A discussion on the term "rare".

[Chicago206]

Perhaps the single most overused adjective on all of ebay, and especially pertaining to collectibles such as cards, is the term "rare".

Since the word is simply a relative term, its sort of difficult to quantify it with absolute parameters. For instance, an entity such as gold could easily be described as rare even though there is enough to fill 3 Olympic sized swimming pools with all the known gold mined by mankind. Conversely, I could easily fit all 10,000 numbered copies of the 1991 Donruss Elite series card of George Brett into my bedroom dresser, yet not many people would consider that to be a "rare" item.

So what exactly does the term "rare" mean to you in regards specifically to sports cards? Could an Uzit backed T206 card be considered rare with perhaps 250-350 in existence? Or does it take a bigger hitter such as a BL460 (maybe 40-60 known) to qualify?

Does a "rarity scale" exist in the trading card world? As an ex coin collector, I know that such a scale does exist for round shiny objects. My personal opinion on the subject is that rarity is just a tiny overall attribute of any object. There are coins that number in the low teens, but as victims of their own obscurity, they suffer when they cross the auction block. As we all know, supply is just one side of the all important equation! For an item to truly be considered "rare", I think that no more than 100 examples worldwide should be known to exist. What are your thoughts?

[barrysloate]

The term "rare" has become no more than a marketing tool used by anyone trying to get a little more money for whatever he is selling.

I've thought that incorporating the numismatic rarity scale to cards wouldn't be a bad idea. For those unfamiliar with it, coins are ranked from Rarity 1 to Rarity 8, with R-1 being most common and R-8 signifying 2-3 examples known. I think it would be an excellent idea, except how accurately do any of us know how many examples of any card exist? I guess we have a pretty good idea, but even a card like a T206 Wagner has no precise population. At least a rarity scale quantifies a subjective term.

[Leon]

As someone who enjoys collecting "rarity" in the card world I can testify that the term is way overused. I think about it very often when I see some cards that used to be (1-3 known) have a "find" of 50 show up and then they aren't really "rare" anymore, or at a minimum, much more plentiful than previously thought. The T205 and T206 Drum finds from the last few years as well as the M101 "Everybody's" and "Mall Theater" finds made some of those cards go from single digit known to something a bit more accessible. They are still "rare" compared to most other issues but not like they once were. One thing that many owners of these, and other, "rare" antiquities don't remember is that the "supply"(rarity) side of the supply-vs-rarity scale is only half of the value equation. And I think it could even be argued it is the less important, with respect to value, side of the equation. Case in point, '52 Mantle, T206 Wags, '33 Goudey Lajoie etc...There is such great demand for those cards that their value will always be high. I would venture to guess I have hundreds of cards in my collection more rare than any of those 3 cards but very few that would garner their kind of prices in auction. Great subject.....

[Matt]

And just to add - everyone views rarity in terms of their own collecting approach - e.g. as a type collector, Leon mentioned 50 cards showing up and some might no longer consider that issue rare, though, maybe only 1 of each player showed up and so another collector would view each player's card as rare.

A perfect example of this is the E101 and E102 issues. The E101 set has twice as many cards as the E102 set. E102s were often considered to be a tougher type card then E101 (though current populations show far fewer total E101s then E102s), but because the E101 set has so many more subjects, FAR fewer cards of each E101 subject exist then E102. The market is slowly catching up with that.

[Frank A]

Rare is a term used to get the most money you can out of an item. If you look on ebay every day there are so many rare items every day that it is unbelieveable. Rare should only be given to those items that are truly low in production numbers. An original painting, some early test coinage, etc. I feel that if there is fifty of something it is not rare. Scarce perhaps, but not rare. Ebay has taken the rarity out of many items that were thought to be rare. Just an opnion. Frank

[teetwoohsix]

In the T206 realm,I think with the explosion of interest in rare backs,and rare front/back combo's,there will probably be a "re-birth" on what is considered a "rarity".

For instance,there are many Red Cobb's out there,but TedZ pointed out that there are (I hope I'm getting this right,and apologize if I'm not) something like only 4 known examples of the Red Cobb with the Sov.460 back.That would make that front/back combo extremely more rare than the Wagner,Plank,and the Magie error.But I guess it hasn't garnered that status because there are many more Red Cobb T206's out there in population without regard to "backs".

I love the fact that people are really starting to recognize the front/back combo's more and more,because I think it is creating sort of a "new standard" of rarity within the T206 set,and a new respect for the difficulty of certain cards/combo's........

Sincerely,Clayton

[ethicsprof]

'At least a rarity scale quantifies a subjective term.'
I agree wholeheartedly.
best,
barry

[Potomac Yank]

The four letter word "rare," has totally lost it's meaning.

Whenever I see it, I instantly equate it to the four letter word "HYPE."

You can have all the surveys you want, they're just a drop in the bucket of the unknown raw cards out there. ... but they are fun to read. :)

[Matt]

You can have all the surveys you want, they're just a drop in the bucket of the unknown raw cards out there.

Joe - I'm sure that's true, but it stands to reason that they are representative of the greater distribution, just like a poll represents the full population. If SGC has only graded 100 cards of a particular issue and 5000 cards of another, we can safely assume the ungraded cards also exist in correlating ratios.

[Potomac Yank]

Joe - I'm sure that's true, but it stands to reason that they are representative of the greater distribution, just like a poll represents the full population. If SGC has only graded 100 cards of a particular issue and 5000 cards of another, we can safely assume the ungraded cards also exist in correlating ratios.

*

I beg to differ ... a poll does not represent the full population ... It only represents the ones that took the poll.
How often have you looked at a poll, and passed by it?

An example, this forum is active in many ways, to those in it, it almost appears like the whole Cardoholic world is here.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

We're just a dot in Cardoholic Collector/Investor Portfolio World. :)

Stay well,
Joe

[cbcbcb]

I think rare is much better used with memorabilia than cards.

[Frank A]

I really believe that it's time to list the cigarette makers of tobacco cards seperate. I know I will hear a lot of cons about it, but each brand should be on its own. Bulking these all together in a price guide is not how it should be. There is enough info out there now to have a good idea of what backs go with what players of each cigarette company.

[oldjudge]

Interesting question! The dictionary defines "rare" as not widely known or found, valued for its uncommonness. However, I think when most of us think of rare we think of a much more restrictive definition such that a rare card is one that a collector will only have an opportunity to acquire, cost aside, at a few points in their life. By the dictionary definition the T206 Wagner is indeed rare; it is not widely found. I haven't found any recently. However, by the way I think most of us in the hobby think of rare, the Wagner is not rare; if you had the money you would have the opportunity to bid for one several times a year. I think the rarity scale that Barry mentioned is the best way of handling rarity.

[Matt]

*

I beg to differ ... a poll does not represent the full population ... It only represents the ones that took the poll.

It only counts the ones who took the poll; however, the concept of a poll is an attempt to statistically represent the entire population, through sampling a small segment. Maybe you don't agree with the concept of a poll, which is your right. When done properly, with a truly random sample, there is statistical validity to the results, within the given margin of error.

[rman444]

I've thought that incorporating the numismatic rarity scale to cards wouldn't be a bad idea. For those unfamiliar with it, coins are ranked from Rarity 1 to Rarity 8, with R-1 being most common and R-8 signifying 2-3 examples known. I think it would be an excellent idea, except how accurately do any of us know how many examples of any card exist? I guess we have a pretty good idea, but even a card like a T206 Wagner has no precise population. At least a rarity scale quantifies a subjective term.

Barry - I think Alan Hager did this in his book many years ago when he was still operating ASA. Obviously his ranking and valuations were a joke to many, but I have always thought that conceptually what he was trying to do with regards to scarcity was interesting.

Edited to add that Gary Engel's Japanese Baseball Card Price Guide also attempts to rank sets with scarcity levels (R1, R2, etc) which helps the novice collector quite a bit.

[barrysloate]

Richard- the rarity system works if it is accurate. Coin guys seem to have a better grasp of how many of a certain variety are known. I don't think baseball card collectors ever looked at the hobby that way. But it may be in the future.

[Matt]

I think it would be an excellent idea, except how accurately do any of us know how many examples of any card exist? I guess we have a pretty good idea, but even a card like a T206 Wagner has no precise population. At least a rarity scale quantifies a subjective term.

In other words, it doesn't measure absolute rarity, but relative rarity. We can say accurately that a T207 common is rarer then a T206 common, even without knowing exact populations of each.

[barrysloate]

Matt- there is a distinction between subjective and objective measurements. To say a Wagner is rarer than a Plank is more subjective; it's just an observation that they come up for sale less often.

But to say there are eight Doyles known, which in coin terms would make it a Rarity-7, is much more precise.

[Leon]

The US mint has circulation numbers of each coin, or better said, how many of each was made. It is usually a specific number...even if many have been lost or destroyed there is a number to start with. That is not a luxury that pre-war card collecting can have except in very rare (no pun intended) cases.

[Matt]

The US mint has circulation numbers of each coin, or better said, how many of each was made. It is usually a specific number...even if many have been lost or destroyed there is a number to start with. That is not a luxury that pre-war card collecting can have except in very rare (no pun intended) cases.

Right - but what we can determine with a fair amount of precision is relative rarity. I don't need to know exactly how many E101 Cobbs exist vs E102 Cobbs to make a determination that the E101 is rarer then the E102. We have enough information to accurately assign a 1-10 number to each card in terms of rarity, since that scale is relative to other cards.

You start with the rarest card at one extreme and the most common at the other and work out the math in between. I wrote a post about 2 years ago (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90489) regarding E-card rarity that did just this; they naturally broke into about 6 or 7 groups of rarity.

[barrysloate]

Yes , relative rarity is a useful tool, and that is something you learn when you are in the hobby for a long time. Also, if an E101 Cobb in Very Good condition typically sells for $1500, and an E102 Cobb in the same condition sells for $1200, you assume the E101 is relatively scarcer. But it may not always be true.

[cozmokramer]

most confuse rare -

is it a limited number of something made? or is it a limited number of something available?

i'm guessing the truth is a combination of the two.

[Matt]

most confuse rare -

is it a limited number of something made? or is it a limited number of something available?

i'm guessing the truth is a combination of the two.

In the forum, we generally use rare to describe the # that exist and scarce to describe the # that make it to market.

[Leon]

In the forum, we generally use rare to describe the # that exist and scarce to describe the # that make it to market.

That is the way I think of it too!!

[Potomac Yank]

In the forum, we generally use rare to describe the # that exist and scarce to describe the # that make it to market.

*

VS the scarcity mindset.

Guess which one overwhelms this forum? :)

[botn]

This means that something can be considered scarce once demand exceeds supply. Nothing can be rare based solely on demand.

[birdman42]

This means that something can be considered scarce once demand exceeds supply. Nothing can be rare based solely on demand.

I think rarity and scarcity are different things. Rarity is an absolute concept, having to do with the amount or number of something in existence. Scarcity is relative, comparing the amount of something with the demand for it. If there are only three of something in the world, but only two people want one (and they're not getting into a macho contest over who has more), then it's certainly rare, but it's not scarce.

Think about a Ten Million Obak. It seems like a scarce card, not a rare one. (And I might be showing my ignorance of Obaks with this example.) There's always a ready market for one when it does appear, and you might have to wait a while for that to happen.

Bill

[Matt]

This means that something can be considered scarce once demand exceeds supply. Nothing can be rare based solely on demand.

correct.

[DixieBaseball]

Rare to me is 25-50 examples
Ultra Rare to me is 2-25 examples.

While I am at it, I would say Scarce to me is 50-100 examples of any one card. So I would say the T206 Honus Wagner for example is scarce or very scarce. (Meaning 50-75 examples would be very scarce and 76-100 examples would be scarce)


Just some quick thoughts on how I value the word Rare and Scarce. Of course I would plug in Ultra Rare and Ultra Scarce to meet these 2 in the middle.

2 cents...

[glchen]

I think of rare in terms of supply and demand (and I agree the term scarce is a better word, but I believe this is just semantics since most people think rare = scarce even though they're not exactly the same). Therefore, if say there are 50K active baseball collectors in the world, if there are 25K copies of a card, I would consider that abundant. If there are only 100 copies of that card, I would consider that rare. However, I would also put that in terms of cards that these collectors WANT to collect. For example, anyone would want to collect the T206 Honus Wagner just like everyone wants to collect the 86 Jordan RC. However, there are some sets, like Game Owned sets or regional sets, that not everyone wants to collect. The people who want to collect those issues can be fanatics, but the normal collector would probably pass on those sets. So even if there are only 500 cards of those available for that kind of set, since there aren't that many people who want to collect them, they wouldn't really be considered rare, IMHO.