Home U.S. Coin Forum

How do you define "Rare" ???

To me, this has always been one of those subjective terms. I have met some people that define rare as any coin where the total population in existence can be counted on one hand, while others go by total supply vs. demand, while still others like myself look a lot more at total mintages, surviving numbers and condition as factors (as a result, I consider my 1889 double eagle to be rare). I just wanted to know what some of you thought.
«1

Comments

  • prooflikeprooflike Posts: 3,879 ✭✭
    I'll add that there are a few kinds of rarity: scarcity(in any grade i.e. 1916 SLQ), grade rarity and variety rarity.


    image
  • zennyzenny Posts: 1,547 ✭✭
    Q. David Bowers has come up with what he calls the Universal Rarity Scale:

    URS -1 1 known, unique
    URS -2 2 known, extremely rare
    URS -3 3 or 4, extremely rare
    URS -4 5 to 8, extremely rare
    URS -5,6 9-16, 17-32 very rare
    URS -7-9 33-64, 65-124, 125-249 rare
    URS -10,11 250-499, 500-999 extremely scarce
    URS -12,13 1,000-1,999, 2,000-3,999 scarce

    it continues in this doubling progression until it reaches, i believe, very common as the least rare population.

    (as quoted from Tomaska, quoting Bowers' "Silver Dollars & Trade Dollars Of The United States" )

    i think this is a pretty good scale when dealing with total mintages, as you suggest.

    one of the nice things about coins is that i'm sitting here with a 1940-s walker in ms64 (ngc) which has the most incredible rainbow toning covering both sides. it was not an expensive coin, and with an original mintage well over 4 million would not be considered rare by any means.

    but walkers with original beautiful rainbow toning like this are few and far between. and i KNOW there isn't another just like this anywhere - so i think i can call it rare.

  • jomjom Posts: 3,441 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think what he meant is how "rarity" itself is defined whether it's "date" rarity or "grade" rarity or whatever.

    Supply and demand can be used but that will be more of a measure of what the particular coin is worth NOT its rarity. Rarity is best defined, IMO, of the total number that exsist.

    Funny the 16P SLQ is mentioned. IMO, coins like the 09-S VDB, the 16P SLQ and 16-D dime are not really rare at all. Open up any auction catalog and you'll see these coins for sale. They are certainly EXPENSIVE coins due to demand but I'd hardly call them rare. In fact, I'll bet the 19-S (with or without bands) is a FAR rarer coin that a 16-D. Especially in mint state (mint state implying grade rarity) but probably over all.

    jom
  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
    "Rare" is when the Dealer owns it.
    Common is when you do.

    peacockcoins

  • I don't like the Bowers scale since I really think it was designed for 2 opposite ends of the spectrum, a 1933 Saint would be URS-1, but then again so would a 1904-S $20 Lib in PO-1, even though I would not put that date in the rare category by any stretch. I am more in tune with the common collector's version of rarity, which it to say how hard is it to find a particular coin, all things considered. Take my previous example of the 1889 double eagle. Mintage was 44,111 and there are none on eBay right now in any grade, Heritage had one in the NY Signature sale and one in inventory currently, there were three listed under the completed auctions on eBay and one was the Heritage Signature sale coin, and the other was listed twice since it didn't sell the first time. So that's 3 total over the last 2 weeks. Or how about the 1916-S Saint, it has a higher mintage than the 15-S but is much harder to find, none currently on eBay vs. 9 1915-S Saints. I think that demand must enter into this, since obviously there are far more people looking for the 1909-S VDB cent that the 1889 double eagle. But since I collect them, the double eagle is more important to me!

    PS-The 1889 in the Heritage Signature sale went for $450 not including BP in MS-60. Quite a bargain, but a fine illustration of the demand side of the equation not measuring up!
  • zennyzenny Posts: 1,547 ✭✭
    just going by common definitions of the words "rare" and "scarce" i think we can make a differentiation - rare being the fact that there aren't too many of the objects physically existing, scarce being the fact that however many of the objects there are they are still inadequate with regard to the demand for them.

    using these definitions your double eagle could hardly be called rare, as it is one of a possible 44,000 plus, but it could readily be referred to as scarce, seeing as none are available.
  • Cam40Cam40 Posts: 8,146
    Something else to consider might be demographics.It seems many nice coins Floridians and Californians and New Yorkers enjoy,would be very `rare` or scarce in the more rual areas of the country.I hate Houston as a coin collecting town compared to one of the aforementioned cities.Luckily the net helps us bridge some of those gaps.
  • Baseball,

    I agree with your comments, and the gold series in general is a completely different animal from most of the sets people collect. In my reckoning, rare it the Type 3 Liberty $20 series would be the 82 or 85, or for Type 2, the 70-CC, or for Type 1, most of the New Orleans issues. But I think you get my meaning, that rarity can be quite relative. The 52,000 1916 SLQs minted might be a scarce issue in double eagles, but certainly not rare. The 400,000+ mintages of some key dates in other series like Lincolns and Mercs would be common date double eagles. I guess my mission should be to convert all those SLQ, Lincoln and Merc collectors to double eagles! image

    PS-The Peace in my signature is actually an image from the US Mint website, and I believe it is a matte proof 1921 (someone correct me if I am wrong). I have a business strike 21 that doesn't look nearly as nice!
  • Baseball,

    Saints are a little tougher though since you cannot rely on mintages alone. By far the rarest would be the Ex. HRs, and the 27-D, even thought the mintage on the 27-D was 180,000. That is another aspect of gold that muddies the issue is the number of surviving specimens due to the executive order of 1933. To my knowledge, in no other series of silver or copper were the entire population of coins subject to confiscation and destruction by the government. Though thousands or millions survived, it is just another factor to consider for gold that is not an issue with other series.

    On a tangent to the rarity issue, what really constitutes a key or semi-key date in a series?
  • I tend to go with jtryka's view that I'm in "tune with the
    common collector's version of rarity". Mintage records are
    a wonderfull guideline, but take commemorative coins, depending
    on whether the initial distribution of the coins was targeted
    towards collectors or the general public influenced the rarity
    of mint state specimens that survived.

    And what about error coins, double strikes, overdates and patterns?
    The rarity of a 1918/7 S Stand Lib Quarter with no known quantity
    can only be determined by public demand too.
    "location, location, location...eye appeal, eye appeal, eye appeal"
    My website
  • IrishMikeIrishMike Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭
    You can define rarity about any way you want, low mintages, low survival rates (i.e. how much was the coin circulated) etc. I like to look at condition rarity for pricing and collecting. For example there were only 750,000 1886-S Morgans minted versus 6,962,813 1901 Morgans. At first glance the 86-S would appear to be the more valuable coin. However if you look at Numismedia price guides you see the 1901 at $11,460 in MS63 and the 1886-S at $280. The prices get even wider in higher grades. The 1901 was as a rule poorly struck, many were never released and remelted and those that were released were circulated. It's neat to own a coin that only had 750,000 pieces minted 116 years ago, but it's not "rare" whereas the 101 year old 1901 is truly a "condition rarity" in higher grades.
  • critocrito Posts: 1,735
    Something else to consider might be demographics.

    I was discussing "numismatic arbitrage" (OK, I made the phrase up, sorta) with a friend in Denver. Noticed that P mint SQ rolls sell for roughly a 5-10% premium out there and, vice versa, D mint rolls fetch a small premium in the northeast. Then the bottom fell out from under the statehood quarter market and that idea went out the window image Shipping was the killer anyways.
  • DHeathDHeath Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭
    Instead of focusing so much on the pops and mintage numbers, I think I consider "rare" any coin that is simply not available. Coins that surface once every few years, and require a great deal of patience to acquire in any grade. Condition rarity is a seperate issue. Pick almost any series, and key dates are difficult to find in very high grade, but they're available if you're willing to pay the premium the grade commands, and are usually plentiful in lower grades. Truly rare coins are simply not available.
    Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers
    and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
    i have a simple definition of "rare": if i don't have it, it's "rare". and if i can't afford it, it's "very rare". which makes my wife unique.

    K S
  • I prefer the Sheldon rariety scale where in order to be "rare" it has to be at least an R-5 75 or fewer (in all grades) known to exist.
  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭
    "that depends on what the meaning of is is" Bill Clinton image

    I start with absolute rarity (surviving population) and then move on from there taking into account much of what's been said above.

    One of the major considerations we face is how changes in rarity affect the market value of a coin. Which types of rarity are more or less fixed and which are subject to change and how much change. These things can have a dramatic affect on pricing.

    As far as early gold coins is concerned the chances of finding hoards of 1822 Half Eagles or 1870-CC Eagles in any condition is pretty remote (extreme cases). What are the chances that another 1953-S FBL Franklin is going to surface anytime soon? Or will a flood of 1995-W SAE's all of a sudden be broken out of sets and get offered on Ebay? Are there many more MS-68 or 69 NY State Quarters going to surface? These are some of the supply side issues we need to consider when determine market value.

    What about the demand side?

    How relative rarity might change and consequently how much of a premium it is prudent to pay today based on a coin's relative rarity at the moment is to some extend tied to your predictions for the future of the market.

    I don't see a huge swell of interest coming in early gold. My interested in early U.S. history lead to a study of early U.S. gold coinage. As much as I love the history and the coins, economic considerations make it difficult for most people to build an extensive collection. The same is true regarding branch mint gold. I believe any increase in demand for these types of coins will be modest (I've read a lot regarding the investment potential for these coins but as much I love the coins I don't buy into gold as being a front line investment).

    On the other hand I think there is some real potential for an increase in demand and changes in the relative rarity of Walkers, Peace Dollars, SLQs, Mercs, Franklins and some of the other coins that might be considered transitional classic/modern coins that are still moderately priced. Whether or not there will be enough of a change in the supply/demand picture for these coins to move the prices "significantly" higher is anybodies guess. At some point rising prices reach a point where they begin to price the coins out of their collector base.

    Unfortunately a lot of newbies go to Ebay and see the word "rare" and interpret the word to mean absolute rarity without any understanding regarding the nuances the word has taken on.
    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    I agree with jom that rarity has nothing to do with demand and everything to do with the number of surviving specimens. It doesn't matter if you can't find one on eBay, if there are 200,000 survivors of a coin it ain't rare!

    I agree with conder that 75 or less specimens in all grades makes a coin rare. That figure isn't set in stone, so any of you with a coin that has only 79, 85, or even 100 fellow survivors can call your coin "rare" without an objection from me.

    As others have stated, rarity and condition rarity are two separate animals. A 2001-D cent in VF-30 may be a condition rarity, but it's an extremely common coin. To call it "rare" would be a sophistry for a smart-aleck to enjoy but not for a numismatist to take seriously.

    Rarity and price oftentimes don't go hand in hand. I owned a proof 1873 half dime that was less than $150, even though only 600 were minted. It was "scarce," but not expensive. I've also bought some foreign coins that have less than 100 surviving in all grades and spent less than $300 for them. Even some rare US gold (less than 100 in all grades) can be had for under $1,000 for a VF-XF coin. Varieties can be tricky because some aren't widely collected. They can be rare but too specialized for type and date/mintmark collectors.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • Does demand factor into rarity? A coin may have a lot of pieces in existance but are buried away as few are willing to part with them, would they not be harder to locate than those with low existance figures but little demand? Let's compare the 1893-S morgan and the 1864 2cent piece. Which one would be considered rarer? Now look at the pop reports, the 1893S has a PCGS pop or 1826 compared to the 1405 for the 1864 RB. Yet the 2 cent piece has little demand and can easily be obtained.
    So can we make a case that "rarity" and "availability" are often different leading to a perception of rarity for many issues that is not true. Based on the definitions of rarity so far there are no "rare" Morgans.
  • jomjom Posts: 3,441 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Coyn, Shiro: Agree. Just because someone owns a coin doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. It may not be available, which effects its PRICE, but it obviously still exsists.

    Now if you want to place a number on "rare", 75 might be a good number. I don't know...

    Coyn could also be very correct when he says there aren't really any "rare" Morgans based on what peoples definition are of rare. But that doesn't mean they are expensive since there are many collectors of Morgans who need these dates.

    jom
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    I heard that a speculator bought up a bunch of the baseball commemoratives (maybe the '97 Jackie Robinson coins?) to corner the market. Even if he suceeded and the coins rarely came up for sale, the coins would not be rare unless he destroyed most of them. So rarity and availability are different issues.

    Much of the time I hear "rare," it is abused by sellers to make their coins seem more desirable or valuable. Very few of the popular coins called rare really are rare in the absolute sense.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One of the problems I see with factoring demand into the rarity equation is what's rare (in demand) today may not be rare (in demand) tomorrow. The potential for changes in demand is one of the risk factors (potential for economic loss) whether we're taking classic or modern coins. That said if there has been 50 years of steady demand that would seem to bode well for furture demand to at least remain at the same level (maybe, maybe not).

    If demand is a consideration with respect to rarity and future projections about demand are based on short term experience things get more risky. When the supply is based on something other than absolute rarity (fixed number) and factors exist that might affect supplies the risk increases.
    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • jomjom Posts: 3,441 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That's just it: Rarity and Supply are pretty much the same thing IF supply is LOW. image

    Brooklyn trolly tokens from the 1930s are probably rare but no one cares (is there such a thing? lol). Therefore, it is still rare but WORTH nothing.

    jom
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    Rarity and demand are NOT necessarily linked.

    If you link rarity to popularity, then you have "relative rarity." Something may be rare relative to the demand for it (e.g. 1909-S VBD cents), but still exist in the thousands. If "rare" is going to be used to described coins like this, the term must be qualified to be used correctly.

    Absolute rarity means that the item exists in small numbers, whether there is little or much demand for it.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • I think one of the problems we have is that as collectors we have merged the term "rare" with "rarity." To me, as a common schmoe, rare is anything that doesn't happen very often, or is seldom seen, for instance, it is "rare" to find liberty seated dimes in circulation in the year 2002, but that does not make all seated dimes "rarities." To me a rarity is a coin with the absolute extant number somewhere in the range of 75-100. A better example is the 1899 quarter eagle I bought in 1999. I have seen only 2 for sale since I bought mine, so to me that is a rare coin, but by no means a classic rarity.

  • Catch22Catch22 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭
    I subscribe to Dr. Sheldon's scale as to rarity. Perhaps the most knowledgable numismatist, Walter Breen, also used Dr. Sheldon's scale in writing "The Bible" for coin collectors. Who am I to dispute his conclusion? Few things torque me off like the liberal use of the term "rare" in describing coins. I suppose if I had the only PCGS slabbed 1849-O Quarter grading G-6, I could describe it as "unique!"


    When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.

    Thomas Paine
  • ARCOARCO Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hell this is easy. Rare is the coin you cannot find! Your scarce coins could be someone's else's rare, but you were lucky enough to find it first. Now it isn't rare to you, just scarce, as finding another would be a real challengeimage

    It is all relative to your experience. If 10,000 coins exist of a particular grade or date, but no one will sell you one ever, then those coins are "rare" to you!image

    at least half of the fun of collecting is the inner sense of accomplishment of knowing that you have a difficult coin that many others are out spending, time, money, and energy busting their humps to find, but cannot have!

    Tyler
  • michaelmichael Posts: 9,524 ✭✭
    for me only one thing determines price.........demand
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
    of course, some would say that "rare" means "warmed on both sides with a red center"

    i'm trying to make a point here, that it may be a pointless discussion since "rare" is ANOHTER relative term, just like "choice" and "expensive" and "popular". like i said before, if you ain't got it, chances are it's "rare" (to you), but if you got a dozen of em, it ain't all that rare (to you). AND, it's also relative to how much $ you got, because if you got the $, then NOTHING is "rare", not even a stradiviariuos violin or a picasso painting.

    K S
  • But rare should not be a "relative" term. That is why I hold to the Sheldon rarity scale. It has been in wide spread use by the numismatic community ever since it was developed over 50 years ago The R-1 through R-8 scale was adopted by both specialists in other fields besides large cents and to a little lesser extent as a rarity scale for coins in general. And in that scale the term Rare is a DEFINED term. A coin is not defined as being "rare" until it reaches R-5 31 - 75 specimens known. If there are more than 75 it is only Scarce at best.
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭


    << <i>But rare should not be a "relative" term >>

    i would agree - IF coin colleting could be formalized as a scientific pursuit. but it is not. it is a topic pursued by subjective people, therefore by definitiion (humans being subjective and all), something which can be debated (like the concept of "rare") is relative.

    it is why a 1885 3c nickel is far more rare than a 1916 slq, but worth far less. because people are fickle and their percept of what's rare is relative. that, by the way, is a good thing. if everyone had the exact same opinion as to what is rare and desiriable, it would be an awful hobby.



    << <i>in that (sheldon) scale the term Rare is a DEFINED term >>

    that is just semantics. sheldon could just have well said "r1 is blue, r2 is green, r3 is purple, r4 is orange", etc. it is unfortuante he chose a term of "rare", as the word has multiple meanings. again it is what i was trying to point out in my other posts.

    ever seen an r-5 steak with 31-75 specimens knowns? me neither, but i've eaten one before.

    K S
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    I think some are confusing rarity with demand (and thus price). It is entirely possible to have a truly rare coin that is worth very little (just as it is possible to have a fairly common coin that is expensive).

    Price and rarity are entirely different concepts. Price is determined by supply and demand. Just because supply is limited doesn't mean a price for that item will be high. Higher demand than supply leads to higher prices.

    Therefore, if you have one of two medals made, but no other collector wants one, you have a rare inexpensive medal. If you have one of 1 million medals made and 50 million people want one, you have an expensive yet common medal.

    Availability is another concept. If someone corners the market of a common item, you can have complete unavailability of a common item. On the other hand, if 75 major coin dealers all have for sale a coin with a surviving population of 75, you have a rare coin that is readily available.

    Capice?
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As Condor mentioned the word rare has a traditional meaning in the numismatic community. Strictly speaking it refers to a certain number of surviving coins. Rarity traditionally has meant a coin that survives in those numbers. Using the term rare by itself without the appropriate qualifier when discussing "grade" rarity or "demand" rarity or "it hasn't been offered in two years" rarity can be misleading.

    Sheldon could have used a color code or some other method to express rarity but whatever the method the scale referred to the number of surviving coins. The scale and word wasn't a measure of demand or grade or used as an expression of how often a coin appeared at auction.

    The word in some circles has come to have multiple meanings because some in the numismatic community have gotten sloppy in the usage of the word, ususally to hype some particular coin. But the sloppy usage hasn't changed the technical and correct meaning of the word which is an express of the number of surviving coins. The qualifiers are appropriate and necessary in order to express clearly to the buyer what is being offered. Not using them causes confusion and misunderstanding.
    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    I'm glad to see training in rhetoric has use in this hobby.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,082 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If I can afford one or have one it aint a rare coin! LOL
    theknowitalltroll;
  • BBNBBN Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭
    rare-still red in the middle. I guess like any old cent image

    Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin

    #1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
  • So by extension, the rare coin market must be extremely tiny, dominated by 100 or so collectors, and the rest of us collect common to scarce coins. But then I read things like this:

    Market Expansion Continues as Rare Coins Show Strength From A to Z
    Economy is iffy but rare coins are spiffy. There's no post-ANA slump as market continues to roll. Rare date 19th century coins are added to the list of fast-selling numismatic items. Dated gold strong in $5,000-$10,000 price range. Kingswood "Jackson Sale" reinforces market strengths. 1964 Lincoln cent brings $4,830 in Kingswood sale.

    This taken from the PCGS front page. So by their reckoning as "The Standard for the Rare Coin Market" if a gold coin has a date and a price between $5K and $10K, it is "rare" or if it is a 1964 penny that brings almost $5K that's "rare." Somehow I think if PCGS limited the discussion of the "rare coin market" by the Sheldon scale, their website would get a lot less traffic as they would have so little to write about.
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭


    << <i>As Condor mentioned the word rare has a traditional meaning in the numismatic community >>

    i doubt it. in 35 years i've heard the term billions of times more often in layman's terms than in context of the sheldon scale. i think the REAL traditional meaning is "you got it , i ain't got it but i need it, so it's rare". the r-5 definitiion of "rare" used by eac and bhnc members is actually the non-trad. version imo.

    you'll never pin an objective definition on the term "rare" is my point.

    why not invent new terms with unambiguos definitions? examples:

    r-1 fizzbit
    r-2 glocky
    r-3 booga-booga
    r-4 binklepod
    r-5 simmentagulous
    r-6 klork
    r-7 mymie
    r-8 lupigion

    if we then all agree to stick by these def's at all times, the terms would be objective and inambiguous. as long as they remain uncorrupted by use in everyday speech.

    K S
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    So by their reckoning as "The Standard for the Rare Coin Market" if a gold coin has a date and a price between $5K and $10K, it is "rare" or if it is a 1964 penny that brings almost $5K that's "rare." Somehow I think if PCGS limited the discussion of the "rare coin market" by the Sheldon scale, their website would get a lot less traffic as they would have so little to write about.

    So we're supposed to change the standard definition to accomodate those who misuse the term "rare"? Nah, let's keep Sheldon's estimate and judge how well others use the term by how well they conform to it.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
    waddya mean "change the standard definition"??? methinks "rare" ALREADY had a standard definition when dr. sheldon chose to use it! the problem is he made a poor choice of terms that already existed in everyday speech! he ought to have "coined" a new term , not tack on additional meaning to a word that was already nebulous and had meaning outside numismatics.

    K S
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    Sheldon's definition has been fairly well accepted in numismatic circles. Some have chosen to misuse the term for marketing purposes. I don't think that needs we need to use "rare" loosely to accomodate marketing tactics or new collectors who don't understand how it's been used these past 40 or 50 years. I think we'd do well to tell the coin hypers to jump in the lake and stop abusing the term. image
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • Catch22Catch22 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭
    Shiro is now on my Christmas card list!image


    When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.

    Thomas Paine
  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭
    dorkkarl

    I think Sheldon used the term according to it's tradition definition. Meriam-Webster's definition is "seldom occurring or found". Sheldon more precisely defined the term for usage in numismatics circles by assigned numbers in a scale. This was helpful in avoiding the kind of confusion and misunderstandings we see today because the term is so often misused.

    "in 35 years i've heard the term billions of times more often in layman's terms than in context of the sheldon scale."

    That may be the case but correct usage of terms is a key element in share information and knowledge. It also helps avoid misunderstandings in business transactions ... unless of course you (not you personally) are looking to create confusion when you're advertising an item to make it seem to be something it's not.
    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin


  • << <i>i would agree - IF coin colleting could be formalized as a scientific pursuit >>



    Possibly that is why I do stick to the Sheldon scale. I do approach coins from a scientific aspect. Coin collecting is secondary to me, I am first and foremost a numismatist As such, precision of language is important. A defined meaning of "rare" may be mere semantics, but is semantics "mere"? Improper use of lanuage is the leading cause of misunderstandings and an impedence to effective communication.
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
    hey conder, nothing wrong with the scientific pursuit of coins, so long as you realize most collectors won't be in line. when you get right down to it, if someone wants to use the sheldon def. of the terms, why not say

    "this is an r-5 1816 large cent"

    instead of

    "this is a rare 1816 large cent"

    then ambiguity is avoided.

    btw, i know there ain't no 1816 lc.

    K S
  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,636 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm a big fan of both science and grammar. And certainly the reason for grammar is
    to facilitate communication. It does not seem likely that we can get even just the
    coin collectors to agree on a definition for rare. A 19th century token with a population
    of 80 might be a highly desirable token with a fancy price, but no one would consider
    it to be rare. But the same population on a variety, or a regular issue, or even a coin
    that would be more common in lower grade, would lead many of those looking for the
    coin to believe it's rare. There are few words because their meaning are fluid and can be
    adapted to fit the users' ideas. Usually these ideas can be discovered in the context.

    In the 1950's there were many rare coins in circulation. While the mintage and survival
    of the 1916-D dime would hardly warrant the use of the term rare, if you looked for one
    in the circulating coinage of the 50's, you would be inclined to call it rare. There were
    many thousands of these still circulating but they were mixed in with many millions of
    other dimes. Rare is a relative term in everyday usage and even in most coin descriptions.
    Tempus fugit.
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    It does not seem likely that we can get even just the coin collectors to agree on a definition for rare. A 19th century token with a population of 80 might be a highly desirable token with a fancy price, but no one would consider it to be rare. But the same population on a variety, or a regular issue, or even a coin that would be more common in lower grade, would lead many of those looking for the
    coin to believe it's rare. There are few words because their meaning are fluid and can be adapted to fit the users' ideas. Usually these ideas can be discovered in the context.


    Yea, verily-- context is the key. We are discussing rarity in the context of numismatics. One may look in the dictionary and find the following definitions for "rare":

    rare 1 [rair ] (comparative rar·er, superlative rar·est) adjective

    1. not often happening: not often happening or found It's rare for them to miss a meeting.

    2. valuable: particularly interesting or valuable, especially to collectors or scholars, because only a few exist

    3. great: unusually great or excellent a rare gift for languages

    4. containing little oxygen: thin in density and containing so little oxygen that breathing is difficult


    Obviously definitions 3 and 4 do not fit the context at all. While it may be true that we can't get coin collectors to agree on the definition of "rare" as it applies to numismatics, it is not because the term is necessarily ambiguous or vague. As Conder pointed out, for more than 35 years Sheldon's definition has been widely accepted, and even newer accepted definitions of rarity are similar. We can argue the merits of Sheldon's scale, but the farther we stray from it the farther we stray from general acceptance in numismatic circles.

    A token with a surviving population of 80 may not be "rare" according to general usage (see no. 2 above), but in numismatics (or exonumia) it would be right on the border of rarity. It doesn't matter if no one wants one, it is still near the rare range. I think the confusion over the term among coin collectors is not because there is anything wrong with the term or how it has been accepted these past 40 or 50 years but in sloppiness of usage. Again, it is usually those with a financial interest in coins that consider those with a surviving population in the hundreds or thousands to be "rare," not the numismatic researchers or scholars.

    If we really want to keep a broad definition of "rare," perhaps we need to water it down to suit sellers, just as "brilliant uncirculated," "choice BU," and "gem BU" have been watered down. It's not that the terms were too ambiguous for most collectors years ago, but rather that sellers abused the terms in grade inflation to turn a profit. Maybe we can even use "commercial rarity" to mean a coin with a population of 50,000 just to please Coin World and eBay sellers. image
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭
    cladking

    I image some of the reasons the Sheldon scale was devised were to provide a simple way to communicate estimates as to the number of surviving coins and eliminate some of the misunderstanding of what is meant when the word rare is used. The reason we're having this discussion is that rather than conform to the Sheldon scale some, due to lack of knowledge about the scale or desire to promote a particular coin they're selling or just plane sloppy usage, prefer to use the term without qualifiers to describe everything from grade rarity to I haven't seen it in auction in the last six months rarity or supply doesn't meet demand rarity.

    Words mean something IF they are used properly on a consistent basis. Unfortunately at this point the word rare has lost any precise meaning because it's been so often misused. It can mean 3 or 3 million coins exist. I really felt like the battle was lost when even Mr. Bowers referred to the 1995-W SAE as a rarity without using a qualifier when he described the coin in his newsletter. I sent an e-mail to him chastising him for his incorrect usage (I know, he's probably forgotten more about numismatics then I'll ever know but he took it all in stride image).

    When I read the word in an Ebay post I know to look further. Heaven help the newbie who reads it and thinks just based on the common understanding of the word that he's found something really special.
    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • BearBear Posts: 18,953 ✭✭✭
    Pink, inside and out!!!!!
    There once was a place called
    Camelotimage
  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,636 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If one is talking about coins that were collected by serious numismatists in the
    19th century then the Sheldon scale may prove useful and facilitate communication.
    Only coins with fewer than 250 extant are considered rare on this scale. Many here
    have further refined this to refer to fewer than 250 in any grade. And further re-
    fined that to apply to a specific date/mint mark combination. There's nothing wrong
    with this so long as all users know what the definitions are and use the term properly.
    With such a narrow definition it is difficult to talk about many coins. For instance one
    couldn't properly say that a 1916-D dime is rarer than a 1921 dime, since neither are
    rare according to this definition. One couldn't even call an MS-67 16-D rare since there
    are thousands upon thousands in lower grade. Rare is a relative term when used by
    most coin collectors and most everyone else. Granted, this doesn't conform to "proper"
    numismatic usage, and it can lead to abuse, but it sometimes does facilitate commun-
    ication.
    Tempus fugit.
  • dorkkarldorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭


    << <i>for more than 35 years Sheldon's definition has been widely accepted >>

    but this is just the point, sheldon's def. is NOT widely accepted. it is narrowly accepted by those who happen to be using the word in a narrowly focused numismatic context at a given time. for more than 35 yrs (ie for hundreds of years), the "widely accepted" definition is as printed in a typical dictionary, which is why it is valid to say "i have a rare 1916-d merc. for sale". thus my point of using a new term specific to numismatics that would be narrowly defined in the 1st place. "r-5" would work just fine for me.

    of course, the ideal would take into account more than just the census of a given coin. it would be the mathematically weighted product of a CENSUS x DEMAND.

    K S

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file