Originally Posted by BobC
Al, All due respect, but none of this makes any sense, or tells you anything meaningful. In your opening post you said your formula would help show how focused someone's collection is by comparing how focused they were in going after just the cards they really wanted, as opposed to them collecting cards in a more random or all-encompassing manner. That sounds like you're trying to figure out a way to measure what part/percentage of someone's collection is made up of things they actually focus on collecting normally. But now you're saying the formula is really to measure the relative concentration of high value CARDS in a collection. That is totally different than what you said in your opening post......and also still totally wrong.
In your formula you divide the total value of your collection by the value of the highest valued SINGLE CARD you own, not the highest valued CARDS plural. See the problem yet?
I already gave you multiple examples in my earlier post of how your formula doesn't really answer/measure how focused one's collection is under what it sounded like you were asking about in your original post. And as I just pointed out above, your formula will NEVER accurately tell you the relative concentration of high value cards in your collection, unless you own only one, single high valued card.
And that points to another problem/issue with your formula, what exactly is a high value card? I'm guessing there is no firm, set dollar amount, and imagine "high value" is going to have totally different meanings to different people. So there goes the comparability factor of your formula out the window as well.
I can't tell what your formula is really trying to measure. But after seeing and following more posts and comments, it kind of comes across, to me at least, that maybe you're trying to somehow measure how good a job someone does in keeping their collection to the fewest number of cards, yet at the highest possible value. And in so doing that, if/when they ever decide to sell their collection, or they pass away and leave the burden of selling it to their family, this "factor" is kind of a measure as to how fast and easy it will be for the collection to be sold for its' FMV. And if so, I have no problem with that, but your formula still doesn't really answer and address this question well either. And if that is what someone is truly trying to achieve, they should just focus on collecting the fewest number of cards possible, and use that number as the measure of their "scatter-factor" then.
Basically just take all the money you have and spend it all on a single card. And then as time goes by and you come into more disposable income, sell the first card and combine the net proceeds from that sale with the new disposable income to again buy another single (and hopefully more valuable) card. And then just keep repeating the process going forward. That way you'll always have the perfect focused collection (at least according to what sounds like your definition of a focused collection), with just a single card and a "scatter-factor" of 1. But to me, that doesn't really sound like collecting. To each his own though.
You also mentioned how in your definition of a focused collection that it actually makes a difference if you start collecting a particular set by acquiring the most valuable cards in that set first, as opposed to acquiring all the more lower valued commons first. But if your goal is to collect that particular set, why should it matter in regards to one's focus what order you acquire the cards in? You make it sound like a collector always has a choice when collecting a particular set to acquire any card in that set whenever they want. That is clearly not always the case, especially when some of the higher valued cards can be so expensive due to rarity, and might take a collector years before finally finding one for sale even. So in the interim, they shouldn't bother picking up any of the less valuable cards in the set because to do so makes them a less focused collector? That is absurd thinking.
Now I get your comments and thinking about how not having the most valuable card in a set might cause some collectors to lose interest (focus) in eventually completing the set, and abandon it. But that would just be some, not all, collectors. In fact, some collectors have been known to suffer from a little OCD, in which case for them, having all the commons and just needing the most valuable card or two in the set to complete it would likely make them even more obsessed and focused on finishing the set, not less. This also kind of goes along with the idea that some collectors may just somehow acquire what is the most valuable card in a set, so they start thinking, hey, I've already got the toughest/most valuable card, why not go after this set then. But that is by far not the sole reason that many collectors start to work on a particular set.
It seems to me that in devising and coming up with this concept of focus and creating your "scatter-factor" formula that you may have innappropriately based things on just your own collecting point of view, and neglected to consider that of the many others in the hobby. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your collecting point of view, everyone should collect what and how they like. But to use such a single point of view to create a formula that is supposed to apply to the entire hobby as a whole just really doesn't work or have any meaning for those with different views.
|