Today I learned... (2 Viewers)

RudysNYC

Flush
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
3,060
Location
New York, NY
Didn’t see a thread for this so figured I’d start it... random sh!t you learned today

Today I learned that there were (at least) two versions of the CDM set (or at least the 5s) made.

I had one existing rack and got another couple barrels to round out that part of my set; the edge spots were different colors. I’ve worked in forensic document examination on and off for a while now so it was obvious the second I saw them, before I even put them together. At first I thought maybe the newly received barrels had been oiled, but a quick glance at the inlay made it even more obvious

attached is the difference between the two.

6C8468E5-0073-4F29-8692-AA4F55262262.jpeg

BLUE: Text on the left is bolded, text on the right isn’t. Left text seems a darker red too, but that could be my eyes playing tricks on me due to the bold text
YELLOW: Couple things here. First, the sun and mountains on the left are lighter than on the right. Second, the cactus is much more pronounced. Third, there are a few pronounced horizon lines under the mountains on the left, but only one fuzzy one on the right.
PURPLE: The 5 denom is a different font. It *could* be that the denom on left, is just bolded, but I really don’t believe that’s the case. I’m reasonably positive they found a very similar but different font—given the size difference between the two denoms, I reckon if you took the 5 on right and bolded it the proportions would be different than on the left. Low confidence assessment though
GREEN: The obvious pink/reddish edge spot difference

This may be obvious information to all of you, but I was kind of blown away at how many differences there were. I would expect some color variation, so I’m willing to give Paulson a pass on the edge spots, but I really don’t get how the inlays could be so noticeably different. I would’ve expected them to crank out facsimiles of the same original print, not do it all over.
 
Not surprising.

I've even seen variant edge spots. For example, Scandia $5 came is 3D14 and 4D14 patterns. Who knows, maybe some entire runs were "errors".
Yup I’ve seen different inlays on the Dog series too, now that I think of it. Maybe it was to provide a semblance of security for home games? Only reasonable thing I can think of.

But on the flip side, I feel like the whole point of the fantasy series was aim for economy of scale. I can’t imagine an economy of scale if you’re changing things up—the RHC fantasy chips have the same edge spots as many THC lines for this reason, I thought...

casino chip manufacturing will never cease to confuse me lol
 
My guess is that the chips were simply made at different times.

I have printed many things over the years. From poker chips, to board games, I have saved digital files running back many years. Over time some fonts, even basic ones such as Arial, print differently on computers from different eras. I don't know when the CDM chips were made, but I suspect that there may have been some computer upgrading over the years resulting in slight variations.

We do know from CPC, that changes in pigment suppliers can change the hue of a color - even though it is still sold as the same thing. Kind of like using a red Crayola crayon and using a red generic crayon. They are both red - yet different.
 
Interesting. I knew this about some casino chips (for example, Casablanca or Empress), but not about Fantasy casino lines produced by Paulson. The inlay and font differences are more interesting. Guessing the graphics people just made some tweaks/adjustments to the fonts.

My guess is that the chips were simply made at different times.
^Probably this. Spot color differences are common. Even different Paulson color sample sets over the years have slight color variability from one set to the next.

Reminds me of the thread about differences in Casablanca $5s. The logo & fonts are slightly different. In this case, maybe it was a second run of chips, and the graphics people at Casablanca Casino just provided Paulson with a different graphic. Who knows.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/variance-with-mint-casablanca-5’s.44083/
 
But on the flip side, I feel like the whole point of the fantasy series was aim for economy of scale. I can’t imagine an economy of scale if you’re changing things up—the RHC fantasy chips have the same edge spots as many THC lines for this reason, I thought...
The reason they reuse one set of edge spots for multiple fantasy lines isn't about economies of scale, since there basically aren't any economies of scale here - each chip takes roughly the same amount of materials and labor no matter what the colors are, and batch sizes are small so that there's not much savings to be had by making large numbers of a single chip.

The reason for the spot reuse is that any given spot and color configuration can only ever be used for a single customer. The fantasy chips aren't used for customers, so those spot configurations can be reused for Paulson's own lines of chips over and over and over without requiring them to design and use up another set of spots that would otherwise be available for a new customer.

The inlay differences you've spotted (good eyes, btw! nice work!) are, imho, just a result of Paulson making the chips at different times and just not caring that much about being consistent between batches on a non-casino product. Maybe they lost the original artwork and had to remake it for the second run. Or maybe they decided they could improve it for the second run.
 
The reason they reuse one set of edge spots for multiple fantasy lines isn't about economies of scale, since there basically aren't any economies of scale here

The reason for the spot reuse is that any given spot and color configuration can only ever be used for a single customer. The fantasy chips aren't used for customers, so those spot configurations can be reused for Paulson's own lines of chips over and over and over
This makes a lot of sense. I remember David Spragg saying somewhere that economies of scale are impossible with chips, I just didn’t know if it was for CPC only or Paulson too. The “reuse” angle is a much more reasonable one.
The inlay differences you've spotted (good eyes, btw! nice work!) are, imho, just a result of Paulson making the chips at different times and just not caring that much about being consistent between batches on a non-casino product.
Starting to make sense to me even though I think it’s a bad excuse lol. IIRC the BCC inlay differences/issues had less to do with different origin prints for the facsimiles and more to do with their “photo negative” process or whatever—I guess I have to assume the inlay changes fall under “desired improvement” and not “poor quality control”
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom