Poll: Damaged Wynn Tourney Chips Reimbursement Thread (1 Viewer)

[RainmanTrail]

This thread serves as a poll requesting feedback from the community for how much you think the reimbursement should be for the damaged Wynn Tourney chips I received in my recent transaction with @noblecountydanny. He has proposed that I take pictures of the damaged chips, post them here, and allow the community to decide how much they think the damage is worth, as it is difficult to place a dollar value on the damage to a set like this.

In the original damage thread (found here) Danny offered to reimburse me based on what the community votes that the damage is worth.

So I can propose a solution here. Why dont you take pictures of the damaged chips @RainmanTrail post them here and take a poll on how much I should refund to you. I am open to a partial refund. And i think the community should decide the value of the refund.

Possible valuations for these chips ranges widely, and it is not easy to assess the value of the damage. Note, all these chips were brand new with sharp crispy edges before they were damaged during shipping.

At the low end of their valuation is the average price I paid per chip in the lot, which is approximately $4.20 per chip. (I paid $7827 total for 1798 Wynn Tourney chips & 2 racks of Wynn $1s. The $1 chips sold here on auction about a month ago for $130 per rack; click here for thread. So if we deduct $260 for the $1 chips, then I paid $7567 for these 1798 Wynn Tourney chips, or $4.20 per chip).

At the high end of their valuation is the replacement cost for these chips, or what I could have sold them for on the open market as singles had they not been damaged/broken. They are extremely rare, difficult to find, and would be very expensive to replace as singles or sample sets on the open market. Here are the most recent sales of these chips as singles on eBay. Of course, I'm not expecting him to pay me eBay singles prices for every chip that was damaged, but the replacement cost of these chips is very high, and I also argue that sending me $4.20 for a broken T5000 chip which reduces my rack from 200 to 199 chips is also insufficient. What these are actually "worth" is up to you guys, the community to decide for yourselves.

The last sample set on eBay I could find sold for $315 - link here
I've never seen a T25 sold as a single before. They are very difficult to find.
T100 sold for $31 - eBay link here
T100 sold for $39 - eBay link here
T500 sold for $43 - eBay link here
T1000 sold for $41 - eBay link here
T5000 sold for $134 - eBay link here

Another difficult cost to quantify is the devaluation to partial racks and/or partial sets. Turning exactly 200 of the T5000 chips into 198 chips definitely has an effect, but what that's worth is somewhat subjective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory of the damage - 152 total chips listed below

7 Broken chips:
4x T1000s
1x T25
1x T500
1x T5000

16 Badly damaged chips with large chunks taken out
10x T1000s
1x T25
2x T500s
2x T100s
1x T5000

16 Chips with damage to the faces from abrasion (I'm sure there are many more like these, but I just don't have the time to inspect all 3600 chip faces, so I just grabbed a few while I scanned the edges for flea bite damage).
9x T100s
3x T1000s
2x T25s
1x T500
1x T5000

113 Chips with flea bite damage
39x T25s
27x T100s
16x T500s
23x T1000s
8x T5000s

In the photos below, some chips are difficult to see the damage in photos (obviously it's easier to see it and feel it all in person), especially on the black chips, but you'll definitely be able to get a fair sense of the damage from the photos below.

These are the broken chips - a few are obvious, the others you can't quite tell in the front facing photo, but it's easier to see them from the side view, but all 7 of these chips are completely broken.

View media item 6084View media item 6072View media item 6083

These are the chips with chunks taken out of them

View media item 6071

These are some of the chips with damage to the faces - It's hard to see some of the damage in these photos, especially on the black chips, the green ones show it the best in photos, but these all have damage to the faces either by being gouged or from the edges rubbing against other chips while in transit. Again, I haven't inspected the faces of most of the chips, I'm sure there are many more like these. I just checked the edges.

View media item 6082View media item 6073

These are the chips with flea bite damage

View media item 6077View media item 6076View media item 6075View media item 6074View media item 6078View media item 6079View media item 6081

I have set up the poll so that you can select how much you think the damage is worth in terms of a partial refund. I realize that viewpoints on this matter are subjective and are likely to vary somewhat widely. Because of this, I will post several different options for how much you think the reimbursement should be. I am attempting to post options for a reasonable range. Obviously $20 is not an option, and neither is $1000. I'm placing the damage range options between $150 and $500 in increments of $50. If you think the damage falls outside of this range, feel free to express your discontent.

Opinions will be public, as I don't want anyone to think there's any shill bidding or anything nefarious going on with the poll results. Also, I will not be voting, and I want to ensure that this is shown. The poll is open for one week, which should give plenty of time for everyone to decide how much they think the damage is worth.

Since there are several options to select, it doesn't really make sense statistically for this to be a "majority rules" poll (as the option with the most responses may only represent 30% of the votes - unless a huge majority happens to all select the same value I suppose), but rather a weighted average of the responses makes the most sense to be used to assess the value the damage/reimbursement amount.

Example: if 4 people select $150, 2 people select $200, 3 people select $300, and 1 person selects $450, the weighted average would be $2350 divided by the 10 votes = $235 reimbursement.

My aim is for this to be a fair an objective poll.

Thank you in advance for your input, and thank you @noblecountydanny for offering this as a solution.

 

[ChipEnvy]

TLDR (it all)... I think it is something you and Danny should figure out. You are asking a bunch of people who have no dog in the fight and whose opinions are as varied as the day is long.

It's not my intention to be rude but I think now that the two parties are talking, talk it out.

 

[detroitdad]

TLDR (it all)... I think it is something you and Danny should figure out. You are asking a bunch of people who have no dog in the fight and whose opinions are as varied as the day is long.

It's not my intention to be rude but I think now that the two parties are talking, talk it out.

I agree with ChipEnvy.

However, if you insist on a reply. I think there are two options. One, refunded for exactly what you paid per chip plus shipping (sucks, cuz now you have incomplete racks). Two, return all the chips and get a full refund plus shipping.

I didn't cast a vote because these two options aren't on there.

 

[DJ Mack]

I'm inclined to agree with @ChipEnvy. IMO you should keep it simple. Figure out what your total cost per chip was. Then decide which ones you are not willing to keep, multiply it by your cost per chip and ask the seller if he wants them back. If he does, add your cost to ship them and that's your reimbursement amount. As to the ones with some damage but you want to keep maybe settle on something like a percentage. 70-80% perhaps. It should be pretty high because at the end of the day you still have a usable chip in your hands.

 

[atomiktoaster]

Can you post the total breakdown? My approach is going to be estimating rack or barrel prices (that total $7567) and subtracting the full value of the good chips and a heavily discounted value for the broken chips.

I'm happy to have a community-based resolution here. A lot of people felt that the treatment of these chips fell short of our collective standards of care. Trusting the resolution to a public thread does more to restore the reputation that @noblecountydanny damaged than private negotiations, IMO.

 

[chkmte]

I'm not afraid to throw my opinion out there on this, because this mess is f'ing ridiculous. It was preventable with just a little effort. The selling price should include proper packaging, period. Not trying to make enemies, but I would be absolutely embarrassed to be @noblecountydanny right now.

That being said, I voted for $500 but that's probably not enough. I came to this valuation simply by taking the number of damaged chips x average cost per chip. Unless @RainmanTrail has taken the time to closely inspect every single chip, I'm almost positive more damage will be found.

Plus, what is the value of time for @RainmanTrail (to deal with this issue). Then, if you throw in the other points made about trying to replace these chips, the monetary figure rises significantly IMO.

This sort of damage is the result of "I don't give a fuck"! @noblecountydanny , he just sent you $8,000 for clay circles! $8000! I can't even wrap my head around that.

As a member of PCF that moves a fair amount of chips and takes the time to package every barrel, I say $500 is the minimum amount that should be due.

Tim

 

[Jeff]

Danny, you should have shipped this rare and costly set with more care.

I don't care about their transaction (work it out yourselves) it's a shame that chips were damaged.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I voted $500, but you should ship the broken ones back to Danny. If you want to keep the ones that have flea bites, then maybe $300.

 

[bergs]

I would settle for nothing less than one of his limbs. I would let him choose, because I'm absolutely fucking magnanimous, but one of them has gotta come off.

P.S. If you can replace the $5K chips from someone else's set, then find fair market value and call it a day. If you can't replace them and the racks of $5Ks are now incomplete, I would've snap-shipped it back and wanted full reimbursement.

 

[DrStrange]

I picked $500 and think the valuation could have been a lot higher. I think the value of the set is degraded well over 5% due solely to the flea bites. Broken chips leading to short racks is a separate concern that makes the problem even more costly.

I have plenty of experience with people rejecting "mint" Bahamia chips as damaged due to shipping related flea bites. Mint buyers are understandably picky. Even a minor blemish takes "mint" down to very good condition. The drop from "mint" to very good condition is a big hit to value. How much depends on set specific conditions, but it is always a major hit to the price if the prospective buyer will accept the blemished chips at all.

Bottom line, none of the racks are mint anymore. Some of the racks are now short. I would have assessed the damage somewhere around $2,500 depending on the exact counts and distribution of the damage.

DrStrange

 

[Ghoti]

Personally I'd be so pissed I think I'd just return them for the full refund, but that's the perfectionist (in the negative sense of the word) in me talking. Unless I had stupid amounts of money, which I don't, so I won't comment on that scenario.

 

[atomiktoaster]

Bottom line, none of the racks are mint anymore. Some of the racks are now short. I would have assessed the damage somewhere around $2,500 depending on the exact counts and distribution of the damage.

That's not the impression I got, but maybe I missed something. Are there still 1646 tournament chips that are in mint condition?

 

[ssanel54]

I think you need to be more clear with the poll - Are you looking to determine a value for the damaged chips, or are you looking to assign a financial sentence on Danny for his poor packaging - Or do you want both to be considered when determining a reimbursement amount? If Danny had packaged the chips in a bulletproof box, and they were still damaged in transit, should the reimbursement amount be different, or is a broken chip a broken chip regardless of how it breaks.

I would argue that the destroyed chips should be reimbursed 100%, the ones with large chunks 50%, and the ones with flea bites etc. 20%. Its probably wrong to attribute every single nick on the chips to Danny, and for the most part, all but the 7 destroyed chips can still be used. I think a 20% decrease from Mint to slightly blemished with sharp edges is fair.

As far as valuation, here is where things get tricky...IMO, the only transaction that matters is the current one, which translates to an avg chip price of $4.20 per chip. Single chip auctions are worthless, just like the original auction where these went for .50 a chip is worthless. This set as a whole is unique, and will have a very small number of potential buyers. The value of individual denominations is highly subjective..and we have no clue as to Rainman's intention with these chips (is he planning to keep all of the chips or break them up for resale). Looking specifically at the 5000 chips, you can make several arguments - the incomplete rack could be considered devalued because it is no longer full, but if you are breaking up the rack into smaller sets where each only contains a couple barrels of 5000's then the damage is negligent. You could also argue that the destruction of a certain number of chips actually increases the value of the remaining Mint condition chips, since they are now more Rare.

Based on the $4.20 avg chip price, I think a fair damage audit would be - $29.40 for the broken chips, 33.60 for the heavy damage, and 108.36 for the light damage, for a total of 171.36. I'd round this up to $200 to factor in some negligence and call it a day. Or there is always the Full refund option.

 

[detroitdad]

I think you need to be more clear with the poll - Are you looking to determine a value for the damaged chips, or are you looking to assign a financial sentence on Danny for his poor packaging - Or do you want both to be considered when determining a reimbursement amount? If Danny had packaged the chips in a bulletproof box, and they were still damaged in transit, should the reimbursement amount be different, or is a broken chip a broken chip regardless of how it breaks.

I would argue that the destroyed chips should be reimbursed 100%, the ones with large chunks 50%, and the ones with flea bites etc. 20%. Its probably wrong to attribute every single nick on the chips to Danny, and for the most part, all but the 7 destroyed chips can still be used. I think a 20% decrease from Mint to slightly blemished with sharp edges is fair.

As far as valuation, here is where things get tricky...IMO, the only transaction that matters is the current one, which translates to an avg chip price of $4.20 per chip. Single chip auctions are worthless, just like the original auction where these went for .50 a chip is worthless. This set as a whole is unique, and will have a very small number of potential buyers. The value of individual denominations is highly subjective..and we have no clue as to Rainman's intention with these chips (is he planning to keep all of the chips or break them up for resale). Looking specifically at the 5000 chips, you can make several arguments - the incomplete rack could be considered devalued because it is no longer full, but if you are breaking up the rack into smaller sets where each only contains a couple barrels of 5000's then the damage is negligent. You could also argue that the destruction of a certain number of chips actually increases the value of the remaining Mint condition chips, since they are now more Rare.

Based on the $4.20 avg chip price, I think a fair damage audit would be - $29.40 for the broken chips, 33.60 for the heavy damage, and 108.36 for the light damage, for a total of 171.36. I'd round this up to $200 to factor in some negligence and call it a day. Or there is always the Full refund option.

kind of what I said but in less words

 

[Psypher1000]

In order for me to make a determination I'd have to know at least two more pieces of information...

- Exact breakdown of the chips at the time of purchase
- Their intended purpose, and the related specifics. Were these going to be played? If so, what starting stacks? How many seats max? Sold as singles? If so, how many samples of each denom were going to be liquidated? Held for value? Etc.

 

[AK Chip]

I voted for the $500. I put more value on the chips when you will not have full racks. But I think the best resolution to this would be to send a rack of each denom that was broken at the cost per chip from the purchase price. That said I would only do this if you still had enough of each denom to make a playable set of chips after returning the racks.

 

[jbutler]

I think you need to be more clear with the poll - Are you looking to determine a value for the damaged chips, or are you looking to assign a financial sentence on Danny for his poor packaging - Or do you want both to be considered when determining a reimbursement amount? If Danny had packaged the chips in a bulletproof box, and they were still damaged in transit, should the reimbursement amount be different, or is a broken chip a broken chip regardless of how it breaks.

I would argue that the destroyed chips should be reimbursed 100%, the ones with large chunks 50%, and the ones with flea bites etc. 20%. Its probably wrong to attribute every single nick on the chips to Danny, and for the most part, all but the 7 destroyed chips can still be used. I think a 20% decrease from Mint to slightly blemished with sharp edges is fair.

As far as valuation, here is where things get tricky...IMO, the only transaction that matters is the current one, which translates to an avg chip price of $4.20 per chip. Single chip auctions are worthless, just like the original auction where these went for .50 a chip is worthless. This set as a whole is unique, and will have a very small number of potential buyers. The value of individual denominations is highly subjective..and we have no clue as to Rainman's intention with these chips (is he planning to keep all of the chips or break them up for resale). Looking specifically at the 5000 chips, you can make several arguments - the incomplete rack could be considered devalued because it is no longer full, but if you are breaking up the rack into smaller sets where each only contains a couple barrels of 5000's then the damage is negligent. You could also argue that the destruction of a certain number of chips actually increases the value of the remaining Mint condition chips, since they are now more Rare.

Based on the $4.20 avg chip price, I think a fair damage audit would be - $29.40 for the broken chips, 33.60 for the heavy damage, and 108.36 for the light damage, for a total of 171.36. I'd round this up to $200 to factor in some negligence and call it a day. Or there is always the Full refund option.

Yeah I haven't voted either because I'm struggling to find the proper measure of damages.

Using a formula similar to Scott's I came to something just over $200, but I think that's clearly incorrect as it doesn't take into account: (1) the value of the specific denominations lost/damage; or (2) the diminished value of the full set. RT bought a set, so the value assigned should be relative to that set, not simply the value of the individual chips damaged. Both individual chip prices and diminished value will be difficult to quantify in any objective way due to the market conditions described by Scott above.

And of course some would have an interest in there being a punitive penalty for the gross negligence involved in the shipping. I would certainly support such a thing. But how much might be appropriate would require asking personal questions of Danny which I would not be comfortable asking on a public forum (and not worth asking in a private message for the slight amount of weight my vote here might carry).

 

[Chicken Rob]

I voted $500. I think the set was seriously devalued. I know I'd be looking for more, or I would be returning them all.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I don't think there is any need for punitive damage. People will already be wary about purchasing from Danny in the future after reading this thread. A couple of questions for Rainman:

1. You paid for $8000 for 1798 chips. What was your valuation of each chip that added up to the $8000 you paid? Obviously the latest e-bay offerings per single chip aren't accurate, or the set would be worth far more than $8000.

2. Is it your intention to keep the flea-bitten chips?

I think the broken chips and the ones with gouges are both petty much worthless at this point, personally. There is something to be said for the diminished value to the full set, but I'm not sure how you quantify that. Rainman, give us your perceived value breakdown of each chip, and it will make it easier to come up with a total.

 

[MegaTon44]

I understand that this is a Holy Grail set, and it most certainly blows that chips were damaged/destroyed. Though price and rarity for this particular set surpass the majority of sets traded/sold on PCF (or any medium for that matter), I believe that shitty things just happen sometimes. Danny clearly doesn't seem to be a scumbag who is intent on destroying beautiful chips. As hobbyists, we expect a certain level of diligence when it comes to our investments, and that certainly was lacking here. However, Danny has offered a full and partial refund, even offering to cover shipping back.

In my completely novice and humble opinion, I would handle this in 1 of 2 ways:

1. (Recommended) Send all the chips back for a full refund. If there is plenty of negativity surrounding that set, why keep it around? I understand that this is a set that comes around only a handful of times in a lifetime, but it's not worth the stress.
2. Privately (between Danny and RT) establish a cost per chip denomination, perhaps utilizing the methodology that Danny used to determine the selling price. Then, send back all of those chips for a refund. RT can even include one-off chips to round off racks so as to not have uneven denominations

We can sit here and toss around numbers, consider market value, and discuss punitive damages, but where will that get us? This is a (relatively) friendly community operated by a generous owner who allows these sales to occur without fee. Danny may never have another sale on this site again because of this occurrence (and others), Or, people may forget that he doesn't take the time to pack chips well as soon as he lists something you want. Either way, I believe RT and Danny should work out a fair number based on the selling value of the chips, not market value. The PCF community will determine the punitive damage by deciding whether or not to buy from him again.

 

[ssanel54]

I don't think there is any need for punitive damage. People will already be wary about purchasing from Danny in the future after reading this thread. A couple of questions for Rainman:

1. You paid for $8000 for 1798 chips. What was your valuation of each chip that added up to the $8000 you paid? Obviously the latest e-bay offerings per single chip aren't accurate, or the set would be worth far more than $8000.

2. Is it your intention to keep the flea-bitten chips?

I think the broken chips and the ones with gouges are both petty much worthless at this point, personally. There is something to be said for the diminished value to the full set, but I'm not sure how you quantify that. Rainman, give us your perceived value breakdown of each chip, and it will make it easier to come up with a total.

Yeah, After looking at the heavy damage pictures again, I'd probably classify those as unusable as well. I voted $200 in the poll, but would bump that up to $250.

Much of this will have to do with intent. If Rainmain intends to break up the rack of 5000's, then he can't really claim the value of the rack is greatly diminished because it's no longer full. I think asking how he came up with a valuation of his purchase price is very legitimate.

 

[justsomedude]

Personally I'd be so pissed I think I'd just return them for the full refund, but that's the perfectionist (in the negative sense of the word) in me talking. Unless I had stupid amounts of money, which I don't, so I won't comment on that scenario.

I think Ghoti nailed it and your best option here might be to just return this set for a full refund... unless you think you can replace the broken units.

The poor packaging and anger aside (honestly, that's water under the bridge now, resolution needs to be your focus), your goal needs to be determining the potential cost impact. In my opinion, this set was an incredibly rare and, as has already been stated, a "once in a lifetime" chipset. That said, you will never recoup the money you invested in this set, UNLESS you can replace the damaged chips and complete the now-incomplete racks. We all understand the set is extremely devalued with missing/damaged chips, and incomplete racks.

Option 1. If you think you can replace the damaged chips, give Danny a fair valuation on a per chip basis (using your linked eBay auctions as a guide), and ask for that money - straight up.
Option 2. If you do not think you can replace the damaged chips - go full refund. It sucks, but it's really probably your best option given the emotional pain inflicted here (and assuming Option 1 is not feasible).

Honestly, there is enough information available on the individual value of these chips that you guys should be able to come to some type of agreement in private communications.

 

[ushallnotraise]

If you only look at the completely broken / severely damaged chips, then use the value of the eBay listings you posted(setting the t25 as $143, which was the highest value available(the t5000) since you can't find one for sale right now) you come out to this value:

• 23 Chips
• Total cost to replace individually based on singles for sale on eBay: $1,335
• Cost / chip: $58.04

So, basically since you are looking to replace a low volume of chips(this is ignoring the ones with fleabites) it's not really favorable for either of you. You stated it was $8000 for 1798 chips, so $4.50 per chip. Obviously a refund to replace the individual amounts is not feasible for the seller, as he would be refunding 16.69% of the payment for 1.3% of the chips.

As other people have said, I think it should just be refunded entirely and the set sent back, shipping on the seller's dime. There's really no winning for anyone in this situation, but I think this hurts both parties the least.

 

[courage]

Does Danny have any chips to replace the broken and damaged ones? I don't recall seeing that mentioned.

 

[ssanel54]

I think Ghoti nailed it and your best option here might be to just return this set for a full refund... unless you think you can replace the broken units.

The poor packaging and anger aside (honestly, that's water under the bridge now, resolution needs to be your focus), your goal needs to be determining the potential cost impact. In my opinion, this set was an incredibly rare and, as has already been stated, a "once in a lifetime" chipset. That said, you will never recoup the money you invested in this set, UNLESS you can replace the damaged chips and complete the now-incomplete racks. We all understand the set is extremely devalued with missing/damaged chips, and incomplete racks.

Option 1. If you think you can replace the damaged chips, give Danny a fair valuation on a per chip basis (using your linked eBay auctions as a guide), and ask for that money - straight up.
Option 2. If you do not think you can replace the damaged chips - go full refund. It sucks, but it's really probably your best option given the emotional pain inflicted here (and assuming Option 1 is not feasible).

Honestly, there is enough information available on the individual value of these chips that you guys should be able to come to some type of agreement in private communications.

You can't use individual sales prices as a barometer, since Dannys set was not priced off of individual sales prices. Even the OP admits to that.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I don't think the cost to replace them is relevant. Danny sold the chips for a set amount, and some of those chips weren't delivered whole as promised. The only things that are relevant are what was paid for them, and possible compensation for devaluation of the set as a whole. And of course, if this is unacceptable to Rainman, a full refund upon return of the chips.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I wasn't planning on weighing in here, but based on the early feedback, I've changed my mind.

A lot of people are suggesting that the damage is greater than $500, and most of the responses so far have selected that value. I'm not going to change the poll to add higher options. I'm not going to ask Danny to reimburse me any more than that. As I've already stated, I'm keeping these chips, damaged and all. When someone inevitably steals one from me at a home game, I'd rather have a flea bitten backup than no backup at all.

I think those of you who are saying to assess the damage at "far greater than $500" are overvaluing the hit from the flea bites. Yes, they are 'worth less' now, but they are not 'worthless'. Most of the flea bites are minor, and I would have no problem finding a buyer for them if I wanted to sell them. These chips are in otherwise excellent condition, and some of the flea bites would probably be hard to detect after putting these chips into play. Once they've shown a bit of wear, I could sell them as a small used set and still get the enjoyment of getting to play with these chips.

To address a few specific questions and statements brought up in this thread.

"You guys should work it out yourselves" - We tried that. It didn't work. This is how we have chosen to work it out. Danny suggested this method, most members agree with it, and I do too. He and I are not privately discussing the matter.

"You should just send them all back for a refund" - I'm trying not to beat a dead horse here, but these chips are NOT GOING BACK

"What are your intentions with the set?" - I'm not entirely sure yet. I was initially planning to keep around 1000 of these and to sell off two smaller single table sets. I will probably change those plans a bit. I'll probably end up just selling a smaller set than I otherwise would have and just offer some sample sets to try to make up for the difference.

"You still have 1600+ good ones right?" - Yes, the majority of this set is still in mint condition. I'm still getting the chips I wanted from this purchase. The biggest hit I'll take is in the reselling of the smaller sets I wasn't going to keep, and in not having as many spares and singles as I otherwise would have had.

"What do you value the damages to be?" - I'm not answering this question specifically.

"Are you looking for the devaluation amount or the reimbursement amount?" - I see these as being one and the same, but if you see it differently and want me to pick one or the other, the purpose of this thread and poll is to come up with the reimbursement amount. Hence the question asked by the poll is: "How much should the reimbursement be?"

"Danny's ability to sell now has been tarnished" - I think people will have much more confidence in buying from Danny after this. I hope and trust that he will be taking great strides to improve his shipping methods going forward. I think he will have no problem unloading chips from his awesome collection. I think the biggest thorn in his side for future transactions will likely just be members giving him specific instructions for how they want their chips to be packed.

"What was your valuation breakdown for the chips at the time you paid for them?" - I know this might sound foolish to some of you, but I didn't give it much thought. I saw the posting, typed "shit" as a reply to the thread because I knew I had to buy these but had just dropped about $4.5k on the LeCoves a few days earlier, and then I pretty much just snap bought them. I didn't start planning what I was going to do with them until later. Once the chips arrived, those plans changed. I'm still figuring it out.

 

[ssanel54]

Does Danny have any chips to replace the broken and damaged ones? I don't recall seeing that mentioned.

He does, but he is going to sell those individually to cover the determined reimbursement amount

 

[justsomedude]

He does, but he is going to sell those individually to cover the determined reimbursement amount

Instead of funding a reimbursement by selling minty chips... Why not just swap the damaged ones for the new ones and call it even?

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

"What was your valuation breakdown for the chips at the time you paid for them?" - I know this might sound foolish to some of you, but I didn't give it much thought. I saw the posting, typed "shit" as a reply to the thread because I knew I had to buy these but had just dropped about $4.5k on the LeCoves a few days earlier, and then I pretty much just snap bought them. I didn't start planning what I was going to do with them until later. Once the chips arrived, those plans changed. I'm still figuring it out.

Weren't you the guy with the Chip Valuation Excel Spread Sheet? Surely you have an idea of what you valued each chip to be worth,