The Chip Board
Custom Search
   


The Chip Board Archive 06

Partial response ...

... David, which is the best I can do at the moment:

>> But I was under the impression that in some cases what was done in the brass core
>> case that has caused all the recent controversy was to remove the original plastic and
>> replace it with a color that was not actually used by the casino, creating what some
>> might view as a valuable "error" chip. Seems to me that's a completely different kettle of fish.

You are not alone in feeling that way. However, if there was complete disclosure, it is not, in my opinion, a violation of the club's ethical rules. Please read them over (particularly paragraphs 6 & 7) and then tell me how, if this was done with the knowledge of (or at the request of) the buyer, how I could, in good faith, find it to be a violation of those rules. Which, of course, is my only real function here. I will say it again -- I cannot impute to any individual the bad conduct of some other person which might be committed at some time in the future.

>> By the way, do you know if or where any of these chips are currently available for sale
>> and at what price in case any of the board readers are interested in acquiring them?

And why would any of the board readers want to encourage this practice by buying the chips?
In fact, this raises a whole other point which I will discuss in a separate message.

>> I'd expect they'd be available for low prices (say under $10) from what I've read about
>> the circumstances surrounding their creation.

I can't imagine why you'd expect that. The cores sell for more than that by themselves.

>> Also, if we know how many non-W brass core chips were created, seems like that would
>> be a good thing to communicate to the chip collecting community. If we're talking
>> just a handful that's a different situation than if hundreds were created.

At the moment, I cannot respond to that specific question.

On the other hand, feel free to keep asking.

----- 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