Tiger Palace Rarity Chart (1 Viewer)

[bernielomax]

I got a good one for the chart. Secondary 1s. I swear there has to be plenty of those to go around yet they are hoarded like a mfer

 

[suchj0sh]

FWIW, I don’t think it’s rude to ask. When somebody posts an obscure looking rack for sale, it’s very common to ask if there are others out there.
I remember years back, somebody bought out a small casinos worth of chips. I think it had a Mexican sounding name? Mint RHCs. I dunno, maybe 20-40 racks of each denom. But he didn’t get them all at once? This was during dry times, so people were fighting to buy them anyway. But then it turned out that the $1s were all stolen. So people were kinda screwed because they couldn’t finish their sets. And some people suspected that maybe those $1 racks never even existed.
Just a long way of saying that even though nobody owes anybody anything, I think it’s fair to ask.

I don’t think it’s rude to ask either. Just stating the facts. People are making money, resources are being guarded (and perhaps to our benefit, who knows what would happen if 20 people tried to get an order through with GPI at once). It’s the way of the world.

And maybe it’s too cynical, but, to me, the only reason anyone really wants these answers is to subvert the current market status of a chip, to somehow find out what a piece of clay “is really worth.”

 

[Kam]

@bernielomax - is your hoard bigger or smaller than this example?

 

[LowerBama1714]

I got a good one for the chart. Secondary 1s. I swear there has to be plenty of those to go around yet they are hoarded like a mfer

They are the only Tiger I flipped (edit: sold…never intended to ever let them go) for profit…I lost money on all others.

Still waaaaaaaay in the red.

Had a blast with them, regardless.

 

[suchj0sh]

@bernielomax - is your hoard bigger or smaller than this example?

View attachment 1643705

God this rocks

 

[liftapint]

God this rocks sucks

Fixed

 

[bernielomax]

@bernielomax - is your hoard bigger or smaller than this example?

View attachment 1643705

Not even close. I had this for a while. I think I traded some $1’s and sold some to those that needed them.

Current:

 

[acezag]

I don’t think it’s rude to ask either. Just stating the facts. People are making money, resources are being guarded (and perhaps to our benefit, who knows what would happen if 20 people tried to get an order through with GPI at once). It’s the way of the world.

And maybe it’s too cynical, but, to me, the only reason anyone really wants these answers is to subvert the current market status of a chip, to somehow find out what a piece of clay “is really worth.”

I don't have an opinion either way on whether there should be Tiger data publicly.

I do know (thanks to the public thread on the topic, and my love of Vineyards) that there are 33,000+ Vineyard $5 chips in the wild, which makes them relatively common compared to other desired sets. I would guess that 33k number might be greater than all the Tigers combined. Yet there being 330 racks out there doesn't seem to play any factor in the $1100+ rack price, like at all.

I personally think there is some collective wisdom in this community regarding data that I haven't seen ring true in other collector's hobbies I'm part of. Most of the time, data makes desirable things with limited supply and high demand more valuable, not less.

 

[BigGrizz]

I don’t think it’s rude to ask either. Just stating the facts. People are making money, resources are being guarded (and perhaps to our benefit, who knows what would happen if 20 people tried to get an order through with GPI at once). It’s the way of the world.

And maybe it’s too cynical, but, to me, the only reason anyone really wants these answers is to subvert the current market status of a chip, to somehow find out what a piece of clay “is really worth.”

I would argue that's not true. The market will determine to worth of something. Just because we know there are actually a shitload of Aurora Star chips out there doesn't make them cheap. Most chips stop moving and sit in collections which culls the amount on the market. I think its just more interesting from an academic and pure curiosity point of view. Hell, I teach economics, so analyzing this micro market is intrinsically interesting. I think there are plenty of people like that.

I think the real concern is the seller revealing their profit margins and people getting mad that the number is higher than they feel it should be. I would be willing to be that the chips were sold above a 100% mark-up in most cases. Some people would be upset about that. I sure wouldn't. Its supply and demand. Unless someone gets a NAGB order in excess of a million chips, I doubt there will be enough supply to satisfy demand. So I get keeping margins hush hush, but I don't think releasing the total supply numbers would really hurt.

 

[acezag]

I think the real concern is the seller revealing their profit margins and people getting mad that the number is higher than they feel it should be.

You can always tell who these members are, because they only sell chips for the price they bought them in 2011. Very principled at paying it forward.

I personally hope @kk405 is rolling around in a Tiger-themed Lambo, tossing out unplayed Hawaii-Flower 100ks at grateful passerby. Capitalism is cool, and, at least in part, it's one of the reasons we got Tigers. The folks bitching were never going to get it done.

 

[FullSet]

@bernielomax - is your hoard bigger or smaller than this example?

View attachment 1643705

Now that’s sexy.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Anybody know if there is a similar thread to this, or a chart that shows the weight of each of the Tigers? I'm trying to determine how far off one of the Tiger 43mm chips would be from a non Tiger chip that I have.

 

[MC_CPA]

Anybody know if there is a similar thread to this, or a chart that shows the weight of each of the Tigers?

Tony only did it for 39mm chips

 

[sleepypiggly]

Anybody know if there is a similar thread to this, or a chart that shows the weight of each of the Tigers? I'm trying to determine how far off one of the Tiger 43mm chips would be from a non Tiger chip that I have.

Here it is, from my personal archives.
(this is just the weight of single chips as taken from sample sets, so the actual weight can vary a bit)

 

[justsomedude]

I personally think there is some collective wisdom in this community regarding data that I haven't seen ring true in other collector's hobbies I'm part of. Most of the time, data makes desirable things with limited supply and high demand more valuable, not less.

The goal of strict control over production data (in the fantasy chip realm) is to maintain the perception of scarcity, since perceived scarcity drives up prices for in-demand items.

Oddly enough, the release of production numbers would realistically have little to no meaningful impact on resale chip prices, since many people hoard their sets once they acquire them. The open market simply isn't flush with for-sale ads of highly sought after chips.

And you're right, you don't see this kind of data gatekeeping in baseball card, cars, wine, or even washing machine collecting. People in those hobbies typically have direct access to production numbers of their items.

This is a quirk of chipping that probably hurts our hobby more than it helps (chip prices), as the practice can objectively be interpreted as having ill-intent by outsiders.

The data controls may change some day, but unlikely anytime soon.

 

[upNdown]

as the practice can objectively be interpreted as having ill-intent by outsiders.

It’s done to maximize sales and profits - pretty sure that’s a fact. Whether or not that qualifies as ill intent is subjective.

 

[justsomedude]

It’s done to maximize sales and profits - pretty sure that’s a fact. Whether or not that qualifies as ill intent is subjective.

When the data is being intentionally concealed by those who placed the order, I’m not sure there’s a subjective way to view the practice as benevolent.

 

[upNdown]

When the data is being intentionally concealed by those who placed the order, I’m not sure there’s a subjective way to view the practice as benevolent.

Trying to think of benevolent or neutral reasons, but not coming up with many. Buyers might intentionally hoard the lower quantities with the intent of flipping? Angel/GPI might see published quantities and come down with the hammer of the gods? I can’t come up with much.

 

[justsomedude]

Angel/GPI might see published quantities and come down with the hammer of the gods?

I'm not sure that's a real concern, given some municipalities regularly publish public data on new chip orders:

 

[acezag]

Trying to think of benevolent or neutral reasons, but not coming up with many. Buyers might intentionally hoard the lower quantities with the intent of flipping? Angel/GPI might see published quantities and come down with the hammer of the gods? I can’t come up with much.

Reminds me of a sociology story (there are lots of these all over the place, but they all have the same point) - a researcher was studying 3 generations of an Appalachian family and their practices and traditions. One day he was with the youngest woman who was preparing dinner, and noticed that before cooking a ham, she cut off both ends. He asked her why, and she said that she had learned to do it from her mother.

So the next day he asked the mother about the practice. She said simply that this is how she'd learned to do it from her mother.

The next time he talked with the grandmother, he asked about the benefit of cutting off the ends of a ham. She laughed, and said that the pan she used for cooking hams for most of her life was often too short, so she had to cut a ham to fit it.

I think a lot of original NAGB sellers are the grandmother in this case - they had a good, if temporary reason for what they did. But the rest of the community is now keeping up the practice without really understanding why.

(Cue the folks proving this point who begin and end every of these conversations with "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS").

 

[justsomedude]

I think a lot of original NAGB sellers are the grandmother in this case - they had a good, if temporary reason for what they did. But the rest of the community is now keeping up the practice without really understanding why.

The reason was definitely not temporary. It's just the market.

I view the withholding of production quantities and "flipping" as two different issues. If you were lucky enough to buy an Honus Wagner card on eBay for $200, would you sell it for $205 to be friendly? Fuck no you wouldn't, you'd sell it for $2 million.

Same goes for high end poker chips (at least in my opinion) ... If you bought a new set of Paul-sons for $3,500 but knew you could sell them for $15,000, why in the world would you sell them for $3,505?

If people are able to implement the appropriate strategies and take the time and effort to pull off an NAGB, I say it's their prerogative to sell the chips at whatever price the market will bear. That's well within their right, and very well should be without attack or criticism.

That being said, I'll never understand the secretiveness about NAGB order quantities. If anything, I would think publicly disclosed quantities would genuinely increase demand and interest (in the hobby) as it only reinforces the obsessiveness of the hoarder/collector mentality: "What? I only own 14% of the ESST chips produced?! Dammit... I need MOAR!"

 

[acezag]

That being said, I'll never understand the secretiveness about NAGB order quantities. If anything, I would think publicly disclosed quantities would genuinely increase demand and interest (in the hobby) as it only reinforces the obsessiveness of the hoarder/collector mentality: "What? I only on 14% of the ESST chips produced?! Dammit... I need MOAR!"

100% agree. I've shared the example repeatedly, but Vineyards are a great illustration. It seems likely that the quantity of Vineyard $5 outnumber entire NAGB releases. Yet the public knowledge that there are 300+ racks of Vineyard $5 out there has had zero impact on their rack price (between $1100 and $1400) being more expensive than many if not most NAGB chips.

The actual supply does that, and supply is never going up for any of the chips that people actually want.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Here it is, from my personal archives.
(this is just the weight of single chips as taken from sample sets, so the actual weight can vary a bit)

View attachment 1671613
View attachment 1671610
View attachment 1671612

Thanks! I don't know which series is which. Which one is this?

 

[MC_CPA]

If you want a ceiling for the population, can just count all the pictures of tiger chips on PCF and sum them all up.

 

[sleepypiggly]

Thanks! I don't know which series is which. Which one is this? View attachment 1671735

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

View attachment 1671766

View attachment 1671767

Really? Those are over 11g? Sweet!

 

[BigGrizz]

100% agree. I've shared the example repeatedly, but Vineyards are a great illustration. It seems likely that the quantity of Vineyard $5 outnumber entire NAGB releases. Yet the public knowledge that there are 300+ racks of Vineyard $5 out there has had zero impact on their rack price (between $1100 and $1400) being more expensive than many if not most NAGB chips.

The actual supply does that, and supply is never going up for any of the chips that people actually want.

This. Knowledge of supply doesn't determine supply. Besides, no NAGB chips are getting made in strip casino quantities. They are all limited edition. Its very common for limited edition collectables to put out a production number.

 

[sleepypiggly]

Really? Those are over 11g? Sweet!

Note that they are 43mm, so not uncommon to have weights in that range.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Note that they are 43mm, so not uncommon to have weights in that range.

I was just comparing to the other Tiger IHC chips in the table that were slightly under 11g. And to the IHC chips I'm going to pair these with that are almost the exact same weight.

 

[Tonysquander]

Reminds me of a sociology story (there are lots of these all over the place, but they all have the same point) - a researcher was studying 3 generations of an Appalachian family and their practices and traditions. One day he was with the youngest woman who was preparing dinner, and noticed that before cooking a ham, she cut off both ends. He asked her why, and she said that she had learned to do it from her mother.

So the next day he asked the mother about the practice. She said simply that this is how she'd learned to do it from her mother.

The next time he talked with the grandmother, he asked about the benefit of cutting off the ends of a ham. She laughed, and said that the pan she used for cooking hams for most of her life was often too short, so she had to cut a ham to fit it.

I think a lot of original NAGB sellers are the grandmother in this case - they had a good, if temporary reason for what they did. But the rest of the community is now keeping up the practice without really understanding why.

(Cue the folks proving this point who begin and end every of these conversations with "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS").

This. Knowledge of supply doesn't determine supply. Besides, no NAGB chips are getting made in strip casino quantities. They are all limited edition. Its very common for limited edition collectables to put out a production number.

Mind your own bidness!!! JK

I don’t think anyone is wrong for being curious. Counts, production details, and backstory are interesting, but curiosity does not create obligation. Grandma's ham story does not fit either. I think each vendor's iteration of the NAGBs had different reasons for keeping information to themselves. Regardless, Tiger Palace was a private transaction, not a public group buy with promised accounting. As others have pointed out, final numbers have not historically been the norm, except sometimes after a sale is complete and only if the seller chooses to disclose them.

I can think of several legitimate reasons not to disclose. Exact counts can distort behavior involving sales or trades. Some people (we know who they are) would hoard the “low count” chips, try to corner certain denoms, others would use the data to attack pricing to further their own agendas (have seen that occur even without the numbers being released), others would treat every future sale like a cross-examination of the seller’s cost basis. It also gives PCF one more thing to argue about, even though the market ultimately comes down to what chips are actually available for sale and how many people are looking for them at a given time, not how many specific chips technically exist in closets or racks.

Yes, it would be interesting. I would read it. But interesting does not mean it is owed. As pointed out above, the information was requested and obviously the request was denied. What's the point of harping on it now? Ken does not owe production information to PCF. Buy the chips if they are worth it to you. Do not buy them if they are not. The rest is curiosity being dressed up as entitlement.