... I have sent a proposed "Official CC>CC Grading System" by email to four members of the club board (don't have an email address for Ken Hallenbeck). Following is the proposal I sent to the board, with one modification suggested by Archie Black:

>>>> Dear David, Ken, Nate, Barry & Jim ----- I propose that the club adopt an "Official CC>CC Grading System" and that the system be publicized in the club magazine and to the hobby in general.

>> Proposed "Official CC>CC Grading System":

The condition of casino chips can be characterized as follows:

NEW -- a chip which shows no sign of use or damage; in same condition as originally manufactured.

EXCELLENT -- a chip which shows only slight signs of use and no damage.

USED -- a chip which shows obvious signs of use and/or has minor damage, such as rim nicks or surface scratches.

WORN -- a chip which has been extensively used and shows signs of substantial wear, such as rounded edges, or other damage.

CANCELLED -- a chip which has been cancelled by the issuing casino by means of drilling, notching or hot stamping over the original inlay. Cancelled chips may be in otherwise Mint, Excellent, Used or Worn condition.

DAMAGED -- a chip which has substantial and unusual damage unrelated to its use in casino play; for example, a crack, substantial scratching or gouges or excessive fading of colors. A damaged chip may also be in otherwise Mint, Excellent, Used or Worn condition and/or may also be Cancelled.

The CC>CC officially recognizes the foregoing grading categories and encourages their use by club members, casino chip sellers/dealers and casino chip collectors. <<

I would appreciate it if you would forward this message to Ken Hallenbeck, as I do not have his email address. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. <<<<

David Sarles replied, in part:

>> The hobby has lived without an official system so far and is doing just
fine. Whose interests would be served by the club endorsed grades? <<

My response to that question was:

>> If I thought it was possible to avoid forever any type of formalized grading system, I would be perfectly happy. If you doubt that, see my October 1998 ChipBox column on Chequers.

In my view, adoption of a club sanctioned grading system of the nature I propose would serve the interests of collectors and would serve to prevent general acceptance of more detailed grading systems like that contained in the Campiglia-Wells book. If you have been reading my BB comments on this subject, you know quite well that I am opposed to any such detailed system.

Just so there is no possibility of mis-understanding, I think a public discussion among club members on this issue would be appropriate. I will post my suggestion on the club BB, as well as the ChipBoard and the Chequers BB. I will also prepare an article for the club magazine and, depending on the timing, may write a Chequers magazine column as well. Unless you indicate otherwise, I will assume that you have no objection to my sharing your response(s) with other
club members in any or all of these venues. <<

David's reply was:

>> Let's publicly discuss and see if we can reach a consensus on the need for this. <<

So, here it is for public discussion. I am posting this on all three BB's; the club board, the ChipBoard and the Chequers Board. If you have an interest in this subject, please provide your input. Thanks. ----- jim o\-S