NY Times covers the scandal

[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.