Anyone seen these "True Clay" Roman chips in person? (1 Viewer)

They're not good. Uneven coloration in the spots and the mold itself is meh. You can get a better chippin' experience for less, or for not all that much more.
 
Terrible. Sharp edges BUT.....they won't wear like a paulson-clay chip. Rather they are made of a very hard plastic that only chips and flea bites..

The same vendor does have some nice inexpensive chips, namely the monaco casino chips. They recently reworked the formula and have a great feel.
 
Yeah i bought a bunch of the Monaco casino chips as a throw away set.

But I really like them for a plastic set so I was wondering about the "clay" set
 
Sorry for the newbie-necro, but I figured it'd be better than starting a new thread on these.... I have two pretty simple questions:

1. How do these compare to the "China Faux Clay" that were super-cheap and very popular years ago? I have the Faux Clay chips, and so it seems it'd serve as a reasonable comparison.

2. At what price would these in your opinion be worth buying? - OR - What cheaper option is better than these?

(That last question is there because I 'get' that you get what you pay for and spending more gives me an arguably better chip)

I'd appreciate anyone's opinion on the above.

Terrible. Sharp edges BUT.....they won't wear like a paulson-clay chip. Rather they are made of a very hard plastic that only chips and flea bites..

The same vendor does have some nice inexpensive chips, namely the monaco casino chips. They recently reworked the formula and have a great feel.
 
Nobody can shed any light on how they compare to the "China Faux Clay" dice chips, and what the price for these should be before they're worth the money?
 
Dunno how much these particular chips cost, but there are a few relatively decent cheapo options for around 15-16c each -- search for Poker Knights, Monaco Club, and Showdown Club (all on the spade/sword mold, slugged at around 13.5g).

Next step up is china clays at around 25c (used) to 40c per chip. Apachepokerchips.com (forum sponsor) has quite a few variations.
 
Dunno how much these particular chips cost, but there are a few relatively decent cheapo options for around 15-16c each -- search for Poker Knights, Monaco Club, and Showdown Club (all on the spade/sword mold, slugged at around 13.5g).

Next step up is china clays at around 25c (used) to 40c per chip. Apachepokerchips.com (forum sponsor) has quite a few variations.
They are far for a "Cadillac" chip, but I have a 750 chip set of the poker knights I use for my monthly game and my guys are happy with them.
 
Order a few and write up a review, comparing these to faux clays.

Well, that's an obvious option.

Dunno how much these particular chips cost, but there are a few relatively decent cheapo options for around 15-16c each -- search for Poker Knights, Monaco Club, and Showdown Club (all on the spade/sword mold, slugged at around 13.5g).

Next step up is china clays at around 25c (used) to 40c per chip. Apachepokerchips.com (forum sponsor) has quite a few variations.


I'm aware of those chips and at those prices they're sort of an option, but (slightly) more expensive.
I have mixed feelings about heavier chips. In my circle of friends we play with both lighter and slugged heavier chips, and I prefer the lighter ceramics and Milanos. So this is why I'm curious about this option; the other chips we have in play that I like other people already own and I'd prefer to get a different sub-40c chip set. I already have the "China Faux Clay" that were so popular years ago, and everyone actually likes them. So I was looking for something similar, as inexpensively as possible.
 
Faux Clay (one type ever made) and China Clays (many types exist) are two distinct things, which may be causing some confusion.

It sounds like you mean Faux Clay, which were marketed as 9.5g Deluxe Dice Chips at the time - which is itself confusing in that "dice chips" is often used around here to talk about any of the (now) myriad variety of store-bought generic metal-slugged plastic chips, which at one time were pretty much either suited or had dice on them.

I think you will have difficulty finding a cheap chip that outperforms the mighty faux clay for anywhere near the price - however, you WILL find a lot of sets that are prettier and not that much more expensive.

Samples are the only way to know for sure whether you like one chip as much as another.



Faux Clay:

photo(45).JPG



Early examples of China Clay chips. There are a lot of nicer ones out now:

P9010008c.JPG




Dice Chips:

sluggo dice chips.jpg
 
Faux Clay (one type ever made) and China Clays (many types exist) are two distinct things, which may be causing some confusion.

It sounds like you mean Faux Clay, which were marketed as 9.5g Deluxe Dice Chips at the time

Correct. Those are indeed the ones I'm referring to.

I think you will have difficulty finding a cheap chip that outperforms the mighty faux clay for anywhere near the price - however, you WILL find a lot of sets that are prettier and not that much more expensive.

Samples are the only way to know for sure whether you like one chip as much as another.

I just thought that since the Faux Clay were so popular someone here might have tried both them and the Roman Times and could offer some insight. But I guess I'll just get a roll and compare.

Incidentally: I guess the chips in the middle image are some type of Nexgen, correct? Are the Roman Times significantly inferior to them?
 
Well, that's an obvious option.




I'm aware of those chips and at those prices they're sort of an option, but (slightly) more expensive.
I have mixed feelings about heavier chips. In my circle of friends we play with both lighter and slugged heavier chips, and I prefer the lighter ceramics and Milanos. So this is why I'm curious about this option; the other chips we have in play that I like other people already own and I'd prefer to get a different sub-40c chip set. I already have the "China Faux Clay" that were so popular years ago, and everyone actually likes them. So I was looking for something similar, as inexpensively as possible.


Well, for the obvious option, I would say that's your best bet. Your not going to get much of a positive review on anything made in China here. You may get a few recommendations, but it would only be a few and opinions will vary wildly among those that you do get.

Please note that you may get some positive reviews. I did not state that you would only get negative reviews from China products. Some posters, even senior ones, may give you positive reviews. I have not seen many positive reviews of China products here, but the perspective may be skewed quite a bit due to the nature of collectors and players here.

You will find that the mantra is "get samples", and even though its more applicable to high end chips for lots of $$ you will be greatly served by doing the same even for "lower end" chips.

I personally use:
Claysmith (Bluff Canyon, Showdown) chips and they are received very well among the people I play with
China Clays (Dunes, CPS, Pharaohs) and they are received very well among the people I play with
Paulsons (Horseshoes, asst California poker rooms, Scandia) and they are received very well among the people I play with
Bud Jones (Legends) and they are received very well among the people I play with
 
ekricket,

I understand. But that's why I tried to phrase my question as a comparison between the older Faux Clay, also made in China, and these chips. So a person who doesn't like either but has experience with both could say "I hate both, but I think that X is less bad because it has Y quality which the other one doesn't". Know what I mean? Or even just leave out the subjective and simply say "X is lighter, Y is more consistent" or whatever.

But yes, I'll get a roll and try them out.
 
The middle ones are China Clay. Nexgens (I think) are plastic.

I have not sampled the chips you are asking about, so cannot speak to how they perform.
 
I tried to phrase my question as a comparison between the older Faux Clay, also made in China, and these chips.
I would never purchase these chips for any amount of money, and if given to me for free, I'd give them to somebody else (or Goodwill). If forced to play with them, I'd go to great lengths to try and get something else into play.

Was never a big fan of the faux clay chips either, mostly because they have no denominations (I refuse to play without 'em). They were a decent chip - especially when priced at a nickel per. Not gonna find anything close in quality at anywhere near that price range.

If 15c/chip is too much for you, I can't help you -- because anything cheaper totally sucks. As do most of the chips at 15c-20c.

Get samples.
 
Ok, got it. But what is the objective difference between the Roman Times and the Faux Clay?

Weight? Color match? Feel?
 
The answer to your question has already been posted in this thread (basically, they suck):
They're not good. Uneven coloration in the spots and the mold itself is meh.
Terrible. Sharp edges BUT.....they won't wear like a paulson-clay chip. Rather they are made of a very hard plastic that only chips and flea bites..
You already have faux clays, so you already know they aren't exactly hard plastic that chips away with use. Color issues are already addressed above. What else do you need in terms of a bad review to steer clear?
 
The answer to your question has already been posted in this thread (basically, they suck):


You already have faux clays, so you already know they aren't exactly hard plastic that chips away with use. Color issues are already addressed above. What else do you need in terms of a bad review to steer clear?

I guess nothing. Thanks.
 
I saw that video earlier, and the closeup of the yellow is what made me wonder how similar these are to the Faux Clay.
 
Update,

I received a roll of 25 light-blue "$10" denomination chips, and they are as I expected them to be. I also got more denominations for a tourney set so maybe I’ll update my review and post pictures once I have them all – if you want...

Weight: I really like the weight. I prefer to not have the heavy inserts. These compare to the Faux Clay.

Feel: The surface has a similar type of texture to the Faux Clay, and the exception is of course the sticker. As the reviewer in the video pointed out you can feel the transition between edge spots and core color, but the degree to which you feel it isn't consistent (goes for both top of chip and side). On most it’s noticeable, but on some it isn’t. I suppose this means the quality control is "average".

Looks: This is the light blue / white $10 chip. I really like the colors of this denomination, and the design of it, relative to the Faux Clay. The denomination sticker is much nicer than I thought, and overall the chip is simple and clean, easy to read, and basically utilitarian without being an eyesore. There is one issue however:

In four of the 25 chips there were small areas of blue on the white edge spots. They range from tiny enough to barely be noticeable, to large enough to be eye catching as a defect if one looks at it. I think the bottom line here for me is that on a table, with people yapping about god-knows-what while drinking and actually playing poker the odds aren't that high that the average friend of mine would even notice this.

Stacking: Seems fine to me. The video guy mentioned this wobbling when holding a stack and pressing down on one side and I'm not seeing that with this batch. At least not nearly to the degree where it'd be a problem.

Durability: Well, I guess get back to me in a couple of months. Clearly chips need to be put into rotation and action for a while to see if they'll hold up or not. The whole "does it break when I apply a great deal of pressure on them" test to me is sort of interesting in that it can show how “sturdy” one chip is compared to another, but it isn't really real-world testing. I do have one person in my circle of friends that I play with that is a "fiddler" and is the one guy to bend cards for example (non-maliciously for sure), and he'd be the one to break one of these. But we've played with worse chips and it never happened so far.

As for pieces of material chipping off (I honestly don't know what the word for this is) I don't see a problem here. I took two chips and banged one against the other, edge to edge, in what I felt was using more force than a player would use while carelessly abusing the chips, and there was no damage. Perhaps I'm weak. Actually, I know I'm weak. I'm weak in general, and I'm only now getting over the flu. But still, it just doesn't seem like it'll be a problem.

Conclusion:

Short version: Totally worth it if you just want a decent looking low weight chip to play with that doesn’t cost too much.

Annoyingly long version:

First of all let me say that I have limited experience with chips, and it's certainly zero experience with the true high end chips. So you have to keep that in mind. My conclusion is instead based on comparing with; low-end slugged chips that people who don't really care buy - the ones in those metal briefcases; the Milanos; the Scroll ceramics; the Faux Clay, and some other random chips I don't know the name of (likely a bit older mid-range chips).

I think these chips compare very well to the Faux Clay. Pretend you're a complete newbie to this, show up in a store, and the owner shows you the Faux Clay and these. You ask about the price, and the owner says the Faux are 4 cents a piece (what I got mine for), and the Romans 12. At this point there are some easy questions to ask yourself; What's my budget? How many do I need? Do I need denominations? Do I think the added cost is worth it? I think the last question likely would be "no" for many people. BUT, there aren't any Faux Clay available at this price any longer! The last prices I saw were for one or two colors only at 21-27 cents per chip. So, the comparison in price has to reflect this, and rather than the Romans being three times as expensive, the Faux are actually about twice as expensive in 2018. If you can find them.

My take on the value of these chips then is based on making what I think are realistic comparisons, and realistic goals and standards. If the Faux felt good enough and had good enough weight etc to play with, then these chips too are good enough. They’re totally comparable in my view. That doesn't speak to whether or not they're worth the money, but I think that's the first hurdle to get over. They're absolutely usable. To the average player, they'll be fine. Now, throw in some Milanos and Scrolls in the mix and the average Joe will notice a difference. "Hopefully" this Joe will prefer the more expensive chips, but more importantly; I can tell you that at our games nobody has ever had anything but positive things to say about the Faux, ever. I think these are similar enough to also never be a problem.

But ok, what about that price though. Well, some caveats in this thread were about durability. But again our comparison has to be realistic and 'fair'. If durability and chips not chipping is a thing, then is it also a thing when you buy Paulson? No, it probably isn't, because the idea there is that you're getting so much of something else that it's worth the fragility. Well, I think the Romans are appropriately priced then as far as that’s concerned. But then the next objection is likely to be "But there are other chips at 16 cents that look much better". I think that's subjective, but even though I agree there's then the weight to consider. I prefer lighter chips. "But there are the Milanos" you probably think. True, but now the issue is price again. To some of us money is an issue. The difference in cost would cover decks of cards, dealer buttons, cut cards, bounty buttons, racks etc. How much do those things contribute to the actual game experience relative to just getting “more chip” instead? I don’t think the answer is necessarily obvious. And finally, how about cheaper chips.... Well? I asked. I don't see any alternatives at this weight.

At the end of the day I think a chip can be looked at as a tool or as something more than that. For those looking for a tool that feels good and doesn't look bad and doesn't cost too much this seems to be a totally decent chip. I don’t see the reason for hating them given the price and also not a reason not to buy them with the aforementioned caveats.... meaning if you on the other hand are a chip "connaisseur" and care about details, consistency and quality, then these aren’t for you...
 
Your tactile receptors must be very different than mine. In my hands, these chips are NOTHING like faux clay chips, in any facet -- looks, sound, feel, handling, or even smell. I can only say that to me, they are not comparable in any way.
 
Well, barring there being differences between batches I just don't agree with you. I honestly don't see how these chips are NOT a good comparison to the Faux Clay. I don't know what else to compare them to that ends up being a fair comparison.

Sound: These chips sound FAR closer to the Faux Clay than they do to ceramics, or to any metal-insert chip I've ever handled. FAR closer.

Smell: I smell nothing. Most likely when playing our players won't smell the chips. Most likely after having played they'll smell whatever our hands smelled like (Bourbon, chips, cheese, whatever).

Looks: I didn't say they look the same, but I did say that these $10 denom chips look surprisingly good, which is a bit surprising seeing how some people hated on them. If we're absolutely honest here, would anybody today advocate buying green Faux Clay at 12 cents a piece? I doubt it. To me they're incredibly ugly. And so are a lot of the other Faux Clay colors. I happen to have the reds, the whites and the grays and they're all fine colors. The others? Not so much. So, a bland green Faux Clay to me looks far worse than this specific denomination Roman Times chip.

Feel: No, they don't feel exactly the same mostly because of the sticker. There is no sticker on the Faux Clay of course. However, they have a surface texture that is very similar. It may be that the Faux have a slightly more "deep" texture, but it really isn't a huge difference. A big difference would be the Faux compared to the Scrolls or the Milanos. That's a bigger difference in texture. Other than that I already mentioned that there are inconsistencies in the RT and that there's a noticeable transition between chip colors. However, in terms of feel and texture the Faux have the dice instead. So of course they don't feel exactly the same, but neither would two chips of exactly the same material and texture but where one had something like these dice indentations and another chip has none.

Handling: Well, I don't know what to tell you. I've spent a couple of weeks now fiddling with the Faux and these while watching TV or surfing the web. They handle similarly. The Faux are a bit more "slippery", but it's marginal. They shuffle about the same. They stack about the same.

But you're right, they're not comparable. At more than twice the price the Faux I have aren't better than the RT I have. For the money I'd say it's the opposite. Perhaps my view of these chips change once the rest show up later this week. And I'll post pictures then so you guys can see in detail what they look like.

PS: I get the distinct feeling that a lot of people bought the Faux Clay back when they were dirt cheap. Because of the price they were a truly great deal. And having scored this great deal leaves us with fond memories and sentiments of these chips (I'm certainly no different - I love my Faux Clay). But I really do feel that the cheering of them is a bit subjective because of that and had these chips been introduced today at the prices they're found today then the conversation would have been completely different.
 
I’m not trying to debunk your comparison or anything, but yes I would advocate Faux at $0.12 over anything else available for twice the price.
 
I’m not trying to debunk your comparison or anything, but yes I would advocate Faux at $0.12 over anything else available for twice the price.

The question is why, and compared to which chips...?

EDIT:

The Faux Clay aren't available at 12 cents a piece as far as I can see. I've seen them at around 24 cents. At that point is it still a recommendation or will it be the Milanos? Or Monaco Club? Or ceramics?
 
Last edited:
Sound, feel, durability, stackability. Not aesthetics.

And I suppose it would be more fair to qualify the word “any” with “that I have seen.”
 
I think that objectively many amateurs and non-chip-'connaiseurs' would be ok with the sound, feel and stackability of either the Faux or RT. That was my point. And that leaves durability (unknown to me) and aesthetics and price. All things considered I then can't see how one can call the RT garbage and hail the Faux.

Again though: This is based on one roll of 25 $10 chips. Who knows what I'll feel about it once I get the rest.
 
I'm not a fan-boy, never owned a full set of faux clays, and was not a member of the Faux Clay Nation.

But I appreciate them for what they are (no fond memories) and their rightful place in the chip collecting world, including the attributes that made them popular with many (covered nicely by @rowlin above). However, the Roman chips share none of those qualities imo, and that opinion is shared by other experienced chippers.
 

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