... Archie, is that I'm glad someone understood the point of this post. Dean was accused of "defining EVERYTHING one sells as “rare” ... -- and being informed repeatedly of these misrepresentations by knowledgeable collectors", the implication being that he was not responsive to such complaints. Obviously, his recent auctions proves the contrary. (Furthermore, even a review of all available past auctions fails to support the claim that he defined "everything" he sold as "rare".)

He was also accused of "reeming newbies"; I have yet to see ANYONE post an example of this.

It seems to me that several of the critical posts used hyperbolic exaggeration to make their point -- which meant, of course, that they were using the very technique about which they were complaining.

I said (at least twice) that I do not condone the use of "rare" to describe common chips and that I was not defending that practice. I also said that I favored the encouragement by the club of high ethical standards in this regard. On the other hand, I acknowledged that, so long as the term "rare" remains a subjective term, imposition of any kind of standard will simply not be possible.

With respect to the conduct of participants in our hobby, I am on the side of honesty, fairness and, insofar as is possible, civil discourse. I just happen to believe that these traits should be exhibited equally by those who complain about the conduct of others as by those they are complaining about. If that puts me on the "wrong" side, then I'm going to be on the wrong side a lot -- an unrepentent about it.

BTW, the whole point of my very first post was simply to alert people that they shouldn't necessarily avoid Dean's (and Fran's!!) auctions because of their supposed misuse of the word "rare", because they still offered nice chips at fair prices. I stand by that observation, too. ----- jim o\-S