The issue #'s for LE chips can be a controversial issue in the hobby, especially for low quantities that don't cover the expected demand for the chip. It's an art, not a science, to get the #'s right.

But, I think you have to look at the INTENT of the parties involved, to the extent that it can be discerned, before casting aspersions on the issuing casino and/or the dealer/sellers of the chips.

I'm inclined to think the Saddle West simply budgeted $250 + chip production costs for providing these chips to their New Years Eve event as party favors. Similar to Mandalay Bay providing $88 worth of chips for their Chinese New Years event guests. Or similar to the $25 Fiesta millennium chip given to employees. Saddle West wasn't thinking of the collector market at all when ordering these chips.

As to the dealer involved, I think he's on the square and is not cornering the market, working an inside deal with casino personnel or pulling a fast one on naive cage people (like others did with the Nevada Palace chips a while back). Collectors can vote with their pocketbooks and decide the price is not affordable (I decided to pass), but it may turn out that the asking price is close to the market-clearing price. Remember the $100+/- value that the Hard Rock No Value convention chips brought, for example.

I am concerned at times about certain LE chip issues where I DO question the INTENT of certain casinos (or more likely, one or a few casino personnel in the casino) and/or a dealer or seller of chips who's shooting an angle. I can't always prove my suspicions, but I can say that it does affect my collecting habits. I simply don't patronize those casinos or dealers whose intent appears to be shady. But in this specific case (the $1 Saddle West chip, and CITM) I don't think any shady intent is involved.