... guide". I think we need one. I proposed an official "grading system" last year, but after considerable discussion here, came to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt a set of condition definitions, rather than a "grading system" (as I recall, it was Larry Hollibaugh who made the basic suggestion for a definitional approach).

Someone here recently said that it was necessary to address both "grading" and slabbing as a pair of interrelated subjects (sorry, can't remember who said it). I agree with that observation and for that reason think we should revisit the issue of a club sanctioned condition guide.

Am going to reproduce here the contents of my post of March 3, 2000, which started the conversation. If you want to see the actual message, it is in the archives at:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcb/archive5.pl?read=58054

If you go there, of course, you can also see the responsive posts.

I don't feel like editing this thing tonight, so please, each time you see "grading system" please read it as "condition guide" !! <g>

----- jim o\-S

Original message was:

>> ... I have sent a proposed "Official CC>CC Grading System" by email to four
>> members of the club board (don't have an email address for Ken Hallenbeck).
>> Following is the proposal I sent to the board, with one modification
>> suggested by Archie Black:

>>> Dear David, Ken, Nate, Barry & Jim ----- I propose that the club adopt an
>>> "Official CC>CC Grading System" and that the system be publicized in the
>>> club magazine and to the hobby in general.

>>>> Proposed "Official CC>CC Grading System":

>>>> The condition of casino chips can be characterized as follows:

>>>> NEW -- a chip which shows no sign of use or damage; in same condition as
>>>> originally manufactured.

>>>> EXCELLENT -- a chip which shows only slight signs of use and no damage.

>>>> USED -- a chip which shows obvious signs of use and/or has minor damage,
>>>> such as rim nicks or surface scratches.

>>>> WORN -- a chip which has been extensively used and shows signs of
>>>> substantial wear, such as rounded edges, or other damage.

>>>> CANCELLED -- a chip which has been cancelled by the issuing casino by means
>>>> of drilling, notching or hot stamping over the original inlay. Cancelled
>>>> chips may be in otherwise Mint, Excellent, Used or Worn condition.

>>>> DAMAGED -- a chip which has substantial and unusual damage unrelated to its
>>>> use in casino play; for example, a crack, substantial scratching or gouges
>>>> or excessive fading of colors. A damaged chip may also be in otherwise
>>>> Mint, Excellent, Used or Worn condition and/or may also be Cancelled.

>>>> The CC>CC officially recognizes the foregoing grading categories and
>>>> encourages their use by club members, casino chip sellers/dealers and
>>>> casino chip collectors. <<<<

>>> I would appreciate it if you would forward this message to Ken Hallenbeck,
>>> as I do not have his email address. Thank you for your consideration of
>>> this proposal. <<<

>> David Sarles replied, in part:

>>> The hobby has lived without an official system so far and is doing just
>>> fine. Whose interests would be served by the club endorsed grades? <<<

>> My response to that question was:

>>> If I thought it was possible to avoid forever any type of formalized grading
>>> system, I would be perfectly happy. If you doubt that, see my October 1998
>>> ChipBox column on Chequers.

>>> In my view, adoption of a club sanctioned grading system of the nature I
>>> propose would serve the interests of collectors and would serve to prevent
>>> general acceptance of more detailed grading systems like that contained in
>>> the Campiglia-Wells book. If you have been reading my BB comments on this
>>> subject, you know quite well that I am opposed to any such detailed system.

>>> Just so there is no possibility of mis-understanding, I think a public
>>> discussion among club members on this issue would be appropriate. I will
>>> post my suggestion on the club BB, as well as the ChipBoard and the Chequers
>>> BB. I will also prepare an article for the club magazine and, depending on
>>> the timing, may write a Chequers magazine column as well. Unless you
>>> indicate otherwise, I will assume that you have no objection to my sharing
>>> your response(s) with other club members in any or all of these venues. <<<

>> David's reply was:

>>> Let's publicly discuss and see if we can reach a consensus on
>>> the need for this. <<<

>> If you have an interest in this subject, please provide your
>> input. Thanks. ----- jim o\-S