How do you define "RARE" in numismatics?

Most collectors agree that coins with a certain number of survivors are absolutely rare. An example being the 1817/4 in your series which I recall as having nine known. However, the cut-off point is still subjective and arbitrary.

If I define 20 or less as rare, will others agree to it? Maybe or maybe not. How about 100? 1000? Hence the concept of relative rarity.

Relative rarity does not mean that a coin is rare or "rare", just that it is scarcer or more common than others.

I concur with you on the demand side though. I incorporated into my third of three definitions but this isn't how the consensus sees it to my knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

To me, "rare" means if it showed up for auction, there would be several strong competitive bids for it. Thus rarity is not simply mintage, or number surviving, but includes demand. Low supply + high demand = rare.

 

This thread has been a fun read. Here is a link that may be of interest:
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Features.aspx?page=7a

10.1 No Known Examples
10.0 Unique
9.0 Ultra Rare
8.0 Extremely Rare
7.0 Very Rare
5.0 to 6.9 Rare
3.0 to 4.9 Very Scarce
2.0 to 2.9 Scarce
1.1 to 1.9 Common
1.0 Very Common

 

This is the universal rarity scale. In the internet age, most of the numerical descriptors aren't representative of how difficult it is to actually buy a coin with this estimated availability. For example, what this scale calls "very scarce" at the lower end with 10,000 I call "common". Anyone can buy a coin like that any day of the week, unless it isn't worth anything. "Very rare" with 101-200 isn't that hard to buy either, most of the time. It depends upon the coin but many are available within at most a few months if not sooner..

 

It depends...

 

Common, scarce, very scarce, extremely scarce, rare, very rare. extremely rare, unique. Easy and fast terminology.

 

Yes, but even using these different scales results in inconsistency in descriptive definition, unless the claim is now that what is rare in one area isn't in another. It's still relative rarity.

I have only paid attention to the Judd scale even though it is for US patterns because it is simple and at least most of the rarity classifications under this scale are somewhat difficult to find. Under the Universal Rarity Scale, most coins defined as "scarce" and many as "rare" are anything but hard to find or buy. The URS calls these coins rare but actually most of the time, they are not because calling it that when it can be bought at will or on relatively short notice makes a mockery of the concept.

 

OK, I'll stir the pot & ask where this coin fits into the scale:
It's all fun.


10.0 Unique
9.0 Ultra Rare
8.0 Extremely Rare
7.0 Very Rare
5.0 to 6.9 Rare
3.0 to 4.9 Very Scarce
2.0 to 2.9 Scarce
1.1 to 1.9 Common
1.0 Very Common

Is it fair to call it "rare"?

 

I don't see fixed scales or established systems as immutable or perfect. They falter and change, just as how government laws change and are constantly amended and have new legislation enacted (not to get political but to simply make a point). If there's a superior rarity scale, then why do we have so many established ones that some prefer over others?

Demand itself won't define the value of something. It's the combination of both supply and demand. Also, 'lack of demand' is a relative assertion - if you only sold one good and have a "sparse" demand of only one buyer, then there is no lack of demand.

And, the notion of "relative rarity" is just as valid as "supply and demand" or "absolute rarity". They're all various man-made explanations of how to categorize ideas. And, aside from any established, numeric system, where do you draw the line between what is rare and what isn't rare? 100? 200? 10,000? Looking at the rarity scale, is what's "scare" not rare because it's not called rare, even though you can't find it anywhere despite it's supposedly non-rare mintage? What if it was a "common" coin with a mintage in the millions that you can't find anywhere for years because everyone wants one? Is that not (relatively) rare?

 

EASY:
If it says 'rare' on eBay, it ain't

 

And these scales are only for coinage. Paper currency has a separate scale as well. Rare currency may have a suggested value, but if no one wants it, you may be the owner of it in your life time. This happens often enough with National Currency Notes.

 

I'll take mine medium-well, please.

 

Once again, value has nothing to do with whether or not a coin is rare. It is based on the amount of demand there is for it vs the total supply of said item. If the demand for an item rises while the supply remains static the value of the item will rise; if the demand for the same item falls, its value will fall.

BUT EITHER WAY, THE RARITY OF THE ITEM STAYS THE SAME.

A coin either IS rare (total population under most accepted scales somewhere under 75 to 100 examples in existence) or it isn't. If your " 'common' coin with a mintage in the millions" only has 100 examples still in existence then yes, it is a rare coin--regardless of the original mintage. However, the fact that there might be 20,000 people looking to buy one while there are only 10,000 examples still left has nothing to do with whether it is rare or not. In this case, it is not a rare coin--merely an expensive one.

 

I believe that a lot of the discussion/debate has to do with how I've named the ratio formula "relative rarity", and how that name/term is being confused with the generic use of the words relative and rarity.

As mentioned in the OP, "relative rarity", as I've defined it, necessarily has to do with value. Whereas, value is not necessarily tied directly with rarity.

Relatively rare in the context of rare means scarce, sure. Whereas, "relatively rare" in the context of "relative rarity" would suggest that something is practically rare just as something which is rare in number. I'm not twisting words, it's all in context.

The idea of "relative rarity" is about how easily you can find something, which is different from how rare something is in number. 1,000 mintage may be absolutely rare, but I may be able to find that coin more easily than a 1 million mintage coin that everyone wants. As a more extreme point, I may be able to find a 100 mintage coin just as easily as one that has a mintage of 100 million - the latter has little to no demand, while the former has an extremely high demand. In this case, the two coins would have the same relative rarity ratio value, which reveals the practical real world availability of a given coin beyond guesses or hasty conclusions drawn from a static mintage number.

e.g. If something has a mintage of 1,000, then do we assume that it won't be available or even just as available as one with a much higher mintage? It may or may not usually be the case; if you're a world coin collector, you may find that it's not always the case, such as a modern Canadian limited edition dollar vs a 1950s Canadian dollar. The limited edition may be more rare in number, but it may be practically just as available as a much higher mintage 1950's dollar. That would suggest that the two would have the same relative rarity ratio value. It may even suggest that the two "should" be priced similarly. In which case, you can simply look at the ratio, and generally know what the price should be (whether or not you'd be paying too much), how available it is, and which coins to prioritize your purchases based on availability.

Now, if established rarity scales already do this well, then we can stick with them. My introduction of a ratio doesn't have to be used, and even though it's not new, it doesn't make invalid, nor worse.

 

Of course they are not perfect, but don't make perfect the enemy of useful. Rarity has a definition in numismatics, it means the total number of extant coins at any given time. All the different scales are different attempts at classifying which counts should be called what. But they all recognize the basic concept that rarity scales are an attempt to quantify how many coins are known to exist today. Given that collectors have been using, and finding it useful, for over 50 years, if you have a different concept you are interested in quantifying then call it something else.

No, absolute rarity is a quantifiable term based on a census and generally agreed upon by serious collectors in any given field. Take large cents for instance, there is a tremendous amount of work done by a group of collectors to keep the census numbers up to date for each variety. Over time, as more coins are found, those numbers increase, but the rarity scale represents a measurable quantity. The notion of relative rarity or some metric that includes 'demand' is not a directly measurable and quantifiable construct. And, I would add, that given the absolute rarity census that already exist, price becomes a pretty darn good indicator of demand or relative rarity as you like to call it. This notion of relative rarity does not add value, and is a categorically different metric than absolute rarity.

All systems of classification depend on arbitrarily agreed upon definitions. Where the line is drawn is not important, that we all have a commonly understood and agreed upon definition is where the value of a rarity scales comes from. I could give two turds if the coin I have is 'Rare', 'Very Rare', 'Scarce', or whatever, I just want to know quantitatively that when I buy a large cent that a dealers calls 'Rare', I know exactly what they mean.

If you would like to call this concept by a specific name, feel free to come up with one. Just don't call it rare, because rare already has an agreed upon definition, and a million existing coins is not anyone's idea of rare.

 

Yes, that's where the confusion was - the naming of the formulation.

 

No, you won't find an example of a 100 in existence coin any easier than you can an example of a 1 million extant coin--regardless of demand for either coin. If you can't find an example of either it is because you aren't offering enough money, not because it is "relatively rare".