Good points, Greg.

I think the descriptions need some adjusting, though it's a start. I contributed to the earlier work (Black & Reilly) on this topic. I'm still optimistic that a useful DESCRIPTIVE system can be developed which will benefit club members.

One additional idea (thinking out loud here)...
I'd like to try out this system by actually attempting to place a number of chips, with varying degrees of wear, into their correct descriptive category. This would require a group of chips from different collecting specialty groups (i.e. "regular" casino chips, illegals, home-game/poker chips, jetons & plaques, ivory & bone, etc.) and from different manufacturers, as clay-type chips have different wear characteristics than Bud Jones or Chipcos, and inlay chips show wear differently than hot-stamps. Further, I suspect that the descriptive language for tokens and silver strikes will be significantly different than the grading system for chips. (The ivory, bone & MOP materials probably need separate descriptive systems too, though I'm not knowlegable in these areas.)

Anyway, I think if the oversight committee gathers a group of real chips, then hold a "clinic", or series of clinics with the various specialty groups on useful descriptive terms and meaningful distinctions between various levels of wear, then a PRACTICAL and useful descriptive system can be advanced.

I doubt that we're far enough along to do a formal "clinic" at the June convention, but perhaps an informal hands-on dialog & discussion could be arranged at the convention. More informal than the educational seminars. More like a small working-group (15-20 or less) that could huddle around a table of sample chips and discuss the grading system.

If this idea has merit, I'm willing to participate (or will hand-off the idea to those on the grading system oversight committee to use).

Just my 2 cents.