Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:01 pm GMT by sminto
I just noticed dice702.com had pictures of the new Paulsons on their website.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:06 pm GMT by civiliste
Wow,
Those must have just gone up in the past few hours, as I was just showing the mock-ups to my wife before dinner!
Good catch!
Now that I see that they are using the smaller inlay, I think I'm going to stay away from these. I had considered grabbing 1000 or so when the budget permitted or when the price came down, but now that I see 'em, I'm not so interested, and will probably grab some ASMs or TR Kings.
Anybody who handles these, please let me know if the weight is really ~1 gram less than usual for Paulsons.
Here's a URL for a quick pop over:
http://www.dice702.com/paulsonpokerchips.htm
-Zak
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:16 pm GMT by PaulsonChips
They should of used a grand inlay instead of a classic inlay.
The mold was designed for a grand not classic, looks kinda wierd.
But again, Im all about the feel rather than the looks.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:47 pm GMT by civiliste
Since you probably handle more Paulsons than most of us (or, at least, more than myself), have you handled these yet?
Specifically, are they really lighter than casino chips, as noted:
http://www.pokerchipreviews.com/compression.html
Just wondering if anybody else can support this. Not that I don't accept PCR.com as a significant authority, but two authorities are always better than one.
Thanks,
-Zak
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:58 pm GMT by PaulsonChips
I have the home samples and also the Trademarkpoker samples, but I DO NOT have the dice702 samples. However, they should be similiar.
The NEW PAULSONs are a tad bit lighter and not as hefty as the old chips, and are not as good overall in every aspect.
However, in my opinion, for the price, its no contest that its a GREAT BUY.
But thats the wrong inlay in the wrong chip, very ugly. (Dice702)
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:07 pm GMT by ChkDeezNuts
OMG....excuse me while I go vomit.
What a disaster.
All together now!!!
HEY...YA ****** UGLY!!!!!!!!
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:30 pm GMT by Nugzy
That looks really bad.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:30 pm GMT by JHile31
wow...im gonna have to pass...what were they thinking
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:51 pm GMT by PinataUT
I was seriously rationalizing having Egyptians, TR Kings and a set of those until I saw the mold design.
Seriously seriously dopey.
PAULSON CHIPS - thanks for telling me the chip is a chip. Otherwise I might think it was a coaster for shot glasses.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:10 pm GMT by vai777
i dont know why they didnt use a larger border so it met the inlay in the middle like the old bond chips.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:48 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| Quote: | | i dont know why they didnt use a larger border so it met the inlay in the middle like the old bond chips |
Yeah that is kind of unfortunate, but I still like them. The colors/edge spot colors are nicer than the old bonds (bluechip and paulson) IMO. If the inlay was larger it would cover up part of the edgespots like the bluechip bonds, which I was never really a fan of. Everyone has been getting used to the new mold and has been focusing on it. I bet once it's been out for a while it won't look as awkward.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:08 am GMT by AZnuts
Anyone know if the Trademark chips with the "generic" Paulson inlay will be the same way? I'm guessing so - sad.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:26 am GMT by vai777
I like the colors alot and the small inlay is cool I just have no idea why they didnt use a mold suited to the standard inlay as compared to one suited for a grand inlay.
I guess they are trying to keep thier costs down by only offering 1 mold and the same edge spot colors to the public.
It would be of great interest to see if the mold is changed in later runs or if the other websited that are planing on carying the new paulsons will order a grand inlay instead of the standard.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:42 am GMT by circlencircle
I think the reactions are a little over kill. Pictures are only worth so much, but hey if you don’t like 'em, you don’t like 'em. I already bought 500 and I admit I am a little disappointed but like I said in another thread, its mostly because their not the same as the samples and that’s what I had in mind. On the other hand Pokerchipreviews made the comment that the inlay was a little slick...this version has more 'clay' surface area and like Paulsonchips has said, feel is more important to me than looks. The colors are great and it’s a decent price for an above average quality chip. I think once these get worn in they’ll be great chips....
...maybe I'm just trying to be optimistic. 
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:48 am GMT by vai777
It may be overkill but you must agree a better job could have been done I mean look at the Nevada Jacks Clays.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:58 am GMT by circlencircle
| vai777 wrote: | | It may be overkill but you must agree a better job could have been done I mean look at the Nevada Jacks Clays. |
Absolutely, it was a bad decision... Not what I would have chosen by any means...
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:02 am GMT by vai777
Im goign to be really pissed if they decide to change that mold in the future to the standard mold like it should have.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:16 am GMT by circlencircle
| vai777 wrote: | | Im goign to be really pissed if they decide to change that mold in the future to the standard mold like it should have. |
You and me both... With shipping it was $586, thats a lot for me. Honestly though I have a good feeling that is exactly what is going to happen.
-sigh-
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:19 am GMT by vai777
Im really begining to think I may cancel my order and get a set of 500 Nevada Jacks Clays
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:25 am GMT by circlencircle
| vai777 wrote: | | Im really begining to think I may cancel my order and get a set of 500 Nevada Jacks Clays |
To be honest it has crossed my mind but I really think these will be good chips either way, ya know? I guess I will sit on it for a day... Pictures online are so misrepresentative of what a chip will actually be like in person. The images are so enlarged and what not. When it’s in your hand your perspective is completely different...
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:32 am GMT by vai777
Im sure they will be great quality its just the little things that get to me sometimes. In reality Im sure they are better than The blue hip version and are probably the best home chip for the price.
Its just when you have to wait so long you would figure that everone would be on the same page as to what everyone was doing.
This goes for Paulson and the retailers of the new chips.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:05 am GMT by circlencircle
| vai777 wrote: |
This goes for Paulson and the retailers of the new chips. |
Hit it on the head there... I think I put most of it on dice702... not to bad mouth but they could have chosen no to sell them if they were wrong or they knew they would be that way and never told anyone the samples were different.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:57 am GMT by duma
seriously guys, what where you expecting from a French run company?
this is the worst Paulson could have done to their chips. deface the mold, limit the colors, and give us no options on the number of edge spots. o and if that wasnt enough, give us standard inlay size when the mold is clearly designed for a Grand inlay.
i actually cant stop laughing really. how do u screw up paulsons? well, they found a way. it really shows that they could give a rat's ass about the home market.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:21 am GMT by klezmerblues
First reaction, disappointment. Had hopes they would use same mold as in the mock-ups. The text takes up to much of the edges with the grand-inlay-design. Colours are fine though. Hope they release another mold.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:49 am GMT by ChkDeezNuts
As for them not giving a rats ass about the home market.....ask chipco how many "classics" they sell......ask NJ how many of the Clays they sell.....
The home market is the market they should be after......
This is crap.....how anybody can look at that mold and say that they will put a classic inlay is beyond me....the mold is clearly for a grand inlay...and on top of that...the mold is hideous....what would be so wrong with a freakin top hat and cane mold?
Dissapointed to no end....I was in the market for yet another set to accomodate tourney's......I now know which set not to get.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:59 am GMT by trogdoraoeu
| Quote: | | Im really begining to think I may cancel my order and get a set of 500 Nevada Jacks Clays |
I'm trying to figure out what to buy, but I'm not likely to do that. Those are rated slightly less favorably, cost more, and you won't see them going for $1.50+ per chip on eBay like the original Paulson Bonds. That top hat and cane goes a long way.
I've been told that 5StarDeal's chips will have the same mold and inlay size because Paulson dictated everything, although my source was off about the mold being different in the final dice chips.
I'm still leaning toward these. I have samples on the way. After the initial dissapointment about the blank space around the inlay, I don't think it's all that bad.
Dice should put up some pictures of some chip stacks to show off the colors/edgespots.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:00 pm GMT by TGuns
I agree that mold is not nearly as nice as the previous Paulson mold. I guess I'll wait it out for real pictures and reviews from those who purchased, or get some samples...
I think this is a case where everyone expected the new Paulsons to be really stellar chips, and we're all disappointed on some level with the outcome. Most likely these were rushed to production and it shows.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:07 pm GMT by TechGuru
Wonder if the label guys will come up with a way fill the grand inlay area with nice custom designs...
Samples Paulson's: http://www.apachepokerchips.com
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:21 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| TechGuru wrote: | | Wonder if the label guys will come up with a way fill the grand inlay area with nice custom designs... |
Interesting thought. I've always been a huge fan of scalloped inlays. This is pretty out-there, but it would be cool if someone could come up with sort of a scalloped white inlay with a circle cut out of the middle -- sort of a ring. If the size was close enough you could just stick them on around the current inlay yourself. IMO it would be a big improvement, but I'm guessing it isn't at all practical. I apologize for the cheesy graphic -- did it in MS paint.
I thought I remembered seeing some posts about someone getting stickers and sticking them onto blank chips themselves, but I can't find them.
If there were a group buy with a chip with double edgespots and scalloped inlays, I'd probably be all over it. Unfortunately neither TRKing nor pc.com will do them.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:45 pm GMT by vai777
Well ill stick with the order of 300 and hope they feel and sound a little better than they look. Oh well, I still refuse to pay $2 a chip on ebay.
after all its really how well you play the game not what chips you use.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:00 pm GMT by circlencircle
| vai777 wrote: | Well ill stick with the order of 300 and hope they feel and sound a little better than they look. Oh well, I still refuse to pay $2 a chip on ebay.
after all its really how well you play the game not what chips you use. |
As a matter of fact I got a shipping notice on mine today - they should be here by the 23rd. I'll try and track down a good camera and take some shots for anyone who is interested.
Hey Pokerchipreviews, what's your thoughts on these things?
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:26 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| circlencircle wrote: | | I'll try and track down a good camera and take some shots for anyone who is interested. |
Please do. I bet they'll look phenominal stacked up.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:43 pm GMT by vai777
I should be getting mine on the 24th. Hopefully!!
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:07 pm GMT by Prettey Toney
If the Paulson's came out when originally expected, I'd probably own a set. I like the bright colors, but can't stand the inlay. To me even the smaller inlay would be tolerable, if it bore something cool. Not a big Bond fan. It does look misplaced however. Although I'm not a big chipmaker, how freakin hard is it to cut a sticker a little bigger? If they are trying to use less sticker or something, wrong place to cut costs.
I guess I'd have to say that so far I am pleased that I made the decision to avoid the wait, hype, speculation, etc. and order a custom set of TRKings instead. Although I'm not sure exactly how they will turn out, I have an idea of what I am gettin: a no nonsense, 10 gram chip with a full inlay, different # & style edgespots each chip, and a time proven mold.
Like I said before, if the Paulson's hit the market, improve their chip, change the inlay, lower the price to below a $1 (personally, I'm still not convinced that these should sell for over $1), I will pick up a set at that time.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:18 pm GMT by vai777
Im still convinced that there was great miscomunication between the vendors and Paulson regarding the chips specs.
Thats the only real explanation for this error.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:01 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| vai777 wrote: | Im still convinced that there was great miscomunication between the vendors and Paulson regarding the chips specs.
Thats the only real explanation for this error. |
I heard Paulson dictated the mold and the inlay size and that the vendors had no say regarding these.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:01 pm GMT by PocketRocket
I'm sure they would make a mold for you if you put up the $50K+ that is needed to make the mold (like the house molds that the casinos use), plus the cost of producing the chip. They'll probably keep that mold just for you as well. Otherwise you'd probably have to compromise on whatever they had available. Right now, it looks like they have one chip style that will be available for over the counter sales and it will be limited to the 7/8" inlay.
| trogdoraoeu wrote: | | vai777 wrote: | Im still convinced that there was great miscomunication between the vendors and Paulson regarding the chips specs.
Thats the only real explanation for this error. |
I heard Paulson dictated the mold and the inlay size and that the vendors had no say regarding these. |
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:24 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| PocketRocket wrote: | | I'm sure they would make a mold for you if you put up the $50K+ that is needed to make the mold (like the house molds that the casinos use), plus the cost of producing the chip. They'll probably keep that mold just for you as well. Otherwise you'd probably have to compromise on whatever they had available. Right now, it looks like they have one chip style that will be available for over the counter sales and it will be limited to the 7/8" inlay. |
I can buy having to live with their mold but I'd be interested to hear why they were restricted regarding the inlay.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:09 pm GMT by adidino
I saw the video review and I wasn't impressed with the inlay design. Although it was a sample. I did find a site offering the new Paulson in March and from the picture it looks like a nice design. I'm just not sure if it will really look like this. Anyone here know?
Check it out..
http://www.pokerchest.com/pokerchest/befitogepoch.html
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:37 pm GMT by pokerchipreviews
| Quote: | | Hey Pokerchipreviews, what's your thoughts on these things? |
I don't have them yet. They are currently in the mail. I think it's safe to say the review will be up mid-next week.
I've got just a crap load of new chips coming my way.....going to be gobs of new reviews over the next few weeks.
Cheers,
John
www.pokerchipreviews.com
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:42 pm GMT by circlencircle
| adidino wrote: | I saw the video review and I wasn't impressed with the inlay design. Although it was a sample. I did find a site offering the new Paulson in March and from the picture it looks like a nice design. I'm just not sure if it will really look like this. Anyone here know?
Check it out..
http://www.pokerchest.com/pokerchest/befitogepoch.html |
It seems unlikely but this looks like it could be affiliated with trademarkpoker.com. The ad verbiage is exactly the same, the price is the same, and most importantly the chips (pictures) are the same. Either in this thread or the other Paulson chip thread more than one person has given plausible reasons why these chips will be the same as the dice702 chips regarding the inlay size. I don’t think anyone was impressed by the sample inlay with regards to design but certainly the size was the attribute.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:27 am GMT by vai777
I have been informed that Paulson called all the shots on these chips and the retailers had no say. Its a shame Paulson would conduct buisness in that sort of manner
I guess they figure thay have a hot product right now and they have the power to call the shots because they know people will still buy them.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:27 am GMT by duma
| vai777 wrote: | I have been informed that Paulson called all the shots on these chips and the retailers had no say. Its a shame Paulson would conduct buisness in that sort of manner
I guess they figure thay have a hot product right now and they have the power to call the shots because they know people will still buy them. |
like i said before, i wouldnt expect anything more coming from a French run company. Customer service is not their forte.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:31 pm GMT by vai777
yeah its a shame.
I feel sorry for the retailers who seem to be in a bind now. I havent seen 1 set sell on e-bay yet, but I still see morons spending $2 plus per chip on the old Paulsons.
I just dont get it.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:02 pm GMT by warewulf619
| vai777 wrote: | yeah its a shame.
I feel sorry for the retailers who seem to be in a bind now. I havent seen 1 set sell on e-bay yet, but I still see morons spending $2 plus per chip on the old Paulsons.
I just dont get it. |
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=63759&item=6155932600&rd=1
There's a bunch on ebay.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:18 pm GMT by vai777
I know there are a bunch on e-bay, but no one has purchased any yet.
Thats my point they are foolishly purchasing the overpriced older ones.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:09 pm GMT by PocketRocket
It's a common practice for web site owners/webmasters to just copy text from other sites. In the case of Trademark's wholesale customers, some will just copy the text content and pictures from either Trademark's site or their retail web site 5stardeal or pokerchipshopping.com
| circlencircle wrote: | | It seems unlikely but this looks like it could be affiliated with trademarkpoker.com. The ad verbiage is exactly the same, the price is the same, and most importantly the chips (pictures) are the same. Either in this thread or the other Paulson chip thread more than one person has given plausible reasons why these chips will be the same as the dice702 chips regarding the inlay size. I don’t think anyone was impressed by the sample inlay with regards to design but certainly the size was the attribute. |
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:19 pm GMT by PocketRocket
If they fronted the money for the mold, it would appear that they get the rights to call the shots. It's that easy. It's unlikely that any of the retail resellers are going to put up the kind of money to develop a custom mold, they'd never be able to get a return on their investment, but Paulson might be able to if they use the same mold for all of their home chips. Given the volume that that Paulson might sell to the home market, it's probably a good guess that they won't make as much money on it as they would on a house mold that they do for a casino. Take a moment and think about it. How many people from the general public (i.e. Average Joe Consumer in the shopping mall) are going to shell out a buck apiece for chips?
I think you may be speculating a lot though I'm not sure what your speculation might be based upon, if anything.
| vai777 wrote: | I have been informed that Paulson called all the shots on these chips and the retailers had no say. Its a shame Paulson would conduct buisness in that sort of manner
I guess they figure thay have a hot product right now and they have the power to call the shots because they know people will still buy them. |
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:26 pm GMT by PocketRocket
Lemme see ... I just took a look at the Dice702 auctions. He's selling Paulson home chips for $120 per hundred. Right along side of them, he's selling a rack of Bellagio $1 chips for $129. After thinking about it for a 1.5 seconds, it would seem that the $1 Bellagio chips might be the better deal. If I lose one, I know where I can get replacements, and if I tire of them, I know where I can get at least $100 for them, and if the casino discontinues the chips, they'll be worth even more. Wow! that was a tough one to figure out  It's tough being a moron.
| vai777 wrote: | yeah its a shame.
I feel sorry for the retailers who seem to be in a bind now. I havent seen 1 set sell on e-bay yet, but I still see morons spending $2 plus per chip on the old Paulsons.
I just dont get it. |
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:28 pm GMT by vai777
Im not speculating it is fact.
Paulson controlled the whole procedure, from the mold to the colors to the inlay size.
No retailer had any say whatsoever.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:40 pm GMT by PocketRocket
Yeah. Whatever you say.
| vai777 wrote: | Im not speculating it is fact.
Paulson controlled the whole procedure, from the mold to the colors to the inlay size.
No retailer had any say whatsoever. |
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:47 pm GMT by vai777
if you read the whole post I said $2 plus per chip
100 chips at 129.00 is $1.29 per chip
thats reasonable but I think the bellagio chip is ugly as sin.
and if you dont believ me just call up some of the retailers of the new paulson see what they have to say about the situation.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:35 pm GMT by PocketRocket
I'm sorry, but I really don't think you get it. Why would Paulson be soliciting input from retail dealers? Does Proctor and Gamble ask the clerk at 7/11 how they should design their box? Does your local Chevy dealer get an inquiry from GM's engineering department asking what they want in a car 5 years down the road? A retailer is going to buy the chip from a distributor or importer, and then sell it to all takers at whatever profit they can get. How many retailers are even interested in the design of the chip? Realistically, they just want to move it. Do you think the person on the phone has any interest in the design of the chip?
The only reason that anyone would get more than $2 for a single chip that isn't a collector's item is because they've fallen prey to postings on forums that give the illusion that they can't find such chips for less, and many may just be kids who have never seen the inside of a casino. Anyone who want's 'real' casino quality chips can walk into their local card room or casino and pick up $1 chips, some can even pick up fractionals. I'll go by two cardrooms going home from work, and can pick up racks of chips from either (hmm... why buy chips? ...)
| vai777 wrote: | if you read the whole post I said $2 plus per chip
100 chips at 129.00 is $1.29 per chip
thats reasonable but I think the bellagio chip is ugly as sin.
and if you dont believ me just call up some of the retailers of the new paulson see what they have to say about the situation. |
Posted Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:07 am GMT by vai777
Proctor and Gamble may not ask the clerk at 7-11 but be dam sure that there are endless amounts of dollars spent on researching what box that medicine goes in.
Paulson may not solicit advice from the retailer but it should be noted tht many dealers of high end products will end relationships with thier supplier. Weather it be quality control design aspect or just lack of thought being put into a product.
If you were selling chips wouldnt you be interested in the design of the chip, you would be a fool if you werent. Thats like having your own buisness and not giving a crap about the products you sell, and then wonder why you go out of buisness when nobody buys them.
Paulson has a firm grip on the casino market, and if they dont care about the home market then they shouldnt even bother with it. Why put out a sub par, or ill concieved product. Just can the whole thing and sell to the casinos.
Getting off track a little, go and ask the Gibson and Fender guitar companies about how much money they are losing to the custom guitar builders out there. Why because they probaly never asked the retailers what they waanted in a guitar, so they were forced to sell what ever they were handed. Therfore no one should wonder why stores such as MARS music have gone under and small Guitar builders like grosh and Anderson are thriving.
The bottom line is the retailer and the customers should both be approached when a product is in the develomental stages. PERIOD.
Posted Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:44 am GMT by Prettey Toney
Illegal contact on the defense
Penalty declined
Repeat first down.
Posted Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:22 am GMT by Nickmast
Vai is right. If you dont take the consumers opinion, you're destined to lose alot of $$$$$
Yes, I'm gonna get a sample of the new Paulsons. But, will I buy them if they aren't better than the other samples I have, NO!!!!! For $1.25 a chip, they DAMN well better be the best chip on the market!!!
A mold made for a grand inlay, YET they put a standard inlay on it. Right away, that's not the chips I want.
Good job of Paulson to Fuct up a good idea of a home market chip.
GIVE THE CONSUMER WHAT THEY WANT AND YOU SHALL THRIVE!!!!!
Posted Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:24 pm GMT by trogdoraoeu
| Prettey Toney wrote: | Illegal contact on the defense
Penalty declined
Repeat first down. |
Lol! Yeah, kiss and make up guys:)
I also am pretty sure the dice and 5star people had no say, which is unfortunate because I bet they would have given feedback like "use a slightly bigger inlay so we can sell more". I still may buy these though. I believe most of the "ugliness" just stems from their being new. Several good-looking chips out there have inlays that are too big for the indentation and cover up part of the hats and canes, etc.. It's likely people thought they were ugly when they first came out as well.
As for buying $1 chips from casinos, I'm seriously considering doing this. There are these setbacks though. You'll probably end up with a set of whites, blues, and maybe browns. You'll be haunted by questions like "how much are the $1 whites with red spots and the $1 whites with blue spots worth again?" during games. Having a colorful set with denominations still has an attraction for me. It's possible casino chips may still be going for $2 per chip (adjusted for inflation) in 5 years on eBay, but note that the old Paulson home chips are going for a lot of money too; in many cases more than casino chips. Try to buy a set of the old Paulson Bonds and see how much it will cost you.
|
|
