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.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It may seem that rare cards appear in the market with more frequency than they should because generally people sell cards to raise money, and you will raise more from a rarity than a common. I'm not sure the typical auction catalog is a good cross section of what is out there. In a sense a good catalog offers the best of the best; maybe some of the tougher commons remain in people's collections because they wouldn't sell for that much anyway. I think this answers your question.

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I collect rare common cards because many of my cards mean more to me after the effort of hunting them down. Some of the sets I collect have no HOFers in them and few players anyone has heard of (e.g. 1953 Briggs Meats Senators), however they are very hard to come by, and the chase is a lot of fun. I don't know if this helps, but it is just my mindset.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yes Barry, Ive heard that somwhere before. How did it go?
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free!"

I know, I will try the b/s/t. Release them from your unwanting captivity, men. I have a welcoming home for your huddled masses, no matter how tired, poor, injured, other. Set them free!

And those whom I have already rescued, dstudeba, sure do mean much more to me than those which I easily came by. Some are tattered, but I remember how happy I was when they first arrived. I have yet to upgrade any of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Gil- have to say I lost you on this one. I think it went over my head.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Im sorry Barry. I accept that it is the communicator's responsibility to make his thoughts understandable. This is one of my weaknesses.

My response to you was intended to be perceived as: no comment offered on your statements regarding rare cards - because no comments were needed - I agree fully. Regarding more common cards, your statement " maybe some of the tougher commons remain in people's collections because they wouldn't sell for that much anyway" was construed by me as an additional observation of merit.

Specifically, collectors are likely holding on to cards which they don't particularly want, because it is too much trouble to get rid of them. In recognition of this status, and to provide an analogy to where I fit into this equation, I offered the US's stated philosophy regarding unwanted or unhappy people in foreign places. Of course, the foreign places in this analogy would be someone else's collection. And my position is that I may very well want some of those huddled masses (of cards not wanted by their current owner). Of course, it is fanciful that these cards are actually "yearning to be free".

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the autograph hobby, there are many early obscure player autographs that are rare or at least rarer than others. Many of these players played for perhaps a year or two in the league, and even many people on this board wouldn't have heard of them. However, to autograph collectors rarity is a quality in and of itself, and they will pay more fair money for the autographs ... Many autograph collectors are team collectors, and when a rare but obscure Yankee or Cardinal pops up, they will want it. They may have even been looking it for a long time.

As someone who deals with baseball autographs, I find that obscure or lesser player signed personal letters and official documents can be as interesting as those signed by famous players. You get to do a little research on their careers, where they were from. Jason Giambi and Nolan Ryan signed white baseballs with holograms can be so Shop at Home in comparison.

One of my favorite letters was from a player who's entire Major League career consisted of one game as a Detroit Tiger. However, that one game was when he was replacement for Ty Cobb when Cobb was suspended for beating up the fan in the wheel chair. As described in the letter, the Tigers team skipped the game in support of Cobb, and the Tiger management had to recruit local amatuer players to fill in for one game. By chance, this player was put in at Cobb's position in the outfield and he went down in history as Cobb's replacement. Whether or not anyone knows the player's name off the top of his head, this letter was more desirable than a Peyton Manning signed T-shirt.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

If I understand you correctly, then Mr. Cycleback, an autograph of an obscure player which is infrequently encountered sees demand from specialists who collect autographs by team and collectors who specialize in rare baseball player autographs.

I wonder if there is a counterpart in the baseball card hobby. Specifically those who specialize in rare cards, simply because they are rare. Andy Baran's website comes to mind. But I am not sure that rarity is the primary focus there.

Lots of people seek out scarce cards preferentially, but that is different.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I was saying that some collectors are aware of what is rare and not rare, and find rarity in and of itself a desirable quality in a baseball card or piece of memorabilia. Further, collectors don't place the same wieght on superstar status. There are active collectors who specialize in a common player or minor star, perhaps as the player/collector share the same home town or college or home team ... So, for varying reasons, there are collectors who find common player memorabilia worth owning.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

in the past/present i have collected cards that are rare/scarce for that very reason. but..as you say...such cards do not have universal appeal like AAA hof'ers like cobb, matty etc and can be hard(er) to sell.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I should note that, obviously, a Ty Cobb will sell for more than an equivillent Jeb Mowry (made up player, but if he existed he played briefly for the Highlanders, batted right and was nicknamed Highpockets). I was just offering reasons why people can find common player items desirable.

With many to most vintage college photo collectors, what team is shown is essential to deciding what to purchase. If a collector went to U of Texas and lives in Austin, he may have no interest in a Jim Brown photo as Brown went to Syracuse. This collector will pick an obscure Texas player over the greatest running back ever. This player will put a premium on famous players, but only those from U of Texas.

An influential force in collecting is team preferences. To the Yankees collector, anyone player who wore the Yankees pinstripes on the field is a member of the club. There's the story of the football(soccer) fan in London who filed for divorce when he discovered he had married a Liverpool rooter.

I grew up in Wisconsin, and my first jersey was a Bart Starr Packers jersey and one the early stuff animals given to me was a Buckey Badger. Many years later, would I pay more for a U of Wisconsin memorabilia over a comperative Iowa State or U of Maryland? Yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Perhaps I have an immature viewpoint on a collection. And, of course, there are different types of collections. But my intention in citing a potential collection of rare cards was one which would not be sold during the collector's lifetime. Otherwise, I view the collection as a temporary repository of rare items awaiting the offer which can not be refused, or perhaps solely a dealer's collection which was always intended to be broken up for sale.

Perhaps an example of this would be Mr. Newcomb's assembly of R314Ds. He appears to be continuing to attempt to assemble the entire set. I do not know his plans for the set, but he has been at it for quite some time. I do not imagine that a labor of love like this is easy to part with. And I guess that I believe that parting with it is not likely in his short term plans anyway.

I look at the thread "What do you regret selling" and I wonder, then I conclude that these desireable cards were never intended as keepers. And the thread really is "What investment choices do you wish you could make over". I have plenty of those, but none involving cards.

If any of the above is understandable, please consider it unintentional.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Gil

These two players are not obscure, and to serious NY Yankee autogragh collectors are highly valued; how-
ever, I would bet that at least 33 % of Forum members have never heard of them.

George Stirnweiss' autograph commands big $$......much more so than a Joe DiMag or a Mantle autograph.
Stirnweiss died in a tragic train accident shortly after he retired from BB, and therefore there are very few
signed items by him that are available.

Joe Page's autog. is scarce and goes for more $$ than the sum of Joe DiMaggio's and Mantle's autographs.
His tremendous relief pitching made the difference and enabled the Yankees to their World Championship
victories in 1947 and 1949. For unknown reasons he didn't sign much and he passed away in 1980.

There are many ballplayers, like George and Joe, whose signatures are now very highly valued; simply due
to the fact that they were not around in the early 1980's, when there were "tons" of BB card shows with
their huge autograph sessions.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

To answer part of your last question....I don't think a lot of collectors start collecting with the intention of selling very soon. At least not true collectors. My guess is more often than not it becomes a financial issue, especially with today's values, and then even true collectors must sell....even though they don't want to....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Thank you for that insight Leon. You may not realize it, but a guy can become so absorbed in his own collection, that he does not realize that others are different.

For example, if I was to choose to liquidate mine (say it isn't so. It isn't) I would be figuring ... well, I should be able to get $65. for this card, and maybe $155 for that ... etc. While others may be saying "I better get $6000. for this one, and maybe $4500 for that". Or other orders of magnitude differences in the thinking. That too is shown in the "What do you regret" thread, if you just open your eyes, Gil. Come on now. How many Oscar Ray Grimes cards were really shown in that thread?

But you say it so much nicer, Leon.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I have many cards that meet the "rare" test. Most are obscure, unfortunately, and therefore don't meet the "demand" test except from specialists. Now, get two specialists feuding over a card and the sky's the limit. For example, any 1928 PCL Exhibit has to be considered rare. I have been following this set for years and have seen only a couple of sets and a few assorted singles for sale. Any card from the set has to be considered to have a population well under that of the T206 Wagner. Yet with the exception of Averill and Reese, reaction to them is lackluster. Turning to the second part of the equation, I agree that there are also quite a few "common" cards that are anything but. I cannot even begin to express the challenge posed by many Exhibit sets from the 1920s and 1930s. The danmed things just don't come up for sale.

I think part of the problem is self-inflicted. The price guides over time have developed the unhelpful habit of listing a price for every card in every grade rather than leaving blank spaces, leading the reader to assume (1) that every card in every grade is available when the truth is that many of them have never even been seen, and (2) that the pricing assumptions inherent in a common designation apply to every lousy player in each set. The error comes up like this: I as price guide editor see lots of T207 commons sell for $20 each in vg condition. Joe Blow is a common player. Joe Blow should sell for the same as any other common, so I slap a common price tag on him, right? WRONG. A card listed as a "common" in a price guide is often listed there through inertia because the card had to be checklisted and "had" to have a price assigned to it in every grade, even though no one had ever seen it because in reality the card is RARE. When it does make it to market, the price soars because the specialists go after it and everyone is astounded that a "common" sells for so much more than book. The truth is, the card wasn't common at all. We are only starting to see the real, heavy analysis of this issue. I think that by the time the present generation of researchers, aided by the internet and computerized spreadsheets, finishes its work, the basic assumptions about the relative availability of many prewar "commons" will be very different than the conventional wisdom today. I know, as a price guide/card guide/article researcher and writer, that I've developed a feel for the subjects of my interest that is very different than the present conventional wisdom on those sets. Ebay is a very transparent market with almost no impediments to entry, yet I am often amazed at how little a percentage of my snipe on an item takes the item at auction on Ebay; I think I know something the others out there don't, and that something often is my perception of the relative rarity of a "common" card as compared to the conventional wisdom about the set.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

I believe there are different rules and a different mind set when it comes to certain collectibles. Do we aim for the Pez with feet or without?

As far as autographs go, I always find it difficult to compare this type of collectible to others because of the high volume of fraud. If you choose to collect or deal in signatures, you are essentially dealing with a product that is roughly 80% fraudulent and quite easy to duplicate. It is also a collectible that is invented by it's owner and doesn't cost anything to reproduce (by it's owner) and essentially given away to those who beg for it.

The comparison between George Stirnweiss and Joe Page is valid to some degree, but also incorrect. Stirnweiss perished in 1958 and while an All-Star, he would be only remembered by true die-hard Yankee fans for what he achieved throughout his 7-8 seasons in Yankee garb. I once saw a signed photograph sell for $250 and one was included several years back in an auction offered by Lelands for around $500.

Joe Page signatures are actually rather common and I have sold three over the past several years in three by five form for around $30-35. But I understand where you are going with this. Stirnweiss is popular because of his premature death, as is Urban Shocker, Harry Agganis, Nile Kinnick, Ernie Davis, Len Bias and let's face it, if Roberto Clemente was alive today, he's be commanding $75 a pop in the autograph circuit and he wouldn't be quite the legend that he is now. While Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio were giving the public what they want, filling heavy demand, Page was being ignored despite being a popular player during his time...which can essentially be said about any of those great Yankees. What if Don Larsen would have perished in 1957? How much would his signature bring?

The beauty of either cards or autographs is it's wide variety of opinions and interests on how these items should be collected. If there are two people on the polar opposites of the earth, both looking for an obscure signature and that comes up, one will be able to steal it if the other doesn't know about it or the bidding will get out of control. In some regards, rare cards and rare autographs remain a mystery to exactly what is up in some little old ladies addict who knows nothing about the stuff.

With cards, there are a lot of different ways to collect them and it all depends on the collector and nobody is incorrect in the way they collect because it's so personal. You can buy a PSA 1 T206 for $15 or that same card can be had in grade 8 for $6,000. You can hate T206's. You can love ghost prints. You can wait and wait and wait for Alleghany game cards. You can think that W552's are the greatest thing on earth!..and so on.

DJ