... really worth, Jim? Who knows. But, I have the following observations about your post:

>> You know one transaction between buyer and seller does not establish anything let alone what a chip is worth. << Of course it does, Jim. It establishes exactly what THAT CHIP was worth to THAT BUYER and THAT SELLER on THAT DAY. In a free market economy, there is no other measure of worth.

>> The Sky Harbor example illustrated by me in previous notes was used to show how individuals who put together price guides often miss the mark, because of a lack of knowledge, taking into consideration rarity and demand for chips while setting price. << I don't disagree with your observation that the authors of our price guides sometimes don't have complete information upon which to base their value GUIDES (NOT "selling prices", as they remind us repeatedly). There is also an inherent conflict of interest in the setting of price guides by authors who are also dealers and sell the chips listed in their books. Do I object to that? No, because I'd rather have the book and its price guides than nothing at all (as I had before I discovered TCR and the others).

>> I paid a very large price for my $100.00 Sky Harbor arodie. It was purchased from a dealer who bought several from the original purchaser I do not like to see individuals who are playing with auctions on Ebay destroy the market for a chip that I have purchased. << I also understand fully why you would rather not see the value of your chip compromised by later sales at lower prices (which might or might not lower the "value" of your chip). What I disagree with is your apparent belief that any other seller (or buyer) has some obligation to help you "protect" the value of your investment. They don't.

>> We have knowledge. What would you set the price at, Jim? Please don't give me that "buyer - seller" bunk they taught us in college <g>. Not enough transactions, and you know it, to establish market price. << Of course not, which simply proves my point (and to that extent, disproves your own). There is no way to establish a market price, or value, for chips like these, other than that "buyer-seller" junk!! <g> The knowledge we have helps each of us decide for ourselves what we'd pay for any particular chip. My "price" for this particular chip would be meaningless, as I am not in the market for it. Hence, I might buy it if I saw one available for considerably less than you might think it is worth, but wouldn't be interested at anything close to what others might readily pay for it.

>> I will tell you how it really goes. The first 10 to 12 buyers pay anywhere fron $600.00 to $800.00 the asking price of the original owner. Guess what? The original owner quits the hobby and sells the remaining pieces in bulk to an individual who doesn't maintain that price. How do you think the first buyers feel? << Obviously, they don't like it. How is that any different than when you buy a rare chip at a hefty price and suddenly a box shows up? How do the original buyers feel about that? Is the finder of the box somehow obligated to "maintain" the price level at which the earlier samples were sold? Of course not.

>> Now this "new" owner puts one of the chips up on Ebay and "kills" it for future sales because it goes for much less to a buyer who may or may not know what I have written on this board. << If all of your information about this chip is true, the market will not truly be "killed". It may be temporarily depressed, though even that seems unlikely since most potential buyers won't know about the eBay sale to begin with AND nothing about the rarity of the chip has changed. This is actually a better situation than where a new box shows up, which can permanently alter the market for that chip.

>> Remember, this second owner got these chips at a bargain. He doesn't care about past purchases. He doesn't care about maintaining established market prices for those first 10 to 12 buyers. He is just having "fun"!!! << So what? He got a bargain and he's sharing the bargain with others. He has no obligation to "care about" past purchases -- NONE WHATSOEVER. He has no obligation to "care about" maintaining the "established market prices for those first 10 to 12 buyers" -- NONE WHATSOEVER. This may suck for those early buyers, but that's one of the risks you run when you pay anything more than the intrinsic value for any collectible item (intrinsic value of a chip being something less than a dime, I'd guess). Robert Eisenstadt has raised a related question in another thread -- what happens when a casino bellies up and sells off $100 chips at 10%. All those who walked one out the door for $100 take an immediate hit. Does that mean the casino should somehow be prohibited from recouping whatever it can for these chips? Not in a free country.

>> No, I don't want the seller to "gouge" buyers. I just want him to maintain the price that the first buyers paid. << As I said above, he has no obligation to do so, no matter what the circumstances are and no matter what you think about his selling price. The number of these chips avilable to collectors hasn't changed. If there are as few as you've indicated, the market price will recover. A few buyers who got a good deal will enjoy better than average appreciation of value. You may have to wait a little longer to recoup your investment if you want to sell. All of which is perhaps personally aggravating to you, but of no real consequence to the ultimate value of these chips, or any others.

This is the first chance I've had to sign off a message to you with my newly bestowed moniker (courtesy of Gene). <g> ----- JimBo2 o\-S