What is your definition of "RARE?"

[zljones]

I have seen the term "rare" overused especially in ebay listings. I have also been corrected by members when I call a card "rare" they tell me I am wrong, even though I scarcley see it for sale, or at a fair price. So I got to ask, what do you consider rare? Meaning not what cards do you consider rare, I mean what is your criteria for a rare card? How much struggle do need to find a card before you finally call it "rare."
For me if I can't get an item in the condition I desire for a proper price for 2 months or more I consider it quite rare, but I have been barked at for considering something like that rare if I have to wait a couple months.
I am also asking about the rarity of buying something not seeing something, this thread is about how rare it is to buy an item.
Also please do not consider super overpriced BINs or auctions, let's pretend like those do not exist in this discussion, because those are not buyable in my perception. Just as good as not being for sale.

[phikappapsi]

I'd say anything with a known population of under 250 would be rare... Then there are things out there that there are less than 50 or so, and those are so well known they don't even need to be called rare.

[DixieBaseball]

My defintition of rare would range from unique (1) to very rare (2-5) to simply rare (6-15).

Let me add that my definition of scarce (Very scarce to scarce) is much broader.... Say 16-50ish... Perhaps I would say the Wagner is scarce at around 60 of them or so...

Just one opinion, but how I see it in my little world.

[Bicem]

I'd say less than 10 known. Nice arbitrary round number.

[Fripples]

Gee, "rare." I guess that would be defined as..RARE???

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Fripples

Gee, "rare." I guess that would be defined as..RARE???

rare Fripples sighting.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Fripples

Gee, "rare." I guess that would be defined as..RARE???

Bloody hell, what?

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Bloody hell, what?

couldn't resist I see.

[Tao_Moko]

Interesting link that somewhat ties to this topic http://www.heavypen.com/coins/page3.html

The seller can claim anything to be rare so it's up to the buyer to distinguish. "Rare" to me is a Coelacanth fossil. I have to catch myself when considering a large baseball card purchase because they are not that old and I tend to feel better about shelling out money when something is both old and rare. One hundred and fifty years is hardly recognizable on a time scale for someone who collects fossils or say paleolithic artifacts. "Old" and "rare"' are both relative because no card is alike and "old" could refer to earlier issues. Beanie Babies from the 1990's could be considered old. It's not incorrect to claim something as rare regardless of it's population or age but it is subjective because what it is measured against is up to the seller. I've always found that cards are more "rare" when you're trying to sell or trade them.

My personal scale for a "rare" baseball card is 100 or less known examples.

[oldjudge]

As a 19th century guy like Joe I find rare to be a very overused term. I would say at the least, to be considered rare, there must be 10 or less of a particular card. Many 19th century cards are rare, but that's why very few 19th century sets can be completed. I also dislike the term "condition rarity". A condition rarity is usually no more than a high grade example of an easily found card.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Interesting link that somewhat ties to this topic http://www.heavypen.com/coins/page3.html

The seller can claim anything to be rare so it's up to the buyer to distinguish. "Rare" to me is a Coelacanth fossil. I have to catch myself when considering a large baseball card purchase because they are not that old and I tend to feel better about shelling out money when something is both old and rare. One hundred and fifty years is hardly recognizable on a time scale for someone who collects fossils or say paleolithic artifacts. "Old" and "rare"' are both relative because no card is alike and "old" could refer to earlier issues. Beanie Babies from the 1990's could be considered old. It's not incorrect to claim something as rare regardless of it's population or age but it is subjective because what it is measured against is up to the seller. I've always found that cards are more "rare" when you're trying to sell or trade them.

My personal scale for a "rare" baseball card is 100 or less known examples.

I generally agree with Eric's take. I consider something "Rare" if neither I, nor any of my collecting peers, have ever seen but a handful of examples. There may have been 1 million made, but if in 35+ years we have only run across 5, either in person or in research, I'd have no problem calling it "Rare".

That does not preclude the possibility that there may be 999,995 sitting somewhere in a basement.

And as someone else said, I do believe the universe of collectors vs number of examples does play a role. I'm pretty sure a Williams HR ball would be considered more rare than an Ashburn.

Interesting topic!

[Joe_G.]

In my world of 19th century Detroit, I consider many items rare. A high percentage of the Detroit Old Judges on my want list haven't surfaced over the last decade. The cards exist, it just takes significant patience, dedication, and ability to dig deep into the wallet when necessary . . . qualities we all have to varying degrees.

On the flip side, there are many Old Judges in my collection that surface maybe once every 1-5 years that I consider common. I should qualify my statements by disclosing I collect by pose (not player).

It's all relative. Without the rarities, collecting wouldn't be nearly as fun.