own the new species. As the supply increases, prices moderate & the breeders get their money back. Everybody benefits.

For inexperienced people with no breeding experience (and often no desire to do it either), they would only buy one, which could wind up being a male, or it could die in molt. They're out the money, and even if it turns out they have a female, it's not likely to be bred.

You're free to buy what you want, but I'd much rather see serious breeders get the new species at first, and produce a few sacs per female, distributing hundreds or thousands of slings to the hobby, than to have a person get one and never breed it: that helps keep supply low and prices high.

 

[viper69]

I'm in the Caribbean on a beautiful island wondering why I'm on a forum

Post up some great pics, esp of local herps and Ts Advan, living the jet set life down there.

 

[John Apple]

so lets charge an unreal amount of money for an almost unheard [well not really as rossi stated] and then get what we can before they [other hobbyists] breed this spider and the price goes down....
so on that same token lets publish a wholesale price to the public...that right there makes me wonder on some things.
lotta bs going on in the hobby now and this well named [marketing ploy] chilo is a direct result of that.
Harpactira pulchripes comes to mind here as when they came out they were Harpactira pulchripes and not a pretty catchy adjective filled name.
but really what do I know.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

so lets charge an unreal amount of money for an almost unheard [well not really as rossi stated] and then get what we can before they [other hobbyists] breed this spider and the price goes down....
so on that same token lets publish a wholesale price to the public...that right there makes me wonder on some things.
lotta bs going on in the hobby now and this well named [marketing ploy] chilo is a direct result of that.
Harpactira pulchripes comes to mind here as when they came out they were Harpactira pulchripes and not a pretty catchy adjective filled name.
but really what do I know.

A. Agreed it is not an unreal amount of money as was stated (several other new species went for much higher price).
B. The public are also being sold the "spider" so they have a chance to breed it as well if they want to be the first and then sell for fair market value if they are successful hopefully with out devaluing the tarantula.
C. The wholesale price to the public definitely will drop a "spiders" value quick if the price is devalued over seas (who specifically are you referring to Apple)?
D. As was stated the "incredible pictures" is what sold the H. pulchripes when it first came in and not the common name or scientific. Also it was sad to see this spider devalued so quickly. The gorgeous picture of the "electric" speaks for itself and many think it is a nice looking spider. We have heard your opinion on it Apple (dull, pet hole,etc) and again others have their own opinion which I am sure is based on what they see (the spider speaking for it self) and not a name of any kind.

 

[Matabuey]

At the end of the day, compared to other hobbies, spiders are cheap as chips.

Even for a rare species, you're hardly paying anything at all - not sure why people complain.

If you wanted to buy an equally rare snake in captivity (As that's all that matters, it's irrelevant how plentiful a species is in the wild, as some are heavily protected thus their captive value increases), you'd have to pay upwards of $1000 at the very least - I'm not talking about morphs, I'm talking about rare species.

 

[JoeRossi]

At the end of the day, compared to other hobbies, spiders are cheap as chips.

Even for a rare species, you're hardly paying anything at all - not sure why people complain.

If you wanted to buy an equally rare snake in captivity (As that's all that matters, it's irrelevant how plentiful a species is in the wild, as some are heavily protected thus their captive value increases), you'd have to pay upwards of $1000 at the very least - I'm not talking about morphs, I'm talking about rare species.

"At the end of the Day" people can and will complain about price on anything. Take a high priced new car for example: there are those that will complain and not get it and try to persuade others through complaining not to get it or there are those who can afford it and buy it because they like /want it not worried about those that complain. Many of the cars with in minutes of driving off the lot let alone with in years depreciate, but some of them years later if kept in good condition are worth more then they ever were.....(sound familiar ...blondi, apophysis,etc..). Furthermore, I don't care if they call that Car the incredible turbo super duper tans dimensional flux capacitor mind blowing vehicle or if they say simply an El camino as I am not getting the car unless I love how it looks and rides!

But hey ....we are not talking about cars or snakes we are talking about tarantulas (note tarantulas are far less maintenance or cost while having them then either) lol. However, I value many tarantulas more then many of those mentioned.....to each their own.

Godspeed to those high end tarantula keepers/buyers and to all others as well....

 

[Poec54]

spiders are cheap as chips. Even for a rare species, you're hardly paying anything at all - not sure why people complain.
If you wanted to buy an equally rare snake in captivity (As that's all that matters, it's irrelevant how plentiful a species is in the wild, as some are heavily protected thus their captive value increases), you'd have to pay upwards of $1000 at the very least - I'm not talking about morphs, I'm talking about rare species.

That's why we have spiders, and I assume that's why you do too: price.

 

[Poec54]

H. pulchripes when it first came in and not the common name or scientific. Also it was sad to see this spider devalued so quickly.

'Devalue.' I know what you mean. I hate when spiders become affordable for the average spider person to own and enjoy. It just ruins that species. The most important thing about a spider isn't it's looks or behavior, it's the artificial and arbitrary price tags we put on them. That's what matters. Everyone knows that the 'good' species are expensive, and once they're no longer expensive, they're not as good either. Same animal, different price. Funny how that works.

 

[EulersK]

'Devalue.' I know what you mean. I hate when spiders become affordable for the average spider person to own and enjoy. It just ruins that species. The most important thing about a spider isn't it's looks or behavior, it's the artificial and arbitrary price tags we put on them. That's what matters. Everyone knows that the 'good' species are expensive, and once they're no longer expensive, they're not as good either. Same animal, different price. Funny how that works.

I think he was talking more about the literal monetary value of the spider. I agree with him - it's a shame when a spider (or any animal) becomes so cheap that they're viewed as a disposable pet. P. murinus, B. albopilosum, B. vagans, etc.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

'Devalue.' I know what you mean. I hate when spiders become affordable for the average spider person to own and enjoy. It just ruins that species. The most important thing about a spider isn't it's looks or behavior, it's the artificial and arbitrary price tags we put on them. That's what matters. Everyone knows that the 'good' species are expensive, and once they're no longer expensive, they're not as good either. Same animal, different price. Funny how that works.

It really is funny how it all works. I don't understand tarantula keepers as a whole sometimes. A couple of hundred dollars for an exotic spider (a living thing nonetheless) is too much, but paying the same or more for the phones, tablets, computers, and every other "want" people have these days to complain about the price of exotic tarantula species on the internet is fine. I don't get it.

 

[Matabuey]

That's why we have spiders, and I assume that's why you do too: price.

No.

I have them because they're pretty and interesting animals. Price doesn't come into it, until it becomes excessively prohibitive to keep a diverse collection.

My point was just that, the invert community has it pretty good and see no reason why anyone would complain.

Prices are never prohibitively expensive, and prices fall quickly due to the sheer amount of babies produced. Compared with rare animals in other hobbies. One of my friends bought 3 B.parviocula, for around €3000 each, 6 years ago - the price is practically the same today for CB 16's. Even though they've been bred by several people in Europe each year. That's still prohibitive for a lot of people.

I think people should be grateful, that the market allows the large majority of people to maintain large collections and access rare animals. Without needing to remortgage the house! (Some people I know have remortgaged their house to buy rare snakes haha).

 

[Poec54]

I think people should be grateful, that the market allows the large majority of people to maintain large collections and access rare animals.

You sound like the dealers in the mid 2000's who could make $5,000 to $10,000 from a single egg sac. That's big money in the spider world (not for a high roller like yourself, mind you); reptile analogies don't apply; maybe if you priced both by pound it would be more comparable. Yes, I am very thankful that we're able to keep these tropical animals (you have no idea, I've been collecting tarantulas since the early 1970's), but tarantula prices in Europe are significantly lower than the US, and the hobby's much larger because far more people there are able to afford them. Somehow that system of affordability works for them. What we're up against in the US is trying to get people to spend $100 for a 1/2" bug. That's always going to be a tough sell to all but the most devoted.

 

[Matabuey]

You sound like the dealers in the mid 2000's who could make $5,000 to $10,000 from a single egg sac. That's big money in the spider world (not for a high roller like yourself, mind you); reptile analogies don't apply; maybe if you priced both by pound it would be more comparable. Yes, I am very thankful that we're able to keep these tropical animals (you have no idea, I've been collecting tarantulas since the early 1970's), but tarantula prices in Europe are significantly lower than the US, and the hobby's much larger because far more people there are able to afford them. Somehow that system of affordability works for them. What we're up against in the US is trying to get people to spend $100 for a 1/2" bug. That's always going to be a tough sell to all but the most devoted.

I don't know why you enjoy putting words into people's mouths. Never said I was a high roller.

Besides, if you don't want to compare to snakes, as they weigh much more...people buy dwarf geckos, that are a few inches long for £100's on the regular. They do so in America too.

Doesn't detract from the fact T's are very affordable in America and Europe, even the rarest. And those who would consider buying a tarantula the moment it becomes available to the market, are the most devoted.

 

[Poec54]

I think he was talking more about the literal monetary value of the spider. I agree with him - it's a shame when a spider (or any animal) becomes so cheap that they're viewed as a disposable pet. P. murinus, B. albopilosum, B. vagans, etc.

No one's saying they should be valued at the freebie level. Just because someone is able to get top dollar for a new introduction, doesn't mean that when it's propagated and reality sets in, that anything less than that original price is 'devaluation' and 'ruining' the species. When a $300 species is bred and after a few years drops down to $100, believe me, there's a lot of moaning and groaning in some quarters. O. violaceopes was initially $425 for CBB slings from Europe, and between breeding and w/c imports became a $30 sling. There were some pissed off people about that. But maybe it really is a $30 sling and a few in the beginning were able to get more because it was new. They were well-rewarded for taking the risk, which I have no problem with; that provides the motivation for people to travel and bring back spiders from remote 3rd world countries. They should make good money. The issue is that after a few generations the people that 'pile on' and still expect the initial price to be maintained. They paid a lot less themselves but want everyone else to still pay the high introductory price. Or should prices gradually come down, when the supply of that species is 50 or 100 times greater than it was? I guess it all comes down to which side of the fence you're on. I'm on both sides: I'm able to breed because prices came down to a level where I can afford them.

 

[Poec54]

Doesn't detract from the fact T's are very affordable in America and Europe, even the rarest. And those who would consider buying a tarantula the moment it becomes available to the market, are the most devoted.

Much more affordable in Europe. They laugh at what we pay for tarantulas.

 

[Matabuey]

Much more affordable in Europe. They laugh at what we pay for tarantulas.

I know we do, but it's still affordable. Never heard anyone call the tarantula hobby an expensive one.