John Benedict's excellent post reminded me that "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". I feel the time has come for me to speak. First off, I must say that James probably agrees with all or most of this based on our previous conversations, but I am speaking for myself here. Let's tackle the Slab Monster first. There has been constant speculation as to the identity of ICG's Grader. I will now put that issue to rest. According to his business card, ICG's "Grader and Authenticator" is Lew Larson of Englewood, Colorado. His first name was mentioned in an early post, but nobody picked up on it. He was at the Tropicana show. I did not attend this show. I have never met Lew Larson or anyone else from ICG, but was given his business card by a fellow chip collector. Now, on to the real issues...

The biggest problem with the Slabbing issue is that it has become emotional. Reason has given way to a witch hunt. That hideous list is a good example. Why is it that everytime something comes up that a group of people dislike, the first thing they want to do is demonize their opponents and pass legislation restricting our precious freedom? In my view, that is the only issue we should be debating.

The fate of Slabbing should be left to the harsh reality of the free market. If ICG cannot make a profit slabbing chips, then they will stop slabbing them. It's as simple as that. If this happens, I have no problem with that. The more complicated question is what happens if they succeed? I am sure they will get very little, if any, business from chip dealers/collectors at this point, because there is no economic reason for us to slab our chips. Most of us store our chips in Dansco binders or cardboard flips. Slabs would require a new way of storage. Also, the cost of slabbing a large collection would be enormous,etc. (Although, one would probably only do the better pieces.)

However, I believe ICG's real game plan has not been accurately analyzed. In my opinion, they did not start this endeavor with just chippers in mind. There are at least 100 times as many coin collectors as chip collectors. I think we can assume that this is the actual market they intend to reach. Slabbing is going to succeed or fail (from ICG's point of view) based on whether or not they can tap into this market. If they cannot, slabbing will die a quick and brutal death. On the other hand, we need to look carefully at what happens if they succeed.

Keep in mind that this slabbing issue is not a moral issue. It is an ECONOMIC issue. Period. We should be treating it as such. If coin collectors and other investors begin buying chips, the value of chips will increase. In other words, OUR COLLECTIONS WILL GO UP IN VALUE. What's wrong with that? When you buy a stock, do you hope it goes down in value or stagnates? We all like some of our chips better than others. Sometimes we are forced to sell for reasons of economic distress. It is important to remember that some members will not be able to be "buried with their chips". Also, every time you buy a chip to hold, someone has to sell it to you. Along these lines, it is absurd to blame slabbing for escalating chip prices. Chips have increased dramatically in value over the past 5-10 years without a single piece ever being slabbed. So, can we assume that chips may increase in value anyway, and that slabbing only affects the rate of growth? If so, what's the big deal?

My problem is the attempt to take away a future choice. I don't have any intention of buying or selling any slabbed chips now, because I don't see a single logical reason or benefit to doing so. However, things can change. What is "obvious" now, may not be later in the unpredictable future.

Let's probe deeper into this scenario. If chip values do rise dramatically in the coin/investor markets and outside of our normal hobby channels, then what? If you have a chip that is suddenly worth $1000 slabbed or $500 unslabbed, what are you going to do with it? Are you going to take a $500 loss by selling it unslabbed? If so, you are going to run out of material quickly! I bet that list will have more defectors than Saddam Hussein's army during the Gulf War! Of course, this will lead to hard feelings and bloody infighting in our Club. Is that what you want? If slabbing becomes widespread this is inevitable, because sellers always seek ideal, or near ideal, returns. And if you don't, the next guy will. Think about that, clearly, devoid of emotion.

For the record, I have serious doubts that slabbing is going to succeed. However, unless I woke up in Cuba today, I don't need or want Jim Reilly and his handpicked band of yes men (Neal Silverman and Marty Kaplan) telling me what economic decisions I am allowed to make. I prefer to use my own brain and make my own decisions. Jim Reilly claims to be a Libertarian, but that is ludicrous. Jim correctly assumed that he could shore up a base of support by coming out against slabbing. I was amused at his contention that he was "taking a chance" by coming out so strongly and quickly. Give me a break, Jim. After two solid years of vitriol on this board against grading systems and slabbing by so many people, Nostradamus was not required to predict the outcome! No real Libertarian would ever propose solving a problem by restricting individual freedom. That is the exact opposite of what the Libertarian philosophy is all about. Enough said on that point.

Some of you will say, "But the majority wants slabs banned!" That argument impresses me about as much as thirty men voting to rape twenty women on a deserted island and claiming it was good policy because 60% of the islanders voted for it. Our original Constitution was set up to try and prevent mob rule, but over time, greed and emotion elected politicians with socialist beliefs. That gave us the income tax in 1913, Prohibition in 1919 (the best argument against banning anything!), the giant welfare state, etc. etc. Freedom, even in a small chip club election, is not something to be taken lightly.

Therefore, I urge those who believe in Chip Freedom to vote for Nate Pincus. I am concerned that the Freedom vote will be split between Nate and Jim Steffner (a very good man in his own right). However, tough choices have to be made and we must make them now. I join Convention Chairman Wayne Thompson, Magazine Editor John Yee, President David Sarles, James Campiglia, Secretary Barry Weintraub, and many others in pledging my vote to Nate Pincus. I have spoken with him at length several times about club issues and was impressed with his logical mind and approach to problem-solving. He would not be as devisive as Jim Reilly.

Personally, I have been involved with Nate on several large chip deals and can assure everyone that he is as honest and responsible as he is a real gentleman. He has never proposed any legislation that would restrict freedom of choice. Therefore, he is my choice. Can a good, calm, soft-spoken man like Nate Pincus be elected in a time of mass hysteria and needless panic? For our sake, and our Club's sake, I hope so!