Jim, I won't debate with you whether or not there are inaccuracies in Mr. Spragg's articles. I'm just not qualified to do so on this topic.

It would have been nice if you had stated with which information you have contention. I'm sure with your years of experience, you have valuable insights into this topic, but you only gave teasers, perhaps to perk our interest in your intended upcoming articles.

I believe that there are numerous blanket statements in your post, which should be addressed.

I strongly disagree with your assumption that simply because a person's membership number starts with 6000, they are not qualified to do research on chip related matters or subsequently, write and present their findings.

Your thoughts on this matter assume that the person isn't qualified to do research because they have not been a member of our club long enough to satisfy your preconceived idea of "experienced". Your statement assumes that the person's experience is directly related to the sequence of their membership number. You have discarded the possibility that perhaps they have years of collecting experience prior to joining. The assumption also does not take into account that perhaps the person was a member a long time ago, then rejoined after a lapse in membership, hence resulting in the issuing of a new membership number. But still, a person’s number does not reflect the value of their contributions.

I also have a problem with your assumption that because a person sells chips or has a website, that their writings are therefore self serving.

These blanket statements will merely serve to deter newer collectors from jumping into the hobby with both feet. We have seen numerous new collectors do just that. I have seen new members who have put significant time and energies into writing things they feel will benefit other collectors. The end result has often times been of significant value to the hobby. A good example of this would be Will Knight. If you recall, Mr. Knight presented many writings on chip collecting and the hobby within months of his joining. The CC/GTCC felt those writings were worthy of the club’s website. The club also felt Mr. Knight's writings and contributions were noteworthy enough to vote him the "Newbie Of The Year" and honor him with a plaque at the Convention.

You did, however, at least make mention that there was “one exception" to your blanket statement when you acknowledged the writings of Mark Engelbretson.

I believe that research and presented writings should be viewed on item-by-item basis. As with writings from experienced collectors, some findings will be sound while others are not.

I certainly hope that your post will not discourage those that are toying with the idea of putting pen to paper.