... that Jim (who, as far as I know, I don't know and have never done business with) ...

>> ... stated the written value of a chip (and stated the source),
>> even though there was another source that valued the chip as lower ...

... but rather that he did NOT reveal that the rarity information in that outdated guide was NO LONGER ACCURATE. That being the case, the VALUE which he cited was, IMO, misleading.

Jim's hundreds of satisfactory transactions with many buyers is commendable. Which makes it all the more disappointing that he was not entirely forthcoming with respect to the chips under discussion.

Stating in an eBay auction that the Campiglia price for any chip is $xxx, knowing that there has been a find which obviously reduces that value, without simultaneously revealing the existence of the find is, IMO, inconsistent with the CC>CC Code of Ethics:

3. To base all of my dealings on the highest plane of justice, fairness and morality.

and:

9. To furnish requested advice to the best of my ability and knowledge, and not to take advantage of superior knowledge on my part to the disadvantage of a less knowledgeable collector.

There is little doubt in my mind that if this had been done by certain other sellers (e.g., Rene) most everyone would be in agreement that it was inappropriate (which is perhaps putting it mildly).

(Thanks to David Spragg for the use of his ] .)

----- jim o\-S