So sick of the terms "scarce", "rare", and "unique"
gecko109
Posts: 8,231 ✭
I come across descriptions of items that use these 3 terms to hype them. Im just so sick of it. Especially the term "unique". I see it at least once a day when browsing stuff on ebay. It makes my blood curdle. I want to write to the seller to explain to them that the word unique means 1 of a kind, LITERALLY! "Rare" is another term that gets ultra-overused. If you just did a search in the coins section of ebay with the term "rare", you might find that just 1 in every 5,000 items listed as "rare" actually is rare. "Scarce" is a term I personally use often. I use it when describing pieces that I have seen only a dozen or 2 in my life during my extensive research and travels. Although I have only seen a dozen, I know that many more must exist, so I refrain from using "rare" on those items. I only use the term "rare" when defining items that I have seen just 3 or less of in my life. These 3 terms have become a joke on ebay, and have lost their true meanings.
0
Comments
that's my definition of "rare".
Oh you forgot one/two more words to your other three. "Top Grade" OR "Registery" can't stand those eether.
<< <i>I only use the term "rare" when defining items that I have seen just 3 or less of in my life. >>
<< <i>Scarcity is less than 5 in my opinion. Scarce is 10 or less. >>
<< <i>If you can go to a major coin show and odds are you won't see a certain coin,that's my definition of "rare". >>
Numismatics uses a rarity scale, and it is based on the number of surviving examples known to exist of a particular issue. It's quite straightforward, actually.
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)
For most coins which are legitimately rare (i.e. R-5 or higher), reasonably good population data does exist and it is possible to be pretty precise.
Applying the word rare, or scarce based on how many coins you have personally seen or if you have encountered one at a specific show on a given day seems quite arbitrary and of very little practical use IMHO.
There are a number of differing scales out there, some are series specific, giving different levels for R1-R8.
scales
Rarity and scarcity is often more than just a factor of quantity, but also supply and demand. I think it would be a mistake to characterize a 1955 doubled die cent as "common" even though the population is well over 1,000 pieces. However, I don't think there can be any argument about "unique". Unique means 1. Though I suppose even that can be fudged a little-- for instance, calling a coin unique because it's the only one in that grade.
More info on the rarity scale, and the Bowers scale, from this article by J.T. Stanton.
article
Rarity factors
The Sheldon Scale C For many years, the only method of reasonably identifying rarity was with the use of Sheldon Scale. This scale was designed at the time to identify rarity of Large Cent varieties. In this case, the Sheldon Scale worked very well, as mintage figures were relatively low. No question. The Sheldon Scale was further adopted for use with many other series and denominations, as it was the only common scale in existence. However, it was not quite appropriate for most series, most varieties, or even most errors.
The Sheldon Scale was simply a progression of eight levels, in which the population of all Large Cent varieties were to fall, and was prefaced with the letter "R", indicating Ararity.@
The Sheldon Scale
R‑1 Common
R‑2 Not So Common
R‑3 Scarce
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)
As we indicated previously, other writers adopted this scale to represent coins that were considered scarce or rare, however, as you can imagine, the scale would not be appropriate for many coins. For instance, if using this scale, the 1955 doubled die Lincoln Cent would be considered common or not so common. Yet in today=s market, the coin is in fact scarce or rare. It all has to do with what is relative.
The Universal Rarity Scale by Q. David Bowers
It is quite obvious from the above that another scale was desperately needed by the hobby for indicating rarity of all coins. Leave it to Q. David Bowers to recognize the need, and develop a method that could be used for any series, and any rarity. In fact, this can be used not only with coins, but with virtually anything when rarity, scarcity, or availability was important. Bowers developed The Universal Rarity Scale (URS), which as its name implies, is universal for any coin or item. Bowers outlined his scale in the June 1992 issue of The Numismatist. It has already been adopted by many writers and catalogers, including exclusive use in The Cherrypickers= Guide.
The URS is a reasonable mathematical progression. One does not need to have a copy with him or her to be able to determine a correct URS. Just simply remember the easy progression.
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
Etc.
As you can see by the Universal Rarity Scale (URS), the mathematical progression is simple, and can be applied to any item as an indication of rarity. In addition, the scale, being simple, does not require memorizing the scale, as one can figure what population a URS number indicates.
When using rarity numbers, with coins, there are a couple of important things to remember. One, rarity generally differs from one grade to another. If a coin is listed as URS 13 (2001 to 4000 known), it may be relatively common. However, if there are only 2 known in grades above AU, it would be a true rarity in
MS63. Such is the case with the 1888‑O Morgan Dollar, "hot lips" variety. They are fairly common is VG and F, but virtually unknown above AU. Secondly, rarity and value are not as closely related as one might suspect. If there are 10 examples of a particular variety known, but only 7 or 8 collectors interested in obtaining a copy, the coin would certainly be rare, but because of a relatively low interest factor, it would not command much of a premium. Conversely, there could be many thousands of a variety known, but if many thousands more collectors were interested in obtaining a copy, the premium over the normal value of the coin would be greater due to the high interest factor (demand). This brings us back to the old theory of supply and demand.
while the Bowers URS Scale might appeal to many, for me it seems to concern itself with numbers and populations which aren't useful to me. i mean, really, is it important for me to know that a specific issue is URS-14 or URS-15 when in reality it's R-1?? my answer is no all the time and the URS numbers seem like "head of a pin" arguements for Numismatics. JMHO, of course.
<< <i>while the Bowers URS Scale might appeal to many >>
Who uses it?
For items in which little to no population data exists (very esoteric items) how else would you describe their availability other than what you have gathered from your own personal experience? Here is an example of such a piece. I have dealt with fractional bullion items for well over a decade, and have yet to see another one of these. How would I go about describing its relative scarcity?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
On another note, TPG pop reports have nothing to do with rarity either--merely with what examples have been submitted to that company. For example, the 1819/18 O-102 (supposedly, according to dealer's ad--I have no access to report) shows a total pop of 6. This does not make that die variety rare. It is actually quite common (R-2).
Maybe part of this is that for modern collectors, the existing R-1 to R-8 scale has no practical application.
Maybe moderns collectors really need their own scale.
I'll make numismatic history here by proposing the "M" scale for moderns:
M-1: 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.
gecko109, not sure why your getting your panties in a twist as being a China Panda Bullion collector you'll only deal with terms such as...
"cute", "cuddly", and "adorable"!
<< <i>I agree, i don't know anyone who uses the URS scale in practice... Though personally, I think a scale that makes fine distinctions between 1-1000 and classifies all coins over 1000 as common isn't very helpful either.
Maybe part of this is that for modern collectors, the existing R-1 to R-8 scale has no practical application.
Maybe moderns collectors really need their own scale.
I'll make numismatic history here by proposing the "M" scale for moderns:
M-1: 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. >>
I like that scale, and fully agree that the "R" scale has zero application for modern coin collectors (unless you are talking about 100kg gold coins from Canada). I have several of the M2 coins.
The name is LEE!
I was NOT sick of the terms nor was I scared of the coins.
<< <i>Applying the word rare, or scarce based on how many coins you have personally seen or if you have encountered one at a specific show on a given day seems quite arbitrary and of very little practical use IMHO. >>
Did I ever claim that my personal definition of "rare" had any practical use...?
As for arbitrary, I guess defining Rare as 31 and Very Rare as 30 had some sort of
scientific basis.
Condescending putz..
Apparantly you didn't READ my thread about my fondulation of the coins at the Smithsonian, did you genius?
<< <i>Saintguru ...... what does a modern gold collector know about rarity?
Hey, Geckie, I have some unique coins....haven't seen any other like them (some toning is pretty unique)
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
As far as "unique" here is the take from the Usage Panel of American Heritage:
USAGE NOTE For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term. But as the language of advertising in particular attests, unique is widely used as a synonym for “worthy of being considered in a class by itself, extraordinary,” and if so construed it may arguably be modified. In fact, unique appears as a modified adjective in the work of many reputable writers. A travel writer states that “Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco,” for example, and the critic Fredric Jameson writes “The great modern writers have all been defined by the invention or production of rather unique styles.” Although these examples of the qualification of unique are defensible, writers should be aware that such constructions are liable to incur the wrath of some readers
There. Now you see how someone can say it.
If there's a criticism to be levied against it, it's the arbitrary designation of the descriptive terms associated with those numbers. No argument with "unique" in a coin with a population of 1. An argument certainly can be made for calling a population of 4-12 "extremely rare". But from there on, the distinctions are pretty arbitrary, and, as others have noted, those descriptions really depend on the series being discussed. A 1955 doubled die cent certainly wouldn't be considered "common" by someone who collects Lincoln cents, nor would a 1916-d dime be considered "common" by a Mercury collector.
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)
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
M scale thread
I'm aware of the Bowers URS scale and that it attempts to do so, but as others have noted, despite the association with Bowers, the URS scale really isn't used by anyone.
I suspect the numismatic community has largely rejected it for a few reasons.
(1) it attempts to replace, instead of supplement, the more popular Sheldon scale
(2) the breaking points on the scale are not intuitive (for instance, URS-18 65,001 to 125,000)
(3) going past 10 is rarely a good idea for a numbering system.
All of these over-used and abused terms make me
but it does have an application for collectors of Modern coinage in the same fashion that it is roundly used for all coinage, conditional rarity. also, i would point out that describing this Rarity Scale as the "Sheldon Scale" is probably wrong at worst and misleading at best. the Sheldon Scale is more properly described as the 70 Point Grading Scale put forth by William Sheldon for grading Large Cents which has been adapted to current widespread use. the Rarity Scale is an entirely different animal.
Multiple google results attributed it to Sheldon. Google: sheldon rarity scale
PCGS is one of them. PCGS "Sheldon scale:
The rarity scale introduced in 1949 in Early American Cents."
I have no idea if the attribution is correct or not.
As far as the rarity scale having zero application to moderns, I'll grant you that it could be used to describe condition rarity. It was technically inaccurate to say it has "zero application", and would be more accurate to say it is of limited use for those dealing with populations of coins that are in the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.
<< <i>Seriously, in the spirit of true liberalism and tolerance, everyone should make up their own rarity scale as they see fit. That way, we will all be able to own "rare" coins according to our own rarity scales. >>
I guess by naming your web site "rareassets.com" you are taking your own advice...
I also reread Garret and Guth's 100 Greatest Coins a few times prior to going. I must say that things started going too fast when we were looking at the 1812-1833 gold. So many 6-7 figure coins, all looking the same and yat all so dam rare and spectacular but I think that anyone would have had "WoW fatigue" by then unless that's all they wanted to see!
But I understand your point about subjective scales and I agree completely.
If you recall I made apoint about the error many collectors make regarding grading their best coins vs. the non-existent perfect MS70 coin even though the finest known may only be an MS66...similar thesis.
i would suggest that the development of the Sheldon Rarity Scale did indeed have at its heart a "scientific basis" since William Sheldon was first and probably foremost a Psychologist who was trained in the use of scientific methods. he almost certainly brought that training to bear on his Numismatic studies.
According to this link, it looks like what many have referred to as the Sheldon scale is also used by Overton for Bust Halves.
I've typically used the numbers in the Fuld scale, which extends to 5,000 and has more use to a modern collector. This is pretty interesting stuff, I don't think I ever realized so many different competing rarity scales existed.
<< <i>As for arbitrary, I guess defining Rare as 31 and Very Rare as 30 had some sort of scientific basis.
i would suggest that the development of the Sheldon Rarity Scale did indeed have at its heart a "scientific basis" since William Sheldon was first and probably foremost a Psychologist who was trained in the use of scientific methods. he almost certainly brought that training to bear on his Numismatic studies. >>
I don't see a lot of science in a semantic classification that doesn't distinguish between
12 vs. 13 and 4 vs. 30. My point is that trying to confer upon the word "rare" or "rarity"
an absolute meaning is basically futile.
<< <i>Saintguru ...... what does a modern gold collector know about rarity?
OK, I'll bite....................Tell me, what Does a Modern Gold Collector know about Rarity?
The name is LEE!
web site, a "Rarity" is a coin valued from $20,000 to $200,000. If it's worth slightly less,
it's an "Express Special.
<< <i>Apparantly you didn't READ my thread about my fondulation of the coins at the Smithsonian, did you genius?
Saintguru .... I did read your post. VERY COOL. Did you know what you were looking at or did you need one of those museum tape recorders?
Ouch!! I think you might have a ball busting coming. He didn't earn the name Saint and Guru overnight little grasshopper.
<< <i>I like that scale, and fully agree that the "R" scale has zero application for modern coin collectors
but it does have an application for collectors of Modern coinage in the same fashion that it is roundly used for all coinage, conditional rarity. also, i would point out that describing this Rarity Scale as the "Sheldon Scale" is probably wrong at worst and misleading at best. the Sheldon Scale is more properly described as the 70 Point Grading Scale put forth by William Sheldon for grading Large Cents which has been adapted to current widespread use. the Rarity Scale is an entirely different animal. >>
Some other yardstick is needed for Modern coinage and it isn't the "R" scale. Condition and attributes (like DCAM) drive modern rarities - 1957 Jefferson Proofs in DCAM for example. 19th Century gold can have PCGS pops of less than 50 due to low mintage, melting and mistreatment. An estimated population that might impress a modern collector as"scarce" I would view as "common" in the series I collect.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
if you want to de-classify my rarites or any others...please do so...i don't mind as your opinion had nothing to do with my purchase
i'm very fond of my...,
1964 sms dime.................................................estimated 25 to 30 known
1965-67 sms ms66dcam jefferson's.................65' & 66' have pops less then 35 in designation after 20 years of grading attempts
my matty's with upto 1/2 of pop's found lay in one of the broadest collected series.......so a collector base to availability fall into play
the 64sms will find debate herein...they show up on a regular basis in despite...does anyone reading have any for sale?????????
truly it all boils down to....to each their own
if a 1913 liberty nickel traded hands every month would it be less rare?
If there are less than 200 examples of a coin in existence, do we really need to 5 different classifications of rarity?
If I have a coin that has a mintage of 3,500 it’s not rare? It’s the same R8 as a coin with 50,000 mintages?
Wouldn’t it make more since to say something like the following?
Better Date: less than 10 million
Limited: less than 5 million
Scarce: less than 2 million
Very Scarce: less than 1 million
Extremely Scarce: less than 500,000
Rare: less than 100,000
Very Rare: less than 50,000
Extremely Rare: less than 10,000
Then start on the Sheldon scale… such as Extremely Rare R8, Extremely Rare R7, Extremely Rare R6, etc for less than 1,000?
<< <i>As for arbitrary, I guess defining Rare as 31 and Very Rare as 30 had some sort of scientific basis.
i would suggest that the development of the Sheldon Rarity Scale did indeed have at its heart a "scientific basis" since William Sheldon was first and probably foremost a Psychologist who was trained in the use of scientific methods. he almost certainly brought that training to bear on his Numismatic studies. >>
Well, looks like I'll need to replace my irony-o-meter.
Ed. S.
(EJS)