Operationalizing rarity

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by raulus

Does demand factor into the calculus at all?

And what about deliberate manufactured rarity? Some of these numbered modern pieces may be 1 of 5, but I'm not convinced that really makes it rare, particularly if there are hundreds or thousands of similar pieces that are 1 of 5.

No. I'm just looking for the lowest number that's rare in an absolute sense, regardless of how many people want it or how many were produced in the first place.

[mrreality68]

I would say single digit of a specific card. To me variations are a different card.
So 9 or less is rare
5 or less is extremely rare

But hopefully if it is rare it belongs to a member of this board except for Ruth or Jackson those need to be mine. Lol

[todeen]

Originally Posted by raulus

Does demand factor into the calculus at all? If no one wants an item, having 5 of them in the wild doesn't really feel like it's rare. Whereas if there are 50 but everyone wants one, it can sure seem rare.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

No. I'm just looking for the lowest number that's rare in an absolute sense, regardless of how many people want it or how many were produced in the first place.

I agree with Raulus. Rare for Barry Larkin (my main PC) is certainly less than rare for Griffey (occasional PC). Griffey might have a card #'d /100 that is more difficult to acquire than a card #'d /50 or even /25 of Larkin. So I agree that the number of people seeking a card should play some role in the mathematical formula of rare.

For the sake of your actual question, I would say for cards pre-1995 that the number is higher than 10. Maybe 25; maybe 50. This is because once you fall below 10, certainly below 5, you're almost talking about one of a kind. Rare to me doesn't mean one of a kind.

I think once we move into the late 1990s, manufactured rarity would reduce the total number. I'm not impressed seeing the same photo over and over again in different colors. I don't collect the rainbow as many modern collectors do. I would say 5 or 10 from 1995-present would be rare. Maybe even 1/1. Think of how many super refractors exist for each player. If a player like Acuna has a 20 year career, how many 1/1 cards will he eventually have? 200? 300? More?


Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Mungo Hungo]

Seems to me that rarity is based on how many opportunities there are to acquire the card. With many sets, especially somewhat recent regionals, the star players are less rare than the commons, because people pull them out and offer them for sale. They don't bother to do that for the other cards, making those cards, IMO, truly rare.

[BuzzD]

My general understanding is that rarity is an absolute or supply term and scarcity is a relative or demand term. An item is not scarce if nobody wants it even if it is very rare

[JLange]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Seems to me that rarity is based on how many opportunities there are to acquire the card. With many sets, especially somewhat recent regionals, the star players are less rare than the commons, because people pull them out and offer them for sale. They don't bother to do that for the other cards, making those cards, IMO, truly rare.

This is how I come at the issue of rarity as well. Over the years I have put my eyeballs on millions of items, and for my own collection I think of rarity in term of how often I have seen it come up for sale. Is the item available at any price once a week, month, year, 5yrs, 10yrs etc. An item that I can purchase only annually, on average, is still not rare to me, whereas something that comes up for sale once every 5 or 10 yrs is truly rare in my book. You only get that feel for opportunity by tracking availability over many years though.

[Bigdaddy]

For many years, the benchmark for "rare" was any unsigned Bob Feller item.

But if you are looking for a number, I'd put it somewhere between 25 and 50 for pre-war and vintage cards.

[drcy]

Rarity has nothing to do with demand. It is strictly a matter of numbers. Scarcity is a matter of supply and demand. There can be cards that are rare but not scarce (little to no demand). There are cards that are plentiful yet scarce (Demand far exceeds supply). Market value is a fair representation of scarcity.

The 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle is a card that is not rare but is scarce, as reflected in its high market value. A baseball card smeared in my dog's shit is a card that is rare but not scarce, reflected in that no one would want it or pay even a penny for it.

There is no objective numerical answer for what is rare.

Wrongly conflating scarity and rarity has been done a thousand times on this board. We have had threads like this with this wrong conflation tens of times. I've given this explanation of the difference between scarcity and rarity every time. Do some board members never read, or do they simply have mush for brains? Undoubtedly, I will have to cut and paste this post in the future, likely multiple times.

To repeat: Rarity and scarcity are not one and the same, and not to be conflated.