2017 Custom Chip Hall of Fame Voting (1 Viewer)

[Chicken Rob]

I'm not a big fan of giant inlays, but I still voted for Contreras Landa. They were beautifully executed. Great design. Even though the giant inlays aren't my preference, I thought they belonged in the hall of fame.

 

[jbutler]

It's their prerogative, sure. But if there was more discussion about the "why" of the vote, I suspect there would be a lot of different votes. For example, earlier I had mentioned why Clermont Lounge was a great set, and soon after they enjoyed a spike in votes (perhaps related, perhaps not). Now, into the 4th page (and TLDR status) they languish again, and I see comments like "I wouldn't take that set if you gave it to me" (perhaps made about the only HS chips/only solids, perhaps not).

The point is, if people were required to "show their work" we would probablly get fewer votes overall, but those votes would be educated, meaningful votes.

And I'm sorry if I offend anyone by inferring that their lack of research into a chip means that their vote means less. But if you are still reading this thread, then you actually are interested in more than the quality of a photograph and the offensive statement does not pertain to you.

You're probably right in what you say in the first paragraph above re: the impact of lobbying for a particular set, but the rest I just don't get at all. I have no interest in limiting others' ability to participate in the voting out of concern that they might base their vote on a view different from mine.

 

[Poker Zombie]

You're probably right in what you say in the first paragraph above re: the impact of lobbying for a particular set, but the rest I just don't get at all. I have no interest in limiting others' ability to participate in the voting out of concern that they might base their vote on a view different from mine.

I have no interest in limiting others' ability to participate in the voting out of concern that they might base their vote on a view different from mine either. I would just prefer a view that was thought out. If that thinking just involves pictures, then fine. But why? Is it the contrast of colors, or the way it works with the inlay? Is it because the Bounty chip made me laugh so hard my pants fell off? Do you see a nuance that I perhaps missed?

If you vote on pics alone, explaining your vote rationale may key in future designers to design aspects they had never considered before.

It's like going to an art gallery. You can look at the works. You can decide what you like or don't like. But when you listen to a docent explain the work, you suddenly see more - much more - than you likely saw before.

 

[k9dr]

I like the colors of Contreras Landa, but I can't get by the feeling that it is an advertising chip - the "sponsored by" ...... turns me off

 

[jbutler]

I have no interest in limiting others' ability to participate in the voting out of concern that they might base their vote on a view different from mine either. I would just prefer a view that was thought out. If that thinking just involves pictures, then fine. But why? Is it the contrast of colors, or the way it works with the inlay? Is it because the Bounty chip made me laugh so hard my pants fell off? Do you see a nuance that I perhaps missed?

If you vote on pics alone, explaining your vote rationale may key in future designers to design aspects they had never considered before.

It's like going to an art gallery. You can look at the works. You can decide what you like or don't like. But when you listen to a docent explain the work, you suddenly see more - much more - than you likely saw before.

I guess our disagreement is whether we should be voting for sets that we like or the sets we can appreciate.

A docent can explain the history of all kinds of shit and he can allow me to appreciate the significance and meaning of Duchamp's Prelude to a Broken Arm and I can appreciate why it's in a museum, but its inherent aesthetic quality is, to me, still absent.

I'm not voting for something based on its historical significance. I don't give a shit if someone's life story is bound up in their chips. I'm voting for chips based on their ability to be what they were designed to be - things that facilitate gambling while being pleasing to see and touch.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm voting for chips based on their ability to be what they were designed to be - things that facilitate gambling while being pleasing to see and touch.

I appreciate that, and you were able to explain that. That's all I'm looking for.

However, by the same token, does that make you less likely to vote for a BCC set, given their well documented lack of consistent quality?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I was ok with sponsored by, except the sponsor logo was the same as the bulk of the chip. I may have championed for Contreas, but in this class they aren't top 3. It's like being the comic that followed Seinfeld or Carlin in their non-headlining days.

 

[Jeff]

It's their prerogative, sure. But if there was more discussion about the "why" of the vote, I suspect there would be a lot of different votes. For example, earlier I had mentioned why Clermont Lounge was a great set, and soon after they enjoyed a spike in votes (perhaps related, perhaps not). Now, into the 4th page (and TLDR status) they languish again, and I see comments like "I wouldn't take that set if you gave it to me" (perhaps made about the only HS chips/only solids, perhaps not).

The point is, if people were required to "show their work" we would probablly get fewer votes overall, but those votes would be educated, meaningful votes.

And I'm sorry if I offend anyone by inferring that their lack of research into a chip means that their vote means less. But if you are still reading this thread, then you actually are interested in more than the quality of a photograph and the offensive statement does not pertain to you.

There's no accounting for tastes. Forcing people to account for why they like something isn't productive as far as I'm concerned. There's no right or factual answer you need to do research for. I love the write ups and look at the sets in the Resources section every so often. Thanks for the committee commemorating the ones that do make it.

 

[jbutler]

However, by the same token, does that make you less likely to vote for a BCC set, given their well documented lack of consistent quality?

Why would it?

 

[BGinGA]

I'm not a big fan of giant inlays, but I still voted for Contreras Landa. They were beautifully executed. Great design. Even though the giant inlays aren't my preference, I thought they belonged in the hall of fame.

I may have championed for Contreas, but in this class they aren't top 3.

Both of these statements pretty much sum up my view. I'm not a fan of giant inlays either, but think the CL chips are a great design that belongs in the HoF -- and I voted for them last year. The 2017 class of nominees had three sets I thought were better and more deserving, so CL didn't get my vote this year.

Do I think the Contreras Landa set belongs in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely. Do I think they are a more worthy set than some of the sets that have made it? Undoubtedly.

But given the constraints of the voting process, I was all for adding them last year, but not this year. Next year? Who knows, it will again depend on the class of nominees. And if there are HoF rules in place that prevent a set from being nominated multiple years in a row, they may never make it in. This all seems inherently flawed to me.

I am not advocating for change, but do feel that having different categories of nominees would better allow deserving sets to be included in the Hall of Fame. Once there, makes no difference how a set made it in -- the HoF itself would have no categories......just the nominations. This would give a lot of very deserving sets a better chance to be included, and one that they may never realistically have under the current system.

 

[Mr Tree]

Both of these statements pretty much sum up my view. I'm not a fan of giant inlays either, but think the CL chips are a great design that belongs in the HoF -- and I voted for them last year. The 2017 class of nominees had three sets I thought were better and more deserving, so CL didn't get my vote this year.

Do I think the Contreras Landa set belongs in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely. Do I think they are a more worthy set than some of the sets that have made it? Undoubtedly.

But given the constraints of the voting process, I was all for adding them last year, but not this year. Next year? Who knows, it will again depend on the class of nominees. And if there are HoF rules in place that prevent a set from being nominated multiple years in a row, they may never make it in. This all seems inherently flawed to me.

I am not advocating for change, but do feel that having different categories of nominees would better allow deserving sets to be included in the Hall of Fame. Once there, makes no difference how a set made it in -- the HoF itself would have no categories......just the nominations. This would give a lot of very deserving sets a better chance to be included, and one that they may never realistically have under the current system.

Not a fan of this approach. You start nominating a bunch of different categories every year and ultimately you water things down. It will start to become a quota fest to make sure you have your representation from your hot stamp group, ceramic group, etc.

In this case I think simple is better.

 

[BGinGA]

Disagree. Every category doesn't have to have nominations every year..... only when there are deserving sets. No need for quotas.

 

[Mr Tree]

Disagree. Every category doesn't have to have nominations every year..... only when there are deserving sets. No need for quotas.

In theory that sounds great. In practice you are asking the committee commissioner to tell everyone if there is a worthy set every year. Not a position I love.

 

[jbutler]

I am not advocating for change, but do feel that having different categories of nominees would better allow deserving sets to be included in the Hall of Fame. Once there, makes no difference how a set made it in -- the HoF itself would have no categories......just the nominations. This would give a lot of very deserving sets a better chance to be included, and one that they may never realistically have under the current system.

FWIW we went round and round deliberating over this the first year of the HoF. I understand there can be different opinions on whether the ultimate decision was correct (IIRC, I was initially advocating strongly for an exemption to permit the committee to name a "legacy" set that would attempt to mitigate for the limited color and spot availability in the early custom days), but there was significant exploration of a number of options and by the end of it, we landed on the current, simplest approach.

I, for one, agree with Tom on this. The natural barriers to entry are simply the hurdles one must overcome.

 

[upNdown]

Contreras suffer from Giant inlay syndrome. If I were to fault the HoF, it's because it is a straight-up favorites poll, which is more indicative of a People's Choice award (celebrating favorites) than a Hall of Fame (celebrating greatness - whatever that entails).

It's a fair point. Personally, I can't see myself ever voting for a giant inlay set unless there was a separate category for giant inlay sets. I'll admit it, I'm an anti-giantinlayite.

 

[jbutler]

It's a fair point. Personally, I can't see myself ever voting for a giant inlay set unless there was a separate category for giant inlay sets. I'll admit it, I'm an anti-giantinlayite.

And this is one of the many reasons we didn't segment out the voting - because when we post the poll for whatever separate category we engineer (whether it be pre-whatever year, hotstamps, giant inlay, etc.) we'll have a lot of people voting for the one(s) they dislike the least rather than the one(s) they love the most.

 

[BGinGA]

It's a fair point. Personally, I can't see myself ever voting for a <insert chip type here> set unless there was a separate category for <insert chip type here> sets.

FYP.

With the current construct, it will be very rare (if ever) to see any HoF sets get voted in that are solids, hot-stamps, giant inlays, ceramics, or plastics. And to say that no sets of any of those chip types are 'deserving' is probably not accurate.

Again,, not advocating for change, just pointing out the realities of the situation, and pointing out why some deserving sets may never make it into the Hall of Fame. Carry on....

 

[jbutler]

FYP.

With the current construct, it will be very rare (if ever) to see any HoF sets get voted in that are solids, hot-stamps, giant inlays, ceramics, or plastics. And to say that no sets of any of those chip types are 'deserving' is probably not accurate.

Again,, not advocating for change, just pointing out the realities of the situation, and pointing out why some deserving sets may never make it into the Hall of Fame. Carry on....

Agree completely. I'm sure Tom would be glad to hear out any suggestions with regard to structure that might mitigate those inherent biases.

 

[BGinGA]

In practice you are asking the committee commissioner to tell everyone if there is a worthy set every year.

That's pretty much what the committee is doing already, sir.

 

[pltrgyst]

Solid hot stamps suck.

You know, I agree with this.

Now before I get trampled by the herd, some context: I own a couple of hot-stamped solid sets that I love, like the Copperhead Card Rooms and a Black Sands set, and one that you'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands -- the largest of only three known sets of Vegas Worlds, with their unique history.

I wouldn't trade that Vegas World set for any hot-stamped set I've ever seen, but I don't think it would qualify for any Vegas chip Hall of Fame.

IMO, there's just not enough room for creativity or originality to produce anything of note in a monotonic 7/8 to 1-1/8 inch diameter hot-stamp.

 

[pltrgyst]

I have no interest in limiting others' ability to participate in the voting out of concern that they might base their vote on a view different from mine either. I would just prefer a view that was thought out. If that thinking just involves pictures, then fine. But why? Is it the contrast of colors, or the way it works with the inlay? Is it because the Bounty chip made me laugh so hard my pants fell off? Do you see a nuance that I perhaps missed?

If you vote on pics alone, explaining your vote rationale may key in future designers to design aspects they had never considered before.

It's like going to an art gallery. You can look at the works. You can decide what you like or don't like. But when you listen to a docent explain the work, you suddenly see more - much more - than you likely saw before.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Jeff]

You know, I agree with this.

Now before I get trampled by the herd, some context: I own a couple of hot-stamped solid sets that I love, like the Copperhead Card Rooms and a Black Sands set, and one that you'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands -- the largest of only three known sets of Vegas Worlds, with their unique history.

I wouldn't trade that Vegas World set for any hot-stamped set I've ever seen, but I don't think it would qualify for any Vegas chip Hall of Fame.

IMO, there's just not enough room for creativity or originality to produce anything of note in a monotonic 7/8-1/8 inch diameter hot-stamp.

I think I have a bias against hot stamps because in the old days, derelict casinos used cheap hot stamps and I associate hot stamps with low life gambling establishments. I know I should appreciate some of the collectible ones, and I know there were plenty of good places that might have hot stamps, but I have a bias. #hotstampchipsmatter

 

[jbutler]

You know, I agree with this.

Now before I get trampled by the herd, some context: I own a couple of hot-stamped solid sets that I love, like the Copperhead Card Rooms and a Black Sands set, and one that you'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands -- the largest of only three known sets of Vegas Worlds, with their unique history.

I wouldn't trade that Vegas World set for any hot-stamped set I've ever seen, but I don't think it would qualify for any Vegas chip Hall of Fame.

IMO, there's just not enough room for creativity or originality to produce anything of note in a monotonic 7/8-1/8 inch diameter hot-stamp.

I think I have a bias against hot stamps because in the old days, derelict casinos used cheap hot stamps and I associate hot stamps with low life gambling establishments. I know I should appreciate some of the collectible ones, and I know there were plenty of good places that might have hot stamps, but I have a bias. #hotstampchipsmatter

I think there is pretty broad agreement on this even among non-chippers. When I was trying to talk the host of one of my games into getting nice chips and we got down to talking price he said something like, "Shit all I could get for $.XX per chip are some ghetto hot stamps." I was able to continue the conversation without letting on my deep inner pain.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Why would it?

I don't have any BCC chips, but from the CT days there were reports of BCC labels being slick, and that made stacking more difficult. In addition, there were quality issues as to the centering of inlays and the flatness of certain chips (spinners). This would make playing with these chips more difficult, and therefore it seems that it would be a disqualifier (or at least a major hurdle) if your criteria is to be able to play with them.

 

[jbutler]

I don't have any BCC chips, but from the CT days there were reports of BCC labels being slick, and that made stacking more difficult. In addition, there were quality issues as to the centering of inlays and the flatness of certain chips (spinners). This would make playing with these chips more difficult, and therefore it seems that it would be a disqualifier (or at least a major hurdle) if your criteria is to be able to play with them.

I still don't see how BCC's reputation should play any part in anyone's vote.

If the chips themselves suffer from flaws certainly that would matter, but I can't see why I should use BCC's reputation as a proxy for judging the chips themselves.

 

[Mr Tree]

That's pretty much what the committee is doing already, sir.

Not to that extent. If the committee thinks there is one worthy set for a criteria do we just enshrine it? Not having the community input on it deligitimizes it IMO.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think I have a bias against hot stamps because in the old days, derelict casinos used cheap hot stamps and I associate hot stamps with low life gambling establishments. I know I should appreciate some of the collectible ones, and I know there were plenty of good places that might have hot stamps, but I have a bias. #hotstampchipsmatter

"Low life establishments"

Rest of the post deleted, because I was just championing for the Clermont Lounge again.

 

[Mr Tree]

You know, I agree with this.

Now before I get trampled by the herd, some context: I own a couple of hot-stamped solid sets that I love, like the Copperhead Card Rooms and a Black Sands set, and one that you'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands -- the largest of only three known sets of Vegas Worlds, with their unique history.

I wouldn't trade that Vegas World set for any hot-stamped set I've ever seen, but I don't think it would qualify for any Vegas chip Hall of Fame.

IMO, there's just not enough room for creativity or originality to produce anything of note in a monotonic 7/8-1/8 inch diameter hot-stamp.

I would never own a solid hot stamp set

 

[Mr Tree]

"Low life establishments"

Rest of the post deleted, because I was just championing for the Clermont Lounge again.

In all fairness that WAS the intent....

 

[Poker Zombie]

I still don't see how BCC's reputation should play any part in anyone's vote.

If the chips themselves suffer from flaws certainly that would matter, but I can't see why I should use BCC's reputation as a proxy for judging the chips themselves.

How can you tell if the chips are flawed from the pics? You mentioned you like how they feel - also impossible to detect from a pic. Either you are simply voting for sets you've played with and have firsthand knowledge (automatically diminishing sets you haven't played with), or you are voting your "feel" based off of reputation or playing with other BCC sets.