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

[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.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by 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.

That works for player collectors, too. A few years ago I decided to build a Reggie Jackson run. Thanks to the one I just got from Howard, I am up to 5 now.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[irv]

Fairly orderly.
I keep all my 52's in this case, except my Mantle, Mays and Jackie, (which I keep in a safety deposit box), and the rest of my collection, hockey and baseball, in separate shoeboxes sorted by modern and vintage.

[Frankish]

The fact that the scatter factor calculation makes no sense to me is probably a reliable indication that I am way too scattered....