Have Chinese cards mold replica sets gone too far? (7 Viewers)

[BarrieJ3]

They’re not the same. Tina spots too small.

I was mostly talking about the cyan $25 where it’s more noticeable.

View attachment 1528764

I can't tell if it would be cooler or less cool if they could get to like exact exact copies outside of the injection spot. It can't be that hard.

Plus there's some sets and live vegas chips that it would be hilarious to see them copy - I'm very confused as to why all the various WSOP chips haven't been made/copied as of yet???

 

[AlbinoDragon]

I don't have anything against, or care what you order or who produces them.

The issue here isn't so much that they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that were originally made decades ago with the intent for home use (or just plain profit), but they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that on the collector market sell for $30 and $40 and $50 each that can be bought in bulk for less than a dollar each. It's easy for a collector to be decieved by an eBay posting that doesn't show the details like injection mold dimples in an otherwise marginal but "acceptable" photo in a posting.

I'm actively looking for some of these for my singles collection, yet some yoohoo decided it wold be nice to have a playable set of these with the exact same design, ignoring any respect for collectors by including things like open and close dates for the original casino or "commemorative" as part of the design. Maybe these aren't intended to deceive the buyer, but there was exactly zero intent not to do so.

My only questions are 1 - how do we have vendors who “own” these molds, since, you know, they’re legitimately just copying shit.

CPC (who currently own the small-crown mold) aren't going to try to do a "do not copy" or other lawsuit against a Chinese company, simply because it would be a wasted effort, but also because China doesn't care. They're making money and a small company making bespoke and artisinal poker chips with the original products will never be able to make them budge.

 

[BarrieJ3]

The issue here isn't so much that they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that were originally made decades ago with the intent for home use (or just plain profit), but they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that on the collector market sell for $30 and $40 and $50 each that can be bought in bulk for less than a dollar each. It's easy for a collector to be decieved by an eBay posting that doesn't show the details like injection mold dimples in an otherwise marginal but "acceptable" photo in a posting.

I'm actively looking for some of these for my singles collection, yet some yoohoo decided it wold be nice to have a playable set of these with the exact same design, ignoring any respect for collectors by including things like open and close dates for the original casino or "commemorative" as part of the design. Maybe these aren't intended to deceive the buyer, but there was exactly zero intent not to do so.

CPC (who currently own the small-crown mold) aren't going to try to do a "do not copy" or other lawsuit against a Chinese company, simply because it would be a wasted effort, but also because China doesn't care. They're making money and a small company making bespoke and artisinal poker chips with the original products will never be able to make them budge.

I mean, totes get it, but you highlighted the why behind my questions.

It obviously hurts the hobby overall. And in addition copies/steals from CPC.

Just strange that it’s…us doing it to ourselves. It’ll be fun watching how we acquit ourselves when this obviously goes real bad in a decade.

 

[Darson]

Hold on a minute - this is not a Tina problem. Tina just makes what you ask her to. The problem is the person who asked Tina to make a scrown mold or a RHC mold. Tina didn’t do that voluntarily, that was done at the request of someone in the chip business here.

Personally, I think that asking Tina to make a scrown mold is a f-you to the whole chipping community. CPC is the owner of that mold, a small company and our only legal recourse to custom clay chips and to copy their IP is just wrong.

If you want to screw a company then go make a THC mold - don’t copy the nice manufacturer that still caters to us hobbyists.

 

[ThinkingFold]

The problem is the person who asked Tina to make a scrown mold or a RHC mold.

This site has made me such a pretentious chip snob, that I don't even like RHC mold on Paulson's let alone Tina's.

 

[TheOffalo]

Hold on a minute - this is not a Tina problem. Tina just makes what you ask her to. The problem is the person who asked Tina to make a scrown mold or a RHC mold. Tina didn’t do that voluntarily, that was done at the request of someone in the chip business here.

Personally, I think that asking Tina to make a scrown mold is a f-you to the whole chipping community. CPC is the owner of that mold, a small company and our only legal recourse to custom clay chips and to copy their IP is just wrong.

If you want to screw a company then go make a THC mold - don’t copy the nice manufacturer that still caters to us hobbyists.

Agreed. It's the market. There was a demand and Tina met it. When there's demand for original stuff, Tina makes that too.

Case in point, the Tangiers house mold. Yes, Tangiers is based on existing IP, but doing a house mold is an original idea, one that @Cratty and @justincarothers worked very hard on. Dunno the backend details, but hopefully that mold is exclusive to Cratty/Justin, but if it's not, then hopefully at least they get a cut when random people order it directly from Tina.

So how can collectors get "the market" to not want exact replicas? You can't. Most poker players aren't collectors. Many, even if they're into chipping, if they graduate from dice chips, want something that is sentimental to them, like the casinos from their youth or hometown. And most cannot afford to collect a playable set of defunct casino chips from some of those properties, like the Mapes or New China Club or Taj Mahal or whatever.

If you're lucky, your sentimental casino of choice are Majestic Star or Tachi, where you can build a set for under $1/chip. I don't see a lot of (or any) demand for Tina to copy those casinos, or HS/Jack Cinci or HS Clevelands, because the real deal are more affordable / attainable.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Justin (and Cratty?) own the Tangiers Mold. Danny owns the CapDash mold. For $2k you can get a mold. Tina agrees not to sell using those molds to anyone if its not going through the mold owner. We can roll our eyes at that, but on at least 2 occasions, a member reported having asked Tina about the CapDash mold and was told they need to go through Danny.

 

[Gus]

The issue here isn't so much that they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that were originally made decades ago with the intent for home use (or just plain profit), but they are 1 to 1 reproductions of chips that on the collector market sell for $30 and $40 and $50 each that can be bought in bulk for less than a dollar each. It's easy for a collector to be decieved by an eBay posting that doesn't show the details like injection mold dimples in an otherwise marginal but "acceptable" photo in a posting.

I'm actively looking for some of these for my singles collection, yet some yoohoo decided it wold be nice to have a playable set of these with the exact same design, ignoring any respect for collectors by including things like open and close dates for the original casino or "commemorative" as part of the design. Maybe these aren't intended to deceive the buyer, but there was exactly zero intent not to do so.



CPC (who currently own the small-crown mold) aren't going to try to do a "do not copy" or other lawsuit against a Chinese company, simply because it would be a wasted effort, but also because China doesn't care. They're making money and a small company making bespoke and artisinal poker chips with the original products will never be able to make them budge.

My understanding is that CPC doesn't have exclusivity on the old molds that it produces, such as small crown, circle square, etc. They own the literal hunks of metal that produce those patterns on chips, but there's no trademark, copyright, etc... Some molds like Circle Square were "open" from the very beginning I think, never having any protection. H-mold I think was owned exclusively for a time, but then again passed into public domain / unprotected status at some point (original company went broke, or didn't renew trademark claims, or who knows what).

Notable exception being the Elephant Crown mold which CPC uses on a license from Marion (?) and they pay a per-chip fee to them for each chip produced on it.

I heard that even Paulson/GPI/Angel doesn't have exclusive rights to the Top Hat and Cane, meaning they couldn't sue anyone for creating poker chips using the identical design. I mean, how do you explain this linked product otherwise? American company selling THC ceramics!
https://www.texaspokersupply.com/store/custom-ceramic-top-hat-cane-poker-chips/

This is different from WSOP having exclusivity and legal protection on its branding, name, etc. Texas Poker Supply would absolutely get sued by the WSOP if they offered WSOP-branded anything, much less if they copied color schemes and stuck them on THC ceramics.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Agreed. It's the market. There was a demand and Tina met it. When there's demand for original stuff, Tina makes that too.

Case in point, the Tangiers house mold. Yes, Tangiers is based on existing IP, but doing a house mold is an original idea, one that @Cratty and @justincarothers worked very hard on. Dunno the backend details, but hopefully that mold is exclusive to Cratty/Justin, but if it's not, then hopefully at least they get a cut when random people order it directly from Tina.

So how can collectors get "the market" to not want exact replicas? You can't. Most poker players aren't collectors. Many, even if they're into chipping, if they graduate from dice chips, want something that is sentimental to them, like the casinos from their youth or hometown. And most cannot afford to collect a playable set of defunct casino chips from some of those properties, like the Mapes or New China Club or Taj Mahal or whatever.

If you're lucky, your sentimental casino of choice are Majestic Star or Tachi, where you can build a set for under $1/chip. I don't see a lot of (or any) demand for Tina to copy those casinos, or HS/Jack Cinci or HS Clevelands, because the real deal are more affordable / attainable.

It was always going to happen, but does it have to be "us"? Just because someone was going to do it, I don't know that's a great reason to do it - if that makes any sense. I mean this vendors owning molds thing is laughable. So I pay Tina and now I own THC. Or RHC or B mold or whatever? Okay, well what about other chinese/overseas vendors, are they respecting Tina's agreements? Not to mention we see people copying not just some random expensive old thing - we see people copying group buys, we see people copying CPC customs. And actually posting them.

Such a few % of people post, we won't know how the chipping public actually feels.

I believe that it's less about it being done, and more about it being done out in the open. Out of sight, out of mind. But there's vendors, people happily posting expecting positive feedback on their copies, etc. Do people really care someone has cheap chips that make them happy? I don't think so. But to watch it constantly on the front page and have it take up the % of PCF that it does? It just waters down everything.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad. But you see less and less posting of the dope OG folks. You fly across the country to a "meet up" and it's just locals hanging out. You click to see cool pr0n and it's chinese remakes. Pretty dull and boring when there's no soul to it all and it's just phoned in.

 

[aggie]

Danny owns the CapDash mold

 

[Lil Tuna]

Pretty dull and boring when there's no soul to it all and it's just phoned in.

Some days you hit the nail right on the head Ol Jeffro…..

 

[LeGold]

It was always going to happen, but does it have to be "us"?

Who else? I mean, who else would be stupid enough to cash out $2k for a replica mold?

Okay, well what about other chinese/overseas vendors, are they respecting Tina's agreements?

They've got nothing to do with it - Tina sits on those molds. But hey, nothing stops you paying them to make a copy of those copied molds.

 

[upNdown]

I heard that even Paulson/GPI/Angel doesn't have exclusive rights to the Top Hat and Cane, meaning they couldn't sue anyone for creating poker chips using the identical design.

I have a hard time believing that.

 

[Rieguy]

But you see less and less posting of the dope OG folks.

almost three years ago

I've literally lost count of how many times I've used this gif in this thread

That said, I fully agree with the oversaturation of all things Tina.

 

[BarrieJ3]

They've got nothing to do with it - Tina sits on those molds. But hey, nothing stops you paying them to make a copy of those copied molds.

I’m gonna wait.

The next person to copy Tina’s molds will probably pay $1500, cause it’s not exclusive.

Then someone will find a cheaper alibaba version for $1250.

Then BAM! I’m swooping in and going to own Hat Line mold for $1k.

(cap dash? we have to make up names for things that are exact copies of things with a name already?)

 

[BarrieJ3]

almost three years ago
View attachment 1528984
View attachment 1528976
I've literally lost count of how many times I've used this gif in this thread

That said, I fully agree with the oversaturation of all things Tina.

I burnt my bagel replying to you. F*ck you.

 

[TheOffalo]

but does it have to be "us"?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "it" and "us"...

If by "it" you mean contribute to the demand for exact replicas, then I guess I'm part of the problem. I cannot afford a playable set of real New China Clubs; so I have a set of cards mold ones becase I liked the backstory of the casino and the theme.

So does that mean I can't (or shouldn't) belong to the "us"? Should the "us" only be restricted to likeminded people who would never buy copies of a casino design, and only collect the real thing or only go custom designs?

I fell hard for this hobby, and I want to be a part of it for a long time, but I cannot "collect" like a lot of people with more means can (but I do have stuff that I know are out of reach for others with less means).

 

[BarrieJ3]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "it" and "us"...

If by "it" you mean contribute to the demand for exact replicas, then I guess I'm part of the problem. I cannot afford a playable set of real New China Clubs; so I have a set of cards mold ones becase I liked the backstory of the casino and the theme.

So does that mean I can't belong to the "us"? Should the "us" only be restricted to likeminded people who would never buy copies of a casino design, and only collect the real thing or only go custom designs?

The “it” refers moreso to the overarching decline/watering down. I’d say that rests more on the overarching hobby/PCF as a whole.

It’s not one specific moment in time or action.

I think it’s pretty dumb if people get mad at people for getting chips they want at affordable prices. I’ll happily play some poker with your Tina’s - and guess what, I’ll still have just as much fun, eating and laughing all night.

The answer is nuanced and I don’t have it. But my take would be a long winded rabbit hole that essentially could be summarized as PCF having profound affect on the overarching chipping and that PCF now being toothless is a net negative (long before Tina). Pitchforks sold out for years for a reason.

 

[Gus]

I have a hard time believing that.

I was a bit surprised too (re: the claim that Paulson doesn't necessarily have any legal exclusivity to THC).

But how do you explain an American chip maker simply selling THC knock offs as linked to in the post?

THC was Christy & Jones, at one point even manufactured by Burt I think... goes a long way back. Possible that Paulson got the right to make THC, but C&J retained the right too... but then went bust... my history is not accurate but there's all kinds of ways these things get away from exclusive rights.

 

[chippitydoodah]

He paid for the mold to be made

 

[BGinGA]

It is my (potentially incorrect) understanding that:

1. The original mold name used in T.R.King's order cards was cap-dash, not small crowns or scrowns...

2. The Top Hat & Cane chip mold art is a protected image. I've even seen copies of the patents.

Carry on.

 

[Gus]

It is my (potentially incorrect) understanding that:

1. The original mold name used in T.R.King's order cards was cap-dash, not small crowns or scrowns...

2. The Top Hat & Cane chip mold art is a protected image. I've even seen copies of the patents.

Patents would be on manufacturing technique, not explicitly on a “trademark” such as the top hat design. I recall seeing some chip patents too, and perhaps they previously used the patent system to cover trademark-like clakms

That being said, patents (unlike trademarks) go public after ~20 years as the patent holder was given that time to profit off of the innovation by the patent system. CPC and Paulson chip formulas aren’t patented, they’re trade secrets, which don’t have any protection if breached, but also have no defined time period. Like the Coca Cola recipe

I’d like clarity on these issues but it’s sort of like property titles… can you prove someone hasn’t signed a purchase agreement? No, because that’s not made public until the final sale is registered with the gov. So we have these private companies that are under no obligation to clarify their positions. Only if they filed a lawsuit would we see their claimed exclusivity/protections

 

[Gus]

Another wrinkle - if trademarks or other IP infringements are not actively pursued by the rights holder (going after those who are infringing via cease and desist, etc), the rights holder sacrifices their IP / loses the right to exclusivity moving forward

So if you want to make THC chips, it’s possible you can point to prior knock-offs that were sold without any action by Paulson and legitimately show that hey, they could have enforced it in the past but didn’t!

If you try to sell WSOP-branded chips here or on Amazon I bet you’d get legal action within a week from WSOP’s lawyers because they’re very protective of their brand.

None of this touches on the questions of whether it’s OK to make knockoffs, much less sell them on eBay without disclosing their knockoffedness to potentially naive buyers

 

[KingZilla]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/336042268427

Seller "found a $100 chip for Jack casino in Austin."

View attachment 1528555

If you look closely, you'll see that this is NOT an RHC chip. None of the canes are reversed. People need to get educated. Now it does appear that the chips being offered by TPS DO have reversed canes but still not in the exact RHC pattern. I personally don't care either way, I hate that mold.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

Hold on a minute - this is not a Tina problem. Tina just makes what you ask her to. The problem is the person who asked Tina to make a scrown mold or a RHC mold. Tina didn’t do that voluntarily, that was done at the request of someone in the chip business here.

Personally, I think that asking Tina to make a scrown mold is a f-you to the whole chipping community. CPC is the owner of that mold, a small company and our only legal recourse to custom clay chips and to copy their IP is just wrong.

If you want to screw a company then go make a THC mold - don’t copy the nice manufacturer that still caters to us hobbyists.

Couple issues with this. Yes, 'Tina' did do it voluntarily. A company doesn't have to do everything the customer wants.

And your moral high ground is kind of ruined when you say something along the lines of "If you're gonna steal, do it from Wal-Mart and not the neighborhood grocery store".

 

[Darson]

Couple issues with this. Yes, 'Tina' did do it voluntarily. A company doesn't have to do everything the customer wants.

And your moral high ground is kind of ruined when you say something along the lines of "If you're gonna steal, do it from Wal-Mart and not the neighborhood grocery store".

Moral high ground nothing. I’m not perfect, nobody is. But yeah, I’d rather steal from Walmart (who are no angels) than the only company that’s part of our community and the only company on the planet that sells us custom clay chips.

 

[allforcharity]

So if you want to make THC chips, it’s possible you can point to prior knock-offs that were sold without any action by Paulson and legitimately show that hey, they could have enforced it in the past but didn’t!

This is assuming that there is a jurisdiction that respects trademark and copyright where you can commence the legal action. In USA, Canada, Japan, most probably. In China? Good luck.