Setting Definitions for Rarity of Cards

[BigJJ]

Perhaps in the industry we should have a common definition of "rare" - for pre-war, under 1,000? examples - for post-war, under 10,000?. and then perhaps a common definition of "ultra scarce" - for pre-war, under 100? - for post-war, under 1,000? and then perhaps a "handful" for pre-war under 10, and post-war under 100? Trying to assign numerical value to terms I think would be an interesting idea.

Becomes a little more interesting with T-206 of course as a Frank Chance T-206 may not be rare, but one with a particular back might be.

Ideas/views with regard to setting terms for number of examples that survive?

Best,
J

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Perhaps in the industry we should have a common definition of "rare" - for pre-war, under 1,000? examples - for post-war, under 10,000?. and then perhaps a common definition of "ultra scarce" - for pre-war, under 100? - for post-war, under 1,000? and then perhaps a "handful" for pre-war under 10, and post-war under 100? Trying to assign numerical value to terms I think would be an interesting idea.

Becomes a little more interesting with T-206 of course as a Frank Chance T-206 may not be rare, but one with a particular back might be.

Ideas/views with regard to setting terms for number of examples that survive?

Best,
J

We have had this discussion so many times I think many folks don't really want to get into it again. In the pre-war space, when there are a hundred of something, it's not usually considered rare. The real question becomes the difference between rarity and scarcity. Scarcity has to do with the number of folks who want something (demand). Even if something is rare, with only a few known, it may not be too valuable when hardly anyone wants one. I have a whole collection that mostly fits that description.

[Matthew H]

Look on the bright side Leon, if the right people wanted those cards you may not have been able to buy them!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Look on the bright side Leon, if the right people wanted those cards you may not have been able to buy them!

If any of my 3 National table partners wanted something I did in auction, I would have no chance. My collection is of things most collectors don't want. I am good with that. I don't like easily obtainable stuff as much as I do stuff that is usually not seen...heck, it would be easier to obtain a T206 Wags, with enough money, than it would many cards in a type card collection. I love looking at things that don't get shown every day. Collect what you like....

[Matthew H]

I agree Leon, you have some killer stuff.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

I agree Leon, you have some killer stuff.

Thank you. So many of our members have great collections it's always fun to see what they have acquired (when they care to share). Each person is passionate about what they collect. The more passion the more I like it. It makes the blood flow .

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Leon

... I don't like easily obtainable stuff as much as I do stuff that is usually not seen... I love looking at things that don't get shown every day. Collect what you like....

+1!!!
Val

[Rich Klein]

if I own it, not rare -- if Leon owns it -- very rare

If you make 50 of a card and only 25 people want it (manufactured scarcity) -- you have an easy card

And supply and demand -- the rarest and most expensive stamp is a postally used dirty and written on 1c british guyana stamp which wikipedia (and we know how reliable the internets are) says is locked up in a bank vault because the owner died while in prison.

My goal is the find of Fans Card including Cobb and Ruth

Rich

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Perhaps in the industry we should have a common definition of "rare" - for pre-war, under 1,000? examples - for post-war, under 10,000?. and then perhaps a common definition of "ultra scarce" - for pre-war, under 100? - for post-war, under 1,000? and then perhaps a "handful" for pre-war under 10, and post-war under 100? Trying to assign numerical value to terms I think would be an interesting idea.

Becomes a little more interesting with T-206 of course as a Frank Chance T-206 may not be rare, but one with a particular back might be.

Ideas/views with regard to setting terms for number of examples that survive?

Best,
J

If you're referring to determining value then Your proposal really seems to not matter to the collecting world. Take the T209 Presley/Pritchard I sold a few years ago as an example. Maybe a handful of that card known at best. Or, the T206 Lundgren w/ PD 350 back which I currently own one of five known. Neither card has a value of more than $1,000 in the condition they are normally found. But, take the T206 Cobb/red background which is available to buy by the dozens in a PD or SC back and grade it a 4, you can exceed the purchase price of a card that only a handful of are known. The often used "rare", "scarce", "tough", etc. to describe a card go in one eye and out the other with me. If I like it and can afford it then I buy it. A Higgs Boson is rare, not a piece of cardboard. At the end of the day it's about how a card is marketed and how many want it.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by bigjj

"rare" - for pre-war, under 1,000? Examples - for post-war, under 10,000?.
J

+1