Cards some collectors think are rare, but are not.

[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.

[bigfanNY]

Rare dose not equal valuable. And that is fine by me, I cannot afford to collect valuable Baseball cards so I am happy to collect some rare ones.

[robw1959]

Two that instantly come to mind are the Ted Williams 1954 Bowman and card #58 (Ted Signs) in the '59 Fleer set. They have been considered rare for decades, but really aren't. Heck, even the T206 green portrait Ty Cobb card isn't much scarcer than its "Bat-On" variation counterpart, but there sure is a ton of demand for that one compared to the red portrait.