... is not only still here, but participating, Jim.

>> Your legalese does not seem to be well received judging by the absence
>> of replies, and you seem to have walked into a battlefield that all
>> others have since abandoned and you appear to be speaking from your
>> pulpit to an empty house!

I don't think I know you, Jim -- perhaps you'd care to share your last name so I know to whom I'm speaking.

>> In the end, I was cleared by the vast majority of posters of any ethical charges ...

No one else mentioned the point which I raised in my post. Had someone else brought it up, I wouldn't have joined in this conversation at all.

>> ... and reasonableness prevailed that anyone has a right to their reference of choice ...

I don't disagree with that and didn't say otherwise in my post. I don't much care which book you use as a reference. I don't even care what "value" you quote. On the other hand, it is misleading to use the Campiglia-Wells values, which are based in part on the "rarity" code, without revealing that a hoard of the chips had been found. Has nothing to do with your "reference of choice" and everything to do with misleading potential buyers.

>> ... and I would defend that right to the end for anyone ... even the other side in this matter!!!

Didn't say otherwise. My opinion would be the same if you used any TCR value that pre-dated the discovery of the hoard.

>> All of my references are crystal clear that they refer to James'
>> book, and anyone who has one very well knows how old it is !!!

Did you ever mention in any eBay auction that the rarity code in the book was no longer accurate? That's a statement of fact (as opposed to the "value", which is an opinion). By not revealing your superior knowledge in that regard, you took advantage of less knowledgeable collectors (regardless of whether they have or know of the values in either C-W or TCR).

>> Maybe you might consider putting the legalese aside for awhile
>> and looking at all the posts regarding this matter as a whole ...

I did, which is why I posted my message.

>> ... reasonableness has prevailed, and really brought out unbefore spoken
>> posters that had seen enough of the totally undeserved bashing I was receiving.

I don't doubt any of the folks who say that you have been a good seller. Did any of the people who supported you buy one of the chips we are discussing here?

>> Just my thoughts ... you surely don't have your witnesses in court swear
>> upon the TCR and at the end say ".... so help me Allan" ... do you??

Read my post again -- I didn't even mention TCR. Your use of C-W was not the basis of my comment. I own and use both books and will buy and use new editions of each whenever they appear.

As I said, that you have satisfied many customers is commendable. IMO, it is unfortunate that you have put your reputation at risk by taking the attitude expressed here. ----- jim o\-S