... that you're looking pretty good in the NCAA b-ball pool. Third place at the moment, but if your picks win out, you come in 1st!! Not bad for the guy that was with me at the bottom after the first day. I, on the other hand, have been completely shut out of the final four.

>> Let me preface this by saying, you know I love ya brother!

You just had to say that in public, didn't you? Well, I love you, too, Bob, but only LIKE a brother!

Re my question #3, you said:

>> See #1 again, but you are starting to dig a hole here.

... which I find rather baffling. The inference of your comment is that once I have repaired the chip, it's OK to sell it with disclosure, but I really shouldn't because the buyer might not be as forthcoming when HE sells it.

Re question #4 you said:

>> If it was a current chip, I don't think the casino would refuse your presenting
>> it at the cage for redemption, so why would you try to repair it?

Whether it might be redeemable or not in damaged condition is beside the point. The issue is whether the conduct is unethical.

>> Improving its condition for the collecting community
>> could easily viewed in a different light.

I have addressed this at length in my replies to David and Pam, so won't repeat that all here, except to say that with disclosure to the buyer, the conduct does not violate our current code of ethics.

Req question #5 you said:

>> If you did it once, there wouldn't be much of a need for such a question.
>> If you did it more than once, or specifically for a group of one type of
>> chips, intent and motive becomes a strong factor.

If I do it once, there's no violation of the rules. If I do it once again, as far as I can see, there is still no violation. And so on and so on. As long as there is disclosure to the buyer, there is no violation of our current rules. I agree that motive and intent are considerations, but if there is complete disclosure, where is the bad motive or bad intent?

Re question #6 you said:

>> I sell "the" chip with full disclosure to the buyer. "The" chip doesn't appear
>> to be what we're talking about here, as there are many chips involved.

Of course it's "the" chip, Bob. Each one is a separate chip. Are you saying that if I sell you one repaired chip with complete disclosure, that's OK, but if I sell you two (or some other higher number) it's not?

Point me to the specific paragraph of our code of ethics which would be violated under those circumstances.

Re question #7 you said:

>> There's the key to the difference between repairing A damaged chip and makng numbers
>> of fake or counterfiet chips.

I don't see that the number makes any difference at all.

>> Given that you've already written that others involved in this aren't being cooperative
>> or forthcoming with information, you have to rely on the word of the guy making the
>> fakes to be telling you the truth concerning full disclosure about the nature of the
>> chips in question.

Actually, Bob, that's not the case at all. And the refutation of your observation would be simplicity itself. But, now you've wandered from the hypothetical back to the actual inquiry, so I can't, at the moment, give you that explanation.

>> Even if there are no further revelations about this practice and a complete discontinuence
>> by the person making these chips, collecting brass core chips has been significantly
>> soiled by his actions in my opinion.

I wouldn't presume to disagree with your opinion in that regard, Bob, and each of us will have to choose for ourselves on that score. But, I will say again -- and will continue to say it for as long as it takes -- we can and should judge the conduct of any person only in the context of the rules governing that conduct.

And, if we don't like the rules, maybe we should change them (about which more separately).

----- jim o\-S