It appears that squid statoliths cannot yet be regarded as accurate an ageing tool as fish otoliths. Statoliths from the same pair, prepared differently for viewing and counting increments, were compared. Increment counts do not imply age in days, because this was not validated. One statolith from each pair was examined by light microscopy (LM) after preparation following a new method. The other was viewed by Scanning Electron microscopy (SEM) with a modified etching solution. Shape of each statolith was similar when compared by multiple regression analysis (11 variables, n=53). There was a weak but significant difference between sexes (statoliths of females were slightly larger). All other differences were insignificant. Microscopic observation and increment counts of increments were successfully carried out for 37 pairs of statoliths. Significant differences between two independent counts were found for the LM method, but no significant differences were found between two independent SEM counts. Counts were significantly different when interpreted by both LM and SEM, probably because of poor resolution in the LM readings and over-resolution (growth layers prominent and numerous) in those read by SEM. Recommendations are made on how ageing studies, based on statoliths, should be structured and the results evaluated.