Are some cards too rare for their own good?

[Exhibitman]

Well, we're conflating concepts here.

I read Leon's OP as asking whether there are cards that are so scarce that they become obscure, not generally discussed in the hobby. I think that's true to some extent but also understandable. If a card is newly discovered there will be a flurry of discussion about it, the card will land in someone's collection, and there won't be anything left to say unless/until it surfaces again or someone finds another. What else is there to say?

Value is different, and in my view less a function of rarity than marketing. There is a great deal of ballyhoo in getting a card out there to create a demand for it. We collectors live on envy and that requires putting an item in the public eye to make it desirable, as well as there being a sufficient number of them to build to a critical mass of interest. Take the Baltimore News Ruth cards. Not very attractive, rather obscure, rare, super player. So why is it a six-figure card? Because they were marketed brilliantly in major auctions with tons of hype and advertising about them every time and there were enough of them out there to repeat the hype cycle several times. Had there been only one example, I don't think we would have the same pricing structure. And even so, the price of the card is a fraction of what a T206 Wagner costs and is roughly comparable to what you would have to pay to get a really crisp 1952 Mantle. The Wagner has the story and the legendary hype as being the key rarity from the key set of the prewar era, while the Mantle is the key card in the key set from the main company of the postwar era, even though multiple versions are in every major auction.