Proposed Rarity Scale for Moderns / populations over 1,000
nycounsel
Posts: 1,229 ✭✭
Another thread complained about the use of terms like "scarce" to describe relatively common coins, which led to discussion of the Sheldon Rarity Scale, which is roughly as follows:
R-1 Common (Population estimated at 1000+)
R-2 Not So Common (501-1000)
R-3 Scarce (201-500)
R-4 Very Scarce (population est. at 76-200)
R-5 Rare (31-75)
R-6 Very Rare (13-30)
R-7 Extremely rare (4-12)
R-8 Unique or Nearly So (1, 2 or 3)
Of course, this scale really has no application for modern collectors, since it lumps all coins with populations over 1,000 as "common."
There are other scales, such as the URS scale, that include coins with larger populations, but they have not gained wide acceptance, at least not that I'm aware of -- and I'm certain that others on this board have much better knowledge than I do on this. Working from the premise that there is no widely accepted rarity scale for coins with populations over 1,000, I'm proposing the following scale for consideration, to supplement the existing "R" scale (and it's possible the void exists because there's no need to fill it).
Trying to place my name on it would be incredibly presumptuous, so if it gains any acceptance, I suggest we simply call it the "M" scale ("M" for modern, although the scale certainly could apply to classic coins).
To me the following represents reasonably useful breaking points to classify moderns.
The proposed "M" scale
M-1: population/mintage under 1,000
M-2: 1,000 to 2,500
M-3: 2,501 to 5,000
M-4: 5,001 to 7,500
M-5: 7,501 to 10,000
M-6: 10,001 to 25,000
M-7: 25,001 to 50,000
M-8: 50,001 to 100,000
M-9: over 100,000
R-1 Common (Population estimated at 1000+)
R-2 Not So Common (501-1000)
R-3 Scarce (201-500)
R-4 Very Scarce (population est. at 76-200)
R-5 Rare (31-75)
R-6 Very Rare (13-30)
R-7 Extremely rare (4-12)
R-8 Unique or Nearly So (1, 2 or 3)
Of course, this scale really has no application for modern collectors, since it lumps all coins with populations over 1,000 as "common."
There are other scales, such as the URS scale, that include coins with larger populations, but they have not gained wide acceptance, at least not that I'm aware of -- and I'm certain that others on this board have much better knowledge than I do on this. Working from the premise that there is no widely accepted rarity scale for coins with populations over 1,000, I'm proposing the following scale for consideration, to supplement the existing "R" scale (and it's possible the void exists because there's no need to fill it).
Trying to place my name on it would be incredibly presumptuous, so if it gains any acceptance, I suggest we simply call it the "M" scale ("M" for modern, although the scale certainly could apply to classic coins).
To me the following represents reasonably useful breaking points to classify moderns.
The proposed "M" scale
M-1: population/mintage under 1,000
M-2: 1,000 to 2,500
M-3: 2,501 to 5,000
M-4: 5,001 to 7,500
M-5: 7,501 to 10,000
M-6: 10,001 to 25,000
M-7: 25,001 to 50,000
M-8: 50,001 to 100,000
M-9: over 100,000
Dan
0
Comments
<< <i>
The proposed "M" scale
M-1: population/mintage under 1,000
M-2: 1,000 to 2,500
M-3: 2,501 to 5,000
M-4: 5,001 to 7,500
M-5: 7,501 to 10,000
M-6: 10,001 to 25,000
M-7: 25,001 to 50,000
M-8: 50,001 to 100,000
M-9: over 100,000 >>
Don't you have the scale backwards?
<< <i>
<< <i>
The proposed "M" scale
M-1: population/mintage under 1,000
M-2: 1,000 to 2,500
M-3: 2,501 to 5,000
M-4: 5,001 to 7,500
M-5: 7,501 to 10,000
M-6: 10,001 to 25,000
M-7: 25,001 to 50,000
M-8: 50,001 to 100,000
M-9: over 100,000 >>
Don't you have the scale backwards?
Its his scale, he can set it any way he wants to .
If it helps sell the "M" scale, how about thinking of it the same way we do with the Gregorian calendar?
The BC years run backward from "0" and the AD years run forward. In our case, the breaking point starts with 1,000.
So we have R8, R7, R6, R5, R4, R3, R2, R1 -- M1, M2, M3, M4... you get the idea.
The Universal Rarity Scale
URS‑0 None known
URS‑1 1 known, unique
URS‑2 2 known
URS‑3 3 or 4 known
URS‑4 5 to 8 known
URS‑5 9 to 16 known
URS‑6 17 to 32 known
URS‑7 33 to 64 known
URS‑8 65 to 125 known
URS‑9 126 to 250 known
URS‑10 251 to 500 known
URS‑11 501 to 1,000 known
URS‑12 1,001 to 2,000 known
URS‑13 2,001 to 4,000 known
URS‑14 4,001 to 8,000 known
URS‑15 8,001 to 16,000 known
URS‑16 16,001 to 32,000 known
URS‑17 32,001 to 65,000 known
URS‑18 65,001 to 125,000 known
URS‑19 125,001 to 250,000 known
URS‑20 250,001 to 500,000 known
sure, why not? though I probably wouldn't jump from 1M to 1B so quickly.
There are plenty of coins that are relatively low mintage compared to the rest of their series even over 100,000.
The 1916-d dime (264,000). The 1909 s vdb cent (484,000). 1999 silver proof sets (804,565). The 1996 "w" dime (1,457,000).
So I'd extend it to
M10: 100,001 to 500,000
M11: 500,001 to 1,000,000
M12: 1,000,001 to 2,000,000
M13: over 2,000,000
At some point it does become an exercise in absurdity.
I knew it would happen.
Here on the boards, the modern guys go nuts if they find something with a population of only 50,000.
WooHoo, hey guys I got a real rare clad dime. Only 80,000 have been slabbed so far. I only paid $900 for it.
Ray
if you read my post, you'll see that I mentioned that other scales, like the URS scale, exist. Bowers may have beat me to it, but if no one uses his scale, then it doesn't matter.
I think that my proposed "M" scale has more logical breaking points than the URS scale.
I also only suggest that the "M" scale supplement the Sheldon scale - a scale that people actually use - instead of replace Sheldon, as the URS scale purports to do.
I think the fact that the "M" scale is modeled after the Sheldon scale also works to its favor.
It's our hobby, we can use whatever scale we want; if no one uses them, they might as well not exist. Since I don't think any of us use the URS scale, I'm offering up what I think is a reasonable alternative. It will exist or not based on its merits. If no one uses it, it will cease to exist. If people think it works, and start to use it, then it was a good idea. I won't burden my proposed scale, or the hobby, by trying to tack my cumbersome and numismatically-irrelevant name on it.
WooHoo, hey guys I got a real rare clad dime. Only 80,000 have been slabbed so far. I only paid $900 for it.
Hey Ray, I'd be glad to sell one of those dimes to you, cheap - say, around $750 or so. Does that float your boat?
I knew it would happen.
Absolutely correct. Modern collectors deal with coins with mintages in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, and see a meaningful difference in those numbers. A scale that applies to those populations makes sense. The proposal is being made for those of us who collect coins with populations over 1,000. If that doesn't apply to you, no problem.
I like the Sheldon "R" scale. It is something collectors use, and I would not presume (the way Bowers' URS scale does), to replace it. I'm merely suggesting it be supplemented with something that has meaning for those of us who collect coins with populations over 1,000.
M-9: over 100,000
M-8: 50,001 to 100,000
M-7: 25,001 to 50,000
M-6: 10,001 to 25,000
M-5: 7,501 to 10,000
M-4: 5,001 to 7,500
M-3: 2,501 to 5,000
M-2: 1,000 to 2,500
M-1: population under 1,000 (apply Sheldon Scale)
R-1 Common (Population estimated at 1000+) (apply M Scale)
R-2 Not So Common (501-1000)
R-3 Scarce (201-500)
R-4 Very Scarce (population est. at 76-200)
R-5 Rare (31-75)
R-6 Very Rare (13-30)
R-7 Extremely rare (4-12)
R-8 Unique or Nearly So (1, 2 or 3)
I note that there's an overlap at the 1,000 coin mark; M-1 kicks in at R-2; R-1 kicks in at M-2, but I think the 1,000 coin mark is a logical starting point.
With your proposal, how would you determine if 40,000 or 60,000 is known for a coin? How would melting and other attrition be calculated from the original mintage?