Cards some collectors think are rare, but are not.

[darwinbulldog]

I'll tell you what's rare -- for a card that's listed as rare to actually be rare.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'll tell you what's rare -- for a card that's listed as rare to actually be rare.

True

Or that rarity always equals value. It may, or it maybe just a selling tactic.

[Al C.risafulli]

That's a triple-printed card, if I'm not mistaken.

I always was bothered by the perception that the 1938 Goudey high number cards are somehow more difficult than the lower numbers. My experience was the exact opposite, especially when trying to find them in high grade. People pay a premium for the high numbers, but I think the low numbers are tougher.

-Al

[bbcard1]

I used to own a 1960s convertible that a car collector friend of mind described as rare and undesirable.

[ALBB]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I used to own a 1960s convertible that a car collector friend of mind described as rare and undesirable.

Now that funny !

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I used to own a 1960s convertible that a car collector friend of mind described as rare and undesirable.

Reminds me of the old line from an academic book review: "This book fills a much-needed hole in the literature."

[BioCRN]

I've noticed a lot casual collectors and new vintage collectors confuse "costs a lot" + "old/vintage" with rare.

T206's aren't rare. 1968 Nolan Ryan rookies aren't rare. There's no reason a 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr should cost anywhere near what it goes for...

Demand is there, though. That drives the cost.

Some of the rarer non-HOF/star stuff I own doesn't even have much of a market compared to same-player cards of other issues.

[packs]

The rarity in question:

[raulus]

Do you want to poke the 311 Mantle bear by hinting at the possibility that it's a DP?

[ClementeFanOh]

I’ll admit this example is low hanging fruit, it just happens to rankle me. How about when eBay sellers list T206 Polar Bear and Old Mill backs as “Rare”? Trent King

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I’ll admit this example is low hanging fruit, it just happens to rankle me. How about when eBay sellers list T206 Polar Bear and Old Mill backs as “Rare”? Trent King

Why would this bother you? They are both only 4% to 6% of the total t206 population vs. 52-54% for Piedmonts or 25-30% for Sweet Caps. So they are roughly 1/10 as common as the most common back, or 1/5 as common as the 2nd most common back. No they aren't Drums or Uzits or Lenox, but to stick with this thread - the TOTAL PSA graded PB population is around 10K - less than ALL of the PSA graded Mickeys noted in the first post (just 1 card from 1 set).

Link to backs by % from PSA - https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...ifferent-backs

To further drive the point - 2 of toughest cards outside of the big 4 - are Polar Bear backs. That's the only thing unique about Demmitt & O'Hara STL - they are only available in Polar Bear backs - so they only have roughly 5% the population of other cards. With the exception of my green Cobb - they are the priciest cards in my collection (among the worst shape, too).

I do understand that on a relative basis they aren't nearly as scarce as the actual "rare" backs - Broadleafs, Carolina Brights, etc. But I have seen other members complain when the "lesser" rare backs like Polar Bears or Old Mill or Sovereign get referred to as "off-backs" If you can't call them rare backs and you can't call them off-backs what the hell are you supposed to call them? Uncommon backs? Less than rare backs? Not quite rare backs?

Sorry if this comes off as hostile - as it isn't meant to be, I'm just curious on how everyone else views this.

[G1911]

I think there’s a big gap between things the hobby believes to be true but are demonstrably false (like the 1966 Topps Grant Jackson being some special short print, when it is just as common as every other card on its row and multiple other rows) and the people who are just completely lying. Nobody truly thinks the 1958 Mantle all-star is rare, it is someone lying who just lists everything they want to juice as ‘rare’ with no regard for honesty or an objective truth.


What counts as rare is up for debate but there are numerous hobby short prints that aren’t. 1955 All-American is another example of a classic popular set with numerous popular fictional rarities that make no sense if you examine it.

[brianp-beme]

It all seems to depend on differing perspectives of the word 'rare' and the era that the card comes from. To me, a prewar card needs to be in the low double digits for population to be considered as such.

Because of this, the T206 Honus Wagner is not in my opinion rare, as there are something like 60 to 70 known examples. But it is constantly described by most as being rare. Desirable and scarce, yes. Rare, in my opinion, no, unless you judge it against postwar levels of availability for cards in mainstream sets..

Brian