Why are they called "tiles," twice, with quotation marks? Are they not tiles? And the "edged in cream" -- isn't that just the grout? And why was the photo taken through a milk bottle?

I like the way the pattern resembles the skin of an octopus or a stingray.

Shagreen is (usually) shark skin. So if it's real shagreen, not a faux look, the tiles are not porcelain as most tiles are, but pieces of shark skin. On the other hand, tiles are pretty much defined by their shape and use, not by what they are made from, so I'd guess these are "Shagreen tiles" and the quote marks (above) are misplaced to suggest that "they look like tiles but are not, really". Which isn't technically true. (Grammarian mode off.)

This is real shagreen and there is no grout, it is a border.

I liked them better when I thought they were porcelain designed to look like sea life. Now I can't help wondering: (a) who is so bored by all the other beautiful tile out there that they need to pay $350 per square foot for this?; (b) how many other people are going to perceive the border as an homage to grout; (c) even if they're made of real shark, aren't they still tiles? How far afield do you have to go before rectilinear flat plates that fit together on a wall are no longer "tiles"?

These tiles are in fact shagreen, the skin of a sting ray. They come in two colors...this dark, deep gray and natural beige/tan. They are edged in bone from water buffalo, and yes...they retail for $400/s.f. This all according to the rep from Kallista who gave me tour of their space at the KBIS show.

actually turns out they only come in one color...the black. Also, you should note there are for use in dry areas only, and should not be used for kitchen backsplashes where they may be exposed to oils from cooking as this will change the appearance of the tile.

ew. stingray skin edged in water buffalo bones.... seriously? does anyone else find that revolting?