The commonness of rare cards is less perplexing than the rarity of common ones

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Whew. I bet that I can not make any sense out of that title, but I'm going to try:

Everywhere you look, it seems, relatively costly cards are being touted as "rare", and I am sure that they are. Rare cards in this hobby appear to be (as a group) readilly available.

On the other hand, common cards can require extensive searching to identify a single example. I know that this is true because I recently secured a card which I had been searching for since 2004 - an e120 Oscar Ray Grimes. This represents probably the fifth consecutive completed search of greater than one year duration which has encompassed such unnotables as a batter up Medwick, a Willards Toney, and others.

I therefore conclude that specific cards (perhaps outside of the realm of Goudey, Playball, t206, etc.) are more thinly traded than their "common" designation implys. And in general, the acquisition of an inspecific rare card is a comparitively easy task to accomplish.

Assuming that to be true, why obtain a rare card, unless it has universal appeal? Examples of this universal appeal would include HOFers, key cards, and I guess other cards. Generic rare cards could include ... I was going to sat r314Ds of minor leaguers that no one has ever heard of, but last time I said something like that - I was told to read more about the minor leagues; so I will leave this blank.

So, why buy a generic rare card? Is that a type set: rare cards. Maybe it should be. Certainly rare sets are collected.