Rarity ratings, do they mean anything to you?

[Phil Anthos]

They do to me, but not too seriously. A dealers listing of, say, R3 means little to me but will send me researching auction sites, other dealer listings, etc. looking for confirmation. But some coins seem to carry a reputation rarity, which really means nothing at all. I've seen coins rated rare or scarce but then I find that nearly every dealer on Vcoins has one. Yet they continue to be listed as such. 

So do these 'ratings' mean anything too you when considering a purchase?

~ Peter 

[sand]

For me, rarity ratings mean very little. I collect coins, because of the history and culture surrounding the coins, and the history and culture shown on the coins, and because the coins are interesting or beautiful. In a way, I prefer common coins, because the common coins perhaps are more representative of the history and culture of the people who created the coins, than rare coins. And, common coins are often less expensive, than rare coins. However, if an interesting or beautiful coin happens to be rare, and if the coin is within my price range, then I will consider buying the coin, but not because the coin is rare. And, I can usually tell, if a coin is common or rare, just by seeing how many coins of that type, are on the market (fixed price sellers, and auctions), and how many coins of that type, are on ACsearch.

Edited June 16 by sand

[robinjojo]

It's a secondary consideration, at best.  The primary criteria that I use include relevance to what I am collecting, condition, the coin's appeal esthetically, price (of course), historical/cultural significance, design elements and themes, and finally scarcity/rarity.  The fact is that there are some very rare coins available, but, especially if they are bronze, and of a highly specialized nature, probably do not appeal to the broader spectrum of collectors.  I do have some of these coins, described as rare or very rare, but ended up not attracting any bids, so were sold as remainder lots.  These are wonderful and fascinating coins, but their rarity is not a major factor for their purchase.

[shanxi]

I have never bought a coin because it is rare, but I accept paying more for a rare coin that I need for my collection.  But once the coin is in my collection, rarity doesn't matter much, with one exception. I have a few coins that are the only known example, and I don't mean minor variations. For these coins I feel more like a caretaker/protector than an owner.

Edited June 16 by shanxi

[Prieure de Sion]

Rare is another sales-promoting tool - no more, no less. It is (almost) the same as the condition of antique coins, very fine, excellent, etc. What does beautiful mean? Or very beautiful? Who defines rare or very rare? What is the minimum number of coins required for a coin to be rare or very rare? Is there scientific data on how many examples of a certain type exist in the world?

One example. 

On RPC Online there are also often silver tetradrachms, which are also in the Prieur catalogue. Let's take any silver tetradrachm - but it is only listed with 3 examples at RPC! At Prieur, however, the frequency is 120 examples. The seller now writes - rare! Only 3 examples listed at RPC! 

Or, as I have also seen, only 5 examples are listed at RPC Online (because the authors at RPC see no need to pictured any more examples). But if you search on acsearch, you can see that 1-2 examples of this type have been and are auctioned every month. Nevertheless, the seller writes "only 5 examples listed at RPC".

But that's advertising. And texts are often advertising too. No seller would write "I personally don't like this coin at all" and "there are plenty of these coins available, you just have to wait a little". A salesperson wants to sell. 

As a customer, you should always read this information with some distance. When it comes to condition, I myself never look at the information provided by the dealer - I have to like the coin - just me. It doesn't matter whether it says VF or AU or MS - I have to like it, no matter what the seller says. 

And as far as the indication Rare is concerned. What is rare? The number of copies still in existence? Rare in this condition? Rare with this control mark? Here, too, I inform myself and use tools such as acsearch or coinarchive to see how often this type has been available in recent years and how good the chances are of it being offered again.

 

[John Conduitt]

Rarity and its meaning (or lack of it) has been discussed a fair bit.

I don’t collect rare coins for the sake of it. It would be better if none of the coins I wanted were ‘excessively rare’ so that I could at least find and/or afford them. But if everything was too easy to get then collecting might not be much fun. This is why, I suspect, rich people go after meaningless slab grades, so that there is at least some distinction to make a coin special and they can enjoy the thrill of the chase. If a coin is extremely rare but I would want it regardless of its rarity, it makes it a little more satisfying to own it knowing my collection is unique.

[ambr0zie]

For me, rarity for a coin is relevant ONLY if it's a bonus added to the more important conditions fulfilled by a coin. 

Does it fit my collection? Do I find it aesthetically pleasing (this doesn't necessarily mean fantastic condition)? Does it have an interesting reverse? Can I afford it? 

If the general answer for the above is yes, the rarity is a plus.  If not, most likely I will not buy the coin, perhaps unless it's a snack bought cheaply. 

Of course, I am proud and happy when I add a rare type, but rarity is not something to impress me by itself in the absence of other factors. 

I think in 7 auctions out of 10 I see coins described as "rare" "2 examples on acsearch" "unlisted in RPC" or whatever. But almost all these coins are unappealing for me and I don't feel they would add numismatic value to my collection. 

[CPK]

Rarity ratings are not arbitrary and meaningless market hype. They're not perfect, obviously, but they do provide interesting and valuable information about a coin type. If I see a coin described as "R2", say, it means something to me - although like @Phil Anthos I like to confirm that rating by searching archives and past sales.

I am not a specialist in my collecting, so I enjoy adding very rare coins to my collection when I can. But it's not the primary driver of what I find appealing.

[Heliodromus]

I ignore all the text of auction listings other than photo and measurements (which I rarely rely on).

Rarity ratings in RIC VI & VII are often wrong (occasionally laughably so), not surprising given that they are almost 60 years old, predating metal detectors, the internet as a way to spread information, not to mention numerous hoard finds and the breakup of Yugoslavia which had a significant impact on the bringing of individual LRB coins finds to market.

RIC sometimes gets rarity wrong in the other direction too - saying a coin is merely scarce despite no specimen to cite, and the type hardly ever appearing for sale.

My ground truth for rarity, and my secret weapon as a collector, is my own database of coin photos I've collected over last 20+ years where I've tried to gather examples of anything of interest as well as all examples seen of rarities. I've got over 21,000 photos saved, all organized for rapid searchibiloity, with photos all resized to a standard 800 pixel width for easy side-by-side comparison for matching and comparison purposes.

 

[Roman Collector]

7 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

I ignore all the text of auction listings other than photo and measurements (which I rarely rely on).

Rarity ratings in RIC VI & VII are often wrong (occasionally laughably so), not surprising given that they are almost 60 years old, predating metal detectors, the internet as a way to spread information, not to mention numerous hoard finds and the breakup of Yugoslavia which had a significant impact on the bringing of individual LRB coins finds to market.

RIC sometimes gets rarity wrong in the other direction too - saying a coin is merely scarce despite no specimen to cite, and the type hardly ever appearing for sale.

My ground truth for rarity, and my secret weapon as a collector, is my own database of coin photos I've collected over last 20+ years where I've tried to gather examples of anything of interest as well as all examples seen of rarities. I've got over 21,000 photos saved, all organized for rapid searchibiloity, with photos all resized to a standard 800 pixel width for easy side-by-side comparison for matching and comparison purposes.

 

Largely agree with @Heliodromus here.

The meaningfulness of rarity ratings depends on which rating is used. The old volumes of RIC from back in the 1930s are meaningless and only refer to museum collections. In contrast, the rating system used by Tameryazev and Makarenko is based upon an inventory of 21st century auction sales and does give an estimate of market rarity. R4, for example, means 1-4 specimens sold since 1997. I personally use a similar rarity assessment when purchasing coins within my subspecialty field, taking into account known museum specimens, number in the Reka Devnia and Lliria hoards, and auction sales and internet databases. Can I be sure that I've inventoried the entire world's supply of a certain coin? Of course not, but it's the best information available and it means something when a particular denarius is one of only 4 I've been able to find compared to another of which >500 specimens were present in the Reka Devnia hoard and there are 24 specimens for sale at Vcoins at any given time. 

The way that rarity affects my purchasing habits is that when I see a coin that is truly rare, I divert attention to it, buying it as soon as possible, because I know I may never have another opportunity in my lifetime to purchase another specimen. Am I willing to pay a premium? Yes. I very much put other items on my want list on hold while I target a once-in-a-lifetime rarity. 

The notion of rarity is not some nebulous or made-up thing; it's real. And I use the concept to prioritize my purchases. 

Edited June 16 by Roman Collector

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I don't put too, too much stock in it.  But it can be useful.  For example, there will be times on vcoins where a coin is listed as rare, but there's 10+ others listed.  On the other hand, a portrait Sulla denarius only shows up maybe 1-2 times a year on vcoins, if that, although they do show up in auctions.

About 80% of my purchases are based upon the coin's appearance, so rarity isn't too important to me.

[Ten-Speed]

The call of the rare is indeed tempting, but my budget doesn't allow this in most cases.

[ewomack]

I don't dismiss rarity ratings outright, nor do I take them too seriously. Rarity is always conditional and subject to change, after all, as people continue to find hoards. One never knows when a hoard, or some other source, of "rare" coins may turn up, making them "less rare." "Rare" also doesn't necessarily mean desirable. Some people care purely about rarity, some people don't. The coin press in general seems to highlight great rarities that fetch extravagant prices, which likely makes such coins, and the entire concept of rarity, appealing for the attention they might bring. The historical auction battles over ownership of the 1856 1-cent magenta postage stamp highlight this pretty well. Everyone seems to agree on its general lack of aesthetic appeal, but, since only one is known to exist, even the official royal stamp collection doesn't have one. You can then own a stamp that even the King doesn't have (the King may not actually care, but that's not really the point). Its price has risen exponentially over the years as a result. Though a pretty extreme example, I think it demonstrates some of the psychological complexities behind the appeal of rarities.

From an economic perspective, I can see where rarity might mean more to sellers than to buyers. Someone selling a coin likely wants to emphasize its "rarity status" to make it more appealing or to justify a higher price. Someone buying that coin may want to downplay the importance of "rarity" to pay less. But someone may actually want to buy the coin because of its rarity, so it all depends on perspective. Everyone has their own approach. Nonetheless, the psychology of rarities likely impacts many collectors' minds through the simple path of coin listings. Some feel a certain prestige around owning something that others might want, or owning something that many others don't have. Some don't care.

Overall, I find rarities expensive and so I don't generally pursue them. I would never pay an exorbitant price for a rare coin, even one that I really wanted. If I was an investor in coins, then I would definitely pursue them, because true "investment grade" rarities do tend to increase in value over time, sometimes quickly by excessive amounts. But in that case I would pursue only to sell. I wouldn't pursue to own. Still, rarity has its place and it likely won't ever fade as a large factor in this hobby.

Edited June 16 by ewomack

[Al Kowsky]

6 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

Rare is another sales-promoting tool - no more, no less. It is (almost) the same as the condition of antique coins, very fine, excellent, etc. What does beautiful mean? Or very beautiful? Who defines rare or very rare? What is the minimum number of coins required for a coin to be rare or very rare? Is there scientific data on how many examples of a certain type exist in the world?

One example. 

On RPC Online there are also often silver tetradrachms, which are also in the Prieur catalogue. Let's take any silver tetradrachm - but it is only listed with 3 examples at RPC! At Prieur, however, the frequency is 120 examples. The seller now writes - rare! Only 3 examples listed at RPC! 

Or, as I have also seen, only 5 examples are listed at RPC Online (because the authors at RPC see no need to pictured any more examples). But if you search on acsearch, you can see that 1-2 examples of this type have been and are auctioned every month. Nevertheless, the seller writes "only 5 examples listed at RPC".

But that's advertising. And texts are often advertising too. No seller would write "I personally don't like this coin at all" and "there are plenty of these coins available, you just have to wait a little". A salesperson wants to sell. 

As a customer, you should always read this information with some distance. When it comes to condition, I myself never look at the information provided by the dealer - I have to like the coin - just me. It doesn't matter whether it says VF or AU or MS - I have to like it, no matter what the seller says. 

And as far as the indication Rare is concerned. What is rare? The number of copies still in existence? Rare in this condition? Rare with this control mark? Here, too, I inform myself and use tools such as acsearch or coinarchive to see how often this type has been available in recent years and how good the chances are of it being offered again.

 

P. de Sion, A point you raise is very valid, "Rare in this condition?", & this is very applicable to ancient coins. The coin pictured below is very common, however, how many of these coins exist with a complete original silver coating 🤔?

Rarity of ancient coins is never permanent, a newly discovered hoard can change a coins status from rare to common. 

[rasiel]

Most collectors care a lot about rarity. The sense of exclusivity is central to a feeling of accomplishment. As just one of many examples, a Licinius AE3 from Nicomedia from the year 316 is just as rare as a Valerius Valens from the same date and mint but the average one will cost you a few bucks while the latter thousands of times more. 

Rasiel 

[Heliodromus]

38 minutes ago, rasiel said:

Most collectors care a lot about rarity. The sense of exclusivity is central to a feeling of accomplishment.

Well, kinda. I think most collectors care about desireability (not the same as rarity), in the eyes of other collectors as much as their own. Curtis Clay once said, at least partly serious I think, that one main motivation for most collectors is making other collectors jealous!

39 minutes ago, rasiel said:

As just one of many examples, a Licinius AE3 from Nicomedia from the year 316 is just as rare as a Valerius Valens from the same date and mint but the average one will cost you a few bucks while the latter thousands of times more. 

I think you mean Cyzicus. Constantine is a better comparison. Coins of this issue (SKM) are common enough for Licinius, but about equally rare for Valens and Constantine (I've noted 7 Valens, and 8 Constantine), yet there is no price premium for the Constantine ones.

 

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, rasiel said:

Most collectors care a lot about rarity. The sense of exclusivity is central to a feeling of accomplishment. As just one of many examples, a Licinius AE3 from Nicomedia from the year 316 is just as rare as a Valerius Valens from the same date and mint but the average one will cost you a few bucks while the latter thousands of times more. 

Rasiel 

I agree rarity improves collecting (and maybe even drives some aspects), but I don't think collectors care as much as all that. A collector of emperors will buy a cheap Licinius. They will probably buy the nicest of the cheapest type, even (or especially) if those are commonly available. A specialist Licinius collector will also do better to avoid the rarities if, say, they are collecting reverses. They do not care about the Licinius Nicomedia AE3s from 316 as they are too expensive for their collecting goal. If they're looking for envy, I don't know if anyone else cares either.

I would upgrade a poor coin to a better one but I don't think I would often upgrade to a rarer one. There has to be something that makes them special beyond the rarity. I have a cheap Carausius, and I happily avoid all the reverse types that cost thousands, but I would still be tempted by the very expensive three emperors type.

Edited June 16 by John Conduitt

[kirispupis]

In my practice, I pay attention to rarity, but it's often misleading.

For example, something marked as "extremely rare" may be listed so due to a rare control mark. On certain coins with myriad known control marks, an argument could be made for every example. Therefore, every claim of rarity for a type I'm interested in has to be verified.

Often I find a coin listed as "rare" isn't truly rare at all.

Occasionally, though, I'll find that the claim is true and the coin has an interesting history that I wasn't aware of, in which case a claim of rarity will actually encourage me to bid/buy a coin I hadn't originally thought of. That being said, I won't go for a coin just because it has a rare year or control mark. I may go for a rare type if it's interesting or the city is interesting, but most often I'm after rare mints.

[Roman Collector]

We've discussed this before. Here are my thoughts about rarity in terms of price. Rare is not the same as expensive.

[ewomack]

3 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Well, kinda. I think most collectors care about desireability (not the same as rarity), in the eyes of other collectors as much as their own. Curtis Clay once said, at least partly serious I think, that one main motivation for most collectors is making other collectors jealous!

I agree that collecting provides, for some, a form of conspicuous consumption. "Look what I have and look what you don't!" The forums make this pastime even easier. 😁 Actually, if it weren't for the few coin forums that I frequent, I would be the only one who ever saw my coins (my wife tolerates them). That said, I starting posting threads on the coins that I buy to determine whether I actually bought something "decent" and hopefully not something fake or questionable. I know I'm not buying extravagant show pieces that will get me lots of heart eyed emoji reactions. Nonetheless, when people reply "nice coin!" I know that I probably didn't screw up and buy something horrible. But, I do admit that it's fun to share coins with others who may also find them interesting. Though, my almost exclusive interest in Byzantines may make some people think that I'm only showing off my poor taste. 😁

[rasiel]

1 hour ago, ewomack said:

Though, my almost exclusive interest in Byzantines may make some people think that I'm only showing off my poor taste. 😁

Aye! My most expensive coin (by an order of magnitude!) is a Byzantine. Its rarity made it so expensive, no other factor. 

When it comes to ancients there are many "kinds" of rarity. There are the rare rulers (which always increases the price), types, busts, denominations, varieties (which may not increase the price at all), dates, condition and twenty others I can't think of off the top of my head. 

Rasiel 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Rarity seems to occur quite frequently with Roman provincial bronze with the myriad of scarce reverse types available, however because of lower interest in these coins compared with standard Imperial AE's, prices are not generally that high. Otherwise, rarity fluctuates based on new finds and liquidation of collections. I recall that Athenian owls suddenly became very common due to hoards, presumably, being unearthed. 

[seth77]

I suspect that any collector who has been focused on a certain area for some years has his/her own rarity meter and that is usually the one that matters.

[Sulla80]

To add to @Roman Collector's comment - I like both of these coins - they both could be described as "rare" - there will be few on NF that have one and few that can be found in auction databases (<12 of the second and < 36 of the first - 9 examples in 2023 a recent find?) (more "rare" if condition is considered).

That said - they were not expensive.

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/pylæmenes-ii-iii-euergetes

 

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/lydian-moon-god-meis-axiottenos

Edited June 23 by Sulla80
improved photos