Page 42. "The Reno chip market is like a corpse on a moonlit night surrounded by a chanting ring of Voodoo-worshippers. They want the corpse to rise, but there's no logical reason for it to do so. Reno has an unfortunate lack of classic attractive inlaid chips. Most of the old Reno casinos used hot stamps and the area itself is not very exciting."

What purpose does this statement serve? It certainly couldn't be related to the authors' personal bias, or collecting interests and inventory of people who are not among their close friends, could it? Don't chips stand on their individual merits - good looking inlays worth more than hot stamps of same rarity, rare chips worth more than common chips?

On page 224, we see the beautiful, and very common, Riverside $5 rust small key with the picture of the hotel. It's described as, "Similar to the ultra-rare and expensive first issue Las Vegas Riviera. However, unlike the Riviera, this piece is not rare. Also, the difference in demand between Las Vegas and Reno is very large, which is why Reno chips of equal rarity and aesthetic appeal are worth much less than their Las Vegas counterparts."

Again I ask, what's the point? Sounds like a contradiction to me. Reno chips are not very collectible because they're all a bunch of ugly hot stamps. But good looking Reno chips are worthless because they're from Reno, period. Isn't it enough to say this chip is inexpensive because of the number in circulation, and leave out the degrading commentary? This is not some honest effort to educate the collector here. Somebody has an axe to grind. Someone wants to harm the Reno chip market, and is using this book as a propaganda tool. Why?