... John. You presented a well-reasoned and essentially accurate argument in favor of a grading system of some kind for chips. And I don't disagree with most of what you said.

Some comments:

>> WE ALL KNOW THIS... between a high priced chips, we would choose the better condition one over an inferior one. <<

Assuming, of course, that we can afford the price difference!!

>> We are trying to set an objective scale to a subjective assessment. Subconsciously we do that but Campiglia and Wells have chosen to publicly write about it. <<

No question about that. And several other grading "systems" have been used or advanced by various people (such as that used in Gaming Times). We all have some scale of comparing condition.

>> Would we pay more for a better condition chip? I think yes, so why not admit that we do have our OWN criteria for grading. <<

I admit it! <g> I use "Mint", "Excellent", "Used" and "Worn", and add "cancelled" to the condition if appropriate. Sometimes, I also make a special note for unusual damage.

>> Is that really any different than what is printed in the "OFFICIAL" book. <<

The DIFFERENCE is the highly technical, point by point, "grading" that is pushed in the Campiglia-Wells book. It is a patent effort to have the hobby accept a grading system like that used for coins. In my opinion, it has only one purpose -- to make it possible for dealers to differentiate among high-end, excellent condition chips, so as to enable them to place higher price tags on the chips. If you are familiar with the MS grading system for coins, you know that a single point (e.g., 66 or 67) can make a difference of THOUSANDS of dollars in the price of a coin. My brother is a high-end coin investor. He frequently submits coins to PCGS for "grading" and slabbing. Sometimes, he'll crack a coin out of its slab and resubmit, in hopes of getting a higher grade. Often, more than once with the same coin. Sometimes it works -- and all of a sudden the coin is "worth" thousands of dollars more than it was "worth" before. This may be good for dealers and investors; it is not good for the HOBBY of coin collecting. The Campiglia-Wells "grading" system is obviously designed to move chip collecting in the same direction.

>> Perhaps the title is offensive and the sense of arrogance. <<

No perhaps about it. It IS arrogant and it IS offensive. It is also misleading insofar as it implies approval by some authority higher than the authors. The "grading system" is called the "Official Casino Chip Grading System" (p.42 of the book). It isn't "official" anything; it's something two guys just made up.

>> It's called marketing, salesmanship, etc. <<

Which is near and dear to your heart, right John?! <g> You're right, of course, but in this case it looks more like used car dealer hucksterism than high class marketing.

>> These guys certainly didn't make any money on this venture. <<

Completely beside the point.

>> Who in their right mind would put so much effort, blood, sweat, and beers into a money losing venture. <<

Well, let's see. Knapp, Myers & Wheeldon. Borland. Herz & Herz. Seymour. Black (twice). Schneir. Spencer. Weaver. Lighterman, Lighterman & Ginburg. Nezhoda. Susong. Jung & Pfaender. Eastman. Mancinelli. Banick. Lauderman. Hertel. Chalfant. And Campiglia & Wells. And that's just the books I own; there are probably some others I don't have.

>> Is it for the hobby, ego, who cares, it's another resource and they should be commended for the effort. <<

In my earlier post to Steve Wells, I made a point of saying that other than the grading system, their book is excellent. I bought a hard cover version and use it frequently. Take out pages 42-50 and the headings on the three "price" columns and it's a excellent source of information about chips. To that extent, I do commend the effort.

>> I take offense when people really make an effort and get shot down for the work they do. <<

Mis-directed effort, particularly effort which is harmful to the hobby, should be shot down. Sorry, John, but in my opinion this so-called "official grading system" is BAD for our hobby and deserves to be strangled out of existence. Any "system" in which a chip with obvious wear, a noticeable nick and accumulated table grime can be called MINT STATE anything is mis-leading. For what purpose? To make the chip SEEM more desirable (and therefore more valuable) than it would be if you just said it was in "excellent" condition.

I will repeat here what I said in an earlier post: I will never own a chip which is slabbed. And, I will not buy a chip which has been "graded" by this system.

>> I welcome any comments. I do, really. <<

Now, aren't you sorry you said that, John! <g>

----- jim o\-S