William,

I think that the best idea is to actually describe the chip and provide a useful image.

Even a standard among collectors about what "Good" means presents problems. While we might agree that a chip showing minor table use is "Good" some collectors may care more about the strength of the Hot Stamped inlay than they do about edge nicks, and vice versa simply saying "Good" doesn't help (nor does assigning a numerical value).

A description that says Hot Stamp slightly worn but fully intact and readable, a few small edge nicks, slightly rounded edges actually tells me something about the chip.

Also the problem with a system that uses common words like "good" or "new" or "mint" or "very good" and the such is that when non collectors describe chips they often use these terms often based only on their own idea of what "Good" means. To many non chippers a chip is in "good" condition as long as there isn't a crack running from end to end. So when you see these words you don't know whether they are being used as per the standard, or by their lay meanings.

I propose that a grading standard set forth a format by which a description can be made rather than an actual grade.

Such as
EDGES: (describe any nicks, chips, are the edges rounded)
INLAY: (IF HOTSTAMPED IS HOT STAMP WEARING OFF? HOW MUCH? IS IT LEGIBLE? WHAT COLOR? IF PAPER INLAY IS IT FULLY INTACT? ANY MARKINGS OR SCRATCHES IS IT FADED?)
SURFACE: (describe any nicks or gouges, is the surface worn? is cross hatching visible? if not a plain mold are mold markings worn?).

You get the point. Certainly its not as easy as saying "Good" but it gives everyone a better idea of what the chip looks like.