Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="IdesOfMarch01, post: 4670244, member: 39084"]The problem here is that the theoretical definition of "rarity" breaks down when you try to apply it to ancient coins. Why?  Because theoretically, the "rarest" coin is one that's unique.  But essentially all ancient coins are unique.  For any specific ancient coin, there is no other one that has that coin's exact combination of size, weight, wear, roundness, patina, strike, surface, mintmark, artistry, etc. But intuitively we all know that most ancient coins aren't particularly rare.  Using theoretical "rarity" terminology is metaphorically trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- it just won't work.  That's why you see catalogue descriptions such as "rare in this condition" or "rare for the type" for many hard-to-find coins. Personally, I've always used the functional definition of rarity that is so succinctly and accurately described earlier by Steven Album: [ATTACH=full]1151260[/ATTACH] Regardless of how the person describing the coin defines "rarity," this is what I think when I read the various descriptions of rarity (although I might not always agree with the descriptor).[/QUOTE]