Is the coin rarity scale based on original mintage number or is it based on survival estimate? thanks
Below are a few links you may find interesting... http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Features.aspx?page=7a http://www.novanumismatics.com/numismatic-faqs-guides/the-various-numismatic-rarity-scales/ http://old.stacksbowers.com/NewsMed...48/Revisiting-the-Universal-Rarity-Scale.aspx
All rarity scales are based on estimated survivors today. Also, rarity scales are really only applicable to themselves, ie what would be considered "very rare" in morgan dollars would be downright common in many series I collect. So its only RELATIVE rarity within the series as to its validity.
Check out Q David Browers rarity scale here http://old.stacksbowers.com/NewsMed...48/Revisiting-the-Universal-Rarity-Scale.aspx I definitely like how it encompass all coins as opposed to the one that originated due to patterns.
Ah yes, this one. The Sheldon scale is useful for varieties and tokens. This scale is useful for everything.
I don't find the Universal Rarity Scale meaningful. There is too much granularity. In the pre-internet age, it might have been useful but today, any coin rated a Judd R-1 with 1250+ survivors is certainly not hard to buy, except because of its price.
I agree. Way to many categories, no relative rarities versus the series, etc. A 1893s dollar is rare amongst morgans, but very common amongst most world coins.
No, a $1M coin is EXPENSIVE--it may be or it very well may not be rare. That is determined solely by how many exist. How many people may want one has absolutely nothing to do with rarity--merely with cost.
Totally agree. A million dollar coin has tremendous DEMAND versus supply, but has nothing to do with absolute rarity. I have literally dozens of ancient coins more absolutely rare than an Eid Mar denarius, yet the Eid Mar might go for a million at auction, and mine might go for tens of dollars. Heck, mine would probably be thrown together in a group lot. If no one collects them or cares, then the rarest coin in the world is valueless.
I don't find the URS useful at all or at least it has no advantage over the Sheldon scale. Only the first 12 levels of the URS have any real meaning. Once you get beyond URS 12 the number of survivors is large enough that the rarity level just becomes a wild ass guess. "Is it a URS 14 or 15?" No one has ANY way of knowing if the number of surviving specimens is between 4,000 and 8,000 or 8,000 and 16,000. (A TPG pop report might be a little helpful, but it only tells you how many they have graded, not how many they have seen but not graded, or how many are out there in all grades that have never been sent in.) So you can't meaningfully assign a URS number to it at that level. (Even in the Sheldon scale we only speak of the number "known" for R-5 or higher. R-4 or lower are terms as "estimated" so even the Sheldon scale recognizes that once you get beyond 75 pieces you are estimating or guessing the number of survivors.) Then if you look at the top of the URS scale it uses three numbers that are roughly the same as Sheldon's R-8 and Sheldon can cover those with 8+, 8, and 8- So that leaves Sheldon with 8 levels and the URS with 9 usable levels. The URS 4 and 5 equate to Sheldon R-7. After that there isn't a lot of difference. The levels break at slightly different points but that is no great improvement. So really there is no advantage in using the URS scale over that of the Sheldon scale. If it is a Sheldon R1+ it is very common, and if it is larger than a URS-12 it is still very common.
?? gran·u·lar·i·ty ˌɡranyəˈlerədē/ noun noun: granularity 1. the quality or condition of being granular. 2. technical the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon. "the granularity of this war is not the sand that covers most of the country, but these details that have proved so elusive" Did you really mean this?
I think he did. It fits with the second definition and with with my comment. Once you get past URS-12 the scale or level of detail at each level becomes unwieldy. The "grains" are too big.
Yes, he did. The URS scale has too many levels of detail present. There are way too many useless levels. I can't remember what they all mean - there are too many to keep track of. I personally use the scale used by Overton for Bust Halves (which, I believe, is a modified Sheldon scale). There are only 8 levels, which quickly separate several hundred known examples from less common coins. Honestly, any issue with more than a couple of hundred examples is not rare (and doesn't really benefit from tracking rarity). Many different series and collecting groups have their own rarity scales. I've found that many collectors use the one for the series they collect, because that is the language that their peers use.
