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

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yup, in my original post I had also said $$s don't really belong in an equation talking about a collector's focus, unless $$ value is actualy part of that collecting focus/goal, like just collecting the most valuable card in different sets, for example.

What I can't figure out is exactly what the OP is really trying to measure though. He mentions different things in different posts, as I noted earlier in this thread, that don't all seem to coincide. It is a nice little exercise though that others in this thread seemed to enjoy, so that is good. I just don't see how it can truly be meaningful in measuring overall collecting focus when his formula is based primarily on the $$ value of a single card. Unless his definition of focus differs greatly from what I believe it would mean to the average person.

[UKCardGuy]

Neat thread. I like the idea of a scatter factor. I'm at 24.

As I have a bias towards set collecting, I think an alternative scatter factor could be the number of sets with low completion rates.

[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!