What Is "Rare"

I think rarity can be a slightly fluid concept, but generally I tend to refer to a copy of the Sheldon scale I found some time back. That says:

•R8 = 1-3 known (estimated), 'Unique or Nearly Unique'
•R7 = 4-12 known, 'Extremely Rare'
•R6 = 13-30 known, 'Very Rare'
•R5 = 31-75 known, 'Rare'
•R4 = 76-200 known, 'Very Scarce'
•R3 = 201-500 known, 'Scarce'
•R2 = 501-1250 known, 'Uncommon'
•R1 = over 1251 known, 'Common'

Consequently most of the 'rare' coins I have would be R7 or R8. Oddly, I know, but personally I tend to refer to coins where there are more than 20 known examples as 'scarce', though I don't use either of the terms very often!

Obviously that doesn't account for conditional rarity. There's one particular coin I'm looking for at the moment. I pulled together all the information I had and now have records of 56 examples which have been available to buy at some point, 35 or so in the last year. But none of those coins is what I would call an acceptable example. Hence I'd say it's pretty scarce, or rare in better condition. How rare remains to be established by how long it takes me to find an example I want!

Now I've used the term 'condition' above and you might think I mean 'grade', but with what I collect (hammered coins) the degree to which the coin has been subjected to wear is only part of the picture.

Being individually made coins are also subject to the possibility of having been struck off centre, on an oddly shaped flan (planchet/blank), having jumped between strikes and hence having parts of the design doubled, or on an uneven flan where the design doesn't take as well on the thinner areas and so appears weak.

And that's just production problems! After leaving the mint a coin might be clipped, pierced, 'sweated' (worn down to remove small quantities of metal - in this case silver), unpleasantly toned from how it was stored or badly cleaned after discovery!

So what I'm looking for in a coin is not just less than average wear but 'eye appeal'. In other words, do the sum of its good points outweigh the flaws? And as mentioned above, that can make a commonly encountered coin in top condition very rare indeed.

The interesting thing for me is that (at least in my area) 'appeal' (and hence whether a coin is desirable and so to the collector rarer than average) can vary. I can use three decent collections for example. In one the collector was particularly keen on 'oddities'; legend variations, striking errors or overmarks and clearly sought these out.

In another all the coins were decent examples but the most striking thing was all were on very full, round flans - clearly something he preferred.

And the final collection, all the coins are good VF or better with minimal wear visible anywhere. But the number of odd shaped flans and weak patches where the design wasn't properly struck up makes many of those coins less attractive to me.

I'm sure in each case, the collectors would have been prepared to pay a premium for coins they found met their criteria. And so it might be considered that those examples were rarer as it is clear each strove to build the best collection they could.

But what was desirable (and potentially 'rare') to one was not always so to another. I guess that's another thing I like about the coins I collect. They are as individual as the tastes of those that collect them.

(Sorry if I've gone off track a bit there Bacchus! But I find 'what makes a coin desirable' a most interesting subject!

I think we are all in broad agreement and I seem to have used the word condition rather than grade sub conconsiously because I really think about "eye-appeal" rather than some other imposed criteria. Again, because my background is more with ancients (ie, man made) I consider eye appeal to be how a coin was struck up - and I guess collectors of modern coins consider eye appeal to be a factor of how much a coin has worn down.

That Sheldon scale does bear close resemblance (broadly speaking) to the works relating to ancients rarity - there are quite a few so I think a lot of work in this area has been done. In my own book I shied away from indicating rarity because it was such a niche field (a bit like Tom's) where most coin types were limited to under 100 known and it only takes a horad find to completely upset the availability. I believe a similar analogy could be made to the cashe of Carson City morgans which were released into "the wild".

That must be an impressive set of dimes!

This reminds me of the Elizabeth I series of silver. Nearly all examples you see for sale have a very poor bust - I think through a combination of wear and being poorly struck in the first place. To have a smashing example both those factors need to be kind - eye appeal again.

I have a good number of Diadumenian provincials from places such as Aelia Capitolina, Byblus, Berytos, Edessa and other eastern "Greek" city states that are all in terrible condition - but there just aren't any in decent condition so we work with what we have - condition can't be an issue above and beyond attribution. For some examples no-one knows what the correct legends should be. In these cases - are they rare, absolutely. Are they desirable - yes, to me and perhaps a few others only. Are they valuable - that depends on how much someone is prepared to bid if it's an auction - really an unknown for a lot of the time. It seems that you are in a similar position with your Charles collection.

I would say yes and no. Obviously they deal in grading things that does create condition rarities and that keeps them in business.

However I dont think its them exploiting anything or even adding an element that wasnt there. As a buyer youre always trying to talk the price down where a seller is trying to talk it up. Condition is one of the most common negotiating aspects for that. The grading companies are more an an independent arbitrator that kind of sets the terms of how much wiggle room there will be. Youll still be able to move the price some either way but no one is going to pay MS67 money for a coin in an MS64 slab for instance but like you likely wont be able to pay MS64 money for a coin in a MS67 slab.

The one exception to that would probably be things that are both a rarity and a market rarity. We all know being rare doesn't mean valuable, being market rare usually adds a premium since its popular, but if you get something rare that usually doesn't see the market all price guidelines go out the window.

Ha! My American eyes cannot see a difference either.


Bacchus2,
Yes, my dimes are my babies.
I did not mean to suggest in any way that the Sheldon Scale could not be used.
Only that it be tailored to the special requirements for measuring ancients.
The Carson City dollars do not compare to a cache of 100 ancient coins, for these, the CCs, were stored in $1000 bags
in vaults and much less exposed to the elements. Compare a cache of Roman coins found in Britain
with a cache of the same coins found in Egypt. Which environment would have been "kinder"
to the coins?

A further exploration of eye appeal, and I apologize for relying upon the modern Barber coins.
David Lawrence, in his book, goes on to cover each date and mint. Along the way he made
comments such as :
Poorly struck with lackluster surfaces
Comes well struck with nice luster
Good strike ...
Sharply struck ...
Typical ...
Fairly well struck ...
A decent strike ...
Often poorly struck ...

But wait, we are not talking about eye appeal yet: this is
all about the mint's equipment! Would a favored city in ancient Rome
receive better equipment than a city in a far-flung province?
I do not know, so tell me please.
But strike is much more objective than eye appeal.

Still, could not folks such as yourselves not categorize your holdings into such an objective category?
True, with so few surviving examples in many cases it would be a challenge.
But I say, "TRY!" (Or at least, give it some thought.)

Tom,
"Sometimes it's frustratingly difficult to find a nice example..."
Only SOMETIMES? ALWAYS!

Be it "modern" or ancients coins, we who know a particular series of coins understand
just how difficult certain examples can be to find.
Now, Bacchus2 and Tom, I want both of you to take a deep breath and to realize that both of you
have knowledge to document and to share.
Bacchus2 says:

" In my own book I shied away from indicating rarity because it was such a niche field
(a bit like Tom's) where most coin types were limited to under 100 known
and it only takes a horad find to completely upset the availability."

I respond:
"NO! DO NOT SHY AWAY! Write what you know."
Other ancient collectors will appreciate your opinions.

Look, Gents,
I have been most forward to presume upon you your indulgence in
commenting about ancient coins. Until now I have had to admire from afar.
But now I see that we share a similar frustration, and to such an end as we may
all learn from each other I offer my humble observations.

(Imagine - the topic of 'demand' has yet to be adressed in this debate.
That will open another can of worms [as we say in the Colonies!]

"The one exception to that would probably be things that are both a rarity and a market rarity. We all know being rare doesn't mean valuable, being market rare usually adds a premium since its popular, but if you get something rare that usually doesn't see the market all price guidelines go out the window."

SO TRUE!

Great discussion.

And connections, whether other collectors or dealers.

Because the more specialised the area of collecting, probably the fewer collectors and as we all probably know, collectors vary. Some are keen to talk to others while some play everything very close to their chests. Hence it can be very difficult to know if a coin is very rare, if most examples are in long term private collections, or if they are out there unrecognised in more generalised collections.

So having others keep an eye out for coins for you can be a distinct advantage. Unless of course they have competing interests!

Personally, while most of my coins were from dealers or ebay, some of the rarest were via private treaty from other collectors. One coin has passed through two other collectors and a dealer, but hasn't been on the open market since the 1970s and is now unlikely to unless I can find an upgrade! For someone that wants one and doesn't know me, it may as well have disappeared off the face of the Earth!

I'm not sure about 95% since there are undoubtedly some coins that really don't exist in any significant number either through loss (in my field it has to be remembered that we have had two recoinages, primarily in 1696 but also 1816, when old (including hammered) coins were called in and melted down for restriking) or experimentation (some varieties of Charles I coinage seem to have only been struck from one or two dies, though why is unclear). But experience has shown me that scarce/rare coins I'd not expected to see do turn up eventually, so I agree, if you are known to have a specialised interest and the money to fund it, you're more likely to be offered coins that others won't see.

And of course, technology is still advancing. I'd guess 20, 30 years ago many coins found were larger denominations, discovered during farming or building excavations. But look on ebay and it's amazing to see the number of tiny silver farthings, halfpennies and cut fractions. Almost all because of metal detectorists and their ever fancier machines!

So what in some cases was scarce, or at least not common, has become almost commonplace. Though of course, some previously unknown varieties have come to light as well, making it hard to be absolute about 'rarity' even with the benefits of the internet and learned journals and museum collections being viewable online.

Good thread (despite my slightly rambling posts!)

That's a very good point - about some of the choicest examples not apparing on the open market - I know this to be true too because that's how I obtained some of mine. Just letting it be knownto a circle of the right people what your interests / goals are can bring to light those examples.

Toning is another aspect that I hadn't considered thus far, but you are right - that's another factor - closely related to preservation but still another factor in eye appeal. For ancients that would translate to patina and the soil type that the coin was buried in.

And, absolutely, metal detectorists (particually in the Balkans and near east for me) have greatly influenced what is currently available.

I can understand the thrill of the hunt for those interested in slabbing coins - that is, find a good raw one and slab that for a profit. Possibly, on this side of the Atlantic, that same thrill can be found looking for rare varieties in some of the older coins. I don't think there are many cheap US coins available for, say, before 1800, (I may be wrong) but there are lots and lots of coins that old to be obtained here very reasonably - maybe that's where the knowledge and "treasure hunter" elements come to the fore. Different cultures hunt for the "rarity" in different places.

We are certainly lucky to have a long history to pick from (or dig up) - that's for sure.

I'm not so sure TPG will make that much headway here - not in the short term anyway. It might be interesting to do a straw poll on here and canvas opinions, though perhaps this has been done before.

Nearly every collector of ancients I know like to physically handle their coins - and if they have to buy a slabbed one, will crack it out. You should have a perusal at some of the discussions on the Forvm ancient coins site - very, very anti slab and mostly folks from the US too.

For high value coins - that's more likely if only for protection, but for middle of the road coins, perhaps less likely.