... is not the same as grading. (It's a heck of a note when a great thread like this blows up while I'm off galavanting, and most everything has already been said. I still think it's helpful to lend my voice to the cause <g>.)

I believe, and have advocated since before CW threw "grading" in our faces, that it is a good thing to have a club-sanctioned definition of terms for describing chip condition. Such definitons of terms like mint, excellent, used, worn, rare, scarce, and the like would be useful in communications between club members and honest collectors and dealers. It will have no impact on the practices of people like Dean Clark.

"Grading" is yet another term that needs a clear definition! To most people here, that term refers to a process of submitting chips to so-called professionals to get chips rated and slabbed for a fee, and I am proud to add my voice to those that want no part of it.

As for the CW book, it's a very pretty picture book. Too bad it's filled with propaganda that degrades collector markets such as Reno, uses unfounded rumor to damage the value of selected chips, and otherwise manipulates the value of chips based on the authors' inventory and other personal agendas. I can only assume they see a financial advantage for themselves in a grading/slabbing business.