Options
How do you define "Rare" ???
jtryka
Posts: 797 ✭
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.
0
Comments
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.
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
Common is when you do.
peacockcoins
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!
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
My website
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
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
K S
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.
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
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.
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
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
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.
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
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
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!
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
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
<< <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
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?
Obscurum per obscurius
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
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
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.
<< <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
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
K S
Obscurum per obscurius
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
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.
<< <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.
"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
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.
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.
Obscurum per obscurius
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
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.
Camelot
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.
<< <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