Good point, Don.

Something else I might have added about change in ownership resulting in new chip issues and demonetarizing the old chips. To a purchaser, every chip that's outstanding is a liability - a potential debt the new owner might have to pay. And the trouble is that there's no way for a new owner to know exactly how large that potential liability is. I suspect new owners would be much less likely to redeem chip issues of the previous (or past) owners than casinos that remain under the same ownership but just change chips.

I've also been giving some thought to why Excalibur would publish that notice for only a few particular chips. Others (like Lady Luck) have done it before, but it's interesting to ponder.

Pure conjecture, of course, but does this mean that large numbers of those chips have disappeared, and Excalibur doesn't want to see them return to the cage? If they're demonetarized, they know they can keep the money, and if someone shows up with a rack or two, they have a legitimate reason to refuse to take them back.

Or perhaps there are too many of them still around, and they hope the non-redemption notice will bring people in looking to take them because "some day they'll be worth something."

Could there be other reasons as well?

Michael