In this post I am attempting to define “Crest and Seal” chip in a practical, easily understood way, a way that is good for the hobby, is consistent with the old catalog descriptions and which --I believe-- is the definition used by most collectors today.

I think a C&S chip should have all of these three characteristics:
(1) clay composition ( not modern plastic-nylon like #11 and #12 below)
(2) litho inlay (not plain (one color) inlays like #’s 7, 8, 9 and 10 below; otherwise, 100’s of simple plain generic inlay chips would be called C&S; and both Burt and Mason Co’s. refer to “printing” on the inlay)), and
(3) plain (flat) mold (so, no embossed rim molds like the Hub mold in #5 and #6 below; if #5 and #6 are called C&S’s, then just about every inlay casino chip ever made could be called a C&S).

For me that is the definition of a C&S chip -- clay, litho inlay, flat mold. Thus, the only C&S chips of the twelve chips below are #’s 1, 2 , 3 and 4.

To me, and most collectors I know, it is irrelevant whether the chip has a transparent or lacquer film (seal) over the entire surface of the chip, a covering so smooth that it makes it impossible for one to feel the division between the inlay and the clay. Some have suggested that if you can feel the division, the chip is not “sealed,” and the chip is not a C&S. I have collected for years, and, till recently, I was never aware of such a distinction, I never thought of feeling where the inlay ended and the clay began! I think this issue should be irrelevant to the definition of a C&S for these reasons:

(1) I have never seen in the old literature and catalogs any mention of such a coating that conceals to the touch the joining of the clay and inlay,

(2) I have noticed in the catalogs that most distributors called their protected inlay chips “Crest and Seal”, “Seal or Crest”, “Seal and Crest,” etc., even though many had differently constructed chips. The terms became meaningless advertising claims like “best tasting” or “most mild.” Moreover, “seal” could mean merely “secure adhesive” or “emblem.” Even if it meant “airtight closure,” that doesn’t necessarily mean impervious to touch.

(3) most important, I think we should use the term “Crest and Seal” in a way so as not to confuse and “turn off” collectors. The criterion of being able or not to feel the inlay-clay separation will drive collectors crazy. It will be worse than our recent condition-grading debate. The separation can not be seen in a scan. Even in the flesh, if several collectors are examining the same chip, they could/will disagree over whether the separation is apparent to touch or sight. This is especially true in worn or damaged chips where the inlay is more exposed. I can not feel the clay-inlay division on chips #1 (1924) and #2 (1929) below, but I can feel it on chips #3 (1929) and #4 (1927) . All four chips were made by the U. S. Playing Card Co., all are considered C&S chips by most collectors. I say keep it that way.

“Crest and Seal” chips are the premier clay chips. Truly vintage and rare, elegant, beautiful and valuable, they had no universal definition in the past. It is up to us to use this cachet for our own practical purposes.

[#7 and #8 were also made by the USPC. They are PLAIN inlay chips, so collectors don’t call them C&S. Good, the term should be reserved for litho inlays; that is the current usage and the old distributors' usage. ]

[Chips #9 and #10 below are generic inlaid poker chips. Both have plain inlays (i.e., solid color inlays, not litho inlays). #9 has an unusual colored (red, here) inlay in the center of the white clay chip. (The USPC calls such small non-round inlays “small center” inlays.). #10 has a white inlay in the red clay chip. (The USPC calls these round perforated inlays “large center” inlays; it is interesting that what was cut out of the “large center” inlay could be used for the club in the small center inlay chip, #9!) ]

Robert Eisenstadt