Awesome idea for a label. Hahaha.DISCO CHIPS!!! the labels need to be glitter balls
Awesome idea for a label. Hahaha.DISCO CHIPS!!! the labels need to be glitter balls
I really like the looks of theseI've thought about this a lot for my mixed set, and I do agree 100% with do what you like. That being said i think once you start putting chips together you'll start to decide what 'rules' matter most to you. For me it was sticking with some combo of 4 edge spots going from simple to more complex. Doubling up on 4d14 doesnt bother me. If you're going mixed set it's hard to not have to compromise to some degree
View attachment 543651
Love that inlay!
Wowza! Relables?
Cough... cough... hey Mr. Rob, could you hold my beer sir.Progression is so subjective, and honestly, I think it's an invention of chippers. How many casino racks actually have any kind of progressions? Not many, that I've noticed.
But if you're looking for opinions, I vote simpler to more complex (though, again, that's very subjective.)
I stared at these ceramics for two minutes trying to figure out what the edge spots were saying. But they started giving me a headache so I gave up and drank your beer.
Starting to look around for a frac and a 100 to fill my HSI set, and was curious what the consensus is for edge spot progression. Have found a some threads for a few years back, but wanted to see what the thinking is now.
Simpler to more complex?
Increasing number of spots?
Color progression?
Color pattern matching?
Think it'd be awesome to find a one-spot (114 or 112) blue frac, but then i've got no idea where to start for a primary 100...
As was already said... there are no "rules" per se.
Personally I try to adhere to some simple "guidelines":
- I won't duplicate a spot pattern in the same set. (I like variety)
- I won't have spot colors matching the base/spot colors of other chips they'll share the same table with. (helps avoid dirty stacks)
- I'll have simpler spots on lower denoms and more complex spots on higher denoms. (can help with cost assuming one needs more low denom chips)
GENERALLY, I follow these, but I've broken every one of them at one point or another.
Okay. So if I read the above correctly, the one guideline you adhere to is there are no guidelines. Did I nail it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^As long as you can easily differentiate the chips in play (without looking at the inlay) is what ultimately matters.
As long as you can easily differentiate the chips in play (without looking at the inlay) is what ultimately matters.
Agree. This is the point.
The word “progression” seems to be the sticking point for some (not for me). So maybe we should call these spot schemes, or spot plans, or something else…
It’s challenging enough to get enough of each denom in quantity, while also trying to have the spots progress in some logical way that also fits the color scheme.
I disagree. If the dealer accidentally flashes the bottom card red/black is better than a 4-color deck.Why, for that matter, do most casinos still use two color decks (red and black)? That’s just a leftover convention from a time when color printing was expensive. Adding a second color to a print job was twice the work; you had to clean and reink the press. Now, full color printing is the norm, so there’s no reason not to have four-color decks.
I disagree. If the dealer accidentally flashes the bottom card red/black is better than a 4-color deck.
I disagree. If the dealer accidentally flashes the bottom card red/black is better than a 4-color deck.