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

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.

Ok, but tell me then how you can compare two sets of chips. What procedure or principle do you employ to make up for the fact that one type of chip has a sticker insert whereas the other does not and you then try to evaluate "feel"? How do you go about that?

Let me put it like this: What other chip compares more closely to the Faux Clay than the RT?
 
BCC no mold.

Ok, good. Here's what I saw after 4 seconds of googling:

"I have 221 T-mold T100 chips for sale.
They are a dark charcoal color, almost black. Pictured 1 between & next to a black BCC Fun Nite 100 and a black BCC GCR 100 for comparison.

Asking $1.10/chip plus shipping from Canada."

Now, answer this:

Are the BCC no molds the best chips out there? If not, why would I not buy better chips?
 
T-molds are not the same as no-molds.

Some might argue that BCC no-molds are the 'best chips out there', but I doubt that you will find many experienced chippers who would make a blanket statement like that regarding any chip that wasn't their particular favorite..... and even then, probably with a caveat or qualifier of some kind.

I think the problem may lie with your inexperience in having adequate data to draw from for your conclusions.
 
T-molds are not the same as no-molds.

Who cares; how much does a chip cost?

Some might argue that BCC no-molds are the 'best chips out there', but I doubt that you will find many experienced chippers who would make a blanket statement like that regarding any chip that wasn't their particular favorite..... and even then, probably with a caveat or qualifier of some kind.

Ah, so there are caveats. Does that explain why the few Faux Clay chips I saw were what I assume to be far cheaper than BCC no-molds? Clearly there would be some reason for why Faux Clay when found sell for around 24c and the BCC for far more, right? What are those differences?

I think the problem may lie with your inexperience in having adequate data to draw from for your conclusions.

Yeah I don't really think you're "getting it" to be honest. I don't need experience with BCC chips to understand that in this particular price range it appears that the two compare to each other much closer than others. In this price range.

It's silly to argue that I shouldn't get a set of RT for say $80 because there's a set of chips for $500 that's closer to the Faux Clay. That's just nonsense.

Read my review again and understand the gist of it.
 
I read your review, and disagree with your comparisons and conclusions.

You asked what chip was closer in comparison to a Faux Clay than a Roman, I answered. I made no other claims such as those you suggest above.

You asked if BCC no-molds were the best chips, I answered that most experienced enthusiasts would probably tout their own personal favorite as the best, probably with a qualifier (such as intended usage, available options, etc.).

The rest of your rant are totally your statements, not mine. And as you stated, I agree, it's just nonsense.

I'm done debating the issue, since all you appear to want to do is put words in my mouth and throw veiled insults.
 
I read your review, and disagree with your comparisons and conclusions.

You asked what chip was closer in comparison to a Faux Clay than a Roman, I answered. I made no other claims such as those you suggest above.

You asked if BCC no-molds were the best chips, I answered that most experienced enthusiasts would probably tout their own personal favorite as the best, probably with a qualifier (such as intended usage, available options, etc.).

The rest of your rant are totally your statements, not mine. And as you stated, I agree, it's just nonsense.

I'm done debating the issue, since all you appear to want to do is put words in my mouth and throw veiled insults.

Well when you resort to "rants", "put words in my mouth" and "veiled insults" I can tell that it makes sense for you to "be done debating", taking your ball and going home. The response in this thread in conjunction with the "I won an auction" thread makes me think that this somewhat less than friendly attitude is standard here, sadly.

I wrote a pretty comprehensive review, and I addressed your objections using specific arguments. You just repeating "I think you're wrong" is of course your right, but it doesn't make what you say correct. As a matter of fact, it's extremely telling that rather than explain just what procedure you use to determine whether or not two types of chips are similar you just skirt the issue. If there was a way to assess "stackability" then tell me what it is and we can test it. You want to do that to find out just how comparable they are as far as stacking goes? Probably not. How about texture? I can post a nice picture, a close up so everyone can compare the surfaces. Yes?

-----------------

The larger context, which was exactly the point with my review, was that these are cheaper chips and comparing them to chips that are a dollar a piece is a bit nonsensical. Within the price range that these exist you simply can't find anything as far as I know that will be as similar to the Faux Clay on all characteristics. You haven't refuted that at all.

Milanos - similar weight, three times more expensive.
Most other chips - heavier with inserts and thus won't feel more similar.
Texture - which chips in the same price range has the same texture???

If you want I can post a sound file with three stacks of chips shuffled, recorded in a sound proof booth with expensive real gear as opposed to podcast mics, and then everyone can have a listen and guess what chip is what as well as state which sound they prefer. Typically such blind tests don't work out the way people think they do.
 
Ok, so now I got more of these and I have pictures to share. The pictures were taken with chips on a white piece of paper. If the paper doesn't look white on your screen then you'll know the colors of the chips are off by an equal amount.

QC: First of all, I would probably say in contrast to "Hobbyphilic" (John Hobby?) that the QC of these chips is possibly below average. I could be wrong, but it seems to vary quite a bit. I think the Green 25 chips were the ones I liked the least. I think I may even dislike them actually. The colors aren't that nice, and there were a few that had a much more pronounced "edge" between edge spots and main color. Here's an image of it:

ieCI6Wg.jpg


Curiously all chips also had some sort of oil on them it seems. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be on the chips to begin with. From what I could tell it was mostly on the outside of the roll, i.e. the edge of the chips. I'm almost thinking that this is part of what's not great about their QC, and perhaps it's something residual from one of the machines and the chips should have been cleaned before packing.

Colors:

tlDdmbI.jpg

7rgKBav.jpg

O6B9oZ2.jpg


In my opinion those colors are fine. So is the design. The stickers look nice enough and are very easy to read. None of the above is "special", but they work very well for me aesthetically. The one exception are the greens which I think are fairly ugly. The main problem as far as looks are concerned are the inconsistent colors of green. I have a feeling this may be due to that oil before, or something went wrong in creating these chips. Either way I don't particularly care for the color. Since it's a tournament set they'll disappear soon enough I hope.

I threw in the Faux Clay there for comparison. Now, I stand by what I said earlier in that these RT can be compared to the Faux for the resons I mentioned before. To me, in the above image where the reds are mixed with the RT, the Faux don't look too exciting at all, and that "spot" from the injection stands out like crazy. I try to be realistic and practical about all of this, and if we're loading up a table with chips then I don't think the Faux look at all better than the RT when you just casually play poker, talk about stuff, drink whiskey and just have a generally good time. You glance down at stacks in order to see the sizes of them etc, and on a table I think the RT will be fine.

Stacking:

8QfGhxT.jpg


I asked before what you do to compare chips. I got no answer. If "stacking" is not comparable between the Faux and the RT, then let me know how to compare the two. Above is 100 chips stacked with no problem. A gentle nudge makes the tower wobble, but it won't fall.

Texture:

xYEzr6w.jpg

hUFt8ez.jpg


How is that not the same type of texture??? The two differences I detect are that the "depth" of that texture is maybe slightly different, as well as the sharpness of the edges. I find both chips to have sharp edges, but the RT is a bit more sharp.

Lastly a couple of images of the chips in profile;

OVIL0XW.jpg

VxqjJYw.jpg


You can see how the color isn't all that great. You can see it on the yellow chips as well but to a lesser degree. It definitely looks to me as if residual oil may have damaged the chips or something. Those of you that are knowledgeable about manufacturing may know exactly what this issue is. I didn't experience the same with the first light-blue roll I got, so definitely a bit unfortunate.

So there we have it. As I said earlier, I have a hard time seeing why these chips got so much hatred. I'm not sure what chip will be a "better" chip at around 12 cents without tradeoffs. From what I've seen when searching I'm either stuck with the same weight roughly but at three times the price, or at the same or lower price nicer design & QC but heavier weight which I don't want. It's all a matter of tradeoffs. To me these chips are fine. Not great chips, but fine.
 
I’m glad to hear you are satisfied with your set. Thanks for sharing all the good info.
 
Well, we'll see once we use the set. Hopefully the images and my view on them can help others.

I can see btw why people wouldn't like them. If chips are important then there for sure are better designs, more interesting edge spots, and better QC. No doubt about that. Typically at a price though, but I can totally see why it's worth more money for some people.
 
Just a real-world update;

- Chips have been used in a few tournaments I've played in / co-hosted
- People are able to see denominations easily and they stack just fine
- The blue $10 has been used in cash games and blend fine with my China Faux Clay (referenced earlier)
- No complaints at all by anyone, about either texture or design

I'm satisfied with this purchase as it ticked the boxes I cared about the most: texture, ease of use (visibility/stacking), weight, cost. Nothing else in the market managed those parameters.

Again though: Clearly for anyone who wants a "nice" chip this isn't the one. But fully functional and cheap enough to be easily replaced/augmented.
 

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