The Perlowski Files

Observation #1 - The Chip Rack 10th Edition

The following was posted by Jim on The Chip Board on June 25th, 2004

In the past when a new publication was released I would try to write-up an objective review of my first impressions and share them with all who cared to read what I wrote.

I attempted to do it an objective manner. I assured myself that what I was writing would be accepted by the professional authors as my honest impression of their work. I never intentionally degraded ANY book I reviewed even if I did not agree with all of its contents.

Lets be honest, any reference book is a welcomed addition to our hobby. It takes a great deal of work and the assistance of others to put it together and out on the market.

It is a finished product the authors have a right to be proud of it. It takes BIG individuals to handle others impressions without the discussion deteriorating to worthless dribble.

A few years back when Campiglia & Wells released their first annual edition of "The Official U.S. Casino Chip Price Guide" I decided I would review it and pass my impressions on to my fellow collectors. I really liked the book. I thought it was well done and enjoyed the opportunity to have pictures of chips I had never seen. I also welcomed a reference book that had, in my opinion, a more realistic price spread than any other book of its type on the market.

I mentioned in my review that I did not care for the introduction of a grading standard for our hobby. I believed than as I believe now our hobby did not/does not need a formal type of grading system.

Well you would have thought that what I wrote was equal to accusing someone of "terrible things". There was a blow-up on this board that I am sure once again resulted in destroyed friendships and relationships. Many readers voiced their input and before you know it the posts degenerated once again into personal attacks. The authors who obviously worked long and hard on their project, in my opinion, lost the ability to discuss ANY aspect of their book objectively. However, others on this board ALSO lost their ability to be objective.

In the end I really wonder if anything was accomplished. Today I like to believe I get along with the authors better than I ever have. James laughs and talks with me at shows and we seem to have a mutual respect for one another.

Anyway this observation is not about "The Official U.S. Casino Chip Price Guide". It is not even a review for "The Chip Rack" edition # 10. What this observation is about is a serious disagreement I have with what is contained in this newly released publication.

The authors of this new edition of the Chip Rack have published an increase in value for chips that have been "repaired". Am I dreaming? You mean to tell me and all of my associate collectors that when an individual like Whalen repairs a chip it has increased in value? Hey Chip Rack authors! - What kind of message are you sending to new collectors and those of us who have fought this battle since day one? How on earth could you do this? Don't you understand the damage this is going to do to our hobby? How come these "repaired" chips are not listed as an "A" value? Don't you believe you are encouraging the repair of chips by demonstrating through a price increase the reward for having them fixed? I think so and find this policy personally unacceptable.

What's next? Should we induct Whalen into our Hall of Fame?

I'm sorry "guys" this makes me sick to my stomach. I don't agree with your policy and I believe it will cause 'GREAT" damage and harm to our hobby for future generations.

Yet no one, except Pam G. (porkchop415) has even mentioned this repulsive act. We find it easier to "attack" Joe for his misguided statement involving our building fund as though HE is guilty of some crime.

Well maybe we should all fiddle while repairing chips becomes the norm, grading and slabbing comes back and we verbally beat up "new" collectors because they did not ask a question IN WHAT WE CONSIDER to be the proper format and words. People "we" got much bigger problems than Joe's uninformed statement about the building fund.