Mixed set of chips - spot progression/color thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[Pony]

I've had these racks of Cow Creek 1's and 25's, and haven't been able to finish them off - so mixed up some of these Jumers with them to see how this set would look.

I would say the colors aren't bad - but I'm bothered with the having the same spots on the 25's and hundos - even though I think the colors work well.

Already have a nice collection of Jumers, but am always looking for options to make sets.

Toss out your thoughts/opinions!

 

[Mike mac]

very NICE the 25 is a great chip!!... i have jumers 25 if you wanna trade maybe

 

[chipinla]

That’s a lot of split spots on those $1s. Is/was that a Paulson 2V issue?

 

[Machine]

Not a Vegas Color fan but that set meshes well, it looks good! I'd table them!

I'm picky about greens, those are nice though, might carry the set tbh

 

[allforcharity]

(Pssst. Spot progression is a totally made-up thing.)

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

(Pssst. Spot progression is a totally made-up thing.)

I hear this a lot yet have never understood how this statement holds any water.
Sure, everything man created is kinda made up.
Not all casinos subscribe to this but usually you see a progression of complexity in spot patterns and / or colors towards higher denoms. Most fracs are solids for example.

There is no need to create your set in this way - it will work totally fine if your most complex spot is on the frac - but to some (most?) it feels more pleasing to the eye and makes sense (security and cost/effective - wise) to have the most complex spot patterns on your highest value chips.

@upNdown will see it differently I'm sure.

 

[Pony]

Appreciate the responses.

I'm also kinda particular on colors - I do like this green though. Can't say it's my favorite, but I do like it. And these greens are pretty darn close to new, don't know if they've even been felted.

I know spot progression doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, especially when the chips themselves are different colors. BUT - I'm a bit OCD on things here and there, and it does bug me a bit to see 2 of the chips with identical markings. Not a deal breaker, of course - just something that bugs me every time I see it. My brain says "all the same, or all different". I wouldn't want to put these into play if a lot of other people felt that way. I know I'm weird (at least my other half always tells me that), but I also wanted to see if it really -is- a big deal - or just an OCD deal for me.

 

[upNdown]

I hear this a lot yet have never understood how this statement holds any water.
Sure, everything man created is kinda made up.
Not all casinos subscribe to this but usually you see a progression of complexity in spot patterns and / or colors towards higher denoms. Most fracs are solids for example.

There is no need to create your set in this way - it will work totally fine if your most complex spot is on the frac - but to some (most?) it feels more pleasing to the eye and makes sense (security and cost/effective - wise) to have the most complex spot patterns on your highest value chips.

@upNdown will see it differently I'm sure.

Of course!
I’m willing to agree that spot progression is the custom of some collectors and casinos, so there’s something to it. But in the same way we all know all $5 chips should be red, there are plenty of hippies who think they should be yellow and plenty more collectors who would pick any color of the rainbow to suit their tastes. So in that way, there are no standards.
And it’s not always clear which is more complex. Is a 418 more complex than a 312? I guess it is, but I’m not sure how many progression people would want a 312 $1 and a 418 $5. And it really falls apart when you get to comparing some of the more complex spot patterns.
So I guess I’d change my position from “made up” to “junk science.”

 

[upNdown]

Actually the set pictured above is a great example. Is the 618 $25 more complex than whatever we call that $5 pattern (I dunno, is it maybe called 4D218?)
I
DON’T
KNOW!!!

 

[allforcharity]

I hear this a lot yet have never understood how this statement holds any water.

From a casino's POV, they chose their colour/spot selection based on their ability to differentiate chips of different cash values from a side- and downward-view closed circuit TV camera (and in many cases, on a black and white CRT screen). The colours and patterns themselves mattered little as long as they were sufficiently different. It didn't/doesn't mean that higher value = more "complex" patterns.

This is also why NCV chips, like a tournament set or a roulette set, would either have no spots or have the same simple spot pattern among all the chips - since they had no cash value, they didn't need to look different. Almost all Paulson hot-stamped and inlaid clay roulette chips were solid, just like Starbursts.