Cards some collectors think are rare, but are not.

[raulus]

Serious question:

Any chance we’ve become rarity snobs?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by raulus

Serious question:

Any chance we’ve become rarity snobs?

I have always collected rarity and it doesn't necessarily mean value, whatsover. It's always the demand side that equates to value. And that would be "scarcity."

As to the original subject, I can't count the number of times I have seen people say the '52 Mantle is rare.....it's not.

And whomever said ebay doesn't have rare stuff any longer isn't looking on there 7x24 like some of us ....

[Aug06]

Its not baseball...But the 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan RC is not a rare card.

[Cory]

And I think the real issue is rarity vs. scarcity as mentioned above. Just because something is rare doesn't make it valuable. And just because something isn't "rare" in you definition doesn't mean it can't be valuable if there is more demand than supply. It all boils down to supply and demand.

t206's are the perfect ecosystem to demonstrate this -

The Armbruster PB mentioned above is presumably just as rare as the Demmitt STL. But most t206 collectors chasing the monster don't care if Armbruster has a Piedmont or Sweet Cap or Polar Bear back as long as they have one, which broadens the supply. However, everyone that wants to complete the 520 needs a Demmitt (and O'Hara) STL which was only printed with a PB back. There are only 200 in the PSA pop, so if this is half the available population, say 400 exist. If there are 1000 people chasing the monster there is more demand than supply so the price goes up- so the Armbruster is just as "rare" as the Demmitt STL, but not nearly as scarce.

[ClementeFanOh]

Cory- you’re fixated on 2 T206 cards. The reality that those 2 are only available PB makes them difficult and coveted. If you don’t want to call that “rare”, that’s up to you. But Atz cards are much more plentiful due to all the backs…and let’s no gloss over my original point, which is flippers on eBay claiming the one T206 they’ve ever owned is “rare”, even when it’s a common back Atz SGC 30. Is that card still cool and desirable? Yep. Rare? Nope. Trent King

[MR RAREBACK]

Rare desirable Miscut

[Hankphenom]

I think everybody should picture or name a card they think is truly rare and let us take shots at it one way or another. Here's one: WaJo Washington Times. I'd like to see somebody argue with that.

[bandrus1]

any M101 holmes to homes issue?

[Leon]

1933 Goudey Lajoie isn't that rare. I have seen this card labeled as rare too...

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I think everybody should picture or name a card they think is truly rare and let us take shots at it one way or another. Here's one: WaJo Washington Times. I'd like to see somebody argue with that.

I like this idea above. No one will argue with that Washington Times WAJO....

or this one (I know it's one of your fave poses...) The proof is nicer looking but this is a widely collected format, a postcard. I am sure there have to be others but so far it's the only baseball player I have seen from the set, in a postcard. I guess something happended and they never got marketed much.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I think everybody should picture or name a card they think is truly rare and let us take shots at it one way or another. Here's one: WaJo Washington Times. I'd like to see somebody argue with that.

I'd say this one is truly rare.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have always collected rarity and it doesn't necessarily mean value, whatsover. It's always the demand side that equates to value. And that would be "scarcity."

As to the original subject, I can't count the number of times I have seen people say the '52 Mantle is rare.....it's not.

And whomever said ebay doesn't have rare stuff any longer isn't looking on there 7x24 like some of us ....

i enjoy going thru leons auction catalog for ideas ..ill never part with it