Holy Chipco wear - stack height (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

I've been building a mixed casino chipco set and was hoping to do it all mint, but fracs are tough to find in any condition. Anyway, I haven't played any of these chips, but I just boxed some to take to a buddy's house for OFCP. The difference in stack height shocked me. The blue quarters are beat, almost to hell. They stack almost a full chip shorter than the mint chips.
I know clay chips wear like this but I had no idea ceramics did. I'm still not sure I believe it actually. Has chipco used different blanks that vary in height?

 

[manamongkids]

measuring inside a box is a terrible idea. line them up on something definitely level. like a table

 

[upNdown]

 

[Mental Nomad]

Many (but not all?) Chipcos were slightly concave, so the print on the face wouldn't wear as quick as the outer rim. Conversely, the outer ring would wear quicker... which is why many Chipco designs featured a white outer ring, so it wouldn't show when the chip wore down, exposing the white material.

I don't know if the concave chip faces made for a different height stack, or not - but if the rims do wear down, it might make the stack shorter.

 

[mike32]

I believe those quarters are on the old chipco blank. Really old chipco's have a rougher more primitive look to me, and these quarters exhibit this. If they were equal blanks and the quarters were that worn, I think they would be solid white. IMO chalk it up to a different blank.

 

[BGinGA]

Custom chips are little works of art, and variance is to be expected. If uneven stacks of different denomination chips bother you, buy ceramics. Oh, wait.....

 

[WedgeRock]

I believe those quarters are on the old chipco blank. Really old chipco's have a rougher more primitive look to me, and these quarters exhibit this. If they were equal blanks and the quarters were that worn, I think they would be solid white. IMO chalk it up to a different blank.

I would tend to agree.

 

[kmccormick100]

They definitely wear, @Godzilla28 had some we played with, maybe happy days? That were worn smooth, definitely a little thinner and super slippery.

 

[abby99]

It stands to reason that even ceramic chips get thinner as they wear. Look at how worn the location is on the quarters.

 

[Godzilla28]

They definitely wear, @Godzilla28 had some we played with, maybe happy days? That were worn smooth, definitely a little thinner and super slippery.

Yeah, yeah I know...me and my ghetto chips. That's the only set I could afford at the time.

 

[upNdown]

Many (but not all?) Chipcos were slightly concave, so the print on the face wouldn't wear as quick as the outer rim. Conversely, the outer ring would wear quicker... which is why many Chipco designs featured a white outer ring, so it wouldn't show when the chip wore down, exposing the white material.

I believe those quarters are on the old chipco blank. Really old chipco's have a rougher more primitive look to me, and these quarters exhibit this. If they were equal blanks and the quarters were that worn, I think they would be solid white. IMO chalk it up to a different blank.

I could buy either of these explanations, or possibly both.
My original thought was like mike32's - how could these be worn that much shorter, and have any print left on them? But mentalnomad's explanation works - if they are concave, then the outer edges could wear (as clearly they have) and print could remain on the rest of the chip - I can buy that. And if you think about it, less than 1/40th of the material would have to wear off each side. I'll have to do some math. Or they're different blanks. Or both.

 

[WedgeRock]

My original thought was like mike32's - how could these be worn that much shorter, and have any print left on them? But mentalnomad's explanation works - if they are concave, then the outer edges could wear (as clearly they have) and print could remain on the rest of the chip - I can buy that. Or they're different blanks. Or both.

So we didn't find out anything...