While the specific topic is MOP, the greater issue is how to include factual information into ChipGuide, hence linking to at least 2 threads that hopefully will remain available in TCB archives.

When I worded the comment, I purposely avoided making the statement as being a matter of fact, as I really don't know about such things and cannot personally make the claim. Also, at the time, I did not seek out approval from Westen, John or others, so as to be able to quote them, nor am I doing so now. This is because I believe that comments like these (when made in ChipGuide) should always be referenced to a source and as you know, sometimes the person(s) making a statement does not always want their name attributed to being the source.

While it is obviously unlikely that neither John or Westen have that objection, I did NOT want to make the assumption. Moreover, I did not want to just say that "so and so said so" because I believe that ChipGuide should more scholarly when making comments and therein provide better tangible reference information than saying "Beacuse Johnny said so".

So, now that the better reference information is present, I would agree that the textual aspect of the comment can be changed to:

"This Mother of Pearl (MOP) example is NOT from the Mauretania. Moreover, it has been identified and described to be a Modern Fake where an older MOP with an engraved numeral, has had additional, machined engraving, applied to make it look like it came from an establishment for which it did not. (reference the discussions here: http://www.thechipboard.com/index.cgi/page/1/md/read/id/1275532/sbj/fake-pearl/ and http://www.thechipboard.com/index.cgi/page/1/md/read/id/1280695/sbj/modern-fakes/ )"

Is this comment worded better, in your opinion, which I believe has relavance here, given that among the many things you do in this hobby, you are a researcher and at a minimum, you are also a Member?

Thank Gene,

Jim