Rare is a totally overused and misused term. I much prefer "difficult to find", or "difficult in this grade" for moderns, and personally reserve rare for coins that are simply unavailable. I know that arguing the semantics of the word is circular and that each of us will probably not be persuaded of much, but I always believe that intelligent comprehension requires an understanding of context, and acceptance of its use by a speaker requires some knowledge of the speakers relevant experience. Simply put, one mans rare isn't necessarily anothers. Rare as a quantifier is like the word competent, or adequate. They're meaningful only to the speaker. It is often impossible to reach consensus on the implied meaning of simple phrases like "you may". In biblical context, does that phrase grant permission, or does it imply you might chose one action or another. Conder, the correct empirical approach would be to say "one of approx. 70 known surviving examples". IMHO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Simply put, one mans rare isn't necessarily anothers. Rare as a quantifier is like the word competent, or adequate. They're meaningful only to the speaker.
Uh oh... are we getting into deconstructionalism? If someone starts quoting Jacques Derrida, I'm leaving.
Words are not only meaningful to the speaker or we'd never understand each other. Aain, CONTEXT is king. Knowledgable numismatists using the term "rare" to describe a coin won't mean the same thing as the guys hyping coins on TV. That does not mean there is anything wrong with the word-- it simply means that some use it in the context of established numismatic parlance and others use it as hucksters to peddle their overpriced wares (and others use it naively).
Granted, "rare" cannot be measured by scientific terms as can 0 degrees celsius. However, since so many find the Sheldon scale or the newer URS system adequate, I don't see why we need to make accommodations for non-numismatists and over-eager coin sellers and use it out of its numismatic context. The difference between a surviving population threshold of 75 coins or 100 coins is close enough that we can agree to disagree what is "rare." Aren't they fairly close? However, when we encounter someone selling his 1995-W SAE on eBay and describing it as "rare," I think we'd be better off as numismatists to judge that he's abusing the term rather than to change the Sheldon or URS scale to suit him.
Yes, "rare" is a similar to "competent" and "adequate." We have tests to determine those qualities, also. One may think he's adequate for a job, but if he fails the tests the prospective employer will judge otherwise. I am simply saying that we also have tests for rarity in numismatic terms. Why doesn't someone make a case that the Sheldon scale or the URS system is wrong instead of saying "rare" is too vague because non-numismatists don't understand it?
Should we also change the grading scale since non-numismatists describe AU coins as being in "good condition"? I certainly hope not. I prefer to call my coins "VF, "choice BU," etc. as the case may be instead of "kinda used," "real good," and similar non-numismatic terms.
Rare = when I wake my wife at 6 AM on Saturday to ask if she would enjoy a little romantic interlude or should I go play golf and she doesn't say "wear a sweater, its cold outside."
<< I don't see why we need to make accommodations for non-numismatists and over-eager coin sellers and use it out of its numismatic context >>
because they were in the market place FIRST.
OK, let the dumbing-down begin!!!!!!!
BTW, I'm in the market for a pretty good 1807 capped bust half, a real nice 1916 Barber quarter, and a hum-dinger 1876 trade dollar with Chinese marks on it.
No postmodernist babel, although it's a pretty good arguement. All I'm saying is that if we as collectors can't reach consensus about the definition of rarity, I will not blythely accept its meaning when used in an advertisement meant to solicit my business. It's meaning is diluted, and trying to enforce proper use is quixotic.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
If I could call a pop 2 or pop 5 coin "rare" (like a high grade 16-D dime) and not get slammed then I would memorize the Sheldon scale and use it exclusively.
But what does grade rarity mean? If we don't quantify the term rare (give it a number) in the context of what you see on Ebay grade rarity could mean the 5 million MS-65 NY State quarters are rare in relationship to the 200 million MS-64 NY State Quarters (just throwing out some numbers to make a point). The word rare has no real meaning as far as communicating an idea if we don't assign a number to it. This is exactly what has happened in as far as it's common usage in hyping coins on Ebay.
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
Comments
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
K S
Uh oh... are we getting into deconstructionalism? If someone starts quoting Jacques Derrida, I'm leaving.
Words are not only meaningful to the speaker or we'd never understand each other. Aain, CONTEXT is king. Knowledgable numismatists using the term "rare" to describe a coin won't mean the same thing as the guys hyping coins on TV. That does not mean there is anything wrong with the word-- it simply means that some use it in the context of established numismatic parlance and others use it as hucksters to peddle their overpriced wares (and others use it naively).
Granted, "rare" cannot be measured by scientific terms as can 0 degrees celsius. However, since so many find the Sheldon scale or the newer URS system adequate, I don't see why we need to make accommodations for non-numismatists and over-eager coin sellers and use it out of its numismatic context. The difference between a surviving population threshold of 75 coins or 100 coins is close enough that we can agree to disagree what is "rare." Aren't they fairly close? However, when we encounter someone selling his 1995-W SAE on eBay and describing it as "rare," I think we'd be better off as numismatists to judge that he's abusing the term rather than to change the Sheldon or URS scale to suit him.
Yes, "rare" is a similar to "competent" and "adequate." We have tests to determine those qualities, also. One may think he's adequate for a job, but if he fails the tests the prospective employer will judge otherwise. I am simply saying that we also have tests for rarity in numismatic terms. Why doesn't someone make a case that the Sheldon scale or the URS system is wrong instead of saying "rare" is too vague because non-numismatists don't understand it?
Should we also change the grading scale since non-numismatists describe AU coins as being in "good condition"? I certainly hope not. I prefer to call my coins "VF, "choice BU," etc. as the case may be instead of "kinda used," "real good," and similar non-numismatic terms.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>I don't see why we need to make accommodations for non-numismatists and over-eager coin sellers and use it out of its numismatic context >>
because they were in the market place FIRST.
K S
because they were in the market place FIRST.
OK, let the dumbing-down begin!!!!!!!
BTW, I'm in the market for a pretty good 1807 capped bust half, a real nice 1916 Barber quarter, and a hum-dinger 1876 trade dollar with Chinese marks on it.
Obscurum per obscurius
No postmodernist babel, although it's a pretty good arguement. All I'm saying is that if we as collectors can't reach consensus about the definition of rarity, I will not blythely accept its meaning when used in an advertisement meant to solicit my business. It's meaning is diluted, and trying to enforce proper use is quixotic.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
You mean the 2001-D Sacs aren't "rare" in the Sheldon-scale sense?! I've been swindled!
Obscurum per obscurius
I would memorize the Sheldon scale and use it exclusively.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>Grade rarities >> And I like this.