by the existence of another historical resource for our hobby?

Seriously, why?

We're talking about casino history, casino chips, gaming artifacts, and preserving history. This isn't a zero-sum game. History isn't diminished because more than one organization chooses to document it.

What concerns me most is what I see as a somewhat selfish mindset. There seems to be a desire by some to keep the documentation of casino history concentrated in one place and available to a select group, rather than encouraging its growth and making it more accessible to everyone.

Why?

Shouldn't our goal be exactly the opposite?

Every year casinos close. Chips are destroyed. Buildings are demolished. Records disappear. Collectors pass away, and with them goes knowledge that can never be replaced. If we truly care about preserving the history of this hobby, shouldn't we be encouraging every responsible effort to document it before it's lost forever?

I don't understand the desire to discourage additional historical references. Museums don't object because another museum exhibits the same artifact. Libraries don't object because another library carries the same history book. Historians don't object because someone else researches the same subject. In fact, multiple sources often improve historical accuracy because they uncover new information, correct mistakes, and preserve details that might otherwise be overlooked.

If another website inspires someone to become interested in casino collectibles for the first time, isn't that good for all of us?

If another historical article teaches someone about a long-demolished casino, isn't that preserving history?

If another searchable database helps identify a chip that otherwise would have remained unknown, isn't that advancing the hobby?

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want less historical information available rather than more.

Yes, original creative work should be respected. But those principles shouldn't be used to discourage the broader mission of historical preservation, education, and research.

The casino collecting hobby is not getting younger. We should be asking ourselves how we attract new collectors, not how we keep historical information confined to a single source.

History belongs to everyone. The more people who learn about it, contribute to it, research it, and preserve it, the stronger this hobby becomes.

So I'll ask again:

Why is another historical resource viewed as a threat instead of an opportunity?

Because from where I sit, the only thing that seems threatened is the idea that history should be shared as widely as possible. And if our goal is truly to preserve the history of casino gaming for future generations, I think being selfish about access to that history serves none of us well.