Does rare equal valuable?

[Mushie]

Just look at the stacks of OA at conventions for $10-$15 that nobody wants.

[Buzzetta]

This is a formula I got from a colletor when I collected hockey cards, to explain why my 1/1 was worth far less than his... I loved it so much, I kept it!

 

"V = ®(D) / (PV - AC)(APr)

 

Value = Rarity times Demand divided by Perceived Value minus Actual Cost times Acceptable Profit"

 

Rarity is on a scale of 1 to 10, with graduations of .5. Demand is on a scale of 1 to 100, with single point graduations."

 

 

Something can be rare with no "value" if no-one wants it.

 

James

 

Whoa... that's a lot of math.

[Speedy-D]

supply/demand ... rarity is relative with very little meaning

[PovertyRow]

supply/demand ... rarity is relative with very little meaning

 

with Demand far outweighing supply. Look at how many copies of, say Hulk 181 there are out there. Far from rare but you could buy a lot of "rare" comics for the price of one of those.

[Jeffro.]

Whoa guys, too talkative for my liking. I'm shutting this thread down. Bunch of jabber jaws.

 

You'll learn.

 

n00b

 

 

[miraclemet]

This is a formula I got from a colletor when I collected hockey cards, to explain why my 1/1 was worth far less than his... I loved it so much, I kept it!

 

"V = ®(D) / (PV - AC)(APr)

 

Value = Rarity times Demand divided by Perceived Value minus Actual Cost times Acceptable Profit"

 

Rarity is on a scale of 1 to 10, with graduations of .5. Demand is on a scale of 1 to 100, with single point graduations."

 

 

Something can be rare with no "value" if no-one wants it.

 

James

 

[Erndog]

Rare and DESIREABLE = valuable.

 

If nobody wants it, it's worth poop.

[miraclemet]

but to your original question....

 

its a lot easier for something rare to become valuable than for something common.

 

Rarity vs Demand is the key thing.

 

If there's a market of 10 buyers, but only 1 item, its as rare as an item that there are 10 of them, but 100 buyers (assuming all other variables are kept in check).

 

If you own something common, it will take a HUGE demand to make it valuable.

 

If you own something rare, it will take less demand to make it equally valuable.

 

[vaillant]

Rare and DESIREABLE = valuable.

 

If nobody wants it, it's worth poop.

 

There is such a thing as INHERENT value, anyway.

[mintcollector]

So I had a difference of opinion recently and though to get some more opinions. Does rare mean valuable?

 

I was looking for some Battle Pope, it's "rare" but I dont consider it that valuable. Of course the seller did so we couldn't agrre to a deal, but I ask you fellow boardies, where do you fall in the debate?

 

 

Why would rare mean valuable? The only way this statement would have validity is only if market demand is a factor. There are plenty of 'rare' antiques that have no value, just as there are plenty of 'old' antiques that have no value as well.

 

Why would anyone assume without any other factor being present that value would be equated with rarity?

 

 

[Speedy-D]

So I had a difference of opinion recently and though to get some more opinions. Does rare mean valuable?

 

I was looking for some Battle Pope, it's "rare" but I dont consider it that valuable. Of course the seller did so we couldn't agrre to a deal, but I ask you fellow boardies, where do you fall in the debate?

 

 

Why would rare mean valuable? The only way this statement would have validity is only if market demand is a factor. There are plenty of 'rare' antiques that have no value, just as there are plenty of 'old' antiques that have no value as well.

 

Why would anyone assume without any other factor being present that value would be equated with rarity?

 

Because they're trying to sell it. See the OP.

[slym2none]

In before the lock!

 

 

Such a cynic

 

Nonono... I was joking, along the lines of the "tree fitty" line and all the other hackneyed lines we use around here.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[valiantman]

If there's a market of 10 buyers, but only 1 item, its as rare as an item that there are 10 of them, but 100 buyers (assuming all other variables are kept in check).

 

Here's another way to look at the same situation...

 

If there are 10 buyers but only 1 item, there are 9 people who want it but can't have it.

If there are 10 items, you only need 19 buyers to have 9 people who want it but can't have it.

 

You don't need to keep the 10-to-1 ratio to maintain the same supply/demand problem.

Both situations end up with the same amount of buyers unable to get the item.

[thunsicker]

If there's a market of 10 buyers, but only 1 item, its as rare as an item that there are 10 of them, but 100 buyers (assuming all other variables are kept in check).

 

Here's another way to look at the same situation...

 

If there are 10 buyers but only 1 item, there are 9 people who want it but can't have it.

If there are 10 items, you only need 19 buyers to have 9 people who want it but can't have it.

 

You don't need to keep the 10-to-1 ratio to maintain the same supply/demand problem.

Both situations end up with the same amount of buyers unable to get the item.

 

But not exactly. In the case where there is only one of something then the person to whom it is most valuable will own it. If I want it I have to want it more than that person. In the case where there are 10 of something I only have to want it more than the person who wants it least.

 

EDIT: I would assume the truth is somewhere between the two models above.

[dupont2005]

If there's a market of 10 buyers, but only 1 item, its as rare as an item that there are 10 of them, but 100 buyers (assuming all other variables are kept in check).

 

Here's another way to look at the same situation...

 

If there are 10 buyers but only 1 item, there are 9 people who want it but can't have it.

If there are 10 items, you only need 19 buyers to have 9 people who want it but can't have it.

 

You don't need to keep the 10-to-1 ratio to maintain the same supply/demand problem.

Both situations end up with the same amount of buyers unable to get the item.

 

But not exactly. In the case where there is only one of something then the person to whom it is most valuable will own it. If I want it I have to want it more than that person. In the case where there are 10 of something I only have to want it more than the person who wants it least.

 

EDIT: I would assume the truth is somewhere between the two models above.

That's true, and that's the catch when buying something exceedingly rare. Sometimes the only guy who has it knows what he has. He knows nobody but you wants it, but he's not going to let it go without an offer he can't refuse. And then sometimes someone has something rare, knows it's rare, but is shocked anyone wanted it at all and is happy to let it go for the first offer, since it's been in his inventory for years without the slightest interest. And then sometimes the seller doesn't know what he has or how rare it is and basically gives it away for a few bucks even though you'd have spent your months comic budget to get it.

[mintcollector]

So I had a difference of opinion recently and though to get some more opinions. Does rare mean valuable?

 

I was looking for some Battle Pope, it's "rare" but I dont consider it that valuable. Of course the seller did so we couldn't agrre to a deal, but I ask you fellow boardies, where do you fall in the debate?

 

 

Why would rare mean valuable? The only way this statement would have validity is only if market demand is a factor. There are plenty of 'rare' antiques that have no value, just as there are plenty of 'old' antiques that have no value as well.

 

Why would anyone assume without any other factor being present that value would be equated with rarity?

 

Because they're trying to sell it. See the OP.

 

But it takes a buyer to believe it is BOTH rare and valuable to justify the price. There are also plenty of rare items that have no value. Of course the collectibles market works on the 'greater fool theory.'

[valiantman]

If there's a market of 10 buyers, but only 1 item, its as rare as an item that there are 10 of them, but 100 buyers (assuming all other variables are kept in check).

 

Here's another way to look at the same situation...

 

If there are 10 buyers but only 1 item, there are 9 people who want it but can't have it.

If there are 10 items, you only need 19 buyers to have 9 people who want it but can't have it.

 

You don't need to keep the 10-to-1 ratio to maintain the same supply/demand problem.

Both situations end up with the same amount of buyers unable to get the item.

 

But not exactly. In the case where there is only one of something then the person to whom it is most valuable will own it. If I want it I have to want it more than that person. In the case where there are 10 of something I only have to want it more than the person who wants it least.

 

EDIT: I would assume the truth is somewhere between the two models above.

I agree that "somewhere between the two models" is probably the best description of truth.

 

Here's an interesting addition to the situation... if there is only 1 of something, the market is totally wrapped up in the sale of that 1 item... which could be decades between sales.

Something that is unique can kill its own demand if the single owner does not want to sell.

Potential buyers take the item off their want list.

 

If there are 10 of something, the market is reflected by each sale, but the total value of all copies is impacted with each sale of any individual copy.

Potential buyers may keep the item on their want list, and the demand may stay the same or increase as a result of more visible sales.

 

As a result, you MAY see an investment grow faster when the number of copies is 5 or 10 versus 1-of-1 or 1-of-2.

 

[mrmyst]

ok

[jimbo_707]

Rarity makes something more valuable the older you get. When I was young, I passed on plenty of items if the price got above fair market value because I figured I'd just wait for the next one to come along. Now I'm 39, so if a scarce book from my want list comes up for auction, chances are I will go after it more aggressively because I don't know whether I'll have another opportunity.

[Speedy-D]

boring