Is rarity always linked to price

[divemaster 11]

Why is it that some coins can be much rarer than others yet worth less, for instance 1933 penny (6-7) minted against the 1951 Matt proof crown (2 minted) .

[Stuntman 264]

Because some coins are more deeply lodged in the public and collectors' consciousness and hence there seems to be more demand for them.  

Take 1905 shillings, florins and halfcrowns for example, the prices on these are very high in all grades compared with other post 1816 coins of similar rarity.

[PWA 1967 2,267]

Some pennies are unique / extremely rare but the 1933 of which two out there will always be the one 

Hence the reason for the price paid a couple of months ago.

Numerous others will or should be worth more than may be realised but dont have the same interest ,atleast the 1933 are both in this country and owned by true collectors.

[copper123 1,560]

Popularity is the main thing that ensures a coin is worth a tidy sum , you could have a unique coin but it would be worth diddly-squat if no-one wanted it  thus increadably rare halfpenny  like the DEI GRATIA 1695 halfpenny is only worth what a cheap secondhand car is worth , yet a edward VIII sovereign is a compleatly different kettle of fish

[ozjohn 683]

1927 florin is a case in point a mintage of 15000 is the total for this year. Price now under GBP 200. Conclusion collecting date runs UK florins is not very popular.

[1949threepence 3,368]

Take the 1869 penny - touted as very rare, but judging by the numbers offered on e bay at any given time, actually not that rare. Nonetheless, always commanding a high price, even in modest grade. By contrast consider some of the die varieties within certain years. Some exceedingly rare, yet somehow never quite capturing the charisma associated with certain years, like the 1933 penny, and the 1905 shilling/halfcrown. 

It all boils down to popularity, notoriety and the collective imagination of both the numismatic community and the general public.

 

[Rob 3,228]

The clear breakdown in price relative to rarity seen with the Gothic Crown for example makes it blindingly obvious that supply and demand is the overriding factor. People see an attractive design and behave in sheep mode, just like the latest must-have fashion accessory. A bit like personal number plates. Whether you ask nicely or not, you get a registration (that nobody else has) from DVLA without paying somebody a large sum to provide a plastic sheet sporting a visual clue as to who you are.

The only way a unique or nearly unique coin will realise high values is if it is part of common knowledge or folklore such as the 1933 penny, otherwise it is likely to languish in the few hundreds to a few thousands of pounds, but some minor rarieties can still be picked up for tens of pounds. The main problem here is collectability. Many rarities can be obtained cheaply because the market ignores them on the assumption that they are generally unobtainable. Collectors as a whole migrate towards the reasonably easy to obtain pieces and that is reflected in the prices paid for exceptional examples of what is otherwise a common coin.

However, fashions can also change. A few years ago it was possible to pick up most thrymsas for a couple thousand pounds or thereabouts, yet they were incredibly rare. Today they are becoming collectable, probably as a result of detector finds which have swelled the numbers to make a full run in decent grade of the 12 types perfectly feasible for maybe 100K outlay and only take a few years to complete. 10-15 years ago you were lucky to have more than one or two go through the saleroom each year, and the demand was not seen.

[Paulus 1,980]

Demand and supply all the way. Supply is either well-known or at least fairly fixed, until a new hoard is found. Demand is subject to all sorts of factors, some of which are referred to by earlier posters. Sometimes the 'going rate' for the 'only known example' of a particular coin can be less than similar examples of which there are several known examples. I often think ALL wreath crowns are way too cheap (except 1934 perhaps), given the mintages - the demand must not be there, whatever the reason

[Rob 3,228]

I think most rarities sell for a consensus figure, as the typically small number of people chasing the few available pieces are usually talking from the same hymn sheet. Prices move when you have a new entrant to the market who pays say 20 or 30% above the norm for the type, and so a new base price is set.

[azda 983]

12 hours ago, divemaster said:

Why is it that some coins can be much rarer than others yet worth less, for instance 1933 penny (6-7) minted against the 1951 Matt proof crown (2 minted) .

When we think of the 1951 crown we think of the festival of britain crown minted in millions, how many collectors? When we think of the penny there are many more collectors of these, just check the pages here on the subject, there's practically a new page and type opened up every other day because there's a half a bead missing and will cause a furore in the penny collecting community 

[pokal02 45]

Most coins have two 'strands' of rarity - their rarity as a type, and the rarity of the exact date/bust/ mintmark etc.  So the 1951 matt proof crown would only interest a very few collectors (most will be quite happy with an ordinary one) whereas a Cromwell Crown, although not especially rare, it the only one of its type so goes for more (relative to the number of extant specimens).     The 1601 crown is overpriced (and the 1602 underpriced) relative to its rarity for the same reason, i.e. non-date collectors only need the 1601. 

[freewheels 2]

Case in point, I own 2 3rd head 1711 shillings one in fine and one a whisker below VF, with no problems and good eye appeal for grade. I have been fascinated with this coin for years, the quintessential "Mule".

Bull reaffirms rarity 4 which means I own between 10 and 20% of the supply extant!

Catalog values for this coin are very anemic, indeed that worked in my favor acquiring them; the 1711 4th head shilling like the 1951 Crown is unbearably common but I find it satisfying that the variety jumps from the most common Anne shilling to the 2nd rarest (Ok 1704 plain is R5) through something like 7 grades of rarity.

Perhaps if I can find a couple more I can control the market a little

Do you think that one day people will find this coin fashionable?

[azda 983]

I find the Anne coinage quite boring, and obviously with you obtaining 2 3rd heads at relatively cheap prices and low grades means that collectors are wanting better regardless of rarity. You may one day control the market with these coins, but will collectors want them is the question, grades are more fashionable than rarity right now in my opinion

[Leo 91]

8 minutes ago, azda said:

grades are more fashionable than rarity right now in my opinion

Absolutely. I prefer to spend 200 in an awesome UNC 1902 shilling than in a poor 1905. A beautiful coin will always be sought after, but an ugly (but rare) one will only be interesting to completist collectors which are far less now than they used to.

The question remains of course if an UNC 1905 is a good investment - who is going to want this coin in the future?

[Rob 3,228]

Just collect for their appeal rather than confusing a hobby with an investment. If you find it absolutely necessary to consider the investment side, then, with every dog having its day etc, the thing to collect is surely the most unfashionable? No crystal ball to say when they will be sought after, but at some point they will be relatively strong.

I had a couple of 3rd head 1711 shillings also, one an upgrade to the other, but whilst a premium to the the 4th head is the norm, the variety is not particularly sought after except for those seeking date run/varieties of milled shillings.

Bull reaffirming rarity means nothing as it would be impossible to carry out an adequate survey to verify results - nobody could do so accurately. Many of the rarity values are simply copy and paste.

 

[pokal02 45]

The dealers, led by Spink, have been trying to convince us for years that grade is everything and rarity nothing, but I'm not totally persauded yet.   My impresssion, although I haven't studied it in detail, is that middle-grade.rarities are doing rather well.  Certainly in the Motcomb groat collection they all went for more than estimate - and crowns seem to be similar . It's easy to upgrade a 1671 or 1679 to VF or so, but try  bidding for a 1675/1697 (if you can find one) or even a slightly scarce date like 1706 and the book price and estimate will soon be out of the window.  

[Rob 3,228]

It's difficult to say whether the denomination is the main driver in the case of rarities or not. There are a great many absolute rarities that quite frankly go for a song, but whether that is down to a lack of knowledge on the part of collectors or simply indifference is difficult to establish.

[coinkat 21]

Collecting has evolved in that there are less date collectors within a series and more type collectors that are seeking the highest graded coin within their budget. With this in mind, it does beg the question whether true rarity trumps condition rarity. My goal is to buy quality for the grade. And I would rather own rarity over condition rarity. There are factors that obviously come into play such as supply and demand including whether a certain coin can be promoted. So rarity can be promoted in either sense leading to prices that will in part be determined by those collectors active in the chase.

[pokal02 45]

If we take an 'averagely-scarce' C2 crown, say 1667, the value of a VF relative to an F in Spink has actually  declined from 1990 to 2017, although an EF has increased relative to both - however from 1981 to 2017 the F to VF ratio is fairly similar (no EF quoted in 1981).  A quick look at three hammered groats implied that VF's have very slightly outperformed F's.  So the difference is not as dramatic (outside the very top grades) as some would have us believe. 

I tend to agree that the proportion of completists like me, who started out by collecting date runs from change in the 1960's, has fallen somewhat as the first 20 years or so of decimals didn't lend themselves to this, but may still rise in the future - presume there must now be 40 or so different date 1p's/2p's (and four portraits).in circulation  which could interest the next generation of date-runners.    

[copper123 1,560]

On 02/12/2016 at 6:03 AM, azda said:

 When we think of the penny t because there's a half a bead missing and will cause a furore in the penny collecting community 

Have they nothing better to do? penny collectors

[scott 145]

Rarity only matters if the Demand is good, some very rare Early milled Varieties fetch less then a mid grade 1912 H penny.

[copper123 1,560]

1 hour ago, scott said:

Rarity only matters if the Demand is good, some very rare Early milled Varieties fetch less then a mid grade 1912 H penny.

only when you find them in a 50p rummage box scott

[scott 145]

that's only 1903 open 3 pennies..