Comparing a cards scarcity/rarity to a T206 Wagner

[Pat R]

I could have posted this in one of the hobby pet peeves thread but because it comes up many times every year on here I thought it would be better to start a thread about it.

If you're comparing a cards scarcity to the T206 Wagner the particular cards scarcity like the Wagner should be based on that particular cards scarcity in the set that it's in for the true scarcity of that card.

Here are the numbers on a few that are often mentioned as scarcer than the Wagner plus a couple of recently mentioned comparisons. I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

img140.jpg

[Casey2296]

Interesting numbers Pat, especially the Baltimore News numbers, it'd be fun to own a common from that set but they're more rare than the Ruth.

Does the number of cards in a set skew the ratios? A 524 card set vs a 30 card E set?

[cgjackson222]

Yes, interesting numbers.

I think there are multiple ways of looking at scarcity.

Certainly, looking at a cards' scarcity in relation to its set is one way.

But I think it is also valid to look at the total numbers of a card.

I think a strong case could be made that the Baltimore News Babe Ruth is more scarce than the T206 Wagner, given that there are 5x more T206 Wagners out there.

[x2drich2000]

Lets look at two other cards from T206: Red and Green Cobb.

Red (2365 PSA/1378 SGC/3743 Total) = .93 % total percent of set
Green (1009 PSA/619 SGC/ 1628 Total) = .40 % total percent of set

Something tells me few people are going to call either of these cards scarce but by your thinking both are more scarce than the BN and E92 and the Mitchell is between the two.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Lets look at two other cards from T206: Red and Green Cobb.

Red (2365 PSA/1378 SGC/3743 Total) = .93 % total percent of set
Green (1009 PSA/619 SGC/ 1628 Total) = .40 % total percent of set

Something tells me few people are going to call either of these cards scarce but by your thinking both are more scarce than the BN and E92 and the Mitchell is between the two.

+1 agree I understand your approach but to me scarcity is based on the population of itself. So as mentioned above the Baltimore News Ruth is a lot scarcer than the Wagner.
And to me it is even scarcer because of how frequently the Ruth comes up compared to the Wagner that seems to be 3 or more a year and last 2 years more than that

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Lets look at two other cards from T206: Red and Green Cobb.

Red (2365 PSA/1378 SGC/3743 Total) = .93 % total percent of set
Green (1009 PSA/619 SGC/ 1628 Total) = .40 % total percent of set

Something tells me few people are going to call either of these cards scarce but by your thinking both are more scarce than the BN and E92 and the Mitchell is between the two.

No now you're back to comparing cards outside their set and if you do that there are thousands of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but most are not as scarce as the Wagner is in the T206 set.

Using the E90-1 Mitchell Compared to an E90-1 Cobb and Dougherty which many consider tougher than Mitchell and the pop report shows that it is.

Mitchell 56 of 11,603 graded E90-1 = 0.48%
Cobb 374 of 11,603 = 3.22%
Dougherty 35 of 11,603 = 0.30%

[JustinD]

I honestly would not call this a reasonable measure as I know of no ungraded T206 Wags but there are astronomical numbers of ungraded T206 cards in collections and drawers. I have several personal friends with ungraded cobbs both red and green and I certainly do not know every person.

I see where you are going, but using comparison to sets such as Baltimore News with most known examples graded in comparison to a set that I personally would believe more ungraded examples exist just seems to have a lack of defense.

The Wagner in truth is far smaller to known set examples, likely a couple more positions past that decimal.

However, I think pure numbers is a strong measurement and this measurement proposed is disregarding far more rare cards simply because the entire set is rare. I guess it’s perspective for the collector, I like pure rarity as my ultimate dream card is a 1910 Washington Times Ty Cobb. I see that even with unlimited funding, as there is one, I would still likely never own it. With the Wags, it is rare based on production numbers but a guess is that at least 4 have come up for sale in around the past 18 months. I could certainly have one.

That’s my measurement, could I possibly find one? With the Wagner, it’s a resounding yes.

[BobC]

Rarity has to do with the how many there actually is of an item. Scarcity has to do with how many of an item there is versus how many people want one (ie: demand). That is why I suggested somehow bringing in that demand factor to the numbers Pat had worked. Technically, what Pat is measuring is just the rarity of particular cards to the total number of all other cards in the same particular sets. It doesn't necessarily speak to how rare a particular card is to how many of each of all the other cards are out there. T206 Wagners are rare in relation to most all other T206 cards out there, but are by no means that rare when compared to all the other cards out there in all the other sets that have fewer existing cards than there are T206 Wagners. And there are an unbelievable number of very many cards that are much, much rarer than T206 Wagners are. But because so many people collect T206 cards and want/need that Wagner for their collection, the number of those Wagner cards that exist can't even come close to satisfying the demand for them, making them extremely scarce. Much more scarce than most all cards that are actually much rarer than a T206 Wagner.

To put it another way, if only one of a particular card exists, that is the rarest an item can be, a true one of one. But now say there is only one person in the whole world that really cares about and collects that card, and they go out and buy it. There was a total supply of only one of that card, and it completely satisfied the entire demand there was for that card. And since that one single card fully met the demand that was out there for it, the card isn't scarce at all. Extremely rare, yes, but scarce, absolutely not.

The bigger problem then is how do you actually measure and quantify that demand? And compounding it even further is how do you then accurately measure supply as well, and also take into consideration that just because supply exists, it doesn't mean it will always be made available for sale. In this regard, a card that is scarce, but not particularly rare, can be considered rare in regard to how often it becomes availabe for sale. And as others have pointed out, the use of just two TPG's pop reports is likely not a very accurate measure of supply in many cases. Interesting to talk about and discuss. Just not sure a wholly accurate formula or measure can be created to truly measure and compare a card's level of scarcity to that of other cards. Maybe the best and only real way we have to even somewhat accurately measure and compre scarcity among different cards is simply their price.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Pat R

No now you're back to comparing cards outside their set and if you do that there are thousands of cards that are scarcer than the Wagner but most are not as scarce as the Wagner is in the T206 set.

Using the E90-1 Mitchell Compared to an E90-1 Cobb and Dougherty which many consider tougher than Mitchell and the pop report shows that it is.

Mitchell 56 of 11,603 graded E90-1 = 0.48%
Cobb 374 of 11,603 = 3.22%
Dougherty 35 of 11,603 = 0.30%

You would also have to adjust for the fact that more people have cards like the Cobb graded (and the E90-1 Mitchell perhaps since it was a known scarcity moreso than the Dougherty), than other cards, so its a little distorted.

[Leon]

That is interesting too.... There are many raw cards but this a telling sign the Cobby is, most likely, more common than the other 2.

Originally Posted by Pat R

No now you're back to comparing cards outside their set and if you do that there are thousands of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but most are not as scarce as the Wagner is in the T206 set.

Using the E90-1 Mitchell Compared to an E90-1 Cobb and Dougherty which many consider tougher than Mitchell and the pop report shows that it is.

Mitchell 56 of 11,603 graded E90-1 = 0.48%
Cobb 374 of 11,603 = 3.22%
Dougherty 35 of 11,603 = 0.30%

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I could have posted this in one of the hobby pet peeves thread but because it comes up many times every year on here I thought it would be better to start a thread about it.

If you're comparing a cards scarcity to the T206 Wagner the particular cards scarcity like the Wagner should be based on that particular cards scarcity in the set that it's in for the true scarcity of that card.

Here are the numbers on a few that are often mentioned as scarcer than the Wagner plus a couple of recently mentioned comparisons. I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

Attachment 540431

Great points Pat, and definitely some interesting and neat info.

And if you want to take that a little further and with a slightly different tangent to it, if you could then somehow also determine and factor in how many people are actually interested in and actively collecting each of those different sets and/or particular player or card, I think you'd see some even more dramatic results. T206 cards are arguably the most widely collected and sought after pre-war set/cards there is. If you could somehow quantify that difference between T206 cards/set, and the other cards/sets on your list, I think the differences would be even more striking.

Not sure how you could even begin to quantify what I'll call the demand factor, for lack of a better term, though. And even if you could, then not sure how one would possibly factor it in with what you've already come up with. Maybe we could somehow base that demand factor on card prices, since price is typically a function of supply and demand. You've already come up with some supply figures, and we can look up prices, now just have to solve for demand.

Am probably overthinking it though. And sorry, not trying to take away from your thread, but add to it somehow. And there are a lot more cards that are equally, if not possibly more so, scarcer than a lot of those on your short list.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I could have posted this in one of the hobby pet peeves thread but because it comes up many times every year on here I thought it would be better to start a thread about it.

If you're comparing a cards scarcity to the T206 Wagner the particular cards scarcity like the Wagner should be based on that particular cards scarcity in the set that it's in for the true scarcity of that card.

Here are the numbers on a few that are often mentioned as scarcer than the Wagner plus a couple of recently mentioned comparisons. I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

Attachment 540431

Interesting data but you are comparing Apples to Oranges. What’s also interesting is the Total Set Pop of the 1914 Baltimore News (32) is less than total number of the T206 Wagner (53).

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Interesting data but you are comparing Apples to Oranges. What’s also interesting is the Total Set Pop of the 1914 Baltimore News (32) is less than total number of the T206 Wagner (53).

Interesting that you say that because this is the reason I posted the thread.

It's not even apples to oranges if your comparing a rare card in a rare set to one card if the average pop per subject is less than 53 the whole set is rarer than a Wagner T206. Even worse is when someone posts something like an E121 Herpolsheimer's or an E92 Croft's Cocoa and compares it to a Wagner now they're bringing the back into consideration for that card but not the Wagner if you do that then you have to take into account Wagner's rarest back which is a Piedmont 150 with one graded example, yes I know it's trimmed but if it was correctly graded it would still be in the pop report as an A.

If you want to compare apples to apples all you have to do is take the numbers I posted pick a card from that set figure out what % of the set that card is and then what the % number of that card is graded.

Using DJ's red Cobb is a good example he was trying to say I was calling it scarcer than a Baltimore News because like a lot of people he was using the wrong comparison here's the apples to apples version of graded Cobb's

Red Cobb = 0.190% of the set
3743 graded = 0.932% of graded T206's

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Interesting that you say that because this is the reason I posted the thread.

It's not even apples to oranges if your comparing a rare card in a rare set to one card if the average pop per subject is less than 53 the whole set is rarer than a Wagner T206. Even worse is when someone posts something like an E121 Herpolsheimer's or an E92 Croft's Cocoa and compares it to a Wagner now they're bringing the back into consideration for that card but not the Wagner if you do that then you have to take into account Wagner's rarest back which is a Piedmont 150 with one graded example, yes I know it's trimmed but if it was correctly graded it would still be in the pop report as an A.

If you want to compare apples to apples all you have to do is take the numbers I posted pick a card from that set figure out what % of the set that card is and then what the % number of that card is graded.

Using DJ's red Cobb is a good example he was trying to say I was calling it scarcer than a Baltimore News because like a lot of people he was using the wrong comparison here's the apples to apples version of graded Cobb's

Red Cobb = 0.190% of the set
3743 graded = 0.932% of graded T206's

I see what you’re what you are saying now. Nothing wrong with this argument. I’m a little slow.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by EddieP

I see what you’re what you are saying now. Nothing wrong with this argument. I’m a little slow.

No problem Eddie everyone knows there are lots of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but it's redundant to post a single card and say it's scarcer than a Wagner from a set where the whole set in general is rarer. What I'm saying is show me a card that's scarcer in that set than the Wagner is in the T206 set, I don't know if there is one except maybe certain variations like a Doyle N.Y. Nat'l.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

No problem Eddie everyone knows there are lots of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but it's redundant to post a single card and say it's scarcer than a Wagner from a set where the whole set in general is rarer. What I'm saying is show me a card that's scarcer in that set than the Wagner is in the T206 set, I don't know if there is one except maybe certain variations like a Doyle N.Y. Nat'l.

No, there are no cards scarcer than the Wagner in the T206 set Pat. The Doyle N.Y. Nat'l may be as rare, or even rarer than the Wagner, but given honest and knowledgeable choice, name one T206 collector you can think of that would choose that Doyle (or any of the other rare variations/backs in the set) over a Wagner T206 card. The only real scenario under which I could ever see someone knowledgeable not picking the Wagner happening is if a collector trying to complete their T206 set already had a Wagner card, but was still missing the Doyle N.Y. Nat'l (or some other) card. And even then, I wouldn't just automatically bet against them going for a second T206 Wagner anyway.

And the same goes for any of those much rarer cards/sets on your list. Given an honest choice between any of those specific cards you mentioned in your initial post of this thread, if they could pick and have only one, which card do think would be chosen by the majority of collectors to own? Demand over supply is what creates scarcity.

Think about it. "Hey everyone, I own a complete T206 set, including the Big Four!" or "Hey everyone, I own two T206 Wagners!". Which statement (as a collector, not a flipper, dealer or investor) would you rather be able to make?

[ricktmd]

The Collins batting t206 proof must have incredible value these days

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by ricktmd

The Collins batting t206 proof must have incredible value these days

That Collins is a total dream card of mine. This one is not a bad consolation (although the Collins crushes the Matty), and likely meets the rarity/scarcity thing

[Yoda]

Lew Lipset once told me that he thought the E90-1 Speaker was tougher than the Mitchell.

[mrreality68]

Some nice cards shown thanks

And great thread and dialogue

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by ricktmd

The Collins batting t206 proof must have incredible value these days

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

That Collins is a total dream card of mine. This one is not a bad consolation (although the Collins crushes the Matty), and likely meets the rarity/scarcity thing

These are two examples of why I posted the thread, it's not about whether a card is rare it's about when someone compares a card to the T206 Wagner. For it to be as equal a comparison as it can be you need to compare that cards scarcity in the set it is in to how scarce the Wagner is in the T206 set.

The Collins wouldn't be a fair comparison because it's not in the set and the Matty should only be compared as a White cap Matty.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I could have posted this in one of the hobby pet peeves thread but because it comes up many times every year on here I thought it would be better to start a thread about it.

If you're comparing a cards scarcity to the T206 Wagner the particular cards scarcity like the Wagner should be based on that particular cards scarcity in the set that it's in for the true scarcity of that card.

Here are the numbers on a few that are often mentioned as scarcer than the Wagner plus a couple of recently mentioned comparisons. I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

Attachment 540431

Would anybody want to guess at an approximate total population of T206 cards (not just graded cards)? I'm sure there must have been a few threads that have covered that question, but I just don't recall what that approximate number might be.

[SJO1971]

Originally Posted by Fred

Would anybody want to guess at an approximate total population of T206 cards (not just graded cards)? I'm sure there must have been a few threads that have covered that question, but I just don't recall what that approximate number might be.

2 million total surviving population is a rough estimate based on past info.
250 million estimated print run originally.
Anyone have other figures?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by SJO1971

2 million total surviving population is a rough estimate based on past info.
250 million estimated print run originally.
Anyone have other figures?

I think both numbers are way too low.

[SJO1971]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I think both numbers are way too low.

Scot Reader once did an analysis which was based on the estimated population of the rare Demmitt and O'Hara (St.L) polar bear where he extrapolated this estimated population to provide an estimate of 3000-6000 of each subject surviving. This would mean 1.6 to 3.2 million surviving total population.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by SJO1971

Scot Reader once did an analysis which was based on the estimated population of the rare Demmitt and O'Hara (St.L) polar bear where he extrapolated this estimated population to provide an estimate of 3000-6000 of each subject surviving. This would mean 1.6 to 3.2 million surviving total population.

Yes I know I have read Scots publication his estimates were based on the information he had at the time in 2006 when he surmised that there were 200 to 400 each of Demmitt and O'Hara surviving, there are 351 Demmitt's and 320 O'Hara's in the PSA and SGC pops alone.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

You would also have to adjust for the fact that more people have cards like the Cobb graded (and the E90-1 Mitchell perhaps since it was a known scarcity moreso than the Dougherty), than other cards, so its a little distorted.

That might be true but that's why I put this in my original post

Originally Posted by Pat R

I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

The cardtarget sales which include graded and ungraded for Dougherty and Mitchell are

Dougherty 11
Mitchell 49