Defining Rarity

[Peckris 579]

It's true, whilst some of the lowest mintage pennies are the 1950 and 1951, they are always in abundance on pretty much any site where you can purchase coins.

I'm sure I also read that all 1951 pennies were shipped directly to Bermuda, meaning that not only was the mintage a mere 120k, but any collectors wanting an example had to have it shipped back here to the UK. All whilst ensuring it stayed as UNC as possible!

However, there's no point including that bit of provenance in with the rarity, because they are bloody everywhere!!

It is true that the 1950 and 1951 mintages were supplied for the West Indies. However, once news of the 1950 low mintage got out a year later, collectors had as many 1951s as possible shipped back again, which means they were always easier to find in BU than the 1950. So many were shipped back, in fact, that even in the 1960s they were sold in bulk ("You want 10? 100? No problem.."), and snapped up as an 'investment'. It was very hard to find one in your change though, but 1953s were possible despite only existing originally within the plastic sets.

[Nordle11 564]

It's true, whilst some of the lowest mintage pennies are the 1950 and 1951, they are always in abundance on pretty much any site where you can purchase coins.

I'm sure I also read that all 1951 pennies were shipped directly to Bermuda, meaning that not only was the mintage a mere 120k, but any collectors wanting an example had to have it shipped back here to the UK. All whilst ensuring it stayed as UNC as possible!

However, there's no point including that bit of provenance in with the rarity, because they are bloody everywhere!!

It is true that the 1950 and 1951 mintages were supplied for the West Indies. However, once news of the 1950 low mintage got out a year later, collectors had as many 1951s as possible shipped back again, which means they were always easier to find in BU than the 1950. So many were shipped back, in fact, that even in the 1960s they were sold in bulk ("You want 10? 100? No problem.."), and snapped up as an 'investment'. It was very hard to find one in your change though, but 1953s were possible despite only existing originally within the plastic sets.

You know, this is where the eye appeal lends itself to judging a coin.

While the 1953's are plastic set issues only, they are ugly as sin and render the coin valueless (to me anyway) because of the weak striking, flat design and horribly uncomfortable positioning of Britannia.

As people have mentioned before, this is very much subjective so what someone might class as rare, doesn't necessarily mean 'sought after' or 'hard to obtain'.

I propose the following - a few different rarity scales (i.e one for mintage numbers, one for eye appeal, one for market appearance etc.) then once the coin has been indentified on these, an average or combined score should be plotted against some sort of 'Master rarity scale' to judge a coins overall rarity. I get it though...easier said than done..

Edited March 20, 2014 by Nordle11

[Rob 2,996]

Learn your subject and you will get a good feel for what is available.

Trying to construct a one size fits all rarity scale cannot work because you are combining similar data in theory, but differently skewed by the sampling methods employed and no rational way to weight them relatively. i.e. A variable standard.

[Nordle11 564]

Agreed...you would definitely need multiple versions of the 'Multiple Rarity Scales'.

What would work better, do you think;

- By denomination?

- By base metal?

- By era?

Or prehaps one for each, seriously information heavy I don't know if you can tell but I like data haha, give me a spreadsheet and lots of numbers and I'll be content for the day.

[TomGoodheart 373]

Good guide, there are many coins that are low cost in the catalogues purely because there are no sales records

Try finding one of these - a circulation issue 1883 2 centavos from Bolivia mintage 250,000 Krause VG $3.50, F $7.50, VF $15, XF $50, Unc $85

The same holds true for many copper minors even of supposedly common 20th century issues, mintage is no guide to availability

Reminds me of a favourite quote from Richard Lobel's intro to the Coincraft catalogue:

"One of my first mentors, Bill Ross,[] said 'when you go to value a coin it is what you have not seen rather than what you have seen that matters'. By that he meant that, when you see a coin you have never seen before, forget what it catalogues, it is rare!

[davidrj 194]

"One of my first mentors, Bill Ross,[] said 'when you go to value a coin it is what you have not seen rather than what you have seen that matters'. By that he meant that, when you see a coin you have never seen before, forget what it catalogues, it is rare!

I like that

[pokal02 43]

Wouldn't the 1674 crown fit the 'excessively rare' criteria? One available to collectors (no, I don't have it) and one in BM I think.

I tend to regard 'rare' as meaning 'less common than others of this type/era etc', rather than 'less available relative to the number of potential buyers', so I think it's fair to describe the 1934 crown as rare, even though it turns up surprisingly often. I'd say 'very rare' was perhaps 'one will turn up in 3-4 years if you're lucky' and 'excessively rare' could be 'you'll only get 2 or 3 chances to buy it in your lifetime, even with unlimited funds'. The grading issue is important (especially for milled coins), the 1665 crown in grades above F would meet the 'excessively rare' criteria - I've only heard of 2 in 30 years - even van Roekel didn't have one. On the other hand, some coins can be very expensive without being particularly rare, especially if they're 'type' coins - the crowns of 1601 & 1831 spring to mind.

[ozjohn 552]

A 1927 proof halfcrown of the third series with only 15000 sets released must be one of the rarest modern British coins. This coin only exists as a proof with none issued for general circulation as far as I can tell. You can see them on ebay for about GBP100. I guess most of the 15000 still exist as they were probably saved by people at the time however 15000 is a very small mintage. The same can be said for the rest of the set .

[Rob 2,996]

Wouldn't the 1674 crown fit the 'excessively rare' criteria? One available to collectors (no, I don't have it) and one in BM I think.

I tend to regard 'rare' as meaning 'less common than others of this type/era etc', rather than 'less available relative to the number of potential buyers', so I think it's fair to describe the 1934 crown as rare, even though it turns up surprisingly often. I'd say 'very rare' was perhaps 'one will turn up in 3-4 years if you're lucky' and 'excessively rare' could be 'you'll only get 2 or 3 chances to buy it in your lifetime, even with unlimited funds'. The grading issue is important (especially for milled coins), the 1665 crown in grades above F would meet the 'excessively rare' criteria - I've only heard of 2 in 30 years - even van Roekel didn't have one. On the other hand, some coins can be very expensive without being particularly rare, especially if they're 'type' coins - the crowns of 1601 & 1831 spring to mind.

True, forgot about that one.

I think a lot of peope treat rare as a variable quantity along the lines of 'key date'. i.e. in the absence of any hard numbers, the rarity is relative to others of that type.

[Peckris 579]

A 1927 proof halfcrown of the third series with only 15000 sets released must be one of the rarest modern British coins. This coin only exists as a proof with none issued for general circulation as far as I can tell. You can see them on ebay for about GBP100. I guess most of the 15000 still exist as they were probably saved by people at the time however 15000 is a very small mintage. The same can be said for the rest of the set .

True - but 1927 is a weird case : where a denomination exists in the previous type (1926 ME), the proof values are approximately the same as UNC specimens of that previous type (even the shilling, where there is also a currency issue for the proof type). It's where the proof denomination is the only one dated 1927 (florin, threepence) that the values soar.

Therefore, although the rarity is the same for all 1927 proofs, collectors seem to rate them according to whether there are ANY coins dated 1927 for a particular denomination.

[Nordle11 564]

If I was Dr Evil, I would test this theory by buying every known example of a well known rare coin and then in front of the world destroy all but one of them and then watch the market price of that unique coin. ...

There's a story (possibly an urban myth) that a second copy of the "rarest" stamp the British Guiana Magenta 1 cent was bought and destroyed by the owner of the only known copy

David

Just stumbled across this;

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_23/Worlds-rarest-stamp-sold-in-New-York-7370/

[Nicholas 51]

Fascinating and yes I be been reading about this stamp. What an expected price! If this is true about the BG Magenta becoming unique then maybe it's not an evil thing to do but a brilliant one!

[Nordle11 564]

Yes, very sneaky indeed. Like I said though, if you were smart enough surely you would just 'claim' to have destroyed it, when in actual fact it's tucked away somewhere. Then, once you sell the puportedly unique one, you will have a copy yourself, unbeknownst to anyone else...

*MWUHAHAHA*

[richtips86 24]

I was catching up on this thread whilst at work, and as I was writing some coding thought I'd try to conceptualise the notion of rarity in a formula to give a "rarity score" so the following are my initial thoughts based upon a Likert Scale of 1-100

Rarity = ((Desirability + Availability) / Demand) where:

Desirability (the most desirable, the higher the number)

Availability (the greater the availability, the lower the number)

Demand (the higher the demand, the lower the number)

Obviously this is subjective and there may be some key factors that I've missed, however I think it covers the most pertinent elements raised that affects rarity.

[Rob 2,996]

I was catching up on this thread whilst at work, and as I was writing some coding thought I'd try to conceptualise the notion of rarity in a formula to give a "rarity score" so the following are my initial thoughts based upon a Likert Scale of 1-100

Rarity = ((Desirability + Availability) / Demand) where:

Desirability (the most desirable, the higher the number)

Availability (the greater the availability, the lower the number)

Demand (the higher the demand, the lower the number)

Obviously this is subjective and there may be some key factors that I've missed, however I think it covers the most pertinent elements raised that affects rarity.

How do you define desirability? I like hammered, Peck can't be ar*ed. There are too many penny collectors on this forum, many would disagree. Some like bright coins, others toned. Some quality, others washers. This is too subjective to give a definite number. Availability is an ok parameter because it is a simple census and so is demand as long as you don't try to qualify it.

[richtips86 24]

I was catching up on this thread whilst at work, and as I was writing some coding thought I'd try to conceptualise the notion of rarity in a formula to give a "rarity score" so the following are my initial thoughts based upon a Likert Scale of 1-100

Rarity = ((Desirability + Availability) / Demand) where:

Desirability (the most desirable, the higher the number)

Availability (the greater the availability, the lower the number)

Demand (the higher the demand, the lower the number)

Obviously this is subjective and there may be some key factors that I've missed, however I think it covers the most pertinent elements raised that affects rarity.

How do you define desirability? I like hammered, Peck can't be ar*ed. There are too many penny collectors on this forum, many would disagree. Some like bright coins, others toned. Some quality, others washers. This is too subjective to give a definite number. Availability is an ok parameter because it is a simple census and so is demand as long as you don't try to qualify it.

I agree entirely, this was more a tongue in cheek time waster whilst at work than any real attempt to come up with some standardised scale.

[Peckris 579]

I'd just like to object to the phrase that I "couldn't be ar*ed" to collect hammered - I just don't like them! Well, apart from late finework/Liz I milled, and drawing the line at medieval (i.e. post-Saxon).

[Nicholas 51]

I like formulas. Q.. If demand is high wouldn't rarity increase? Or are demand and rarity unrelated?

I'd like to see price (value) in the equation. (And remember not all rare coins have a high price because they lack desirability)

Eg price=desirability/availability

Since desirability is demand and rarity is built into availability

Edited March 26, 2014 by Nicholas

[richtips86 24]

I like formulas. Q.. If demand is high wouldn't rarity increase? Or are demand and rarity unrelated?

I'd like to see price (value) in the equation. (And remember not all rare coins have a high price because they lack desirability)

Eg price=desirability/availability

Since desirability is demand and rarity is built into availability

Re: your question regarding Demand, that's why I had set it as the denominator with the higher the demand, the lower the value, however I also see where you're coming from regarding demand = desirability. My take on desirability was more a 'nominal value' you could assign such as aesthetic appeal.

[Accumulator 52]

There is also another skewed parameter to muddy the water. Collectors tend to put off the purchase of the more expensive items until later so that excessive amounts of capital aren't tied up. By extension, it means that the expensive coins often return to market a little earlier than one might otherwise expect. This improves availability for the more desirable pieces, giving the impression that they are more common in absolute numbers than a proper census would suggest..

I've just read the whole thread through and stumbled upon this nugget. Absolutely right it skews the perception of rarity in the market. Similarly, I guess, if collectors wish to realise some cash then it's a lot easier to sell a few big coins than part with the bulk of the rest of their collection.

[Rob 2,996]

A prime example would be the Petition Crown. Recently I checked and reviewed the provenances of these. Bergne no.7 makes for interesting reading. It also has raised a question which I haven't been able to answer yet of which later.

A Edmonds from silversmith in the Strand - Wesley?
T Dimsdale 1788, Soth 6/7/1824
T Thomas 387, 23/2/1844 £48
J D Cuff 1373, 8/6/1854 bt Webster
E Wigan, colln bt Rollin & Feuardent 1872, sold after buying no.2
W Yorke-Moore 255, Soth 21/4/1879 £86 Webster
Hon R Marsham 731, Soth 19/11/1888
A D Clarke 364, Christies 15/6/1891
H Webb 692, Soth 9/7/1894
R M Foster 243, Soth 3/11/1903
B M S Roth 348, Soth 19/7/1917
Lt-Col T G Taylor private treaty to
A J Morris, sold privately to
W C Weight 17, Glens 23-25/7/1923
E H Wheeler 500, Soth 12/3/1930
W L Raynes private treaty to Spink 1962
E M H Norweb 223, SCA45 13/6/1985
J Perley Storer 101, SCA111 21/11/1995

In the late 19th / early 20th century a number of collectors held onto the coin for a few years at most. Even in this period you were looking at a cost of up to £150-350 for it and clearly the short period of ownership reflected the outlay involved. It takes a collector with very deep pockets to sit on something of this magnitude for a prolonged period of time. An investor will likely get fed up in short order. Yorke-Moore, Marsham, Webb, Roth, Wheeler Raynes and Norweb were heavyweights, but on the whole even they didn't hang on to the coin for too long. Alongside that is the consideration that young collectors would never be offered coins such as this by private treaty.

The question regarding the coin above concerns the first owner. Until the coin was repaired in the mid-19th century, it had CW 12th Oct 1799 very lightly scratched in the obverse field. I suspect that CW was the initials of the silversmith on the Strand in London at this time, but can't find reference to Wesley's first name. Anybody? He had an apprentice at the time called Lambert who set up on his own account in Coventry St/Piccadilly Circus(?) a decade later, from whom Edmonds purchased Bergne no.6 in around 1812-13.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Rob