This is a scan of the textured and smooth finish inlay chips.

Textured on the left and smooth on the right.

Here is scan that takes the Tropicana logo from one and superimposes it onto the same logo on the other, and then (because they were the same size) I shifted one image up so that it could be seen to be the same size, without me saying, "trust me, the one image is hidden by the other".

So again, this tells me that unless there is another version of the chip out there, I see the textured chip as the earlier version and the smooth chip as the current version. (But again, I could be wrong!)

Then I decided to do the UV test, which turned up a result of the textured chip having the large hat and cane UV image, standing on edge, with the can hook down. One of two smooth finish chips had the same hat and cane image and orientation, BUT in a different place in relation to the logo (this ofetn means a different run, but not always) but the fact that one was textured and was smooth, tends to say different runs anyway. The second smooth textured chip had the same hat and cane size, but it was right side up, an indicator of a re-order event, but possibly a different run at the same time as the other smooth finish chip.

On the off chance that the two smooth textured chips, with decidedly different UV hat and cane placements and orientation, might be the TCR small and large versions of the $1 chip, I then did a comparison on the inlays. In the composite scan below you can see both chips, fully scanned. I copied and pasted the left chip's inlay above and to the left of that chip. I also copied and pasted the inlay of the chip on the right, above and to the rigjht of itself, but I also made it transparent and reduced its intensity. The middle image is overlaying the transparent inlay to the full image inlay and you can see, everything is the same size.

So, I'm still thinking that the TCR differential between the two chips you listed by TCR numbers are not based on logo size, but on textures of the inlay. (But hey, I could be wrong.)

Jim