[ls7plus]

With regard to Steve B's point, rarity is relative to the amount of collectors seeking the item. Many collect T206; other deep pocket collectors collect iconic items; many collect hall-of-famers and strive for their best cards to the extent $$ permit. Hence, Wagner is rare relative to the number of people who want one. You're right that many members of this board have cards that are rarer than the T206 Wagner in an absolute sense--I can think of at least 5 or 6 pre-war cards that I have that fit that bill right off the top of my head, and there are probably more. And I know with certainty that many board members have collections in that respect that literally dwarf mine--I've seen them here on a continuous basis. But rarity alone has never had a direct correlation to value--condition and significance (or popularity, if you like--I consider popularity a subset of significance) are also necessary factors in the equation. Not too many collect the 1933 Butter Cream set, but a lot of people collect Babe Ruth, and only two or three of the Babe's cards from that set are believed to exist. If a card from that set was a common and that rare, under those circumstances, its value would not be expected to be very high. But because the rarest is the Babe, REA recently sold a VG-Ex example for $111,000.

By analogy, a good example in coins is the 1895 proof Morgan silver from the Philadelphia mint, an issue that was available only in proof, and 880 were struck. Now, we wouldn't consider a card with a surviving print run of 800+ to be rare, but the 1895 [plain, no mintmark, Philadelphia mint] Morgan silver dollar in proof is, because no examples whatsoever were struck for circulation, and many thousands of people collect Morgan silver dollars by date and mintmark. The consequence is that even one in off grade can easily fetch $40,000 or more.

As far as Tony's post is concerned, a very large part of me is in agreement, which is why I am so conflicted about McGwire now, a player I truly loved to watch play. I wouldn't even look at any of his cards for years. But I'm also reluctant now to be so judgmental--I certainly wouldn't want my whole life to be judged based on some of the things I've done, and wouldn't do over again. And younger generations are not nearly as concerned with the tie baseball tradition has to statistics, a tie that the 'roid guys did their best to throw out the window. That's why I think that the pioneer theory might have some future merit.

Best regards,

Larry