... are you sure you're not a lawyer??

>> ... but it is NOT customary for a cancellation hole to be filled in. That is
>> deliberately removing a mark that was put on the chip to prevent it's use.

Yes, and if you used it at the issuing casino you'd be violating the law. But, "customary" or not, there's nothing inherently wrong with either filling a hole or removing a cancellation mark (e.g., gold foil overlays).

I have a set of 10 chips from the River City Casino on the Crescent City Queen out of New Orleans. I bought it several years ago from another collector whose name I won't mention to insure that he doesn't get pilloried here.

They are Paul-Son chips which had been cancelled with a gold hot stamp overlay on the regular inlay. The gold hot stamp was subsequently removed and the set was sold to me with the representation that they had been cancelled and the hot stamp removed.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think that the conduct of this seller was somehow a violation of our ethical rules. By your standards, I guess he should be expelled from the club. And maybe I should, too, for knowingly buying and owning such chips.

>> That is not, however, the case with a casino chip. For example: Harrah's $2.50 green PMSC
>> value code E. Harrah's $2.50 PMSC yellow value code E DRILLED. Harrah's $2.50 yellow
>> PMSC value code L in very good condition. So, by taking an E value chip and replacing
>> the green with yellow, or filling in the drill hole on a yellow, you are recreating a
>> chip with a perceived value code of L.

I understand the point you are trying to make (though you picked a bad example for a reason I'll let you discover yourself! )

The fact of the matter remains, in my opinion, that if you were to take one of your brass cores, melt off the plastic and put some other color on it, for your own personal use, that would NOT be a violation of any of our club rules. Or, if you did it to someone else's chip for his own personal use, same result.

>> From our Club Bylaws:

>> "V. TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP
>> Any member ... engaged in conduct unbecoming to a member, or engaging in conduct
>> prejudicial to the welfare of the organization, shall be subject to expulsion
>> or other disciplinary action."

"Conduct unbecoming" and/or "prejudicial conduct" without any pre-existing definition thereof are dangerous grounds upon which to take disciplinary action. I say dangerous because such things can be very subjective. You think:

>> IN MY OPINION, substantially altering a casino chip IS conduct unbecoming to a member.

... without consideration of intent. I disagree. Based on whose opinion is a determination of this issue to be made. Is the future membership of anyone who does this dependent solely upon which of us is making the decision?

>> I would also consider gouging an inlay with a knife to be a substantial alteration.
>> Also, I believe substntially altering chips could be considered to be prejudicial to the
>> welfare of the organization.

By that standard, I would be subject to expulsion or other disciplinary action for the chip which appears at the bottom of this post.

>> From the code of ethics:

>> "2. To conduct myself so as to bring no discredit to the Club..."

>> In my opinion, Bill Borlands chips were a discredit to the hobby, and to the club
>> if it was in existance then.

See the post I made earlier tonight entitled "Maybe we need a new Ethical Rule ...".

>> Again, in my opinion, there is very little difference between those counterfeit
>> chips and the altered brass core chips. Neither is the real thing.

Again, we disagree, as I see outright counterfeits produced for the purpose of deceiving someone as a completely different situation than repaired, restored or altered chips which are provided to the buyer with full disclosure, or which are repaired, restored or altered at the request of the owner.

>> Again from the code of ethics:

>> "6. Not to sell, exhibit, produce nor advertise counterfeits, copies, reproductions or
>> restrikes of any item unless their nature is clearly indicated as such."

>> Please define "clearly".

Absent a specific requirement that the item contain the "clear indication" on its face (or edge), a statement by the seller which fully describes the condition and circumstances of the chip meets the requirement. Maybe the rule should be more specific (as with the Hobby Protection Act requirements), but it isn't.

>> A chip sold to someone with a verbal "I filled in the drill hole" tells one person...

Yes, and under our rules, that's all that's required.

>> ... and if the person is a novice they might not even understand what a drill hole
>> is, or that the chip has been substantially altered.

Yes, possible, but -- again -- not a violation of the Code of Ethics.

>> Still from the code of ethics:

>> "7. To represent casino collectibles as genuine only when to the best of my knowledge and belief,
>> such items are in fact authentic, and when no significant question of their authenticity
>> has been raised.

>> Please define "genuine".

Well, I can't do that any better than Webster's:

----- a. actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character
----- b. actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source ....

The problem is, that provision applies only if the item is claimed to be genuine and is not. So, if the seller accurately describes the altered nature of the item, there is no violation of paragraph 7.

>> Say Harrah's has ordered 500 yellow $1 PMSC chips, and they have been approved by GCB.
>> If the manufacturer produces 1200 of the brass cores, are the 700 that are not used to
>> fill the order still considered genuine?

The cores are certainly genuine, by Webster's definition (and, in fact, blank cores are quite collectible in and of themselves).

>> If someone else then gets the cores and pours plastic onto the core, and makes it look
>> like a genuine chip....isn't that counterfeiting???

If that casino is still open and the plastic is poured for the purpose of passing the chips at the casino, certainly. Otherwise, if done for the owner's private use, no.

>> Isn't putting counterfeit collectibles on the market wrong???

Again, see my post about a "new ethical rule". Lots of Borlands are being sold to this day. Some collectors are trying to put together a whole set. Is everyone who buys or sells one of those chips, knowing that they are counterfeits, nevertheless violating the club's rules and subject to expulsion or other discipline?

>> Maybe I'd feel a little differently if all of the altered chips had a "W" stamped in
>> them from the start, but they didn't.

Maybe I'd feel differently about it then, too, Pam, but how I "feel" doesn't much matter. The long and the short of it is, if altered chips are produced or sold with full disclosure of their true nature, it is not, in my opinion, a violation of our club ethical rules to either produce or sell them.

>> It sounds like some collectors have already been ripped off... and I believe that any
>> reasonable person could have forseen that happening and should have taken steps to prevent it.

Can't comment on that at the moment.

Excellent discussion, Pam. Even if I haven't convinced you, I've enjoyed the exercise!

----- jim o\-S