Comparing a cards scarcity/rarity to a T206 Wagner
 

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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%

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.

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.

Interesting comparison, I like it.

I edited what I said and added a little more to it after you posted. Sorry!

Interesting numbers I hadn't thought of before.

If you have the money, all of the above are available to you at the click of a button. Maybe the Ruth is difficult, the others are just pricy. Dave Shean is probably the toughest e90-1 without considering demand.

A memory technique to remember Rare vs Scarce.

Scarce = Demand / Supply and is directly proportional to $.
“ Rare” is a low pop report. Something Scarce doesn’t necessarily have to be rare and vice versa.

I’m sure there must be an economist on this Board that has a formula that takes into the account of Demand because they study scarcity all the time.

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).

7 of the known T206 Wagners are ungraded, 5 of which IMO would rank in the top 10 condition-wise.

Just my nickel worth - everyone makes great points. If I remember right, when the 1st T206 was going to be sold, there was a greart deal made that it was 1 of only 5 known (at that time) ones. That fact and the person who bought it was really publicized in newspapers and magazine articles. In otherwords. it got lots of publicity. Everytime after that it sold there was more of the same. It was always touted as THE rare card. No one ever mentioned or, if it was, it was ignored that more Wagners had been found. My point is the publicity is what makes this such a "rare" card. Only inside the hobby can the points made above and discussed, outside the hobby publicity reigns.

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.

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?

I like this idea as a fun little exercise. Rarer than Wagner, within the context of it's set.

1932 US Caramel

PSA Graded: 2,163. Lindstrom POP: 1
SGC Graded: 843 baseball + 59 boxing + 37 Golf = 939, with 0 Lindstrom's
Total of 3,102, with 1 Lindstorm.

Final percent: .00032237%

Of course, this isn't actually right. I believe there are 2 Lindstorm's out there known, and big cards are graded much more than commons (Wagner is actually tougher than the figure in POP reports would suggest).

I would think, off the top, this has got to be up there if not the #1 as the set is not all that rare. Perhaps a unique Old Judge pose bests it.

Monty Python did a skit on this: "The man with three buttocks and two Wagners."

1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson
 

Its nice that you can buy rarer cards of Mathewson for way less money,
Like Crofts cocoa and candy love that horizontal pose.

That's where they've all been hiding, nice group.

Bob, I pretty much agree with your entire post. However, the Doyle is a bit of an oddball in that: the t206 set is the granddaddy of all trading card sets (regardless of subject/sport), the Doyle is needed to complete that set, and (I believe) only 9 Doyles are know to exist, one of which is in a museum/collection permanently. Thus, there can only ever be 8 complete, 524 card T206 sets.

The Spring 2022 Mile High auction had a t206 Wagner (the Charlie Sheen Wagner) and a Joe Doyle NY Natl. The Wagner sold for $3,060,000. The Doyle sold for $1,030,000. Clearly the Wagner is more “valuable”. But, for what it’s worth, the Doyle had 44 bidders while the Wagner had 45 bidders.

I think this is a great discussion, and I agree with most statements, including rarity vs scarcity in relation to value. But the Joe Doyle Natl is an oddball bc of its roll as the necessary spike piece in the greatest set of all time.

Scarcity is scarcity. The only germane thing is the number of copies known of the item. By most estimates there are sixty to seventy Wagners. There are ten BN Ruths. The Ruth is 6x-7x scarcer---end of story. What you are looking at is the relative scarcity of the card compared to others in the set it is part of. Taking your argument to its' illogical extreme a unique card that was not part of a set would have a ratio of one and not be considered rare.

I disagree with this Jay when someone compares a specific card to a T206 Wagner the scarcity of the Wagner isn't just the number of examples that exists it's the number of examples that exist compared to the number of cards that exist in the T206 set. Using your high estimation on the Wagner's that exist it's 70 examples out of several Million.

Rare is a darby chocolate complete box 🤭🤭

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

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.

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

Some nice cards shown thanks

And great thread and dialogue

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.

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

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

Dougherty 11
Mitchell 49

Yes, I know, and that is also part of why measuring "demand" is so very hard. Had I said to pick between a T206 Wagner and say a T206 Cobb, that's a no brainer, everyone will go for a Wagner. But make it between a Wagner and a Doyle Nat'l, and now you might get some people to have to think about it for second.

As you point out, the Doyle Nat'l is actually much rarer in terms of the actual number that exist than the Wagner. And anyone trying to complete the T206 set is obviously going to want both cards. But if given a choice where you can only ever have one card or the other, but not both, and money is not an issue, which card do you suspect the most people to choose? And so in essence, the one card the most people are going to pick between the two would seem to then have a greater level of demand overall. How you can quantify and then measure that demand level difference in a statistical or other manner, I don't know, unless you look at the difference in price people are willing to pay for those two cards maybe. And because so many more people would likely take a Wagner over a Doyle, the demand for the Wagner is greater, and therefore the price for the Wagner will likely always be greater. Which it was proven to be in that recent Mile High auction you referenced.

And don't forget, not everyone necessarily wants to complete a T206 set. And for those people just looking to collect a great card, the T206 Wagner is the pinnacle, the holy grail of baseball cards that even those who've never actively collected baseball cards in their life still are likely aware and have heard or know of. Then ask the same people about a T206 Doyle Nat'l card, and get ready for tons of blank stares. It ends up being a great question and conundrum then as to why else wouldn't the bidders in that Mile High auction pay the same, or even more, for that Doyle Nat'l card versus what ended up being paid for that Wagner.

Did you know 3% of all Vermeers are "Girl with a Pearl Earring"? It's not very rare really.

Interesting Glen but it doesn't meet the criteria, it's not a card and it isn't in a set but you could have used your Leader Novelty Hornsby.

T206 Wagner 0.0130
Leader Novelty Hornsby 0.8333

The demand is the tough part but you can get some kind of idea by comparing the information equally the E90-1 Mitchell and Dougherty are a good example some say the Mitchell is scarcer and others say the Dougherty is, no offense to the Mitchell group but Ed who is probably one of the most knowledgeable members on the set says that Dougherty is scarcer than Mitchell and all the numbers support that using the same sources to measure how many are graded and how often they come up for sale. The Mitchell in general probably gets more recognition for being scarce in the set so the demand on that aspect is probably higher for Mitchell but is it enough to balance out the scarcity and sales difference?

Population %

Dougherty 0.3016
Mitchell 0.4826

Cardtarget sales

Dougherty 11
Mitchell 49

All great points Pat, this is a very interesting thread you started. It is one of those issues where it is virtually impossible to truly measure and somehow quantify all the different factors that can impact and influence any particular card's overall desirability and ultimately its price in the marketplace.

Rarity is the simple part of it, and extremely easy to measure and compare. If there is only one known example of card A, and two known of card B, it is empirically shown and proven that card A is the rarer card. But then if/when those two cards show up for sale, and card B always sells for some ridiculously higher price than card A, that clearly demonstrates card B is scarcer than card A as more people apparently want and have a greater desire/need for card B, as shown by the higher price they're willing to pay for it versus the rarer card A.

What creates this scarcity is the level of desire for something (demand) versus how easy it is to satisfy that desire (supply). Measuring/quantifying the reasons behind the obviously higher desire or demand for card B in my example is impossible though as there can be an almost infinite number of reasons someone may want or prefer it over card A. Ask 10 different people why they all want the same card, and you can very easily get 10 different answers. And the level of that desire or need also tremendously factors into the scarcity of an item.

As in the earlier discussion of the T206 Wagner versus the T206 Doyle N.Y. Nat'l card, you can possibly have a somewhat similar number of people want, need, and desire both cards, but different levels of that want, need, and desire will have them wanting one of those two cards more than the other. And regardless of which card is actually rarer, they'll ultimately show those different levels of want and desire (ie: demand) by how much more they're willing to pay for the card they want the most. And because of the almost infinite number of variables that can go into determining the public's reasons for their desire/need of a particular card, and the different levels of that desire/need that each person can then have, the prices people are willing to pay may be the only reasonable measure to somehow truly incorporate all the variables in determining the demand for a particular card, and thus its true scarcity.

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.

Okay, I admit this made my wife ask what I was laughing at.

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.

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.

Most likely there wouldn't be as big of a separation with the raw numbers but the survivability of a Cobb over Dougherty or Mitchell over the years has to be a lot higher which relates to another impressive fact about the scarcity of the Wagner.

Attachment 541140

Really interesting read. Thanks for posting it.