Cincinnati Horseshoe materials question. (1 Viewer)

[JasonS]

I've got a question about the Cincinnati Horseshoe chips that I got a few years ago.
The $1s I have a worn but closer to new and the $5s and $25s are much more worn.
None of them to me feel like much older (but in mint condition) Paulson chips.

The $1s feel softer and the $5s and $25s feel "plasticy"
Is that just what Paulson's feel like when broken in or is this a change in material used over the years to make Paulsons and I'm just used to the old (1990s) THC material that seem very hard when new?

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

Different formula. Old chips were leaded.

 

[JasonS]

Different formula. Old chips were leaded.

Thanks. I guess I like lead!
I like the feel of the 1$s over the $5s and $25s, though. They almost feel like baby powder when shuffling them. I guess I can feel them wearing as they are shuffled. The $5s and $25s feel harder but in a bad (plastic) kind of way.

 

[upNdown]

I've got a question about the Cincinnati Horseshoe chips that I got a few years ago.
The $1s I have a worn but closer to new and the $5s and $25s are much more worn.
None of them to me feel like much older (but in mint condition) Paulson chips.

The $1s feel softer and the $5s and $25s feel "plasticy"
Is that just what Paulson's feel like when broken in or is this a change in material used over the years to make Paulsons and I'm just used to the old (1990s) THC material that seem very hard when new?

Yes! I’ve noticed this and it’s rarely discussed, but casino worn paulsons on the RHC mold (made with the unleaded clay) definitely feel plasticky to me - that’s the exact word I’ve used to describe it in the past. I first noticed it when I first got into chipping - I brought home a chip from a local room (twin rivers in RI) and was disappointed that this casino used cheap plastic chips. When people here pointed out that it was a Paulson, I was surprised.

Then I bought a set of the Horseshoe Cleveland’s. They have a THC $1, which despite being casino worn, felt great to me. But the worn RHC $5s and $25s had that plasticky feel. After playing with them a couple of times, I said screw it and I sold them.

I’ve since become a big fan of older Paulsons with the old, leaded clay, on the THC mold. They’re really the only Paulsons I’m interested in these days, for a few reasons. I can certainly tolerate new mint RHCs made with the new formula - they feel great. But somehow, when that formula ages, on that mold, they “become” plastic.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I've got a question about the Cincinnati Horseshoe chips that I got a few years ago.
The $1s I have a worn but closer to new and the $5s and $25s are much more worn.
None of them to me feel like much older (but in mint condition) Paulson chips.

The $1s feel softer and the $5s and $25s feel "plasticy"
Is that just what Paulson's feel like when broken in or is this a change in material used over the years to make Paulsons and I'm just used to the old (1990s) THC material that seem very hard when new?

All Chips Feel Different.

Some of the things that affect the way a given chip feels:

• Manufacturer
• Mold
• Materials
• Color
• Wear

Change any one thing about the chip (for example, the older leaded THC formula versus the more recent lead-free THC formula) and you'll be able to feel a difference. Change several things (mint old THC vs. worn new RHC) and it can be night and day.

 

[Colquhoun]

I agree color plays a big part. Worn, red $5 chips seem to feel the most “plasticy” over other colors (of non-leaded chips).

 

[JasonS]

Do you guys agree that older (I guess leaded) Paulsons sound and feel somewhat like more grippy ceramics?

 

[Colquhoun]

Do you guys agree that older (I guess leaded) Paulsons sound and feel somewhat like more grippy ceramics?

I would say they can feel a little “grittier”, but I don’t see much comparison to ceramics.

 

[utgtrash]

to me the horseshoe cincis have a weird rubbery feel to them. the primary 5s and 25s for me. The secondary’s don’t seem to have an issue. My main set is all denoms of hsi and they are great. I feel like there is something particularly strange about the cincis.

 

[upNdown]

Do you guys agree that older (I guess leaded) Paulsons sound and feel somewhat like more grippy ceramics?

There are certainly different kinds of ceramics, but none of the ceramics I've handled could be mistaken for a leaded THC to my ear or hand. I just pulled out a few stacks and the unleaded RHCs sound closer to the chipco ceramics than the leaded THCs do, but the sound is still pretty distinct.

 

[allforcharity]

to me the horseshoe cincis have a weird rubbery feel to them. the primary 5s and 25s for me. The secondary’s don’t seem to have an issue. My main set is all denoms of hsi and they are great. I feel like there is something particularly strange about the cincis.

Are they clean? Roughly the same degree of used condition?

 

[JasonS]

There are certainly different kinds of ceramics, but none of the ceramics I've handled could be mistaken for a leaded THC to my ear or hand. I just pulled out a few stacks and the unleaded RHCs sound closer to the chipco ceramics than the leaded THCs do, but the sound is still pretty distinct.

My original message wasn't very clear so I thought about how to respond to this re: my perception to the materials used.
What I meant to say: Older Paulson chips and ASM chips seem like they are harder than the newer Paulsons.

The older Paulsons and ASM chips (I think as a result of being hard) sound like glass when they are clacked and sound (feel? .. I'm not sure where my perception is based) like rubbing rough pieces of glass together. Newer Paulsons feel like they are made of much softer material and as a result their sound is more plasticy sounding.

If I had to lump the sounds together into two groups...

By Sound:
I'd say ceramics and older Paulsons and ASM chips are in group "A" even though they all sound different they all sound hard/glassy.
Newer Paulsons and China clay chips are in the group "B" plasticy (soft) sounding category.

 

[upNdown]

My original message wasn't very clear so I thought about how to respond to this re: my perception to the materials used.
What I meant to say: Older Paulson chips and ASM chips seem like they are harder than the newer Paulsons.

The older Paulsons and ASM chips (I think as a result of being hard) sound like glass when they are clacked and sound (feel? .. I'm not sure where my perception is based) like rubbing rough pieces of glass together. Newer Paulsons feel like they are made of much softer material and as a result their sound is more plasticy sounding.

If I had to lump the sounds together into two groups...

By Sound:
I'd say ceramics and older Paulsons and ASM chips are in group "A" even though they all sound different they all sound hard/glassy.
Newer Paulsons and China clay chips are in the group "B" plasticy (soft) sounding category.

You keep saying that older Paulsons feel harder to you, but I think the majority opinion is the opposite. I think most people would characterize the leaded Paulson clay from the 80s and 90s as softer. But I think we’re all just shooting out opinions, without any scientific data.
To me, harder clay means more brittle clay, which is not desirable. It seems like newer paulsons are more prone to flea bites. Most people would say that the flea bites are due to the RHC mold, which has hats and canes ridiculously close to the edge. I don’t disagree, but as I remember, the well-worn Cleveland Horseshoe THC $1s were riddled with flea bites too.

 

[AlbinoDragon]

ASM/CPC will always feel and sound different than Paulsons of any era. The composition of the chips themselves as well as the temperatures and pressures used when compressing them are quite different. If you get you hand on BCC chips, they will feel and sound different for the same reasons, and even going to original TRK chips.

The basic process to make "clay" chips is the same. The devil is in the details as to the end result.

(and before you go too deep trying to find out what those compositions, temperature and pressures are, there are a few threads floating about asking those very questions and the short answer is they are all trade secrets that we'll never know the exact details of.)

 

[JasonS]

My "older Paulson" chips reference is the Fabulous Las Vegas chips from 1998.
I really like the way they feel and sound.
Are those "leaded" or not?

 

[allforcharity]

My "older Paulson" chips reference is the Fabulous Las Vegas chips from 1998.
I really like the way they feel and sound.
Are those "leaded" or not?

Yes, I believe they are.

 

[JasonS]

Thanks I wasn't sure. I googled and saw that "in 1998" they stopped using or lowered the lead content substantially and I didn't know where those fall.

Do you know where the "fun nite" chips fall in time-wise. Does it vary?
I think I remember reading some are from the 1980s.
Even modern chips can have that mold but not be the same as older chips.


Was this style also made recently?

https://imgur.com/a/ugVhe6j

 

[upNdown]

I’ve only owned one rack of $25s. But I’ve always assumed all THC fun nites, like all THC starbursts, are leaded.
We’ll see what other people say.
Also, there are RHC fun nites - no idea about them.

 

[allforcharity]

I would bet that all THC Fun Nites are leaded. Same goes for THC generic hot stamped and inlaid roulette chips.

Initialed solids may be a toss up. Paulson was still selling to the public well after the drop in lead content, so there may be all types out there.