Cards some collectors think are rare, but are not.

[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?

[JackR]

There’s only a handful of graded 1910 PC796 Postcards of Wagner, maybe one tenth of the number of graded t206 Wagners, but you probably can buy one for much less than 1% of a t206. It’s a wonderful hobby!

[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.

[Fred]

I think this is post 3K for me.

Here's the PSA pop report results for the 1952 Topps Mantle

Grade Pop
10 -- 3
9 -- 6
8 -- 35
7 -- 77
6 -- 123
5 -- 178
4 -- 208
3 -- 196
2 -- 219
1.5 -- 84
1 -- 344
A -- 191

Total 1664

I'm going to guess that most would agree that's not rare. It would be interesting to see if someone did a deep dive on the 1952 Topps population report as a whole. My guess is that the Mantle will have a pretty high population in relationship to other 1952 Topps because more people will have the Mantle slabbed than Joe Schmuck.

The PSA pop of Mantles doesn't account for other TPGs pop numbers or raw cards. I'm going to go out on limb and guess that PSA has graded a majority of the 52T cards that have slabbed.

For another card listed as scarce is the T201 with Dougherty/Lord. That seems to be a mistake because there are plenty of them available. Another that is listed as scarce (but doesn't seem to exist) is the N162 Dunlop with a Pittsburgh team designation.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

Two questions, Leon: What's with the 1.5 on your Cobb, and is that Barr-Farnham WaJo the only P/C version you've seen? I know you have the booklet of proof photos--have or seen any other P/Cs from that set?

[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