I am fully convinced that the chip shown by Matthew (for his eBay auction) and the chip shown by Anon on David Spragg's message board are, in fact, one and the same chip.

What I now call into question is whether or not Anon's image was a pre or post image of Matthew's eBay offering.

Although the following image is rather large, if you take a look at it you will see that I was able to skew Matthew's eBay image into a symetrical image, i.e., I made it round again. From there it would be a piece of cake to digitally put a hole in it.

All the other scans I have in the collage are just there to prove that the chip is one and the same. By explanation, I have matched and overlayed both images, with a 50% opaque rendering to be able to see-thru the top image to the lower image. I then fully delete a half of the top image (once doing the top half and then the right half), and then repeating the process but reversing the order of the two images.

In each rendering you can see the same nicks, insert alignments and inlay alignments.

This is the same chip, and it is quite possible that the drill hole is not real (I stress my use of the word "possible"!).

Matthew, this does not fully leave you off-the-hook. I note that you have not answered my earlier question, although it is moot at this point in time. But I do have another question for you, as follows...

You have stated in your eBay description that you found this chip at your Grandmother's house, and have told us that you knew nothing about it (or chips in general for that matter). Based on you lack of experience in our world, on what basis do you state with authority:

"There is absolutly no repairs done to this chip NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Jim Follis