|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
For me, neither, really. Rarity (or more appropriately scarcity) affect how I collect, more than what I collect. What I collect is and has been for a while fairly narrowly defined, surprisingly. T207 and pre-war Pirates.
Knowing which ones are mostly likely not to be seen again - in any condition - drives purchasing priority. After that, relative rarity within the set of collecting interest is the deciding factor. This can be either conditional or absolute. T207's in SGC 70 or above aren't that plentiful, but seem to be showing up a little more often lately... yes, they're out there, but tucked away in collections, but I'd take either of the "Red"'s in (almost) any grade over any common... and similar to what Ron said above - I'm not a big fan of really ugly cards. I own them purely out of necessity (as if we ever really need cards)... -- Mike |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rarity | Bicem | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 111 | 07-24-2009 01:17 PM |
| Relative Rarity of T205 Matty with Diff. Ad Brands | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 11-19-2008 05:52 AM |
| Perceived or Real? rarity of 1967 B Robby, 1970 Bench | Archive | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 32 | 10-11-2007 09:23 AM |
| Rarity argument at work today | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 08-25-2006 01:27 PM |
| Why isn't Rarity the No.1 factor in determining a card's value? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 07-06-2006 07:59 PM |