MOGH Description of "Fantasy Chips" (1 Viewer)

[pltrgyst]

Does the MOGH header describing "fantasy chips" annoy anyone else as it does me, every single time I come across it? If it does, please consider making your opinion known to the MOGH, particularly if you're a Chip Board member or supporter.

Today's email to the MOGH:

"!! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !! WARNING !!

Fantasy chips are not made by or for a casino, although they may appear otherwise. Fantasy chips are made by independent 3rd parties as either counterfeits, fakes or souvenirs. Fantasy chips are included on the ChipGuide to alert collectors that they are not casino chips and to advise you to proceed with caution. Purchasing fantasy chips, especially those that appear to be real casino chips, may lead to fraudulent sales when your collection is disbursed and encourages their continued production."

Does your organization have any idea how narrow-minded, self-serving, inappropriate, and offensive that paragraph is to all those people -- both producers like GOCC and CPC, and customers -- who create custom poker chips for any reason, from resales to use in home games?

I own over 130,000 chips, and the most prized of them include numerous chipsets that fall into the general definition of "fantasy chips", though none of them fit the description of "counterfeits, fakes, or souvenirs."

I am not one of your members, but I use the MOGH as a valuable resource, and have donated to your organization. Please open your eyes and revise your inadequate and inaccurate "warning".

Regards,
(me)

 

[Highli99]

I own over 130,000 chips

:wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed:

WOW!

I agree with the sentiments of your post. Not sure why they don't appreciate the tributes.

 

[Perthmike]

It is a tad melodramatic of them

 

[MatB]

its a little dramatic for sure, but i can still see the value in making people aware that certain chips were not made for casino use.

 

[jhelik]

This is a fairly new headline (this year). It started off as something that was even worse, and was debated on the chipboard and maybe the CCA website.

But I agree that it is still heavily biased...just wanted to give some context.

 

[slisk250]

Good point Larry. I think of fantasy chips like the Dunes commems but fantasy chips can include many of the Paulson home series and others by that definition. Some of them are worth much more than many real casino chips. GB Star chips were also never made for a casino and they clearly have worth to collectors.

 

[WedgeRock]

@Gear is making the lose their friggin mind.

 

[ovo]

I agree Larry. I think they should have a list of chips that are definitely counterfeits or fakes of original chips to clarify the definition .

 

[ejot]

There are a few prevailing mentalities that singles collectors seemingly tend to share that highly discourage me from participating in their community, despite actually collecting singles myself. This is one, and it's not even the most obnoxious.

I've also gotten absolutely nowhere with polite emails to MOGH requesting completely logical additions/corrections to the site, like a 12.5c option in the query facility denom field, or the fact that searching for LG-KEY mold with no other search parameters maddeningly yields 0 results.

 

[RichMahogany]

Navigating the chip board is horrendous too

 

[PocketAces]

Bumping this old thread as opposed to starting a new one. The issue with categorizing chips (and effectively elevating certain categories over others) is obviously a sensitive subject, especially in the context of record high prices.

Background: while doing some research on certain cruise chips I recently acquired, I found an old conversation on a different board between collectors who were arguing wether the fact that some of the denominations were, for a short while, for sale in the Paulson store next to the CDI home poker line, made them 'fantasy' chips. And it got me thinking that, while collectability is about condition, design, features (mini rant: pls stop with the non stop use of 'leaded goodness') etc, provenance is what really sperates the great stuff from everything else (thinking about watches, cars, art, etc). So...what makes a chip a fantasy chip?

My view: in my opinion, fantasy chips are all chips that were not produced for an entity who operates gambling establishment, and ordered with the purpose of making it a form of currency inside said establishment. I think this definition settles the issue dealing with the intended purpose of use at the time of the order (hint hint NAGB), or the scope of the permissible gambling (illegals). More importantly, it doesn't matter if the chips were never used. If it was ordered by an entity operating a casino/card room/gambling space with the purpose of making it a currency of exchange (immediately after delivery or at a later date), it is certainly not a fantasy chip. If it was never live, it should be defined as 'uncirculated', as opposed to 'obsolete'. And how they ended up in our hands is completely irrelevant.

Does anyone have a different perspective?

 

[CraigT78]

ordered by an entity operating a casino/card room/gambling space with the purpose of making it a currency of exchange (immediately after delivery or at a later date), it is certainly not a fantasy chip

I would suspect this statement would classify some, but not all, NAGB chips as non fantasy.

But I'm still waiting for all the facts to come out.

 

[improviseallday]

in my opinion, fantasy chips are all chips that were not produced for an entity who operates gambling establishment, and ordered with the purpose of making it a form of currency inside said establishment. I think this definition settles the issue dealing with the intended purpose of use at the time of the order (hint hint NAGB), or the scope of the permissible gambling (illegals). More importantly, it doesn't matter if the chips were never used. If it was ordered by an entity operating a casino/card room/gambling space with the purpose of making it a currency of exchange (immediately after delivery or at a later date), it is certainly not a fantasy chip. If it was never live, it should be defined as 'uncirculated', as opposed to 'obsolete'. And how they ended up in our hands is completely irrelevant.

Does anyone have a different perspective?

So suppose a wealthy PCF member actually opens a casino (instead of planning to open one) and orders some chips through their casino corporation, but these chips never go to the casino or its warehouses, they go straight to a PCF NAGB sale. Are they fantasy chips or no?

 

[doublebooyah85]

My view: in my opinion, fantasy chips are all chips that were not produced for an entity who operates gambling establishment, and ordered with the purpose of making it a form of currency inside said establishment. I think this definition settles the issue dealing with the intended purpose of use at the time of the order (hint hint NAGB), or the scope of the permissible gambling (illegals). More importantly, it doesn't matter if the chips were never used. If it was ordered by an entity operating a casino/card room/gambling space with the purpose of making it a currency of exchange (immediately after delivery or at a later date), it is certainly not a fantasy chip. If it was never live, it should be defined as 'uncirculated', as opposed to 'obsolete'. And how they ended up in our hands is completely irrelevant.

I think I agree @PocketAces, here are some examples that I'm guessing you would agree? Not sure I follow which way you lean on NAGB chips after @CraigT78 reply.

CDI - Fantasy Chip (produce for the home market and is a fantasy casino)
NAGB - Fantasy A fantasy cruise line, a fantasy chip lineup that these would never be live (and never were), a fantasy casino card room for your own personal pleasure
Jack Detroit - Produced for the intent of a casino, uncirculated. Never opened.
Bally's/Cleveland Horseshoe/Chip Room Sales etc - Obsolete / Retired?

 

[bernielomax]

Alex,

I thought I would share this info I received from an eBay seller a while back regarding how he came into possession of certain chips.

There might be some truth to the old conversation you read on a different board.

 

[PocketAces]

So suppose a wealthy PCF member actually opens a casino (instead of planning to open one) and orders some chips through their casino corporation, but these chips never go to the casino or its warehouses, they go straight to a PCF NAGB sale. Are they fantasy chips or no?

Benefit (who) AND purpose (what for).

As @CraigT78 said you can only tell if you have the relevant details of how they were acquired.
If the chips are produced for the benefit of a casino that doesn’t exist then the debate stops there.
If a group of individuals places an order through a real casino with the sole purpose of using them in their home game or resale, then the purpose is clearly not using them as currency in said casino they placed the order through.

 

[CraigT78]

Benefit (who) AND purpose (what for).

As @CraigT78 said you can only tell if you have the relevant details of how they were acquired.
If the chips are produced for the benefit of a casino that doesn’t exist then the debate stops there.
If a group of individuals places an order through a real casino with the sole purpose of using them in their home game or resale, then the purpose is clearly not using them as currency in said casino they placed the order through.

What if a group of individuals create a legal entity, obtain a license for said entity, order chips for said legitimate gaming establishment, and decide to go no further? Still fantasy? Or just bad casino/cardroom operations?

 

[PocketAces]

What if a group of individuals create a legal entity, obtain a license for said entity, order chips for said legitimate gaming establishment, and decide to go no further? Still fantasy? Or just bad casino/cardroom operations?

There is only one answer. DIBS!

In all seriousness, if the intention was to support a gambling operation…they might no go with it…but not fantasy imo. It’s like the cruise that ordered chips and never sailed. Or the cardroom that filed for bankruptcy before it could put chips in play.

EDIT: to be clear I am not saying I have the perfect definition of what fantasy chips are (hence why I’m asking if anyone else has a different perspective, I’d love to hear it). And I have nothing against home poker lines and NAGB. I own a ton of them lol.

 

[doublebooyah85]

What if a group of individuals create a legal entity, obtain a license for said entity, order chips for said legitimate gaming establishment, and decide to go no further? Still fantasy? Or just bad casino/cardroom operations?

I would guess that’s similar to Jack Detroit. Intent was a legit operation/establishment and something changed. Finances or branding etc.

Uncirculated.

 

[ekricket]

Are Texas cardrooms casinos? They will argue they are not. They do not make money from gambling.
Should all those chips be marked as fakes? Or something else besides “casino chips”?

 

[improviseallday]

Benefit (who) AND purpose (what for).

As @CraigT78 said you can only tell if you have the relevant details of how they were acquired.
If the chips are produced for the benefit of a casino that doesn’t exist then the debate stops there.
If a group of individuals places an order through a real casino with the sole purpose of using them in their home game or resale, then the purpose is clearly not using them as currency in said casino they placed the order through.

Sure, intent is pretty clear based on design and the sale language when communicating to collectors. Good test.

Are Texas cardrooms casinos? They will argue they are not. They do not make money from gambling.
Should all those chips be marked as fakes? Or something else besides “casino chips”?

Inb4 new "social cardroom" category on ChipGuide

---

I don't see the warning message. Have the MOGH folks softened their stance or am I not looking hard enough on ChipGuide?

 

[ekricket]

On the topic of Texas cardrooms, does the MaOGH get permission from those places to appropriate their chips and turn it into IP property for the MaOGH? People can confer permission, but you can’t just outright steal it.

 

[CraigT78]

I'm just pointing out that unlike a clay chip in production, not all chips fit a mold.

 

[bergs]

I have a fantasy about chips and it culminates in @MatB losing all of his chips and being destitute and homeless and wandering the streets of Revere, Massachusetts looking for corrugated cardboard for walls for his new riverside home.

 

[BGinGA]

Well, since we are discussing this.....

Q: Are the President Casino New Yorker chips considered fantasy chips, or are they casino chips that were never used in a casino?

If the former, then the Empress Star, Aurora Star, and Pacific Star chips are all fantasy sets.

But if the PNY chips are considered or classified as 'casino chips' because they were manufactured for a legal gambling-related entity, then the Star chips are also 'casino chips'. In both cases, Paulson chips were ordered by gaming corporations.

Neither PNY chips or Star chips were subsequently used in a casino before making it into the hands of collectors. Neither gaming organization that ordered them obtained a license to use them in a casino setting, although that is not always a requirement for off-shore casino ships.

 

[MatB]

I have a fantasy about chips and it culminates in @MatB losing all of his chips and being destitute and homeless and wandering the streets of Revere, Massachusetts looking for corrugated cardboard for walls for his new riverside home.

Next time we play, my goal will be for you to ‘take a Schmendr1ck’ within the first hour.

Yes. This is on my degen bingo card

 

[upNdown]

Well, since we are discussing this.....

Q: Are the President Casino New Yorker chips considered fantasy chips, or are they casino chips that were never used in a casino?

If the former, then the Empress Star, Aurora Star, and Pacific Star chips are all fantasy sets.

But if the PNY chips are considered or classified as 'casino chips' because they were manufactured for a legal gambling-related entity, then the Star chips are also 'casino chips'. In both cases, Paulson chips were ordered by gaming corporations.

Neither PNY chips or Star chips were subsequently used in a casino before making it into the hands of collectors. Neither gaming organization that ordered them obtained a license to use them in a casino setting, although that is not always a requirement for off-shore casino ships.

As a collector, you can draw the distinction any way you want. But from my perspective, it’s disingenuous to say that the PCNYs and the Star chips are the same. The PCNYs were created with the intent of being used in an actual casino. The star chips 100% were not. They were created for collectors and home use. You don’t have to care about that distinction, but let’s not gloss over it.

Personally I love the fantasy chips disclaimer quoted above. Because that’s always been my perspective as a collector - I want real chips from real casinos. I never understood collectors who collect other people’s custom sample sets. I’m not attaching any value to that, I’m just saying that’s my perspective.

And this seems far more relevant today than it did 5 years ago:

may lead to fraudulent sales when your collection is disbursed

 

[bergs]

LOL @ the boat NAGB chips being “intended for a casino”. If y’all bought boats and didn’t invite us on a cruise first before going down the “casino” route, that’s just inconsiderate.

 

[BGinGA]

As a collector, you can draw the distinction any way you want. But from my perspective, it’s disingenuous to say that the PCNYs and the Star chips are the same. The PCNYs were created with the intent of being used in an actual casino. The star chips 100% were not. They were created for collectors and home use. You don’t have to care about that distinction, but let’s not gloss over it.

Intent as a identifier is relatively dangerous ground imo, because there is no way that intent can be reliably determined. The corporation behind PNY may very well have chosen their path with the intent of bolstering their stock prices or generating quick cash, rather than actually going through with an off-shore casino operation.

 

[PocketAces]

@BGinGA - agree, you can’t always establish intent but, as @upNdown said, in certain cases (some NAGB, if not all - but please correct me if I’m wrong) the intent never was to support a gambling operation.

Interesting re PNYs - but to me that doesn’t fit the definition of « fantasy » chips. Can someone remind me how the Horseshoe Gardena came about? Real artwork on the home poker line design…What happened there?

Also, unrelated to this particular exchange regarding what’s a fantasy chip or not, but lumping them with fake and counterfeits is ridiculous.