NY Times covers the scandal

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Rare is a relative term but some of his cards are what most would consider rare.

I think rarity is an absolute term in this context and just the inverse of population, so if there are 70 T206 Wagners that makes the card more rare than one of his cards with 100 copies but less rare than one of his cards with 10 copies, doesn't it?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think rarity is an absolute term in this context and just the inverse of population, so if there are 70 T206 Wagners that makes the card more rare than one of his cards with 100 copies but less rare than one of his cards with 10 copies, doesn't it?

I mean, I don’t believe there are many Wagners floating around in that condition. Nor any other of his cards for that matter. He has some of most difficult to obtain cards in existence.

[ruth_rookie]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I mean, I don’t believe there are many Wagners floating around in that condition. Nor any other of his cards for that matter. He has some of most difficult to obtain cards in existence.

Especially in high grade. His PSA 9 CJ Shoeless Joe is absolutely sick.

[leaflover]

Ken Kendricks has tripled his money on that "TRIMMED WAGNER" card.

I hope the NYT will report when and where the upcoming "Altered Card Fire Sale" will be.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think rarity is an absolute term in this context and just the inverse of population, so if there are 70 T206 Wagners that makes the card more rare than one of his cards with 100 copies but less rare than one of his cards with 10 copies, doesn't it?

Doesn't your example show rare to be a relative term? 1 card is considered rare relative to another, yet common when compared to a 3rd card rarer than them both.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Doesn't your example show rare to be a relative term? 1 card is considered rare relative to another, yet common when compared to a 3rd card rarer than them both.

Yes, in the same sense that tall is a relative term, but I wouldn't claim to be the tallest person in the world when others are objectively taller than I.

Maybe we're in agreement here. I guess my point is just that rarest is not a relative term.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Yes, in the same sense that tall is a relative term, but I wouldn't claim to be the tallest person in the world when others are objectively taller than I.

Maybe we're in agreement here. I guess my point is just that rarest is not a relative term.

Yea it was just an oversight in the article. I would assume the 25 rarest cards all have 1 or 2 copies in existence and also that I have never heard of most of them. But the comment that he just has a collection of condition rarities was an unnecessarily harsh description of what I personally believe is the finest collection I've ever seen or heard of. Even if that's not the way it was intended to read.