Comparing a cards scarcity/rarity to a T206 Wagner

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I could have posted this in one of the hobby pet peeves thread but because it comes up many times every year on here I thought it would be better to start a thread about it.

If you're comparing a cards scarcity to the T206 Wagner the particular cards scarcity like the Wagner should be based on that particular cards scarcity in the set that it's in for the true scarcity of that card.

Here are the numbers on a few that are often mentioned as scarcer than the Wagner plus a couple of recently mentioned comparisons. I only used the totals of the PSA and SGC pop reports because although it's not 100% accurate it's the most accurate way to get some kind of comparison.

Attachment 540431

Interesting data but you are comparing Apples to Oranges. What’s also interesting is the Total Set Pop of the 1914 Baltimore News (32) is less than total number of the T206 Wagner (53).

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Interesting data but you are comparing Apples to Oranges. What’s also interesting is the Total Set Pop of the 1914 Baltimore News (32) is less than total number of the T206 Wagner (53).

Interesting that you say that because this is the reason I posted the thread.

It's not even apples to oranges if your comparing a rare card in a rare set to one card if the average pop per subject is less than 53 the whole set is rarer than a Wagner T206. Even worse is when someone posts something like an E121 Herpolsheimer's or an E92 Croft's Cocoa and compares it to a Wagner now they're bringing the back into consideration for that card but not the Wagner if you do that then you have to take into account Wagner's rarest back which is a Piedmont 150 with one graded example, yes I know it's trimmed but if it was correctly graded it would still be in the pop report as an A.

If you want to compare apples to apples all you have to do is take the numbers I posted pick a card from that set figure out what % of the set that card is and then what the % number of that card is graded.

Using DJ's red Cobb is a good example he was trying to say I was calling it scarcer than a Baltimore News because like a lot of people he was using the wrong comparison here's the apples to apples version of graded Cobb's

Red Cobb = 0.190% of the set
3743 graded = 0.932% of graded T206's

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Interesting that you say that because this is the reason I posted the thread.

It's not even apples to oranges if your comparing a rare card in a rare set to one card if the average pop per subject is less than 53 the whole set is rarer than a Wagner T206. Even worse is when someone posts something like an E121 Herpolsheimer's or an E92 Croft's Cocoa and compares it to a Wagner now they're bringing the back into consideration for that card but not the Wagner if you do that then you have to take into account Wagner's rarest back which is a Piedmont 150 with one graded example, yes I know it's trimmed but if it was correctly graded it would still be in the pop report as an A.

If you want to compare apples to apples all you have to do is take the numbers I posted pick a card from that set figure out what % of the set that card is and then what the % number of that card is graded.

Using DJ's red Cobb is a good example he was trying to say I was calling it scarcer than a Baltimore News because like a lot of people he was using the wrong comparison here's the apples to apples version of graded Cobb's

Red Cobb = 0.190% of the set
3743 graded = 0.932% of graded T206's

I see what you’re what you are saying now. Nothing wrong with this argument. I’m a little slow.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by EddieP

I see what you’re what you are saying now. Nothing wrong with this argument. I’m a little slow.

No problem Eddie everyone knows there are lots of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but it's redundant to post a single card and say it's scarcer than a Wagner from a set where the whole set in general is rarer. What I'm saying is show me a card that's scarcer in that set than the Wagner is in the T206 set, I don't know if there is one except maybe certain variations like a Doyle N.Y. Nat'l.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

No problem Eddie everyone knows there are lots of cards that are rarer than the Wagner but it's redundant to post a single card and say it's scarcer than a Wagner from a set where the whole set in general is rarer. What I'm saying is show me a card that's scarcer in that set than the Wagner is in the T206 set, I don't know if there is one except maybe certain variations like a Doyle N.Y. Nat'l.

No, there are no cards scarcer than the Wagner in the T206 set Pat. The Doyle N.Y. Nat'l may be as rare, or even rarer than the Wagner, but given honest and knowledgeable choice, name one T206 collector you can think of that would choose that Doyle (or any of the other rare variations/backs in the set) over a Wagner T206 card. The only real scenario under which I could ever see someone knowledgeable not picking the Wagner happening is if a collector trying to complete their T206 set already had a Wagner card, but was still missing the Doyle N.Y. Nat'l (or some other) card. And even then, I wouldn't just automatically bet against them going for a second T206 Wagner anyway.

And the same goes for any of those much rarer cards/sets on your list. Given an honest choice between any of those specific cards you mentioned in your initial post of this thread, if they could pick and have only one, which card do think would be chosen by the majority of collectors to own? Demand over supply is what creates scarcity.

Think about it. "Hey everyone, I own a complete T206 set, including the Big Four!" or "Hey everyone, I own two T206 Wagners!". Which statement (as a collector, not a flipper, dealer or investor) would you rather be able to make?

[G1911]

I like this idea as a fun little exercise. Rarer than Wagner, within the context of it's set.

1932 US Caramel

PSA Graded: 2,163. Lindstrom POP: 1
SGC Graded: 843 baseball + 59 boxing + 37 Golf = 939, with 0 Lindstrom's
Total of 3,102, with 1 Lindstorm.

Final percent: .00032237%

Of course, this isn't actually right. I believe there are 2 Lindstorm's out there known, and big cards are graded much more than commons (Wagner is actually tougher than the figure in POP reports would suggest).

I would think, off the top, this has got to be up there if not the #1 as the set is not all that rare. Perhaps a unique Old Judge pose bests it.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by BobC

Think about it. "Hey everyone, I own a complete T206 set, including the Big Four!" or "Hey everyone, I own two T206 Wagners!". Which statement (as a collector, not a flipper, dealer or investor) would you rather be able to make?

Monty Python did a skit on this: "The man with three buttocks and two Wagners."

[MR RAREBACK]

Its nice that you can buy rarer cards of Mathewson for way less money,
Like Crofts cocoa and candy love that horizontal pose.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by BobC

Think about it. "Hey everyone, I own a complete T206 set, including the Big Four!" or "Hey everyone, I own two T206 Wagners!". Which statement (as a collector, not a flipper, dealer or investor) would you rather be able to make?

Bob, I pretty much agree with your entire post. However, the Doyle is a bit of an oddball in that: the t206 set is the granddaddy of all trading card sets (regardless of subject/sport), the Doyle is needed to complete that set, and (I believe) only 9 Doyles are know to exist, one of which is in a museum/collection permanently. Thus, there can only ever be 8 complete, 524 card T206 sets.

The Spring 2022 Mile High auction had a t206 Wagner (the Charlie Sheen Wagner) and a Joe Doyle NY Natl. The Wagner sold for $3,060,000. The Doyle sold for $1,030,000. Clearly the Wagner is more “valuable”. But, for what it’s worth, the Doyle had 44 bidders while the Wagner had 45 bidders.

I think this is a great discussion, and I agree with most statements, including rarity vs scarcity in relation to value. But the Joe Doyle Natl is an oddball bc of its roll as the necessary spike piece in the greatest set of all time.

[oldjudge]

Scarcity is scarcity. The only germane thing is the number of copies known of the item. By most estimates there are sixty to seventy Wagners. There are ten BN Ruths. The Ruth is 6x-7x scarcer---end of story. What you are looking at is the relative scarcity of the card compared to others in the set it is part of. Taking your argument to its' illogical extreme a unique card that was not part of a set would have a ratio of one and not be considered rare.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bob, I pretty much agree with your entire post. However, the Doyle is a bit of an oddball in that: the t206 set is the granddaddy of all trading card sets (regardless of subject/sport), the Doyle is needed to complete that set, and (I believe) only 9 Doyles are know to exist, one of which is in a museum/collection permanently. Thus, there can only ever be 8 complete, 524 card T206 sets.

The Spring 2022 Mile High auction had a t206 Wagner (the Charlie Sheen Wagner) and a Joe Doyle NY Natl. The Wagner sold for $3,060,000. The Doyle sold for $1,030,000. Clearly the Wagner is more “valuable”. But, for what it’s worth, the Doyle had 44 bidders while the Wagner had 45 bidders.

I think this is a great discussion, and I agree with most statements, including rarity vs scarcity in relation to value. But the Joe Doyle Natl is an oddball bc of its roll as the necessary spike piece in the greatest set of all time.

Yes, I know, and that is also part of why measuring "demand" is so very hard. Had I said to pick between a T206 Wagner and say a T206 Cobb, that's a no brainer, everyone will go for a Wagner. But make it between a Wagner and a Doyle Nat'l, and now you might get some people to have to think about it for second.

As you point out, the Doyle Nat'l is actually much rarer in terms of the actual number that exist than the Wagner. And anyone trying to complete the T206 set is obviously going to want both cards. But if given a choice where you can only ever have one card or the other, but not both, and money is not an issue, which card do you suspect the most people to choose? And so in essence, the one card the most people are going to pick between the two would seem to then have a greater level of demand overall. How you can quantify and then measure that demand level difference in a statistical or other manner, I don't know, unless you look at the difference in price people are willing to pay for those two cards maybe. And because so many more people would likely take a Wagner over a Doyle, the demand for the Wagner is greater, and therefore the price for the Wagner will likely always be greater. Which it was proven to be in that recent Mile High auction you referenced.

And don't forget, not everyone necessarily wants to complete a T206 set. And for those people just looking to collect a great card, the T206 Wagner is the pinnacle, the holy grail of baseball cards that even those who've never actively collected baseball cards in their life still are likely aware and have heard or know of. Then ask the same people about a T206 Doyle Nat'l card, and get ready for tons of blank stares. It ends up being a great question and conundrum then as to why else wouldn't the bidders in that Mile High auction pay the same, or even more, for that Doyle Nat'l card versus what ended up being paid for that Wagner.