Charlie
This seems to be a case of accidental interpretation... it is clear you had a chip that you believed to be in excellent condition and described it as such. Your buyer bid on a chip ... most likely in part (because the pic was a little dark) based on your description.

I am inclined to believe you listed that chip, without any ill intent, believing you were "doing the right thing", but your Buyer was disappointed upon seeing the actual chip because it was NOT in the condition he thought it would be.

What MY concern was (and the concern of others) that your initial post suggested the buyer had done something VERY unethical - he had switched the chips - when it is very possible, this is NOT the case at all

I have done business with Pete - and in fact, am awaiting a chip from him as we speak. I have never gotten the impression I should be concerned that he would intentionally deceive me by acquiring a chip from me, swapping it out with an inferior duplicate, then email me to complain that the chip was unsatisfactory. (a scenario that was presented in the originating post.) IF THIS WAS THE CASE, SUCH ACTION WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL from the CCGTCC. Out of fairness to him - as this is a SERIOUS complaint if valid - I responded to that possibility after examining the scan from your auction.

If you bought the chip some time ago (regardless if it was purchased from Pete Rizzo, myself or any seller on Ebay) and upon receipt, were satisfied enough with it then to not email your source to comment about it's condition, I find it a little unreasonable to suggest at this point, perhaps the chip was not ok when you got it. ??? or to blame your Buyer for your mistake? Just my opinion...