OK, there's a lot of talk about what a chip is worth, and there seems to be a following for each of the two main books. Some argue that TCR's valuation of a certain arodie is correct since the book is newer. I don't think that's a valid argument. However, in this case, James' book was published before the large amount of that particular chip was found, so of course, the average value is probably lower than his quote.

However, that's not the case for most of the chips with vast differences in values between the 2 books, regardless of publishing dates.

I think it's fairly simple; value is situational. I recently (few months ago) sold an Artichoke Joe's Peanut House $1 1st issue for $100. I know that neither book values it at even 1/5 of that price, but that's what it sold for (with a starting bid of .99). But, on that day, the chip was worth $100. As a side note, the runner-up bid was $99, and I sold another to that bidder for $55. Does that mean I was dishonest? Of course not.

A chip is worth what it will sell for at any given time. Pretty simple. So what if TCR says it's worth $22 and James' book says $40? Some of you seem to think that TCR is the bible, and whatever it says is gospel. Who's to say which one is right? It comes down to a matter of opinion. Sure, many factors go into the valuation of a chip, but when it comes down to it, when you're selling chips, each chip is worth what someone will pay for it.

I've paid way more than a stated value of a chip before because I really wanted the chip. A well-known buyer on eBay does that rather often. Believe me, he knows the quoted values of these chips. He's no rookie. But he knows what he wants and has the money to go after it.

To come to this point of constantly bashing a seller because he stated the written value of a chip (and stated the source), even though there was another source that valued the chip as lower, is trite and childish. The fact is, no one knows the exact value of that chip. And when it comes down to it, that chip IS worth $100. It's sold for over $100 in the past, and I've no doubt someone in the future will pay $100 for it again. Perhaps the average price is lower than that, but the average price is not the value.

In short, value is relative. Period. Now let's stop this immature bickering (I'm guilty too) and get back to what's important; The Indians KILLING the Yankees tonight! Woohoo!

scottro