How Orderly is your Card Collecting? What is your Scatter Factor?

[rugbymarine]

Very interesting question.

My scatter factor is about 15, which I think is is the lower side (but that's just a hunch). In the last 6-7 years, I've worked on being more focused and intentional on what I collect. I used to work on sets, and lose focus, only to sell off the set at 75% complete.

My brain is wired such that I like to collect sets, but I'm not great at finishing 200-800 card company sets, so now I typically collect player sets and some HOF RC. That's been a good compromise for me.

[bnorth]

I can't get you any fancy numbers but I can post one corner of my card room. Yes all those big boxes are full of cards and the rest of the room looks similar.

[Empty77]

I appreciate this concept, as I have thought for a while it would be cool to have some sort of collecting statistics akin to the on-field statistics for players.

But while this one may work in some scenarios, there is something keeping it from being universal because it doesn't work it my situation. Mine is an easy test case because I am a player collector exclusively and limited to nearly just one, so it would seem I should have a scatter factor near to 1, but the math as is works out to 16, which seems antithetical to the spirit of the initial post.

So similar to the conundrum of how to account for company sets (and I agree it seems most sensible to take each together as a 'single' item), it seems the same should apply to a player set.

So instead of taking the value of a literally single item I instead take the value of that entire single-player segment of my collection, then divided into the total I get 1.05. That number does seem more representative of the reality in my case and more in keeping with the spirit of the meaning for 'scatter factor' as I interpreted it in the OP.

I realize it's much easier in my situation to estimate the $ numbers since my collection is comparatively much smaller by volume than the average, and so also easier to keep track of because it is focused, and that instead, the initial equation was meant to be a quick way for a more complex collection to estimate itself. I'm just suggesting we could trial enhancements to the equation to perhaps make it more meaningfully universal.

[Seven]

I have a small collection, I focus on quality not quantity, though there's a bunch of commons scattered around in various boxes, throughout the house. I had a bunch of Junk Wax, got rid of most of it a while back, before the boom of course.

[egri]

If I'm valuing my collection right based off of the crazy runup in the past year and a half, my scatter number is roughly six, which I guess makes sense; my 1953 Topps project gets the bulk of the attention, with the occasional side project that gets pulled out of mothballs when I hit a wall with the Topps.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I can't get you any fancy numbers but I can post one corner of my card room. Yes all those big boxes are full of cards and the rest of the room looks similar.

Reminds me of my own main card collecting room, only yours is way more organized and less crowded than mine. LOL

As for the idea of coming up with some way to measure and quantify what the OP terms as a "scatter-factor", not so sure the proposed methodology will really tell you much of anything important or useful, and it definitely doesn't tell you anything about how focused someone's collection is. The idea of coming up with a "scatter-factor" formular also kind of implies you can then measure and compare one collector's supposed focus to that of another, which I don't see how the OP's formula will ever do.

First off, what does the value of cards have to do with one's collecting focus? Different cards can have way different values, yet they can all be part of someone's collection focus. Whether you collect just the '88 Donruss set, or all main Topps base sets from '52 through the current year.

Secondly, if you use your single, most valuable card value as the denominator in your "scatter-factor" formula, you are basing everything on a single card, which makes no sense at all. Say I had a collection of 1,000 cards worth $50,000, with my most valuable card worth $2,500. I'd have an average value per card of $50, and per your formula a "scatter-factor" of 20. And lets also say my collecting focus was to collect just the oversized main Topps card sets from '52 to '56, and every one of the 1,000 cards I had collected so far was a card from one of those first five years of Topps sets. So therefore in fact, my collection was at that point 100% focused on my collecting goal. Now lets say I came into some money and suddenly had the chance to acquire a really nice '52 Topps Mantle for $50,000, so I grabbed it. Well now my collection has 1,001 cards, which are all still 100% part of my collecting focus, but now my average value has approximately doubled to about $100 per card, while my "scatter-factor" has dropped to 2. So explain to me how by buying just one single card it can supposedly cause such a dramatic change to my collecting focus, especially when every single card I own is definitely still part of my collecting focus, even after buying the '52 Mantle.

And thirdly, take my original situation before buying the '52 Mantle. Lets say I didn't even buy another card, but suddenly the value of my most expensive card increased from $2,500 to $52,500 (which isn't that far fetched with what has happened during this pandemic). Again, my average value per card doubles to about $100, and my "scatter-factor" per the OP's formula again drops to about 2. So explain to me how I don't even buy or sell anything, and yet my collecting focus still dramaticaly changes suddenly.

Sorry to say, but for measuring the focus of one's collection, and then being able to compare it to others, the OP's formula is pretty much useless.

Maybe a better way to achieve what the OP is looking for is to first determine exactly what your collecting goals/focus actually is/are, be it sets, teams, players, HOFers, rookies, etc., or any or all combinations. And then figure out how many of those cards you have that match and go towards completing/fulfilling those collecting goals/focus. And then divide that number by the total number of all cards you own to determine the percentage of your collection that is truly part of your collecting goals/focus. In my examples above, the 1,000 cards (1,001 when you add the '52 Mantle) owned were all part of the collecting goal/focus, so the focus factor was always at 100%. Though by no means a perfect measure, I think this is much closer to what the OP was trying to come up with, and something that can more meaningfully be compared among collectors. You'll still have questions and issues though, like how do you account for duplicates, or what if you suddenly lose interest in something you formerly focused on, but don't anymore. And of course there's always the person that collects whatever they like and catches their fancy. Even though they are the poster child for, and definition of, a non-focused and ultimate scatter collector, if they truly only collect what they like and have an interest in, then technically they are 100% focused with their collection and its goals.

[mrmopar]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I can't get you any fancy numbers but I can post one corner of my card room. Yes all those big boxes are full of cards and the rest of the room looks similar.

I become a little overwhelmed when I go into my card storage area. I'd say that for the last 2+ decades, my focus has been on obtaining only items I like. Value didn't play a factor, other than to allow me to buy or trade for what I could afford. I stopped buying packs and boxes and shifted to only buying sure things, aside from a random lot here and there. When I go to a show or shop, same result. It's not that I was buying collections or anything early on, I was just as apt to buy a box of the latest issue and maybe a few singles. Now, it would be more like a handful of singles and a few oddball items/small sets and that is it.

However, I just like too many things. I don't discriminate between vintage or new, singles or sets (smaller sets usually), mainstream or oddball. I collect just about anything/everything Dodgers, but will add a Yankee or Giant just as enthusiastically. Baseball is my primary interest, but have dabbled into other sports and even some non-sport as well. I like autographs & smaller memorabilia (cans, cups, figures, etc - storage factor) as well.

Clearly my focus has lead to a collection that is perfect for me, so I imagine someone like me walking into a shop loaded with my stuff, figuring they'd be amazed!

The overwhelming feelings I get are mainly coming from imagining how I could dismantle something like this that I've worked many years to assemble. I might open a few boxes and find 100s of items that I bought individually and are now together, but should not be sold as a group! I really don't even know where I would start. I don't want to burden my wife or kids with it, but in reality, I would like to be separated from the process so I can't interfere.

[rugbymarine]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

The overwhelming feelings I get are mainly coming from imagining how I could dismantle something like this that I've worked many years to assemble. I might open a few boxes and find 100s of items that I bought individually and are now together, but should not be sold as a group! I really don't even know where I would start. I don't want to burden my wife or kids with it, but in reality, I would like to be separated from the process so I can't interfere.

This right here is why I have tried to stay focused, and buy items that I enjoy, but also buy items that would be very easy to liquidate if they had to be sold quickly. I hate the idea of someone other than me feeling burdened by trying to sell my collection. With a lot of collections, they would be forced to sell for MUCH less than what the cards are 'worth'.

There was a thread a while back about how people planned on this sort of thing, and it was eye-opening.

[Gorditadogg]

BobC, the Scatter Factor is pretty basic. It measures the relative concentration of high value cards in your collection. Yes, I guess you could plan your purchases to manipulate your Scatter Factor number, but why would anybody do that?
For example, if you are collecting ’52 Topps, you could start by buying a starter lot off ebay. Or you could instead set aside your funds and get the big four first. Those are two different approaches to set building. The first way is dabbling, much like my collecting habits. I have ’39 Play Ball without Williams and Joe Dimaggio, ’52 Topps without Mantle and Mays, and a 2003 Topps Chrome Refractor set without Lebron. My collecting habits result in a Scatter Factor of 30.
In contrast, the 2nd approach of starting with the key cards (or at least buying the key cards along the way instead of waiting until the end) shows a serious commitment to the set. The Scatter Factor would reflect that by showing a much lower number.
Another way to look at this is to think about how easy it would be to liquidate your collection. Sure when the time comes I might find someone looking to buy all my 39PB cards in one swoop, but we know that all things being equal, stars are easier to sell and a person with a lower Scatter Factor will have more of those, proportionately. Phil could sell his collection on BST or at auction and get full value. I on the other hand, when the time comes, will be spending my weekends at local card shows for the next ten years to cash out.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

BobC, the Scatter Factor is pretty basic. It measures the relative concentration of high value cards in your collection. Yes, I guess you could plan your purchases to manipulate your Scatter Factor number, but why would anybody do that?
For example, if you are collecting ’52 Topps, you could start by buying a starter lot off ebay. Or you could instead set aside your funds and get the big four first. Those are two different approaches to set building. The first way is dabbling, much like my collecting habits. I have ’39 Play Ball without Williams and Joe Dimaggio, ’52 Topps without Mantle and Mays, and a 2003 Topps Chrome Refractor set without Lebron. My collecting habits result in a Scatter Factor of 30.
In contrast, the 2nd approach of starting with the key cards (or at least buying the key cards along the way instead of waiting until the end) shows a serious commitment to the set. The Scatter Factor would reflect that by showing a much lower number.
Another way to look at this is to think about how easy it would be to liquidate your collection. Sure when the time comes I might find someone looking to buy all my 39PB cards in one swoop, but we know that all things being equal, stars are easier to sell and a person with a lower Scatter Factor will have more of those, proportionately. Phil could sell his collection on BST or at auction and get full value. I on the other hand, when the time comes, will be spending my weekends at local card shows for the next ten years to cash out.

Al, All due respect, but none of this makes any sense, or tells you anything meaningful. In your opening post you said your formula would help show how focused someone's collection is by comparing how focused they were in going after just the cards they really wanted, as opposed to them collecting cards in a more random or all-encompassing manner. That sounds like you're trying to figure out a way to measure what part/percentage of someone's collection is made up of things they actually focus on collecting normally. But now you're saying the formula is really to measure the relative concentration of high value CARDS in a collection. That is totally different than what you said in your opening post......and also still totally wrong.

In your formula you divide the total value of your collection by the value of the highest valued SINGLE CARD you own, not the highest valued CARDS plural. See the problem yet?

I already gave you multiple examples in my earlier post of how your formula doesn't really answer/measure how focused one's collection is under what it sounded like you were asking about in your original post. And as I just pointed out above, your formula will NEVER accurately tell you the relative concentration of high value cards in your collection, unless you own only one, single high valued card.

And that points to another problem/issue with your formula, what exactly is a high value card? I'm guessing there is no firm, set dollar amount, and imagine "high value" is going to have totally different meanings to different people. So there goes the comparability factor of your formula out the window as well.

I can't tell what your formula is really trying to measure. But after seeing and following more posts and comments, it kind of comes across, to me at least, that maybe you're trying to somehow measure how good a job someone does in keeping their collection to the fewest number of cards, yet at the highest possible value. And in so doing that, if/when they ever decide to sell their collection, or they pass away and leave the burden of selling it to their family, this "factor" is kind of a measure as to how fast and easy it will be for the collection to be sold for its' FMV. And if so, I have no problem with that, but your formula still doesn't really answer and address this question well either. And if that is what someone is truly trying to achieve, they should just focus on collecting the fewest number of cards possible, and use that number as the measure of their "scatter-factor" then.

Basically just take all the money you have and spend it all on a single card. And then as time goes by and you come into more disposable income, sell the first card and combine the net proceeds from that sale with the new disposable income to again buy another single (and hopefully more valuable) card. And then just keep repeating the process going forward. That way you'll always have the perfect focused collection (at least according to what sounds like your definition of a focused collection), with just a single card and a "scatter-factor" of 1. But to me, that doesn't really sound like collecting. To each his own though.

You also mentioned how in your definition of a focused collection that it actually makes a difference if you start collecting a particular set by acquiring the most valuable cards in that set first, as opposed to acquiring all the more lower valued commons first. But if your goal is to collect that particular set, why should it matter in regards to one's focus what order you acquire the cards in? You make it sound like a collector always has a choice when collecting a particular set to acquire any card in that set whenever they want. That is clearly not always the case, especially when some of the higher valued cards can be so expensive due to rarity, and might take a collector years before finally finding one for sale even. So in the interim, they shouldn't bother picking up any of the less valuable cards in the set because to do so makes them a less focused collector? That is absurd thinking.

Now I get your comments and thinking about how not having the most valuable card in a set might cause some collectors to lose interest (focus) in eventually completing the set, and abandon it. But that would just be some, not all, collectors. In fact, some collectors have been known to suffer from a little OCD, in which case for them, having all the commons and just needing the most valuable card or two in the set to complete it would likely make them even more obsessed and focused on finishing the set, not less. This also kind of goes along with the idea that some collectors may just somehow acquire what is the most valuable card in a set, so they start thinking, hey, I've already got the toughest/most valuable card, why not go after this set then. But that is by far not the sole reason that many collectors start to work on a particular set.

It seems to me that in devising and coming up with this concept of focus and creating your "scatter-factor" formula that you may have innappropriately based things on just your own collecting point of view, and neglected to consider that of the many others in the hobby. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your collecting point of view, everyone should collect what and how they like. But to use such a single point of view to create a formula that is supposed to apply to the entire hobby as a whole just really doesn't work or have any meaning for those with different views.

[jchcollins]

It's one, extremely specific way of looking at things. You also have to consider that some from a pure collecting point of view would not consider value or $$ in an equation like this at all. If you are on a budget like most of us, I would assume you have to consider money at some point. But with me and the main goal of my collection being "Buy what I want, when I want it, when I can afford it..." then yeah. It's going to be more "scattered" than not I would think. At least most of the time.

Originally Posted by BobC

Al, All due respect, but none of this makes any sense, or tells you anything meaningful. In your opening post you said your formula would help show how focused someone's collection is by comparing how focused they were in going after just the cards they really wanted, as opposed to them collecting cards in a more random or all-encompassing manner. That sounds like you're trying to figure out a way to measure what part/percentage of someone's collection is made up of things they actually focus on collecting normally. But now you're saying the formula is really to measure the relative concentration of high value CARDS in a collection. That is totally different than what you said in your opening post......and also still totally wrong.

In your formula you divide the total value of your collection by the value of the highest valued SINGLE CARD you own, not the highest valued CARDS plural. See the problem yet?

I already gave you multiple examples in my earlier post of how your formula doesn't really answer/measure how focused one's collection is under what it sounded like you were asking about in your original post. And as I just pointed out above, your formula will NEVER accurately tell you the relative concentration of high value cards in your collection, unless you own only one, single high valued card.

And that points to another problem/issue with your formula, what exactly is a high value card? I'm guessing there is no firm, set dollar amount, and imagine "high value" is going to have totally different meanings to different people. So there goes the comparability factor of your formula out the window as well.

I can't tell what your formula is really trying to measure. But after seeing and following more posts and comments, it kind of comes across, to me at least, that maybe you're trying to somehow measure how good a job someone does in keeping their collection to the fewest number of cards, yet at the highest possible value. And in so doing that, if/when they ever decide to sell their collection, or they pass away and leave the burden of selling it to their family, this "factor" is kind of a measure as to how fast and easy it will be for the collection to be sold for its' FMV. And if so, I have no problem with that, but your formula still doesn't really answer and address this question well either. And if that is what someone is truly trying to achieve, they should just focus on collecting the fewest number of cards possible, and use that number as the measure of their "scatter-factor" then.

Basically just take all the money you have and spend it all on a single card. And then as time goes by and you come into more disposable income, sell the first card and combine the net proceeds from that sale with the new disposable income to again buy another single (and hopefully more valuable) card. And then just keep repeating the process going forward. That way you'll always have the perfect focused collection (at least according to what sounds like your definition of a focused collection), with just a single card and a "scatter-factor" of 1. But to me, that doesn't really sound like collecting. To each his own though.

You also mentioned how in your definition of a focused collection that it actually makes a difference if you start collecting a particular set by acquiring the most valuable cards in that set first, as opposed to acquiring all the more lower valued commons first. But if your goal is to collect that particular set, why should it matter in regards to one's focus what order you acquire the cards in? You make it sound like a collector always has a choice when collecting a particular set to acquire any card in that set whenever they want. That is clearly not always the case, especially when some of the higher valued cards can be so expensive due to rarity, and might take a collector years before finally finding one for sale even. So in the interim, they shouldn't bother picking up any of the less valuable cards in the set because to do so makes them a less focused collector? That is absurd thinking.

Now I get your comments and thinking about how not having the most valuable card in a set might cause some collectors to lose interest (focus) in eventually completing the set, and abandon it. But that would just be some, not all, collectors. In fact, some collectors have been known to suffer from a little OCD, in which case for them, having all the commons and just needing the most valuable card or two in the set to complete it would likely make them even more obsessed and focused on finishing the set, not less. This also kind of goes along with the idea that some collectors may just somehow acquire what is the most valuable card in a set, so they start thinking, hey, I've already got the toughest/most valuable card, why not go after this set then. But that is by far not the sole reason that many collectors start to work on a particular set.

It seems to me that in devising and coming up with this concept of focus and creating your "scatter-factor" formula that you may have innappropriately based things on just your own collecting point of view, and neglected to consider that of the many others in the hobby. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your collecting point of view, everyone should collect what and how they like. But to use such a single point of view to create a formula that is supposed to apply to the entire hobby as a whole just really doesn't work or have any meaning for those with different views.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

I become a little overwhelmed when I go into my card storage area. I'd say that for the last 2+ decades, my focus has been on obtaining only items I like. Value didn't play a factor, other than to allow me to buy or trade for what I could afford. I stopped buying packs and boxes and shifted to only buying sure things, aside from a random lot here and there. When I go to a show or shop, same result. It's not that I was buying collections or anything early on, I was just as apt to buy a box of the latest issue and maybe a few singles. Now, it would be more like a handful of singles and a few oddball items/small sets and that is it.

However, I just like too many things. I don't discriminate between vintage or new, singles or sets (smaller sets usually), mainstream or oddball. I collect just about anything/everything Dodgers, but will add a Yankee or Giant just as enthusiastically. Baseball is my primary interest, but have dabbled into other sports and even some non-sport as well. I like autographs & smaller memorabilia (cans, cups, figures, etc - storage factor) as well.

Clearly my focus has lead to a collection that is perfect for me, so I imagine someone like me walking into a shop loaded with my stuff, figuring they'd be amazed!

The overwhelming feelings I get are mainly coming from imagining how I could dismantle something like this that I've worked many years to assemble. I might open a few boxes and find 100s of items that I bought individually and are now together, but should not be sold as a group! I really don't even know where I would start. I don't want to burden my wife or kids with it, but in reality, I would like to be separated from the process so I can't interfere.

I completely understand them overwhelming feelings. I really need to get rid of about 95% of what I have. I burned the complete junk a couple years ago. Filled a 55 gallon barrel twice with junk era cards. I recently started digging through it again. Hopefully this time I can stick to it. Finding cool stuff I have not seen in 15+ years is fun.

[jchcollins]

Interesting concept. No idea what my collection is truly worth retail, but if you do the scatter factor math on my most valuable card vs. what my collection is insured for, the figure is somewhere between 11 and 12. I will say that some of my most valuable cards got that way by appreciation and not directly through what I paid - and anymore, after the el nutso prices we were all witness to during the bubble - I'm left with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth about the truly pricey cards I'd still like to have. Though I'm mostly a star / HOF singles collector and not a true set collector at least by upbringing, I am working on two vintage sets right now. For singles, I kind of see the days of laying down true serious cash for one card as waning. I don't know what that number is for me, maybe ballpark it around $500 in the recent past? Anymore that's just too difficult for me to do, either in terms of saving for specific cards, or otherwise moving stuff in other areas of my collection to get the job done. I've done a ton of that in the past sure, but just saying I'm getting tired of it, if not totally unwilling to do it based on pure financial reasons. That, plus I'm also likely showing my age at this point in terms of condition preferences, coming full circle with that again: When I got back into the hobby seriously for the first time since my 20's about 6 years ago, I was a stickler of sorts. EX for 50's cards, EX-MT and up for 60's and later. Yeah, yeah. Recently I have found that I'm just as happy with VG cards for 60's and back so long as they retain eye appeal. For the '72 Topps set I am currently building, the aim is to end up with EX quality overall, but I can tell you I already have a lot of VG-EXish commons. The truth is they still look good, at least to the kid who still lives inside my mind's eye - and life is just getting to be too short. I'd rather make hay with quantity over technical quality in many cases in the name of accumulating more cards in the time I have left.

Anyhow, the point there being I would expect my "factor" number to probably go up, and not down - in the coming years of my collecting.

[bks14sr]

Scatter factor around 10, I think. I collect singles for certain players, and limited set collecting (48L, 52T and 54T). With the massive run up in prices last year, I pumped the brakes on set progress. I now have more fun chasing specific cards for player PCs, and sometimes creating hordes of said favorite cards. I still have some key cards that I’d love to get, but can’t justify current prices, 52T Mantle being the primary. It’s hard to go from shopping for a copy for years, being too picky at $xxxx, then suddenly that price gets multiplied. Kinda killed the chase for me. Now, with prices the way they are, my collecting is rather focused.

[Kutcher55]

Cool thread. My scatter factor is somewhere around 10-12 I’d imagine. I think a collection needs to be constantly evolving, living and breathing. For me that has meant going down rabbit holes from time to time and then selling and moving into something else. I built the 57 set and then sold it and started the 75 set and thought it was a waste and sold it for a loss. Then I started collecting a bunch of 71 slabs and have sold some of them off. The one constant has been my Yastrzemski PSA 7+ topps collection. I started a Ted Williams run and then sold everything except his RC. Most recently I have been expanding my raw collection and building a raw Aaron run. In general I have been trying to expand my raw collection and keep it fitting in one box, so this means I have started migrating the weakest cards to my junk bin and replacing them with better cards. I also just completed the 41 PB set. Soon I’ll be onto something else. As is always the case I try not to overpay for whatever I buy so when my interest changes I can sell without taking a loss.

Anyway right now my collection consists of (1) Red Sox cards including Yaz and Ted. (2) The Playball set. (3) The 71 slabs which I store in a cool black box that once housed a bottle of liquor. (4) Mostly 50s slabs of nice stuff but also a nice example of all the great pre war sets. (5) My raw stuff which is increasingly cool but no single card worth more than $200 or so. (6) my non baseball box which has all the Celtic greats and a bunch of football cards highlighted by a Namath rookie.

What a mess!