| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 8,365 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2200 Posts |
I've been thinking about the difference between "rare" and "scarce" coins. While some people use these terms interchangeably, I think there's a big difference between them. To me, "rare" means a coin with a relatively low mintage for its type. For example, the 1909-SVDB is a rare Lincoln Cent with a mintage of 484,00, way low for a penny. And the 1913-S Barber dime, with a mintage of 510,000, may also be called rare, since most Barber dimes had mintages in the tens of millions. But neither of these coins are scarce. You can always find them in almost any condition. But it's much easier to find a 13-S Barber at an affordable price in decent condition. The 09-S Lincoln will always command a top price, in any condition, and much more than the Barber. A 13-S dime in MS-63 condition goes for about the same price as the 09-SVDB in Good condition, even though their mintages are almost the same. Why? Because more people collect and want the Lincoln, even though it's not scarce. When we get to a coin that's scarce, then it gets really interesting. For example, only 960 1881 Trade dollars were ever made. Now there's got to be more than 960 people out there who collect Trade dollars seriously. Think about that--in terms of sheer numbers, not all the Trade dollar collectors will ever have that coin, because there's not enough to go around. (Still, for such a rare and scarce coin, its PR-63 price is only $3400--not chump change but it's not going to kill your bank account, either. Why such a relatively low price? Because not that many people collect Trade dollars.) Anyone else have thoughts on rare versus scarce coins? |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
I get the same thing with counterfeits. There are plenty of "rare" counterfeits, such as one-off electrotypes and Micro-O Morgan dollars. But you can still even go on ebay and purchase them as they're so commonly available. (Although, the Micro-O Morgans still need to come down in price to what they're actually worth.) However, things like Henning Nickels are scarce. You can't just go online and order one. The same with Ecuadorian Sacagaweas. But neither will break your bank to purchase when you do find them. Edited by SteveCaruso
09/17/2012 9:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3184 Posts |
their are coins that are common but conditionally rare. What that means in certain grades they are extremely rare.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1088 Posts |
That is why I ventured into collecting coins from our neighbors to the north and south. But generally any pre colonial to post colonial era coins and tokens that circulated in North America. As a way to be able to attain and collect rare/scarce coins, while maintaining some connection to U.S. coins. These coins are often rarer than most U.S. key dates and due to lower demand can be attained in higher grades for a fraction of the cost of many similar U.S. counterparts. And Often making them appear over rated.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
I've run into situations where at coin shows I can find an 09S VDB at many tables. Same with the 16D Merc. Yet I once sptnt a few years trying to find a 20D Lincoln Cent in MS-63 or higher. Same with many coins. And at coin shows I get tired of dealers saying, "OH, that is common. You'll find them all over the place". Yet no one has one. So RARE versus SCARCE? For me scarce is the coins I need to finish a set, not the rare ones. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
"Condition" rarity, as mkman123 points out, is as important as mintages. And also the frequency with which coins were saved by the public. In 1909 the public went crazy and many saved a few of the new cents as souvenirs. The 1909-S VDB, while pricy, is readily available in all grades. Come 1914, the Denver cent went largely unnoticed. High grade specimens are less frequently found for sale. And surprisingly, some coins are more common in an MS-60 and above state than in a nice XF or AU. This is especially true with the Barber coins. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
By definition R-1 over 1250 estimated to exist Very common R-4 76 to 200 estimated to exist Scarce R-5 31 to 75 known Rare R-6 13 to 30 known Very Rare R-7 4 to 12 known Extremely Rare R-8 1 to 3 known Unique or nearly so Hope that explains the difference between Scarce and Rare  Cheap, Affordable, and Expensive, is a completely different matter which often has very little to do with scarcity. Edited by Conder101
09/18/2012 10:57 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1088 Posts |
Conder101
Who's rarity scale is that? For what coins? I think different rarity scales exist depending on the series of coins, am I correct?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Yeah Conder101, I agree that such things as attempting to go by a hypothical quantity still in existance is a bit errorneou. Regardless of what those R ratings mean, I've found scare coins are just that, scarce. Hard to find, Not common regardless of how many thousands or even millions were made or estimated to still exist. I've spent way to many years searching for coins that were supposed to be everywhere.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2624 Posts |
I think a different scale should exist... the number of pieces divided by the amount of people who want it.
Of course this is impossible to implement but its more important to know than how rare something is. I have a 1-off piece of junk in my loft that nobody wants and yet I have a mass produced item in my front room that appeals to millions. So which is more valuable? Obviously the common but appealing item is.
Same with coins, USA coins are produced in way higher numbers than British coins but that doesn't mean I should ignore them because I know they have a bigger audience.
Edited by DavidUK
09/18/2012 8:30 pm
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16817 Posts |
Conder's rarity scale may vary as far as absolute numbers applied to each label is concerned, but the general order of the labels is the one widely used in catalogues: Abundant (or Very Common) Common Scarce Rare Very Rare Extremely Rare Thus, it is the generally accepted convention that "scarce" coins are more common than "rare" coins. Just like a coin in "Fine" condition is better than a coin in "Good" condition. As I said in a post over in the Ancients section on the subject, the rarity scale is intended to be an indication of how easy it is to obtain an example of the coin in question. You should be able to visit just about any coin store or website and acquire a "common" coin, but "Rare" coins should be much harder to find, while you might have to wait for years for an "Extremely rare" piece to come up for sale. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1088 Posts |
Sap, Thank you for clearing that up. Just as I thought, The hypothetical numbers attached to these labels will and should vary widely depending on the coin type or series. So much as to say that you could not even use the same labels as a generic template for some series or types. You cannot compare the R4/rare of say a colonial coin to a R4/rare in a modern U.S. coin like the Lincoln Cent. Two completely different animals in terms of shear quantities. Neither the 'demand' nor the fickle 'value' generated purely by Demand should have no part in this equation of a rarity scale. It should be purely based on production and/or survivability.. And though the term cheap may not apply to truly rare coins, where there may only be several known to exist. I do think it aptly applies in relative comparison of the cost to availability ratio between any coins considered as rare. Where a relatively common coin is thousands of dollars more in price than a relatively rare coin, to me one of them is cheap and logically should be more desirable than the other. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The scale was part of the Sheldon Rarity Scale. And yes there are a few other scales for other series of coins, but they do not vary significantly in the number of known specimens as compared to the Sheldon Scale.
And Harry, in my opinion no you don't need different scales for different series of coins. We are talking about rarity not value or demand. And I am not addressing grade rarity. There are almost no modern Lincoln cents that are rare. Expensive yes, rare no. The few coins that would be considered rare would be the 43 copper and 44 steel cents, and the 58 doubled die. The 43 copper is an R-5, the 44 steel an R-6, and the 58 doubled die is an R-8. Just about everything else exists in quantities too large to be called rare.
And the term cheap can sometimes be applied to some truly rare pieces. I have several pieces that have fewer than five pieces known, two of them are unique. One of them with two known cost me $30. Last October I picked up one of the unique pieces for about $90. Cheap? I think so. I have a friend who collects a series where, with the exception of a handful of varieties, everything is R-6 or higher. He has about 25 pieces now and I don't think he has paid over $30 for any of them. Definitely cheap. Value always depends on demand. An 09 SVDB is by no means rare or even scarce. On the Sheldon scale it would be considered to be very common. But because the demand is very much greater than the available pieces even in low grade it's expensive.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1721 Posts |
Rare and Unique are two of the most over used and improperly used words. If I'm not mistaken, unique means one of a kind and maybe, just maybe two but one hasn't been seen in over 100 years. A 1921 Morgan dollar is not rare. No matter how long it was in your family, no matter how long it spent on the Mayflower and no matter which uncle took it off Billy The Kid, it is not and never will be rare. Nor scarce. |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 8,365 |
|
Posted 09/17/2012 10:32 pm
