Defining Rarity

[davidrj 194]

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

[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

Found it!

"In the 1920s, it was owned by famous collector Arthur Hind, who was rumored to have bought a second copy and destroyed it so he would still own the only example."

(http://www.kenmorestamp.com/british-guiana-1c)

I just couldn't bring myself to do it though. Wouldn't it be smarter to just hide away the second copy and "pretend" you've destroyed it!

[Rob 3,002]

Personally rarity is to do primarily with mintage (subtracting those melted down) and then condition. Not availability in the market. If 2000 collectors held this exact same coin and never released them to market from family generation to generation, the coin in my opinion is still not rare.

Yes - I understand this point. I think Rob is conflating 'rarity' and 'availability', which is of course a perfectly justified and meaningful position. But then there is 'absolute rarity' which - as you say - includes all specimens held by collectors whether or not they appear on the market from time to time.

Coming as we all do from a collector's viewpoint, I take rare to be a term used with regard to the number of pieces potentially available to collectors. This would include all those privately held whether long term or not, but not those in museums which are unlikely ever to be in the market again. So, something where there is only a very small number available would have to be considered rare - take an arbitrary figure of up to a dozen for example. What I do not consider rare is something like the 1934 crown. Sure they only made 932 of them, but virtually every other sale has at least one in it. They are available even if not in the quantity the market could fully absorb and can't in my view be classed as rare. There must be a couple dozen going through UK auction houses every year with more being sold privately to dealers.

Conditional rarity is a different matter as exemplified by the more than 4000 1925 halfcrowns sold at Noble a few years ago. Of 11 lots, only one coin warranted a lot to itself reflecting the difficulty in obtaining a high grade example, but it isn't that they aren't available.

[sound 25]

Personally rarity is to do primarily with mintage (subtracting those melted down) and then condition. Not availability in the market. If 2000 collectors held this exact same coin and never released them to market from family generation to generation, the coin in my opinion is still not rare.

Yes - I understand this point. I think Rob is conflating 'rarity' and 'availability', which is of course a perfectly justified and meaningful position. But then there is 'absolute rarity' which - as you say - includes all specimens held by collectors whether or not they appear on the market from time to time.

Coming as we all do from a collector's viewpoint, I take rare to be a term used with regard to the number of pieces potentially available to collectors. This would include all those privately held whether long term or not, but not those in museums which are unlikely ever to be in the market again. So, something where there is only a very small number available would have to be considered rare - take an arbitrary figure of up to a dozen for example. What I do not consider rare is something like the 1934 crown. Sure they only made 932 of them, but virtually every other sale has at least one in it. They are available even if not in the quantity the market could fully absorb and can't in my view be classed as rare. There must be a couple dozen going through UK auction houses every year with more being sold privately to dealers.

Conditional rarity is a different matter as exemplified by the more than 4000 1925 halfcrowns sold at Noble a few years ago. Of 11 lots, only one coin warranted a lot to itself reflecting the difficulty in obtaining a high grade example, but it isn't that they aren't available.

So if I had a rare Saxon coin (I don't) with only twenty known should I be able to sell it for more than a 1934 Wreath with a price tag of about £ 4,500?

Logic would suggest yes. But things don't always work out that way.

Don't most dealers label a 1934 Wreath rare, I take Robs point though.

Mark

[Peckris 579]

I think you would have to compare a 1934 wreath crown with (1) other wreath crowns and (2) crowns generally. Compared to other wreaths, which are all very scarce, the 1934 is not exceptionally rare. However, all wreath crowns are scarce to rare compared with most other crowns, certainly from 1818 onwards, excluding Gothics.

However, I take Rob's point too - wreath crowns form a constantly changing and fluid market, with pieces appearing all the time. So yes, they are scarce to rare in an absolute sense, but they are not at all difficult to obtain.

[sound 25]

Peckris,

Yes I do see the point, and yes like for like. I think my musing was just suggesting there is no logic to it.

Mark

[Rob 3,002]

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..

[Paulus 1,942]

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 think that's an excellent point Rob. When rarity is measured by 'how often is this coin available to buy' it's always going to be an imperfect measure, but what is a better one? Perhaps we should add some questions to the 10-yearly census! Worldwide?

[sound 25]

So where áre we with this?

In absolute terms a rarity is defined in terms of how many actually exist. In practice and from a collectors point of view it's how often a coin comes to market. That's my take on the collective wisdom expressed here.

But what if your an investor as opposed to a collector? (Smile I'm on my iPad) I suspect an investor will go with the absolute definition.

I think that's worth considering because since the Great Recession a lot of investors have come into the market with a different emphasis to the status quo. Of course coins/stamps have always attracted investors, I'm just suggesting more so.

Regards

Mark

[Nicholas 51]

Another influencing factor on rarity/desirability. The1934 Wreath is the "key date" for the series. In other words it will always be the rarest and therefore will always be more valuable than any price paid for any other wreath crown ever in history. (For the same coin condition for arguments sake). So I guess it's worth paying a premium for. So as the auctions continue over time the 1934 is bumped up above any price paid for another year in the wreath series.

[Rob 3,002]

An investor won't care about relative rarity, only whether the price paid is likely to generate a return.

[Peckris 579]

Another influencing factor on rarity/desirability. The1934 Wreath is the "key date" for the series. In other words it will always be the rarest and therefore will always be more valuable than any price paid for any other wreath crown ever in history. (For the same coin condition for arguments sake). So I guess it's worth paying a premium for. So as the auctions continue over time the 1934 is bumped up above any price paid for another year in the wreath series.

Yes - I've always understood the formula to be "condition" "rarity" and "popularity"; a high scorer on all three would keep the market price high. (In general terms, we are discussing denomination / dates not individual specimens, so condition doesn't really enter this particular topic).

[Rob 3,002]

Another influencing factor on rarity/desirability. The1934 Wreath is the "key date" for the series. In other words it will always be the rarest and therefore will always be more valuable than any price paid for any other wreath crown ever in history. (For the same coin condition for arguments sake). So I guess it's worth paying a premium for. So as the auctions continue over time the 1934 is bumped up above any price paid for another year in the wreath series.

The trouble is that it is booking x5 or more compared to the rest. 1932 & 36 have only two and a half to three times as many, but sell for considerably cheaper than they should based on this factor. I notice that this year's Spink addressed the discrepancy to some degree.

[sound 25]

An investor won't care about relative rarity, only whether the price paid is likely to generate a return.

True to a point. But I suspect that an investor in general terms won't have a collecting mentality. He will be more inclined to think counter intuitively and think shortage of supply = desirability, higher prices. After all typically that's the way markets work.

Mark

[Nicholas 51]

And I can say with absolute conviction that as a discerning and pragmatic coin collector that I have never ever bidded above my reserve for a coin at auction. ; )

[scott 129]

I would never go off a set mintage number, but rather the mintage compared to the other issues, otherwise you start getting jersey etc as rare, and that is a nonesence, it has to be compared to other mintages of the same coin type.

Edited March 20, 2014 by scott

[Gary1000 41]

Surely rare just means there are less than 10 on ebay at any one time.

[Peckris 579]

I would never go off a set mintage number, but rather the mintage compared to the other issues, otherwise you start getting jersey etc as rare, and that is a nonesence, it has to be compared to other mintages of the same coin type.

There's a lot of sense in that, scott. The 1952 sixpence is not rare in any sense of the word, but its mintage is 1/13 of the next scarcest (1938) and a tiny fraction of the commonest (1948), so it's always going to be regarded as a genuine 'key' date.

[Gary1000 41]

I would never go off a set mintage number, but rather the mintage compared to the other issues, otherwise you start getting jersey etc as rare, and that is a nonesence, it has to be compared to other mintages of the same coin type.

There's a lot of sense in that, scott. The 1952 sixpence is not rare in any sense of the word, but its mintage is 1/13 of the next scarcest (1938) and a tiny fraction of the commonest (1948), so it's always going to be regarded as a genuine 'key' date.

The whole problem with this is that key dates have been taken from change since coin collecting begun. The key dates are probably the most common coins around.

[Peckris 579]

I would never go off a set mintage number, but rather the mintage compared to the other issues, otherwise you start getting jersey etc as rare, and that is a nonesence, it has to be compared to other mintages of the same coin type.

There's a lot of sense in that, scott. The 1952 sixpence is not rare in any sense of the word, but its mintage is 1/13 of the next scarcest (1938) and a tiny fraction of the commonest (1948), so it's always going to be regarded as a genuine 'key' date.

The whole problem with this is that key dates have been taken from change since coin collecting begun. The key dates are probably the most common coins around.

That is also true, from George V onwards. However, I think it only applies to 'average circulated' specimens.

[davidrj 194]

Surely rare just means there are less than 10 on ebay at any one time.

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

You can always find a proof though:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1883-BOLIVIA-2-CENTAVOS-ESSAI-UNC-PLAIN-EDGE-/281283702313?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item417dd0ae29

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

David

[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!!

Edited March 20, 2014 by Nordle11

[Peter 615]

Panama coins or Puffin coins get snapped up.

Rarity doesn't come into it....sometimes.

[Nordle11 564]

Panama coins or Puffin coins get snapped up.

Rarity doesn't come into it....sometimes.

Haha Puffin coins, by the self-proclaimed 'King of Lundy'. What a guy

[RLC35 288]

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!!

The 1951 pennies were released in Bermuda, as a result, most of the coins sold to collectors were sold in the United States. In the late 60's, they were advertised in Coin News (USA) for $10.00 each in BU! At that time they were difficult to obtain in the UK.