... I haven't overlooked:

>> ... that some chippers find the act of repairing chips
>> as offensive as you find the act of slabbing chips.

And if I did happen to forget it momentarily, there are lots of them out there ready to remind me!

>> ... perhaps deliberately, because you enjoy a good debate ...

I do enjoy a good debate, but it pains me to be in opposition to so many people I like and respect and consider friends -- just look at this thread. I would not do this just for the academic exercise.

>> I won't attempt to debate this with you, you're much better with words than I am ...

It is what I do for a living, Pam, and I am trained to argue effectively for any position, even one in which I do not personally believe (though that is not what I am doing here). And I don't mean to engage you beyond your desire to participate in this discussion. But, I am in the middle of packing to move, so don't have as much time to respond to everyone as I would like and have decided to use your post as the vehicle to make my points here today. So, please don't take this personally!

>> I believe you have said that you are for the unconditional banning of
>> slabs from the convention ...

True.

>> ... and probably from the hobby.

NOT TRUE. I have never said that the club should take any action to "ban" slabbing from the hobby. I would hope that the club's ban of slabs from club venues (the only ban I have ever suggested) would result in the complete demise of slabbing. But, the club has no right to tell anyone, club member or not, what that person can or cannot do with his chips. If opposition to slabbing is strong enough, it seems likely that the slabbers will go away and it won't be possible to get a chip slabbed. But I would also be #1 on the List of people who oppose the club "banning" slabs from the hobby (which, by implication, would require the availability of sanctions for any club member who owns, buys, sells or produces a slabbed chip).

>> Others disagree with that concept, in varying degrees....some would allow
>> exceptions for historical or educational purposes ...

That's a complete red herring, Pam. JB knows full well that if the only reason chips were ever slabbed was for "historical or educational purposes", there wouldn't be enough of a demand for any company to maintain the service. The viability of slabbing companies depends on volume (and/or the repeated slabbing of the same coin by speculators hoping to catch a higher grade so they can sell the coin for more to a collector).

>> ... some would allow any and all slabs.

I actually respect that position more -- at least it's upfront.

>> Many of us would ban repaired chips from the hobby,
>> if there were a way to do that.

There isn't, as your comment impliedly acknowledges. And, in my opinion, for the same reason that I would oppose a "hobby-wide" ban on slabs, I would oppose a "hobby-wide" ban on repaired chips.

Unfortunately, the discussions of "anti-slabbing" and "anti-repairing" have gone off on divergent paths and the significance of the divergence may not be readily apparent to everyone. The slabbing discussion has been limited to the issue of whether or not they should be banned from club activities. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that an individual club member should be subject to sanctions for the having a chip slabbed.

On the other hand, a number of people would have David Whalen's head on a platter for repairing chips, even though there has never been so much as a hint that he had attempted to deceive anyone in making his repairs (more on David below). Repairing damaged things (of any kind) is a normal, even integral, part of life. That the thing being repaired happens to be one of our little collectibles makes no difference whatsoever.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do with their chips. Reread my Pledge regarding slabbing and you will see that it is entirely a statement of personal commitment:

>> I will NOT buy any slabbed chip.
>> I will NOT have any slabbed chip in my collection.
>> I will NOT buy ANY chip from any dealer who sells slabbed chips.
>> I will NOT buy ANY chip from any dealer who grades chips for a slabbing service.
>> I will NOT do business of any kind with any dealer who participates
>> in any way in the slabbing of chips.

Please notice that it does not say anything whatsoever about what anyone else should or can and/or should not or cannot do with respect to the slabbing of chips. It calls for no sanctions for participation in slabbing, other than my personal commitment not to do business with anyone who does so.

BTW, if someone were to write a similar pledge regarding repaired chips, I would have no problem with anyone signing on to that list (though I wouldn't do it myself). In fact, I'd be interested in seeing just how many people actually would be willing to say that they would never be willing to buy any chip that has been repaired in any way.

>> Yes, there are different levels of repairs...and not
>> everyone would draw the line at the same level.

Which, of course, raises a very practical concern regarding any attempt to regulate the repair of damaged chips. And, which reflects my point about the willingness of people to sign an "anti-repair" list.

>> Unfortunately, while it's easy to I.D. a slabbed chip, it's NOT easy to I.D. a good repair job.

Yet another practical problem, though I do have an observation about that: if the repair can be detected, then there is relatively little chance of deception. If the repair job is so good that it is impossible to detect by any means, that raises a potentially troublesome intellectual issue, though I'm not sure how you'd ever discover that you had a repaired chip to be concerned about!

>> AND, a slabbed chip can be cracked out of the slab which restores it to
>> it's pre-controversial condition. A chip that's had its hot stamp
>> cancellation mark removed, can't be restored to its pre-controversial condition.

True, though the ones I have show a faint impression of the cancellation in the surface of the chip and it is fairly easy to tell that the hot stamping has been removed. Interesting that you should use this particular example of "repairing" chips. The removal of hot stamp cancellations has been the subject of discussions here before and as far as I can recall, until the David Whalen thing came up, no one ever expressed any problem with the practice.

The oldest references I can find are in this 1998 thread from Archive #1:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcbarc01/tcbarc01.pl?read=240

This is a message about cleaning chips posted by Charles Kaplan. Note in the responses references to hot stamp removal by Bob Mera and Don Lueders (from whom I obtained my set of cancelled chips with the cancellations removed).

Or how about this thread from Archive #2:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcbarc02/tcbarc02.pl?read=3777

A post by Paul Sax asking about the removal of hot stamp cancellations, which includes this interesting response by John Zoesch:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcbarc02/tcbarc02.pl?read=3892

Not meaning to pick on John, who I like and respect, but it provides an interesting contrast to his recent post about chip repairs:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcb/tcb.pl?read=222066

Have been meaning to answer the question John posed in that message, so maybe I'll just do it here. Regarding David Whalen's chip repairs, John wondered, "... what, if anything, should be done to the current club members that he is doing the work for." To me, that's a truly startling question, implying even the possibility that the club might sanction someone for having a damaged chip repaired!

Fortunately, John did go on to say, "If they are having chips repaired for their own collection that may be OK." No "maybe" about it, in my opinion.

John also said, "But if they are reselling them and not releasing the information that the chips are repaired then some action may be warranted." Again, no "maybe" about it. Doing that would unquestionably violate the club's code of ethics and I would favor severe sanctions, including expulsion.

>> ....sometimes when reading your posts I can ALMOST forget that David Whalen, and
>> those who use his services, have done irreparable harm to a hobby that I love.

I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, Pam. As long as David does not deceive anyone about his repaired chips, he is doing nothing wrong and has not "harmed" the hobby in any way. Those who are using his services to have chips repaired for their own use are also doing nothing wrong and are not "harming" the hobby. It is only when such chips are sold without disclosure of their repaired nature that any harm occurs. And blame for that should fall squarely on those who do it.

And before you (or someone else -- Archie?) makes it, I reject the contention that, because David's repair work creates the potential of future deception by some other person, such repair work should be prohibited. I can't say it any better than I did in a post on May 29th:

>>>> Please keep in mind that this does not mean I think it is okay to repair
>>>> or restore a chip in any way and then sell it without full disclosure of
>>>> the repair or restoration. And yes, I recognize that there is always a
>>>> chance that someone will effect such repairs or restoration and that
>>>> somewhere down the road it might be sold without full disclosure.
>>>> Such a possibility, in an of itself, does not logically compel a blanket
>>>> prohibition of repairs and restoration.

This is, unfortunately, the approach which is being taken, more and more often, by government in this country in the apparently never-ending attempt to sanitize the world. And, in the process, changing this from the "land of the free" to the "land of the over-regulated".

>> But the fact is, those people have done more harm than the slabbers ever did.

In fact, Pam, I have yet to hear of a single complaint by anyone that they have been sold, without disclosure of its true nature, a chip that was repaired by David Whalen (or anyone else, for that matter). Please keep in mind here that I do not consider the off-color brass cores "repaired" (which implies restoration to original condition, not change into something that never existed).

So, Pam, you get one of my very long posts, though I don't expect you to answer it all! This is really for everyone and anyone who cares to respond.

And now I have to go post one quick response to Archie in another thread, then back to packing boxes so that Glenda won't be too upset at me for shirking my moving duties!

----- jim o\-S