... concepts involved in your discussion, Peter, which should be clearly differentiated.

>> Some people get upset about the use of the word rare. But since there
>> is no uniform system of "grading" the rarity of a chip how can any
>> seller know when it is or isn't appropriate to use that term.

A "grading" system would not cover the issue of rarity at all. We need a uniformally acceptable "rarity scale" to accomplish that objective. I have no problem with the club adopting such a scale. At least a couple of private "rarity scales" have already been devised (one in the Herz Nevada guide and one in the Campiglia-Wells book). They are similar, though not identical, and are based on the number of known examples of any item.

>> If there is no uniform system of describing condition (ie grading)
>> then you can't criticize the seller who you feel misdescribed a
>> chip by using a term like mint or good or excellent, because you
>> refuse to define what these words mean.

There are two fundamental approaches to grading, with several possible variations to each. On the one hand, there is the detailed grading approach now being used for coins (which have 70 possible numerical grades) or trading cards (which has ten numbered grades). This is the approach taken by Campiglia-Wells and their 100 point "deduction" grading system. A detailed grading system like this is a necessary prerequisite to a successful program of slabbing.

>> you should not be condeming the idea of having some grading standards.

The other approach is a more general statement of certain grading standards, such as was used for coins at one time. Many chip collectors use such a general approach in their own minds now ("mint" or new, excellent, used, worn, drilled or cancelled).

I agree that the club should adopt a set of definitions for such terms, which could then be used as a reference for anyone desiring to specify the condition of a particular chip. I am opposed to the use of a detailed grading system like the one suggested by CW.

----- jim o\-S