Anyone have any idea what these might be? (1 Viewer)

As far as value of these, I try to buy them for 30-40 cents apiece when in bulk quantities…. But they are often sold on eBay for $1-4 apiece as singles to some collectors.

I think this is reasonable value. Most listings for Paranoid-style chips are, shall we say, optimistically priced. I would put most vintage solid hotstamped ASMs in this price range as well (assuming Good+ condition).
 
According to Allen Myers of Marlowe’s Casino Chips and poker chip authority and author David Seymour:
“Instead of trying to define the meaning of the term, “Crest & Seal” in my own words, I am enclosing a page from The Burt Co., courtesy of Dale Seymour. This gives you the meaning of a C&S chip direct from the words of The Burt Co.”

So maybe I shouldn’t quote it as Gospel as it could have just been a misguided explanation by the copy editor of their catalog, but at least it’s something taken directly from a company’s archive… doesn’t really matter on which side of this you come down on, though. I primarily mentioned the C&S moniker because it is often used interchangeably with Paranoid.

As far as value of these, I try to buy them for 30-40 cents apiece when in bulk quantities…. But they are often sold on eBay for $1-4 apiece as singles to some collectors.

It's true that the above promotional copy is one of the few sources of information we have about what "crest and seal" means. But it in no way implies that a "crest and seal" chip is so named because the inlay is "sealed", or that a "sealed" inlay is the defining characteristic of such a chip.

It does promote the fact that the inlay is laminated, and that the lamination protects against wear, but it doesn't connect the word "seal" to the lamination. The feature of the chip that is most prominently promoted here is that the inlay design is made special to the customer's specifications using an initial, monogram, or private mark, so that the customer can be sure that their chips are unique and that the customer is thereby protected against "ringers" (generic chips brought in from the outside which nevertheless match the cardroom's own generic chips). In other words, what matters here is that the customer can have chips made that use the customer's own symbol - aka crest aka seal - rather than a generic stock design that could be obtained by anyone. The fact that the symbol, crest, or seal would be printed on a substrate that was subsequently laminated is an indicator of the chip's quality, not a defining characteristic of the product line.

... in my opinion. Some other noted chip historians disagree.

Note that in at least one other historical primary source, such chips are described as "crest or seal" rather than "crest and seal". That phrasing would make no sense if the word "seal" were understood at the time to refer to the laminate on the inlay, rather than simply the design.

To the extent that chip collectors have referred to what we now call Paranoids as "crest and seal" I think again this is an unfortunate misunderstanding that confuses more than it clarifies. What we consider Paranoids all use stock designs, made with die-cut inlays. That's essentially the exact opposite of a "crest and seal" (or "crest or seal") chip, which uses a custom design that's lithographically printed rather than die-cut.

Of course, our use of Paranoid to describe these stock-design, die-cut, symbol-inlaid chips is itself somewhat of a misnomer, because there were at least three different types of chips that USPCC marketed using the Paranoid brand - Paranoid Inlaid with symbols, Paranoid Inlaid with initials, and Paranoid Engraved. The first two are what we usually now think of as "Paranoids", and the third is a rather different chip - you can see examples of them in my avatar. Still, I think it's fine to let that slight misnomer stand; the engraved chips are much less common than the inlaid, and it's easy enough to be more specific when required.
 
It's true that the above promotional copy is one of the few sources of information we have about what "crest and seal" means. But it in no way implies that a "crest and seal" chip is so named because the inlay is "sealed", or that a "sealed" inlay is the defining characteristic of such a chip.

It does promote the fact that the inlay is laminated, and that the lamination protects against wear, but it doesn't connect the word "seal" to the lamination. The feature of the chip that is most prominently promoted here is that the inlay design is made special to the customer's specifications using an initial, monogram, or private mark, so that the customer can be sure that their chips are unique and that the customer is thereby protected against "ringers" (generic chips brought in from the outside which nevertheless match the cardroom's own generic chips). In other words, what matters here is that the customer can have chips made that use the customer's own symbol - aka crest aka seal - rather than a generic stock design that could be obtained by anyone. The fact that the symbol, crest, or seal would be printed on a substrate that was subsequently laminated is an indicator of the chip's quality, not a defining characteristic of the product line.

... in my opinion. Some other noted chip historians disagree.

Note that in at least one other historical primary source, such chips are described as "crest or seal" rather than "crest and seal". That phrasing would make no sense if the word "seal" were understood at the time to refer to the laminate on the inlay, rather than simply the design.

To the extent that chip collectors have referred to what we now call Paranoids as "crest and seal" I think again this is an unfortunate misunderstanding that confuses more than it clarifies. What we consider Paranoids all use stock designs, made with die-cut inlays. That's essentially the exact opposite of a "crest and seal" (or "crest or seal") chip, which uses a custom design that's lithographically printed rather than die-cut.

Of course, our use of Paranoid to describe these stock-design, die-cut, symbol-inlaid chips is itself somewhat of a misnomer, because there were at least three different types of chips that USPCC marketed using the Paranoid brand - Paranoid Inlaid with symbols, Paranoid Inlaid with initials, and Paranoid Engraved. The first two are what we usually now think of as "Paranoids", and the third is a rather different chip - you can see examples of them in my avatar. Still, I think it's fine to let that slight misnomer stand; the engraved chips are much less common than the inlaid, and it's easy enough to be more specific when required.
@CrazyEddie … you make valid points and I personally really do totally agree with everything your saying here… I guess I was trying too hard to present other’s opinions which came off as factual references… and I also know there are others who think differently than you and I, and that’s fine, too.

Also, I consider Rich Hanover another one of the few C&S "experts" Here is his site.

http://www.oldpokerchips.com/index.htm

@gmunny , that’s interesting… never heard of those style of chips. Those certainly do sound “sealed”!
 
@PokerDogDoc - It's all good, bro. :)

@gmunny , that’s interesting… never heard of those style of chips. Those certainly do sound “sealed”!
I think that Rich Hanover is somewhat confused wrt what he's written there, despite being an avid collector of these chips.

I collect old, plain mold, litho inlay poker/casino chips. At the top of the pecking order of these clay chips are what are known as Crest and Seal (C&S) chips. These chips, besides being old, plain mold with litho inlay, have a relatively thick, clear coating covering the inlay.

[emphasis added]

I don't believe that there is any difference between old, plain mold, litho inlay chips and what Rich is referring to as "crest and seal" chips. The "relatively thick, clear coating covering the inlay" is just lamination using plastic sheet stock (at the time, almost certainly celluloid) and calling it a "coating" is probably more misleading than it is descriptive. I think there are probably very few examples that we could find of old, plain mold, litho inlay chips whose inlays are not laminated with plastic sheet stock.

The surface of a crest and seal chip should be smooth enough such that, with eyes closed, the inlay cannot be distinguished from the rim of the chip.

This is true of any chip which has an inlay and which was fabricated using compression molding, i.e. all the USPCC chips and all the Burt chips that we're familiar with - including die-cut inlay chips such as Paranoids - to say nothing of more modern clay chips such as Paulsons and TR Kings and BCCs. The compression molding process pushes the inlay into the chip's surface while the chip material is still pliable, resulting in a smooth surface across the inlay and the chip face with no easily-felt seam between the chip and the inlay. I'm not certain what types of chips Rich was attempting to draw a distinction between by pointing out this seamlessness; Allan Myers in his article mentioned above refers to Bud Jones chips, and specifically BJ Roulettes, which very obviously are quite different from clay chips - not just different from Crest and Seal chips, but from any other inlaid clay chips, which of course they would be since Crest and Seal chips are simply an example of inlaid clay chips.

In other words, Rich Hanover and Allan Myers have somehow mistakenly fixated on the word "seal" in "crest and seal" in order to elevate a perfectly normal and mundane feature present in nearly all inlaid compression-molded clay chips - namely, laminated inlays - and somehow consider it a distinguishing feature of the certain specific sorts of chips that were made in the early days of inlaid chips, i.e. those chips with lithographically printed inlays (as opposed to die-cut inlays, hotstamps, or blanks) bearing the customer's own special symbol (necessitating the use of lithographic printing as opposed to stock die-cut patterns) made with the plain-mold (since edge-molds like HHR or THC were not yet in common use). But in fact "seal" doesn't refer to that feature - lamination - at all, and that feature - lamination - is not unique to crest-and-seal chips. Even Bud Jones chips have laminated decals, but we wouldn't call those decals "sealed"!
 
This is true of any chip which has an inlay and which was fabricated using compression molding, i.e. all the USPCC chips and all the Burt chips that we're familiar with - including die-cut inlay chips such as Paranoids - to say nothing of more modern clay chips such as Paulsons and TR Kings and BCCs. The compression molding process pushes the inlay into the chip's surface while the chip material is still pliable, resulting in a smooth surface across the inlay and the chip face with no easily-felt seam between the chip and the inlay.
Bit of a tangent, but yes for older Paulsons. The seemless clay to inlay transition is especially noticeable on shaped inlay chips. But we’ve seen that isn’t really a feature of modern Paulsons. It was particularly noticeable with the HSI chips that had the smaller inlay in the larger recess - the transition from clay to inlay wasn’t consistently smooth.
TRKs though - holy crap. That’s the best feature of small crowns, in my opinion - the completely seamless tradition from clay to inlay. It’s also why I scratch my head when people murder and reliable TRKs. It just can’t be possible to reproduce the feel.
 
@PokerDogDoc - It's all good, bro. :)


I think that Rich Hanover is somewhat confused wrt what he's written there, despite being an avid collector of these chips.



[emphasis added]

I don't believe that there is any difference between old, plain mold, litho inlay chips and what Rich is referring to as "crest and seal" chips. The "relatively thick, clear coating covering the inlay" is just lamination using plastic sheet stock (at the time, almost certainly celluloid) and calling it a "coating" is probably more misleading than it is descriptive. I think there are probably very few examples that we could find of old, plain mold, litho inlay chips whose inlays are not laminated with plastic sheet stock.



This is true of any chip which has an inlay and which was fabricated using compression molding, i.e. all the USPCC chips and all the Burt chips that we're familiar with - including die-cut inlay chips such as Paranoids - to say nothing of more modern clay chips such as Paulsons and TR Kings and BCCs. The compression molding process pushes the inlay into the chip's surface while the chip material is still pliable, resulting in a smooth surface across the inlay and the chip face with no easily-felt seam between the chip and the inlay. I'm not certain what types of chips Rich was attempting to draw a distinction between by pointing out this seamlessness; Allan Myers in his article mentioned above refers to Bud Jones chips, and specifically BJ Roulettes, which very obviously are quite different from clay chips - not just different from Crest and Seal chips, but from any other inlaid clay chips, which of course they would be since Crest and Seal chips are simply an example of inlaid clay chips.

In other words, Rich Hanover and Allan Myers have somehow mistakenly fixated on the word "seal" in "crest and seal" in order to elevate a perfectly normal and mundane feature present in nearly all inlaid compression-molded clay chips - namely, laminated inlays - and somehow consider it a distinguishing feature of the certain specific sorts of chips that were made in the early days of inlaid chips, i.e. those chips with lithographically printed inlays (as opposed to die-cut inlays, hotstamps, or blanks) bearing the customer's own special symbol (necessitating the use of lithographic printing as opposed to stock die-cut patterns) made with the plain-mold (since edge-molds like HHR or THC were not yet in common use). But in fact "seal" doesn't refer to that feature - lamination - at all, and that feature - lamination - is not unique to crest-and-seal chips. Even Bud Jones chips have laminated decals, but we wouldn't call those decals "sealed"!

Wow.. didn't read it all Eddie, i can't read emails with more than 2 paragraphs. ;) What I believe happened is that the definition of what a Crest & Seal chips is has changed over time. I have many old distributor catalogs from the early 1900s to the Burt brochure (referred to in an earlier post), and I think the use of the term or reference to it has changed over time and as manufacturing of chips changed.

I am not saying Rich knows it all, but he knows a lot more about these chips than anyone I know. He has a very informative timeline about years and describing what/how they are made. Personally, I would call the later years from 70s on as Plain molds its not that big of a deal to me.

http://www.oldpokerchips.com/CSdates.htm

Happy chippin'
 
What I believe happened is that the definition of what a Crest & Seal chips is has changed over time.
Entirely possible. I certainly haven't researched the topic extensively... wouldn't mind digging into it in depth someday, alas I doubt I ever make time for it.

I have many old distributor catalogs from the early 1900s to the Burt brochure (referred to in an earlier post), and I think the use of the term or reference to it has changed over time and as manufacturing of chips changed.
I could believe that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom