JUST HOW RARE DO I THINK A PARTICULAR WCE MEDAL ‘REALLY’ IS

I receive quite a few formal and informal questions about all aspects of Columbiana. I would think that this is at least in part because I don’t make any attempt to discourage them. Quite to the contrary, I actively encourage customers, noncustomers and most anyone with a serious interest in the Columbian Expo to contact me. I remind buyers, especially first-time customers, that I’m not here just to sell Columbiana.

I don’t mean to pat myself on the back, but since I became interested in the Columbian Expo more than 45 years ago, my interest has been under several different banners; and I am generally considered the foremost authority on most anything from the WCE. As a historian, I constantly study the events and time periods that interest me and in turn, I do my best to share my knowledge. I probably know the most collectors because I have been selling Columbian for decades; but other times I’m wearing my “historian” hat, and others still, I am playing the role of “collector.” I have been all three since I first discovered and became interested in the World’s Columbian Expo.

The questions I receive are dramatically varied. And they seem to be directed to all three of the roles I fulfill. They include very specific collector questions: Is this medal really worth the asking price? Or, just how rare is this item?

They also include very general and very specific questions: How many passengers could the Ferris Wheel hold? This medal is not in Eglit–Does this mean it is rare or just that it wasn’t known until after the Eglit book was published?

I would like to share my thoughts on the rarity designations and just how accurate they are.

The subject of rarity is nearly always part of questions about the WCE. There is not a definitive work out there that has attempted to label expo items with an “R” designation. Actual numeric rarity scales are mostly used when it comes to numismatic items. Eglit offered virtually no collector insight into listings in his book. But two books serving the collector marketplace consider rarity designations in their books and assign rarity numbers to WCE medals. The H-K So-Called Dollar book devotes as much or more space (and entries) to Columbian SCDs than to those of any other event/expo.

H-K includes rarity designations with all its entries and provides a table of the range of number of medals for each. I have long questioned the veracity of these designations. No one using or assigning rarity numbers to a group of items makes it clear just what is included in those numbers. For example, if a particular medal is listed as, say, an R-5. In the most commonly used scale known as the Sheldon scale after its developer, an R5 is considered “scarce to rare” and equates to a “population” of 31-75; the newer and not as broadly used “Universal Rarity” scale has its R-5 with only 9-16 in its population. A Universal Rarity R-7 most closely compares to the Sheldon R-5, with a population of 33-64.

I have NEVER seen an unequivocal definition of what these numbers represent. Are they total numbers that are known to exist today, with no detailed reference correlating this figure to the total minted? Are they the number thought to be out there in the marketplace, i.e. available for us to acquire? Or are they the number thought to be in collectors’ hands PLUS the number bouncing around in the marketplace?

The real value of these numbers are the impression they represent, not any actual, definable number available. Most of us around coins and medals readily acknowledge that an R-1 is very common, while an R-5 is getting pretty scarce, and an R-8 or R-9 is very rare. On many occasions I have heard that the number used in assigning R numbers is defined as the number extant.

The dictionary defines “extant” as “still in existence, surviving.” Unfortunately that begs the question. Does extant therefore refer to the number thought to be available in the marketplace (not including those in collections) or does the number include the sum of those available to purchase PLUS the number held in collections. The importance of the latter is that eventually they will find their place in the sales stream when collectors pass away or sell their collections.

So let’s look at this practically. If a Columbian medal is said to be an R-5 (roughly 30-70) how does this translate to the number in collections and/or the actual number to be found currently in auctions or on ebay….or generally available for you to acquire?

For comparison, the Sheldon, or most commonly used scale, used includes R-1 (greater than 1250), R-3 (201-500), R-5 as noted above (31-75), R-7 (4-12) and of course, R-9, unique or just one known. Thus R-1 might be an often collected Columbian medal with perhaps 1500 known….or it might be applied to a U.S. Mint product that was minted in the 100,000 range.

My take on these rarity numbers is that they provide a relative sense of rarity to collectors. I would guess that not 1 in 50 using the scale could tell you the exact numbers that have been assigned as the range of from R-1 to R-9.

Below is a simplified version of rarity.

–R-1: You can find an example any time you go looking–at shows, on ebay, and so on.

–R-3: You may be able to locate an example (serious looking) within a month or two of searching.

–R-5 or 6: It may take you anywhere from six months to a year to find an example.

–R 7 or 8: You could look for anywhere from a year to several years to locate an example.

–R-9 or 10: You’ve been collecting (how long, 10-20-30 years?) and maybe have seen one but never been able to buy one.

A description makes far more sense to me than a poorly designated, or not designated at all, method of assigning numeric rarity.

And even if we accept those Sheldon numbers and ranges, what does EXTANT mean? Surely a piece could easily be in 15-20 collections PLUS saying 15-20 are seen annually in the marketplace. That would be defined as 30-40 or our example of an R-5.

Who on earth would you think is qualified to say there are 20….40….60….or more out there? No one I know, myself included.

I simply don’t put a lot of credence in the generally assigned numbers.

So if we know the rough rarity of a medal, how does YOUR impression of availability match those numbers? If I had time to conduct a study of 100 WCE medals that have been given an R-number by H-K and also an R-number in the much more current series of books on expositions by Jeff Shevlin and Bill Hyder, in which I could assign the likelihood of finding that specific medal tomorrow, next year or never, I’m quite confident that we would find frequent contradictions between an assigned R-number and estimating when you might see that medal.

There most definitely are medals you happen to find or see offered a couple time when you begin collecting, only to discover that it might be 10-20 years later before you find another.

A good example of this are the very large 90mm high relief liberty head medals by Mayer. They are identical to the smaller versions. All of the sizes have been popular in my several decades of being involved in Columbiana. In the first couple of years I was collecting WCE medals (the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s) I acquired examples of this giant medal a few times, in white metal and in bronze. It didn’t occur to me that they were very rare.

Fast forward, I have owned/sold examples of these medals TWICE in the last 35 or so years. And I do not mean that I sold a single example on two occasions. Both sales I made were for 3 or 4 medals. The first was to someone who had/has become a very longtime customer and friend. I sold him the medals for $800 each; then several years later I was able to acquire a group (purchased on multiple occasions, one at a time) and again, sold them as a group at $900 each.

If you asked me to comment on the rarity of this oversize high relief example of those struck in several sizes in the early 1980s I would have guessed they were relatively common….maybe R-3? If you asked m in the 1990s I would have adjusted that to at least R-4. Today, that is the total number I have EVER sold.

I saw a single example on ebay last month. I have to look at my acquisitons very differently than collectors do. There would be little point in my spending $600-$700 on an example since I have no clue if I could sell it for what I think should be a logical price. And as we all know, a major part of this business is being comfortable with YOUR assessment of the marketplace TODAY. No one can guarantee what such a medal will sell for tomorrow, so as a seller, you don’t want to end up holding it for months and then making $50; that’s just an example, but it is real.

The example I saw on ebay last month sold for less than $400. That result was rather shocking. I was quite surprised that someone didn’t jump in with a bid of much higher. If there had been much competition, I would assume that a couple of serious collectors would have pushed it up to twice that figure. If the same opportunity existed a month earlier or a month later perhaps it would’ve sold for the same amount….or more. I seriously doubt it would have sold for less.

But back to the subject of numeric rarity scales used today, I believe that they are not very accurate AND they are self perpetuating. If you have a book published many years ago that says Medal A is an R-2 and Medal B is an R-7, and a new book is published, the vague method of assigning a new or current R-number will be, very simply, how it compares to a medal that had its R-number assigned decades ago as opposed to research to determine any changes over the years.

Look at a hypothetical group of medals NOT in Eglit or H-K; they will be assigned a number by the simple method of saying “this one is pretty much as common or rare as Medal A….or Medal B and therefore it will be assigned an R2 or R-7. I do NOT believe that anyone publishing a catalog/guide or collecting or selling, goes through the very time consuming task of studying real examples of sales for a given medal over the last five years. It just doesn’t happen. And it’s too bad it never has been done. If a collector or author 50 years ago undertook days and days of research on EVERY coin or medal listed in a given book, our baseline would be much more accurate for having gone through such a rigorous survey or research project to quantify an accurate rarity.

So when the common question I hear asks my opinion on the “real” rarity of a Columbian medal, I am not going to spend a week researching its journey through collectors over the last many decades. I am going to estimate just how often I feel YOU or I will see it “this year” or perhaps “in five years” and share that information with whomever is asking the question; generally, I will NOT say “oh, it’s an R4 or 5.” That may seem like a cop out on my part, but per the most commonlyu used Rarity scale, an R-4 is 76-200 and as we noted earlier, an R-5 is 31-75–so I don’t feel I can say with any authority that there are somewhere between 31 and 200 in the marketplace….and to a great degree that is because no one has provided the parameters for the assigned rarity number.

Whether any scale of the nature I outlined above estimating how often I might see the medal being evaluated will ever become regularly used, I believe it is exactly what collectors want to know when they ask me to estimate the rarity of a medal for them.

I began this article planning to examine many broader questions I am asked to answer, but I quickly decided that I wanted to examine the question of rarity before any other topic….and that would require more than a quick answer.

I am asked many questions each month, questions from collectors I do not know and from collectors with whom I’ve done business for many ytears. Accuracy is very important to me and I believe everyone asking my opinion or estimate of facts doesn’t want a flip, ballpark answer. They may have various reasons for asking, but anyone taking the time to ask deserves a thoughtful answer. If I ever cite a rarity number or answer their question by comparing their medal to others in the marketplace, collectors want and deserve an accurate and meaningful answer.

Please, don’t hesitate to ask most anything about the Columbian Expo in general, as well as very specific questions about some aspect of the fair. And you need not limit yourself just to medals. I am always interested in discussing any collectible or souvenir from the fair and most definitely any aspect of the fair’s history.