I promised a followup on the Thunderbird chip, auctions and ethics. I'm afraid this will be a long post.

First, let's straighten out what the Ask the Masters panel did NOT say at the convention. We've been misquoted, or at least mis-paraphrased. No one on the Ask the Masters panel suggested that any auction description was fair game. When the question was asked during the seminar whether auctioning one of the newly-found Thunderbird 5's was ethical without disclosure of the selling price at the convention or the number found, the answer we gave was that so long as there was no misrepresentation, any seller could say "here's a chip for you to bid on" without violating either ethics or any law of which we were aware.

The question did not include the language of the auction consignment. If it had, the answer would, I believe, have been different. We were then asked if it weren't "illegal" to offer something for sale without making disclosure of all facts. I answered no, unless there is a specific legal obligation to disclose. In the chip world, there is no such legal obligation. There are vast differences between what's morally right, what violates the Club's Code of Ethics, and what is a violation of law.

First, what are the fact surrounding the Thunderbird 5 chip? We know that it was offered at the convention for $25 (a price, BTW, which I believe to be very fair and commendable, even considering the conflicting information surrounding the chip). We have been told that the chip is from the Las Vegas Thunderbird (an assertion which hasn't been proved, but which seems likely). We've also been told here on Greg's Chipboard since the convention that 6 boxes of the chips were found, and at least 2 or 3 boxes were so badly worn as to be illegible. Those are the only "facts" I know of.

At the table where the chips were being sold at the convention there was a sign that said "a couple of boxes" had been found. That clearly wasn't true, if we are to believe the post here by the person who actually found the chips. "A couple" is no more than 200 chips; 6 boxes is 600 chips. The sign was wrong by a factor of 3. Unethical? I think so.

The auction on eBay which was posted during the convention, titled "1948 Thunderbird Casino chip v5767 $1600-2099" read as follows:
"This is a $5.00 Las Vegas casino chip from the Thunderbird Casino. This
was issued in 1948, it's 52 years old! . I'm starting the opening bid price
low, and no reserve! The color is mustard with 8 black inserts. Chip Rack
lists this chip for $1600-$2099. ( chip rack # V5767 )."
What's untrue about this description? Not a thing, if the chip is in fact from the Las Vegas Thunderbird, and I'm willing to assume that it is. Is the description ethical? In my opinion, no. The reference to "The Chip Rack" value code supposes that the find of as many as 600 chips would not affect the value "The Chip Rack" would assign to the chip. Untrue, as the consignor undoubtedly knows. The reference to the TCR value was an attempt to mislead purchasers into believing that they were bidding on a chip worth the TCR value. They weren't. The final price realized for the chip was $122.50.

Had the Ask the Masters panel been given the wording of the eBay auction consignment description, I believe the answer would have been what I've just opined, although I have not consulted the other panelists.

Since the convention, at least two more eBay auctions have featured this chip. One says:
"Thunderbird 1948 $5 Casino Chip
Most people don't have this chip.
The Above chips have been cleaned. We will send them do you how we found them
and its up to you to clean them. Most are in the same condition and we will
pick out a good one for you.This is a very nice chip from the Thunderbird.It
is from 1948 and was the First $5 chip used their. Its lists in the Chip rack
with $1600 to $2000and in The Official Casino Chip Price Guide with $1500.But
we have found 4 boxes of this chip. We have been selling it at the convention
for $25 per chip and sold well over 100 chips. We feel that $25 is a very
fair price for this chip. Its a piece of Vegas history.Please pre-pay and add
$2.00 for shipping.Rene"

Is that description unethical? Ultimately I think not. The only apparent misstatement of fact in the description is "we have found 4 boxes of this chip," when in fact at least 6 boxes were found. If I understand the situation, though, at least two boxes were so worn as to be illegible, so it could be argued that only 4 boxes of readable chips were found. Furthermore, the description is very specific as to the price guides' valuation of the chip before the find, and the price at which the chip has been offered since.

The other ad for a current auction, entitled "Rare 1948 Thunderbird LV $5 chip" reads as follows:
"This rare 1948 Thunderbird Las Vegas Chip is listed in the new chip rack
as z3 and has sold for over $2000 in the past. Chip Rack no. V5767. It is
mustard color with 8 black inserts. No reserve."
Is this description unethical? I believe so, for the same reasons the first auction description was unethical, except this one's more aggregious. Is the chip still "rare"? No. Does a past sale reflect the current value of the chip? No. Does the value shown in The Chip Rack before the current chips were found accurately reflect the chips present value? No. Does the description intend to mislead potential bidders as to the true value of the chip? It seems clear to me that the answer is yes.

I'm sure anyone who disagrees with my analysis of these auction descriptions will post. Of course, I am expressing my opinion as a club member - I hold no office, nor do I have anything to do with enforcing the Club's Code of Ethics. I have posted only to clarify what were apparently some misunderstandings about what the Ask the Masters panel said during the convention seminar.

Michael