Setting Definitions for Rarity of Cards
 

Perhaps in the industry we should have a common definition of "rare" - for pre-war, under 1,000? examples - for post-war, under 10,000?. and then perhaps a common definition of "ultra scarce" - for pre-war, under 100? - for post-war, under 1,000? and then perhaps a "handful" for pre-war under 10, and post-war under 100? Trying to assign numerical value to terms I think would be an interesting idea.

Becomes a little more interesting with T-206 of course as a Frank Chance T-206 may not be rare, but one with a particular back might be.

Ideas/views with regard to setting terms for number of examples that survive?

Best,
J

We have had this discussion so many times I think many folks don't really want to get into it again. In the pre-war space, when there are a hundred of something, it's not usually considered rare. The real question becomes the difference between rarity and scarcity. Scarcity has to do with the number of folks who want something (demand). Even if something is rare, with only a few known, it may not be too valuable when hardly anyone wants one. I have a whole collection that mostly fits that description. :(

Look on the bright side Leon, if the right people wanted those cards you may not have been able to buy them!

If any of my 3 National table partners wanted something I did in auction, I would have no chance. My collection is of things most collectors don't want. I am good with that. I don't like easily obtainable stuff as much as I do stuff that is usually not seen...heck, it would be easier to obtain a T206 Wags, with enough money, than it would many cards in a type card collection. I love looking at things that don't get shown every day. Collect what you like....

I agree Leon, you have some killer stuff.

Thank you. So many of our members have great collections it's always fun to see what they have acquired (when they care to share). Each person is passionate about what they collect. The more passion the more I like it. It makes the blood flow :).

rare
 

It doesn't matter when the card was issued. 10,000 isn't rare. Neither is 1000.

rare definition.
 

Seems pretty simple to me:

https://www.google.com/#output=searc...w=1366&bih=626

Rare: "not ocurring very often".

By itself it is an "inconclusive conclusion" which someone has drawn based on other evidence which they don't present. This definition itself implies relativity and subjectivity. Often depends on your definition of the "time frame" or relative to other items similiar in nature.

For you to call something rare you must also, give the reason to what you are comparing it to, to draw that conclusion. It is rare in comparison to X.

You can call shit rare, all you want....it means nothing without the conclusion to the premise.

Kevin

+1!!!
Val

SOme simple rules
 

if I own it, not rare -- if Leon owns it -- very rare

If you make 50 of a card and only 25 people want it (manufactured scarcity) -- you have an easy card

And supply and demand -- the rarest and most expensive stamp is a postally used dirty and written on 1c british guyana stamp which wikipedia (and we know how reliable the internets are) says is locked up in a bank vault because the owner died while in prison.

My goal is the find of Fans Card including Cobb and Ruth :o

Rich

10,000 is pretty rare if 10,000,000 want it...

Rare and not rare can also apply to the very same card. As in, "It was rare when I bought it, obviously not so much when I went to sell it."

ONLY ONE KNOWN, should be a category onto itself. Of course, there maybe a few others out there not found yet. But this would seem to be the true rare. Now of course, as stated earlier, if not too many want it, then it is not scarce.

yet nothing like what the definition says rare means and implies...

i thought i answered thoroughly enough for this topic to be permanantly closed.

kevin

Apparently everyone didn't think so.

I am with Jeff. One of two things, you were either joking around with us or sadly mistaking. No subject is permanently closed on this board.....:)

fallacy
 

I guess, much like religion and science, when faced with an undeniable argument there will still be people(lots of them) who don't believe what is being said or shown to them.

Verbal falacy:

Argument from Innuendo:
This fallacy consists in directing others to a certain conclusion through a careful choice of words or sentences that suggest but do not assert that conclusion. For example, a dean of students, asked whether a graduate had any disciplinary problems, replied "No, we were never able to convict him of any violations of college rules." The suggestion here is that the university had suspected and/or investigated disciplinary problems. The use of innuendo is not strictly fallacious (for example, in the above example); there isn't anything inherently fallacious about suggesting a conclusion implicitly without offering evidence, and innuendo often occurs outside the context of an argument. The fallacy arises in cases when such an argument is used to shift the burden of proof, making it similar to the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

You guys can continue to debate it if you would like to :confused: :rolleyes:

rare certianly could have a time presense....but again, you just proved my point perfectly. simply stating its rare without further clarification is not enough to make an argument that something is rare. you need to provide the evidence to support the premise you are making.

your also, making a claim, then negating your claim, and that is simply a statement. people can accept a statement for what it is, when no claim is being made. if you make a claim you have to back the claim up. right?

kevin

Kevin,
Might I suggest a class in sarcasm detection.

Jeff

sarcasim
 

i took the whole thread to be sarcasim and humorous.

people have opinions that they feel trump logic and fact or fail to look at that as the first explanation to something, before giving an opinion.

you can see how silly the debate really is now right? this question would never have been posed if something thought about it before posing the debate.

i propose the debate should not exist. the arguments should be closed and the thread deleted now that we alll know what rare means.

LOL.

kevin

I generally don't look at threads on this board through the prism of my Intermediate Logic class. Also, threads aren't generally over when one participant declares them to be. Maybe a new trend has started.

I did shave with Occam's Razor this morning.

All in good fun. Nothing wrong with a more scholarly perspective, it's just another POV.

Rare is when you look for comparable sales on a card and your only reference point is an auction from 2008 for another card from the set in different condition. Rare is when you get pestered repeatedly by type/player/set collectors to sell the card. Rare is when the TPG calls you up and says they can't slab it because they don't know what it is. Rare is when you pass a card around a table of collectors and dealers at the National and no one has seen it before. Rare is when you have had the card on your want list for years and haven't seen it anywhere. Most of all, rare is when I am selling it.

Rare and Rarer ; case closed ; Thank you Adam
 

While it is certain that prices depend on the demand of the card, I do think it would be nice to have a more precise scale that simply refers to absolute rarity. The coin world has a number of different scales to express that, the Sheldon Rarity Scale, the Universal Rarity Scale, and the Sholten Scale.

It would be nice if someone in the baseball card world created a rarity scale for cards, as it would hold auction houses accountable for how rare they describe a card. I think nowadays, auction houses often exaggerate a card's rarity, to the detrimental effect of the collector.

Rare are buyers of cards, for what I paid for them from certain auction houses.

Rare is rare..."scarce" has to do with demand, as has been stated. And both are actually relative terms, so have different meanings to different collectors.

If you're referring to determining value then Your proposal really seems to not matter to the collecting world. Take the T209 Presley/Pritchard I sold a few years ago as an example. Maybe a handful of that card known at best. Or, the T206 Lundgren w/ PD 350 back which I currently own one of five known. Neither card has a value of more than $1,000 in the condition they are normally found. But, take the T206 Cobb/red background which is available to buy by the dozens in a PD or SC back and grade it a 4, you can exceed the purchase price of a card that only a handful of are known. The often used "rare", "scarce", "tough", etc. to describe a card go in one eye and out the other with me. If I like it and can afford it then I buy it. A Higgs Boson is rare, not a piece of cardboard. At the end of the day it's about how a card is marketed and how many want it.

+1 :)

That's an easy one!

If he bought a very high grade red background E98 in say 2009 and wants to sell it now his statement is entirely true in all respects. There were very few until recently, now there are hundreds.

Steve B

I'm like Belushi in Animal House
 

It's not over thill we say it's over

Rich

you just restated the same thing...again... then added the missing parts i have been saying need to be there, which require clarification...."now there are hundreds"

that gives definition to the rare claim. its all about surrounding context which is the point of my entire argument.

without them there, the statement that it is rare is not complete and out of context.

kevin

Leon has nailed it here. "Relative" semantics cannot (or rather SHOULD NOT) be legislated.

If i am trying to sell you a duck, and I call it a turkey, then you, as the buyer, should educate yourself as to what ducks (and turkeys) look like. For example, I recently bought a Puma knife. They are a well respected German knife company. But the Puma I bought was their "new price point line" made in China. It was horrible. I am stuck with it, but I am educated now.

Noone needs a governing body to legislate for their protection. Governing bodies suck at this sort of thing. Making false claims is different than stating a relative opinion.

IMHO, the terms unique, rare, and scarce pertain ONLY to the SUPPLY of an item, and NOT to the DEMAND for an item.
Val