Logorithmic Set Collecting

[Jantz]

Eric

I would think the 1893 Just So set would be worthy of a high number since only one example of Ewing has ever been discovered.


Jantz

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Eric

I would think the 1893 Just So set would be worthy of a high number since only one example of Ewing has ever been discovered.


Jantz

It's funny. I started writing my mess before you posted. Unfortunately, it took me about a half-hour to write. I was happy to see that I wasn't the only one who mentioned the Just So set. It was the first thing that came to my mind when I thought 10.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by novakjr

It was the first thing that came to my mind when I thought 10.

Me too!


Jantz

[Matthew H]

Cool thread!

I would put old judge at a nine, same with just so. There are many unique player cards in the old judge set so IMO it would have to be on the same level as just so... Not on the same level as fan's cigeretts though.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cool thread!

I would put old judge at a nine, same with just so. There are many unique player cards in the old judge set so IMO it would have to be on the same level as just so... Not on the same level as fan's cigeretts though.

I think the distinguishing factor between the two is that almost EVERY card in the Just So set is like that.. With OJ you could at least simplify "your set" to just not include the unique cards, with the JS, good luck even getting one.

[Leon]

Hard to say what all of our beauties would be in rarity scales. It's sort of relative. I sometimes think of them in how many years it is between seeing one for sale.