Jim- I understand your point; I guess the thing that makes it different(IMO) is that at an auction, the seller does not even set the price-the buyers do. When someone bids on an item, they are saying "to me, this item is worth the price of my bid-I am freely offerring that amount for it". Now, if they are willing to bid large sums of money without either asking the dealer the right questions or researching the buy before they bid, that's their fault. Is using the term rare for these chips misleading-I don't know. I remember a thread when some people thought rare should be used for when there are 1 or 2 chips in existence. Others, many more. Since that term HAS NO official meaning, (sort of like "new, improved"<g>), it is up to the buyer to determine what his/her criteria for rare is. I guess the part that I'm uneasy with about Michele's intervention is it doesn't seem any different, in theory, to any dealer (or collector) who sees a chip on ebay, sees a bid, and then contacts the bidder and says, "hey, I know where there is another one of those chips at a cheaper price" somewhere around the country. To me that's interference. Auctions are not designed to give someone the "cheapest" price available. In fact, it's the opposite-I think every seller hopes a "bidding war" brings a higher price. So I guess my long answer is just to say that I agree with the concept of inteference when someone tells a deliberate lie-like a fantasy chip is real; but just because a dealer doesn't mention all he knows about chips in general in an auction ad, I think that's capitalism not deceit. Any buyer is free to ask the right questions. regards, mike