I have always thought that "scarce" means there are far fewer available than being "rare." Then I saw the Sheldon Rarity scale which states the opposite. Is that scale wrong or am I wrong? For example, the 1909-S VDB has a low mintage, but if you have money you can get one even in MS grades. There are also plenty available in very low grades. So, you can get one if you have money and they are not hard to find for sale. However, I have a nickel that was struck on 25 cent stock - not a 25 cent planchet - I mean Mint workers fed the wrong thickness and metal type but the size is exactly that of a nickel. There are only about 9 total known examples. Now I am not talking about value. Clearly more people want a 1909-S VDB than my error coin. But to me, the 1909 is rare, but the nickel on 25 cent stock is incredibly scarce. Again, am I confusing rare and scarce?
Rare is the truest sense of not many exist. Something can be scarce as in hard to find but not actually be rare.
The difference is in the connotation. Scarce is about demand while rare is about supply, more or less. "Scarce" tends to relate a quantity of something to its degree of demand, and there's a partial suggestion that the item is a necessity; e.g., "scarce" means "insufficient to meet needs." In Southern California, for instance, they call water "scarce," but that doesn't make it rare. There's lots and lots of water and it's easy to find water, as it does on occasion fall from the sky, but the demand is so much higher than the available amount. Scarcity will tend to focus on things like water, food, arable land, medical supplies, medical personnel, jobs in a bad economy, and so forth. Rare talks more about a things overall frequency, and it's applied much more broadly. Condors and pandas are rare. Diamonds are rare (they're also in demand, but the demand is as a luxury, and we would not generally call diamonds "scarce"). Antiques can be rare. Even a disease can be rare, though we would never call a disease "scarce." Blue eyes in people of Japanese descent are rare.
I believe the two words hold different meaning to different people.... as an example on the right coast you make a purchase at a store your goods are placed in a bag.... mid west they are in a sack....pretty much the same but thought of differently. Rare is very limited amount as scarce are limited but more likely to be found. I myself over the years have question the same as your statement above. Look at an 1893 O Morgan mintage 300k yet in xf a $300 coin and other date that do comand higher prices have higher mintages. Of course you hear suviral rate....which maybe true....or is it that certain coins or items are in vogue? Meaning that they just hold a higher demand...due to hype or what ever reason. I know it's crazy at times trying to figure out why..... but it's just one of those things about the hobby that is what it is....
Ok, so I always understood Rare vs. Scarce in an economic sense. For example, if I draw a picture of President Trump and sign it, and I only do one in my lifetime, it becomes a rare and even unique piece as it is the only Joe Cronin hand-illustrated and signed illustration of Trump. However, because no one (not even my own Mother) would want to buy it, it is not scarce despite being rare/unique. Scarce implies fewer items availavle than the total number of willing and able buyers. I just wasn't sure if in numismatics, these terms now have a different meaning. For example, the word "tape" is a plastic stickey film used to hold two or more objects together, but then can also mean "film" as when coaches want to see the tape for an instant replay.
The way I learned it was this, Hard to Find, Somewhat Scarce, Scarce, Very Scarce, Somewhat Rare, Rare, Very Rare, Ultra Rare, Unique. Sometimes my Car Keys are Hard to Find, and for some strange reason they seem to be more valuable at that moment. Why? "Value" has Nothing to do with Scarcity or Rarity. It only has to do with Human Desire. I want to find my Keys! "My Kingdom For A Horse". And all this is just my opinion, true for me.
That’s a good question. In my mind in general daily use the two words are interchangeable. Not sure if that is the case for numismatist jargon. I too own several nice coins with relatively low mintages. Certainly lower that an 09-S, VDB or even a 16-D Merc. They don’t command near the price point the cent or Merc command. I chalk it up the the “legendary” status given those two pieces.
In every rarity scale there is, and there are many, scarce always means that there are more of them than there are when they are rare. In other words, scarce is a larger number than rare - always. And in numismatics scarce and rare have absolutely nothing to do with value. There are a great many coins that only exist in small numbers, but are quite inexpensive. Some of them only worth their metal content alone. And there are other coins that are extremely expensive and yet exist in large numbers, sometimes very large numbers.
A coin price website I frequent is bestcoin.com. I believe the site uses a number of sources to determine values, including eBay sales. Under Morgan, the site states: "Rare dates: 1885-CC, 1889-CC, 1893-S, 1894, 1895, 1895-S, 1903-O; Scarce dates: Any "CC" mint coin, 1893, 1893-O, 1895-O." Clearly this site uses "rare" to describe a coin of extremely low mintage, and it uses scarce as a broader term, which is possibly tied to the ability of a collector to locate an example as compared to other common date coins. Under this approach, an 1885-CC is rare and scarce, whereas an 1882-CC is scarce. I cannot help but believe that "rare" and "scarce" are also driven by the number of collectors. Imagine there are only 2 US coin collectors in the world: would an 1893-S Morgan be rare or scarce? My answer is no. If this is true, then a coin could be rare or scarce at one time in history and not so rare or scarce at another time. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving. P.S. I don't eat turkey on Thanksgiving because I don't believe in cannibalism.
Yes, in numismatics, "scarce" is more common than "rare." There are many, many different rarity scales used, some more useful than others. This article goes through and describes the concept of rarity in some detail: http://www.thehistorybank.com/perspective/may10_4.html
Since these scales are all human-made, they can be defined any way we want. Yes, in numismatics, scarce generally means more common than rare. However, the meaning of both terms is completely context-dependent. PCGS and NGC have slabbed over 9,500 1893-S Morgans, and that is supposed to be the "King." There is not a single variety of half cent that is as common as the slabbed population of 1893-S Morgans. There are also more slabbed 1909-S VDBs than there are slabbed half cents of all dates combined. "Scarce" and "rare" are relative terms.
I imagine a portion of them have also been resubmitted after being cracked out which inflates populations
On a scale, yes, a definition of scarce is something somewhat more common or easier to find (and/or less expensive) than something which is genuinely rare (however you want to quantify "rare"). Unfortunately, both have become such throw-away hype words through flagrant overuse in ad copy in places like ebay that I'm not sure there's any solidly quantifiable meaning or scale to which one can peg either term any longer. However, "scarce" tends to describe a somewhat less rare item than one which is legitimately "rare", however you might quantitatively define the word rare.
I think scarce means available at a premium, and rare means hardly available at any premium, or not available at all.
In numismatics, The rarity of a coin, token, etc. is based on the quantity available. The rarity alone does not define the value. Demand for that item with consideration of availability dictates value. I have a 1909 S VDB with hundreds of thousands mintage (in huge demand) which is worth more than $1,000. On the other hand, I have a raw possibility unique (only one known) token which is worth roughly $300-400. In essentially all numismatic publications that I have come across, scarce items are more common than rare items.
They way I’ve looked at it is scarce means it’s difficult to find for sale while rare means few exists. So something like UCAM/DCAM double eagles are scarce because there is very few for sale, while something like a 1916-D Mercury dime is rare but fairly easy to find for sale. A coin could be rare and scarce, something like a 1913 V Nickel.
By no means would I classify the 1916-D Merc as rare. PCGS alone has graded over 8k of them the most they've graded for anything in the series until you get to 1943
My definition: Scarce means you should be ready to pay a bit more than a common similar coin; rare means you need to be ready to pay a lot more. [By "similar coin" I mean, for example, like other seated liberty halves, or other Roman aureus.]
Agreed. In the context of "U.S. Early Half Dollar Die Varieties 1794 - 1836", each variety is given a Rarity rating: R.1 Common (over 1000) R.2 Slightly Uncommon (500 - 1000) R.3 Scarce (201 - 500) R.4 Very Scarce (81 - 200) R.5 Rare (31 - 80) R.6 Very Rare (13 - 30) R.7 Extremely Rare (4 - 12) R.8 Unique or nearly so (1 - 3)
