The Chip Board
Custom Search
   


The Chip Board Archive 06

Came back for another look grin ...

... and found your post, JB.

>> In questions (examples) #1 thru #7, I would
>> consider the chips altered and not counterfeited.

Thank you. Right answer in my opinion.

>> BTW, are the chips in question current where
>> you can return them to the casinos (as in your
>> examples)?

Assume so for the moment.

>> If so, why would you mend a broken heart (I
>> mean chip) before returning it...

Maybe I figured the casino wouldn't take it back broken! Truth is, I actually did this once with a Bud Jones coin inlay that fell out (Oaks cardroom in California). I glued it back in and used it in a poker game.

>> ... and how many times will you be doing this and why?

Couldn't say how often -- as to why, see my previous reply.

>> Also, where are you finding these birdbrains in
>> your examples who are buying your crap?

Oh, I think I could easily find such among the members of the CC>CC. And I don't mean that disresptfully -- they wouldn't necessarily be "birdbrains", not by a long shot.

>> I hope no one I know in the real world is reading my post.

Too late, John. grin ----- jim o\-S

Messages In This Thread

One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: I'd appreciate a response, Jim...
Re: Jim just happens to ...
Partial response ...
Re: Partial response ...
David, to repeat what I said ...
Re: JIM, to repeat what I said ...
Gene, I can only repeat ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Came back for another look grin ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
The drilled chip ...
Re: The drilled chip ...
Can't answer that one ...
Re: Thanks, Jim.
Re: The drilled chip ...
Pam, I appreciate the fervor ...
Jim, at what point in your inquiry did you ...
Re: Jim, at what point in your inquiry did you ...
See my response to JB ...
I don't recall saying ...
Re: Pam, I appreciate the fervor ...
Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Thank you for providing my ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue VERY well ...
Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pete, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Once More
Re: Once More
Re: "intent
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Chips in question were not altered for home use ..
Re: Chips in question were not altered for home us
Re: Chips in question were not altered for home us
I like the term "altered" ...
Re: I like the term "altered" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Let me preface this by saying ...
Re: Let me preface this by saying ...
You may be right about this ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...

Copyright 2022 David Spragg