A comparison is made between two recently obtained independent sets of contact charge exchange data taken by Cottrell, Lowell and Rose‐Innes, and by Fabish and Duke, respectively. Discrepancies between the two sets of data are ascribed to the utilization of different polymer preparation and processing procedures. Both sets of data are consistent with the model of contact charge exchange via localized states in the polymer proposed by Duke and Fabish. The origin of the localized electronic states in the polymers is different in the two data sets, however, because the polymer processing introduces extrinsic states in one case but not the other.