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

[rman444]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 regarding E-card rarity that did just this; they naturally broke into about 6 or 7 groups of rarity.