Claims has been made by several posters here that the use of the word "rare" (or any variation thereof) to describe a chip which the posters consider "common" is a misrepresentation, perhaps even fraud.

The question has also been raised why I, who frequently try to police eBay sellers for misrepresenting fantasy or other chips, am willing to countenance this misuse of the word "rare".

The question can be answered by explaining why the claims of misrepresentation and/or fraud are, at best, misguided.

Any statement can be a "misrepresentation" only if it is a false or misleading statement of FACT. This is an OBJECTIVE standard; that is, the statement of "fact" can either be proved or disproved. If proved, it is not a misrepresentation; if false, it is.

Furtermore, a misrepresentation can rise to the level of fraud only if it is made with INTENT TO DECEIVE.

On the other hand, a statement of one's opinion is a SUBJECTIVE matter. That is, one's opinion CANNOT be proved or disproved; it just is. Therefore, the expression of an opinion can never constitute a misrepresentation, no matter how uninformed or even stupid it might seem. This is the reason why, in law, a statement of opinion can never constitute defamation (libel or slander); because it can never be proved untrue.

With respect to policing eBay, if a seller represents a fantasy chip to be a real casino chip, that is a misrepresentation. If done with the requisite intent, it is fraud. The claim that the chip is a real casino chip is a statement of fact, susceptible to being proved or disproved. It is this type of misrepresentation to which I take occasonal exception. I might also respond to other, similar, mis-statements of fact.

But, what about the term "RARE"? What exactly does it mean? What is the FACT that can be proved or disproved? There is none because "rare" is a statement of subjective opinion, not a statement of fact. I challenge anyone who disagrees to state a universally accepted, factual definition of what constitutes "rare".

Some of you might say (as I did by email to an eBay seller earlier today), that a chip with a production run of 2000 is not "rare". On the other hand, if there are only 2000 of a particular chip, that is roughly one for every 140,000 people in this country. Now, if there was only one roll of toilet paper for every 140,000 people in the country, I think we would all agree that that particular commodity was all too "rare"!

Objectively, there is no reason to consider the casino chip any less rare. Subjectively, we might be of the OPINION that it is less rare, but what we are really saying is that there is a much lower demand than there is for toilet paper, so it isn't as hard to obtain one as it would be to obtain equally scarce rolls of toilet paper.

Webster, BTW, defines "rare" (in this context) as: "seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMON".

"Uncommon" is defined as: "not ordinarily encountered : UNUSUAL".

"Unusual" is defined as: "not usual : UNCOMMON, RARE".

Which pretty much brings us back to where we started. And all of which still leaves us with the necessity of expressing RARITY as a SUBJECTIVE matter.

Unless and until there is a universally accepted, FACTUAL definition of the word "rare", what is or is not "rare" is simply a matter of opinion. Yours, mine and Dean's might not agree, but ANY such difference of opinion does not and cannot constitute a misrepresentation, much less a fraud.

And that's my OPINION on this subject (though I believe it to be a reasonably well-informed opinion, as I practiced criminal for 10 years as a prosecutor and 10 more as defense counsel).

We all hope, I think, for a higher ethical standard in our hobby and to the extent that the club can impose one, I'm all for it. So, please don't read this as a "defense" of the misuse of the word "rare", for it is not.

----- jim o\-S