Interesting thread. I see a lot of “would you consider this an error…” posts. I tend to lean towards the assumption, that unless it is dramatically different from other specimens, most “errors” are not so.

Although I have the upmost respect for Archie and invaluable information he brings to the hobby, I would take exception to any comparison between chips and coins when defining a production error. The significant differences in production between coins and casino chips, particularly with respect to the placement of an inlay verses the striking of a planchet in a collared die for coins makes this an apples and oranges sort of comparison. Whereas the placement of objects on fields for a coin is determined by the striking and thus a modification of the metal’s surface itself, the marriage of the inlay and the chip slug is two distinct objects and therefore is much more susceptible to variations with regards to placement upon the center point of the chip’s surface.

If the hobby were to focus its collective efforts in defining clear “error” determinations, I imagine it would come down to determining the acceptable standard deviation limits with regard to the chips center points and inlay placement or the depth of penetration of the insert slug etc. This could become problematic as we would start to require a separate catalog of statistical variances for each chip ever produced. I only mention this as I have recently be looking for a $1 house chip from the closed Maxim Casino in Las Vegas and have come to the conclusion that those chips must have been manufactured on a Friday afternoon after the operator drank his lunch, a big lunch! Finding an example of that particular chip that has a well centered inlay could almost be considered an error in its own right.

Now technical gibberish aside, the determination of error status must inherently pass the “Eye Test.” If you look at a chip and it just doesn’t look right…call it an error, just don’t expect the marketplace to pay a premium for its perceived scarcity. I would caution against the practices of labeling every slightly nuanced feature of a chip as an error or variation or else the burden placed upon collectors to complete their collections will drive even the most avid collector away from the hobby. The financial impact alone of chasing every error and variation would be problematic, not to mention the near Herculean task to track down dozens of examples for most chips.

Imagine finally nabbing that $5 Boulder Club arodie example only to have someone remark that it was a good example of the “common” chip with the 6.3 mm inserts but any real collection has to have the one with the 6.7 mm “variation” inserts. I would have to hope for a sympathetic jury at trial.