• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

CPC General discussion thread (11 Viewers)

Colquhoun said:
But then why list all the other ingredients? I'm going with the principle that the simplest explanation, using the fewest assumptions, is usually the correct one.
To me, the typist used hyphens as separators (as in the date, instead of doing 7/28/52) and listed each item separated by the hyphen. That, coupled with the 1/2 oz purple listed in 2 places for the same 25c chips...is the simplest explanation to me.
View attachment 1266668
Click to expand...
Why do the different colors have noticeably different weights? Each color is unique, there are “heavy” colors and “light” colors.
 
TheTrout said:
Why do the different colors have noticeably different weights? Each color is unique, there are “heavy” colors and “light” colors.
Click to expand...
I would guess that the formula using the other ingredients is different depending on the color. Just like latex paint, the base for light colors is white, while the base for dark colors is clear. The colorant added is minute compared to the base materials.
I wouldn’t expect if a blue chip is heavier than a yellow chip that the blue dye is somehow heavier than yellow dye…or there’s so much blue dye added to make the chip heavier. It’s the ratio of other ingredients to accept that dye differently.
 
TheTrout said:
Why do the different colors have noticeably different weights? Each color is unique, there are “heavy” colors and “light” colors.
Click to expand...
The dayglow and retro colors from CPC don't have brass for added weight. That has nothing to do with the debate that's been raging here for several pages, but answers the question re. current CPCs.


The weights in that "recipe" are just how much of the pigment they needed. For the amount of pigment there, it's probably similar for other colors that we just don't see. A few ounces in many pounds of material isn't going to be a noticeable change in final chip weight.
 
RainmanTrail said:
No, I don't think, I know ~3.2% of the formula, by volume (and ~1.5% by weight), is made up of lavender and purple pigments.

And they don't use dyes, Einstein. They use pigments. Dyes are a liquid. Pigments are a powder.
Click to expand...
How do you know? How? Again you make a claim because you just know. The recipe does not clearly state two colouring ingredients, it is plausible that lavender is made by just using a purple colour.And then saying they don't use dyes... when the recipe clearly stated dye. Oof.
It seems to me you are so set on what you think chips are made of that you go searching for any interpretation/twist to support that. A key part of that is declaring the owner of CPC maker either a lier or ignorant of their own product. Your manufacturing document previously provided is so general it doesn't prove anything. And then try to add weight by calling people idiots, Einsteins, and offering bets with silly odds.
I'm very interested in what these chips are made of. But I'll be looking for demonstrated evidence rather than the above combination. Am sorry.
 
drdr said:
How do you know? How? Again you make a claim because you just know.
Click to expand...

I didn't just claim it. I proved it multiple times already, in more ways than one.

drdr said:
The recipe does not clearly state two colouring ingredients, it is plausible that lavender is made by just using a purple colour.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Again, I proved this above. See post #1752. I even provided pictures of the chips that were purple BEFORE the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was added. Read it again.

drdr said:
And then saying they don't use dyes... when the recipe clearly stated dye. Oof.
Click to expand...

It is extremely common to refer to pigments as dyes. People do it all the time. But there is a difference. And for compression molded chips, pigments are used. Again, not guessing here. I've seen the bags of pigments myself, with my own two eyes. I've had conversations with multiple manufacturers of said pigments as well. They are a powder. With compression-molded thermoplastics, the use of pigments is standard practice, even if people refer to them as "dyes". Dyes are used with epoxy resins and fiberglass (which is what LowerBama seems to think these chips are made of), not molded thermoplastics.


drdr said:
It seems to me you are so set on what you think chips are made of that you go searching for any interpretation/twist to support that.
Click to expand...

The irony in this statement is mind-blowing. You guys are talking straight out of your asses.

drdr said:
A key part of that is declaring the owner of CPC maker either a lier or ignorant of their own product.
Click to expand...

Correct. I am claiming that David believes he is not purchasing any plastic when he places his orders. He thinks he is purchasing a clay compound because it is labeled and marketed as such by the manufacturer. But it is in fact a thermoplastic. This is my claim. And I'm willing to bet money on it.

drdr said:
Your manufacturing document previously provided is so general it doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...

It talks quite extensively about the fact that 'clay' chips are actually made of thermoplastics and thermoset plastics and NOT clay.

drdr said:
And then try to add weight by calling people idiots, Einsteins, and offering bets with silly odds.
I'm very interested in what these chips are made of. But I'll be looking for demonstrated evidence rather than the above combination. Am sorry.
Click to expand...

I've proved it already in more ways than one.

- The fact that 10oz cotton is a reference to woven fabric, and not raw cotton is evidence that your interpretation is incorrect, as we know the chips do not have layers of fabric inside of them. They are not made like fiberglass sheets using some epoxy resin and cotton fabric like LowerBama repeatedly suggests (he even claims that the resin is magically absent from the formula in order to support his ridiculous claim).

- The fact that every recipe any of us has ever seen always lists the quantity/amounts before the ingredients strongly suggests that your interpretation is incorrect.

- Perhaps I've taken for granted that everone here just knows that vintage leaded Paulsons and TRKs are quite a bit heavier than their non-leaded equivalents. Perhaps you aren't actually aware of that fact, but I assure you, it is common knowledge. There are countless images posted on this forum of leaded and unleaded chips being weighed on a scale. On average, chips weigh ~22% less after lead silicate was removed from the formulas umpteen years ago. When you combine this knowledge with the fact that your interpretation of the formula only yields 1.4% of the total weight (and actually substantially less if @LowerBama1714 is correct about resin being absent from the formula but present in the chips) is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your interpretation of the formula must be incorrect, otherwise removing the lead silicate (a mere 1.4% of the total weight) would not result in the chips weighing 22% less. Yet, they do. I don't know how this one has slipped past all you guys over and over, but you can't just ignore it. It is irrefutable proof, and it should have been your first clue that your interpretation of the formula couldn't possibly be correct, even if you completely ignored all the rest of the evidence as well (which you've also somehow managed to do).

- We also know that the "lavendar" chips were already made to look purple/lavendar PRIOR TO when the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was added to the formula. I proved this above and even attached pics of some of the chips as the colors changed over the years. Therefore, we know that the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was in fact an addition to whatever other colors were previously being used to create the chips (which is precisely what the card indicates when it says the purple "dye" was ADDED to the formula in the "5-3-52" reorder line item on the card (note, this entry is written above the formula we are all arguing over. It is in the middle of the card). Again, this is irrefutable proof that the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" is not the only color being used in the making of these chips, as the chips were already purple/lavendar BEFORE this 1/2 oz of purple was added. So we know there must be more "dye" being used if the purple "dye" was "added" to the formula. In the final entry/reorder of these same 25¢ chips at the bottom of the card, we are informed of precisely what that other color is, as it itemizes it in the formula as being "3 oz Lav Color 1/2 oz Purple". So we know that the "Lav Color" must be the other color/"dye" which the Purple was "added to" in order to achieve the darker chips shown in the photos I attached before. Thus there are in fact TWO COLORS used in this chip.

Also, further evidence that this is true is the fact that for every other ingredient/quantity pairing in your interpretation, you claim that the quantity and ingredient are connected by a "-", yet this hyphen is absent from the "Lav Color" ingredient per your interpretation. If you are correct, and each pairing is to be read as "barytes-7#8oz", "Lead silicate-3oz", etc, then why doesn't it read "Lav Color-1/2oz Purple" instead of "Lav Color 1/2 oz Purple"? The hyphen which you claim pairs all the ingredients with their quantities is missing from the Purple "dye".

- Another problem for your interpretation of the formula is that it simply lacks a sufficient polymer. There is nothing present to bind the copious amounts of cotton, titanium, and barites in your formula. The combination of ingredients makes no sense whatsoever. You couldn't make anything even remotely resembling a poker chip by combining those ingredients and their respective quantities. You'd have to add some sort of resin or polymers to bind them. Meanwhile, the correct (and obvious) interpretation of the formula makes perfect sense on its own. You need not make any changes to it whatsoever in order to produce a quality poker chip.

- Also, what are the barites even doing there to begin with in your interpretation? Barites are used as a binder with plastics to produce vibrant rich colors. What is it doing in your formula which is almost entirely void of plastics? In my formula, it serves a functional purpose. One that is well known and common in the compression molding of thermoplastics. The ratio of barites to plastics is also important, and again should have been a clue that your intrepration was incorrect if you knew anything about the subject. Though this point isn't even critical to knowing that your interpretation was wrong. Any of the other above reasons should have been sufficient, especially the lead silicate content and the fact that two colors are clearly being used on this chip as indicated by the 3 separate orders of this lavendar 25¢ chip as documented on the order card.

The correct interpretation ought to be extremely obvious to you. Especially considering the fact that you hold a PhD. You should be embarrassed honestly if you can't figure this one out. It's really not that difficult.
 
RainmanTrail said:
I didn't just claim it. I proved it multiple times already, in more ways than one.



Wrong. Again, I proved this above. See post #1752. I even provided pictures of the chips that were purple BEFORE the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was added. Read it again.



It is extremely common to refer to pigments as dyes. People do it all the time. But there is a difference. And for compression molded chips, pigments are used. Again, not guessing here. I've seen the bags of pigments myself, with my own two eyes. I've had conversations with multiple manufacturers of said pigments as well. They are a powder. With compression-molded thermoplastics, the use of pigments is standard practice, even if people refer to them as "dyes". Dyes are used with epoxy resins and fiberglass (which is what LowerBama seems to think these chips are made of), not molded thermoplastics.




The irony in this statement is mind-blowing. You guys are talking straight out of your asses.



Correct. I am claiming that David believes he is not purchasing any plastic when he places his orders. He thinks he is purchasing a clay compound because it is labeled and marketed as such by the manufacturer. But it is in fact a thermoplastic. This is my claim. And I'm willing to bet money on it.



It talks quite extensively about the fact that 'clay' chips are actually made of thermoplastics and thermoset plastics and NOT clay.



I've proved it already in more ways than one.

- The fact that 10oz cotton is a reference to woven fabric, and not raw cotton is evidence that your interpretation is incorrect, as we know the chips do not have layers of fabric inside of them. They are not made like fiberglass sheets using some epoxy resin and cotton fabric like LowerBama repeatedly suggests (he even claims that the resin is magically absent from the formula in order to support his ridiculous claim).

- The fact that every recipe any of us has ever seen always lists the quantity/amounts before the ingredients strongly suggests that your interpretation is incorrect.

- Perhaps I've taken for granted that everone here just knows that vintage leaded Paulsons and TRKs are quite a bit heavier than their non-leaded equivalents. Perhaps you aren't actually aware of that fact, but I assure you, it is common knowledge. There are countless images posted on this forum of leaded and unleaded chips being weighed on a scale. On average, chips weigh ~22% less after lead silicate was removed from the formulas umpteen years ago. When you combine this knowledge with the fact that your interpretation of the formula only yields 1.4% of the total weight (and actually substantially less if @LowerBama1714 is correct about resin being absent from the formula but present in the chips) is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your interpretation of the formula must be incorrect, otherwise removing the lead silicate (a mere 1.4% of the total weight) would not result in the chips weighing 22% less. Yet, they do. I don't know how this one has slipped past all you guys over and over, but you can't just ignore it. It is irrefutable proof, and it should have been your first clue that your interpretation of the formula couldn't possibly be correct, even if you completely ignored all the rest of the evidence as well (which you've also somehow managed to do).

- We also know that the "lavendar" chips were already made to look purple/lavendar PRIOR TO when the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was added to the formula. I proved this above and even attached pics of some of the chips as the colors changed over the years. Therefore, we know that the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" was in fact an addition to whatever other colors were previously being used to create the chips (which is precisely what the card indicates when it says the purple "dye" was ADDED to the formula in the "5-3-52" reorder line item on the card (note, this entry is written above the formula we are all arguing over. It is in the middle of the card). Again, this is irrefutable proof that the 1/2 oz of purple "dye" is not the only color being used in the making of these chips, as the chips were already purple/lavendar BEFORE this 1/2 oz of purple was added. So we know there must be more "dye" being used if the purple "dye" was "added" to the formula. In the final entry/reorder of these same 25¢ chips at the bottom of the card, we are informed of precisely what that other color is, as it itemizes it in the formula as being "3 oz Lav Color 1/2 oz Purple". So we know that the "Lav Color" must be the other color/"dye" which the Purple was "added to" in order to achieve the darker chips shown in the photos I attached before. Thus there are in fact TWO COLORS used in this chip.

Also, further evidence that this is true is the fact that for every other ingredient/quantity pairing in your interpretation, you claim that the quantity and ingredient are connected by a "-", yet this hyphen is absent from the "Lav Color" ingredient per your interpretation. If you are correct, and each pairing is to be read as "barytes-7#8oz", "Lead silicate-3oz", etc, then why doesn't it read "Lav Color-1/2oz Purple" instead of "Lav Color 1/2 oz Purple"? The hyphen which you claim pairs all the ingredients with their quantities is missing from the Purple "dye".

- Another problem for your interpretation of the formula is that it simply lacks a sufficient polymer. There is nothing present to bind the copious amounts of cotton, titanium, and barites in your formula. The combination of ingredients makes no sense whatsoever. You couldn't make anything even remotely resembling a poker chip by combining those ingredients and their respective quantities. You'd have to add some sort of resin or polymers to bind them. Meanwhile, the correct (and obvious) interpretation of the formula makes perfect sense on its own. You need not make any changes to it whatsoever in order to produce a quality poker chip.

- Also, what are the barites even doing there to begin with in your interpretation? Barites are used as a binder with plastics to produce vibrant rich colors. What is it doing in your formula which is almost entirely void of plastics? In my formula, it serves a functional purpose. One that is well known and common in the compression molding of thermoplastics. The ratio of barites to plastics is also important, and again should have been a clue that your intrepration was incorrect if you knew anything about the subject. Though this point isn't even critical to knowing that your interpretation was wrong. Any of the other above reasons should have been sufficient, especially the lead silicate content and the fact that two colors are clearly being used on this chip as indicated by the 3 separate orders of this lavendar 25¢ chip as documented on the order card.

The correct interpretation ought to be extremely obvious to you. Especially considering the fact that you hold a PhD. You should be embarrassed honestly if you can't figure this one out. It's really not that difficult.
Click to expand...
Interesting…I don’t agree with you.
 
20240202_140456.jpg
 
MatB said:
Work with me here.....


I believe the formula is for 500 chips. to be multiplied by 4 or as many as the order required.


If we take the total weights of that formula we get 214.5oz.

214.5oz x 4 = 858 /16 we get 53.625lbs which is 24323 grams

Which is... drumroll........ 12.16gram for each chip.


So yes. 3 pounds of 10oz cotton.

I'd bet $100 on it,
Click to expand...
Sooo thinking in this and a post a while back, these formulas were made in the 50’s era or a bit later? You got to ask yourself, where does the cotton come from? What was readily available back then?

I imagine in the day they were looking for filler and structural additives to make their raw materials go further and make more chips even cheaper. They start looking around for something cheap (free) and would be available in the middle of the desert, and guess what Las Vegas produces in incredible amounts? It has to do with the laundry.

Tons and tons of cloth being washed and dried in Las Vegas every day. It produces a problem above dirty water, it also produces copious amounts of clean lint. Free lint that they don’t know what to do with. Literally tons of it. Not the grey dingy stuff you get out of your home laundry, but pristine white and small amounts of various other colors, all broken down in small fiber bits. I got some from our local laundry and I can post a picture of it tomorrow, and you can see what I’m talking about. Along with a few other ingredients I’ve picked up.

I’m not saying that is what they use now, but I bet back in the day of Paulson tinkering around……
 
TheTrout said:
THE RECIPE SHOULD READ:

10 oz cotton (3 lbs)
barytes (7.5 lbs)
Lead silicate (3 oz)
titanium (2.5 lbs)
Dry vinyl (3 oz)
Lav Color, but add 0.5 oz of purple to whatever the procedure is for making a chip lavender

End of story.
Click to expand...
David Spragg said:
The clay makes it's way to the press for blanks (slugs) to be made as the first part of the manufacturing process. It's in sheet form, heated and then cut into strips to lay across the cups in the mold. In very simplistic terms you are pressing out a bunch of discs from strips. That leaves you with a bunch of 'edgings' - all the unused thin pieces.
5. A new batch of clay is mixed and rolled by combining an equal weight of edgings and raw materials as they blend perfectly. The resultant color clay, once pressed again, maintains an almost exact color to previous batches of chips. Don't ask why it works as it does, it's various chemical reactions just as in baking. Someone figured it out almost 100 years ago and we stick with it.
Click to expand...

It looks like the “lavender” could be the scraps and remnants of the previous batch?
They were adding the new ingredients to the old batch to keep color consistency? Thats kinda what Spragg implied.
 
The density of these chips should be the weighted average (mass, not volume) of the densities of the constituent ingredients.

@RainmanTrail ‘s reading of the recipe predicts a density of 4.75 g/cm^3

@LowerBama1714 ‘s reading of the recipe predicts a density of 3.81 g/cm^3

Does anyone have a barrel of these 1950s era chips? It should be relatively easy to figure out the density of them with a volumetric container and a reasonably accurate scale.

The differences in the predicted densities is great enough that we don’t need a high tech lab to figure this out.
 
Wouldn’t even need a volumetric container if the chips were reasonably sharp and you had some calipers…

Was going to do this with a barrel of excellent PCA sec $1s but can’t find my calipers
 
LowerBama1714 said:
I almost replied with this after 1 hour…

What’s in the boxes?!?!?
Click to expand...
krafticus said:
UHHH.... What's in the box. It's been almost 24 hours man
Click to expand...
Chips. Two boxes of which aren't mine. Started oiling yesterday but feeling under the weather today. I might go right to bed after dinner tonight. I'll probably have a reveal thread up next week.
 
JMC9389 said:
Chips. Two boxes of which aren't mine. Started oiling yesterday but feeling under the weather today. I might go right to bed after dinner tonight. I'll probably have a reveal thread up next week.
Click to expand...
at least let us know what mold ....???
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

M
Resale value for new Apache set vs Paulson grade set
Replies
12
Views
604
springbox
springbox
S
Br pro vs cpc
Replies
18
Views
1K
Colquhoun
Colquhoun
Sparkynutz
Giveaway Mystery 3d printed Giveaway
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
UniLover
U
YepImNaked
Paulsons vs CPC Customs
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
maxim_666666
maxim_666666
JMC9389
Wanted JMC9389 Chipping Retirement Thread
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
JMC9389
JMC9389
Back
Top Bottom