[todeen]

Originally Posted by raulus

Does demand factor into the calculus at all? If no one wants an item, having 5 of them in the wild doesn't really feel like it's rare. Whereas if there are 50 but everyone wants one, it can sure seem rare.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

No. I'm just looking for the lowest number that's rare in an absolute sense, regardless of how many people want it or how many were produced in the first place.

I agree with Raulus. Rare for Barry Larkin (my main PC) is certainly less than rare for Griffey (occasional PC). Griffey might have a card #'d /100 that is more difficult to acquire than a card #'d /50 or even /25 of Larkin. So I agree that the number of people seeking a card should play some role in the mathematical formula of rare.

For the sake of your actual question, I would say for cards pre-1995 that the number is higher than 10. Maybe 25; maybe 50. This is because once you fall below 10, certainly below 5, you're almost talking about one of a kind. Rare to me doesn't mean one of a kind.

I think once we move into the late 1990s, manufactured rarity would reduce the total number. I'm not impressed seeing the same photo over and over again in different colors. I don't collect the rainbow as many modern collectors do. I would say 5 or 10 from 1995-present would be rare. Maybe even 1/1. Think of how many super refractors exist for each player. If a player like Acuna has a 20 year career, how many 1/1 cards will he eventually have? 200? 300? More?


Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk