[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

As was indicated by Burdick, when he was collecting, the phrase “Id rather have a hole in my card, than a hole in my collection”; was true then, and for many, remains true today. But not for all.

There exists those who seek the best of the best condition-wise, and in doing so, obtain cards which have condition scarcity.

But condition scarcity is only one type of scarcity. Lets take for example a current thread (which I chose to not further hijack with my ramblings) in which the author states “I own both an orange borders - lajoie SGC20, and a 21' Oxford Ruth SGC10, and as a type collector purchased both examples because of their rarity”

What types of scarcity do we have here? Well these cards come from sets understood to be relatively uncommon. But the players selected will be among those likely to be preserved from the sets in the highest density, and the card conditions do not yield much grade scarcity. So the sets are scarce. The actual cards less scarce, and the condition of the cards are common.

In my opinion, the scarcity of the set in this example is of comparatively little consequence, since the players selected probably put the actual card scarcity in a league of somewhat more common sets.

If my objective was to “as a type collector purchased both examples because of their rarity” then that would be better achieved, I think, by selecting a somewhat obscure player, and obtaining it in as high a grade as my budget would allow. Thereby achieving set scarcity, card scarcity and condition scarcity.

Certainly this empirical analysis is fraught with potential errors since actual data regarding the population of the sets and the individual cards in these sets is not available. And I offer only a speculation of these populations. But the intent of my offering is to propose an alternate path to achieve the stated objectives and by the comments hopefully generated, provide insight for me on the actual range of considerations involved here.