=====
From MMandl@aol.com:
It is beautiful object. However, it needs to be set as a scene.
So I gave low artistic merit and higher tech merit.


=====
From agage@mines.edu:

Nice coloring, complex shape.
=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Nice, but a bit lonely.
Very interesting tech info on txt. Thanks!


=====
From sonya_roberts@geocities.com:
This comment applies to all four of your shell submissions:  They're quite
pretty,
and I'm giving you good technical marks for your creation methods, but I'm also
giving
you a lowered "concept, originality, interpretation of theme" mark for showing
us what
is, essentially, the same object in four slightly-differing modes.  Had you done
one image
of all four objects, or created very different "shells" with each method, (or
pref. four
very different shells in one image) I'd have given you better originality
marks.

=====
From ingo@ibm.net:
Hello!

Please think about entering only _one_ picture next time.
I've seen your four entries, they're quite similar, but really not bad - so it's
your choice to select the best not the jury's one.

Bye,
  Ingo

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Fascinating.  Your best image, by far.

=====
From alex@astro.queensu.ca:
4 virtually identical renderings gets tiresome

=====
From SSchanevil@aol.com:
This is a good picture, but you should pick 1 instead of submitting 4.  I will
rate this 
picture without taking points away, but the other "shells" I consider just
copies of this.


=====

From web_user@sf-pm1-28-28.dialup.slip.net:
Notable for lighting