Hi Everyone,
Has there ever been discussion around making the Acaeum Rarity Ratings a bit more granular?  For example, moving to a 1 to 10 scale versus a 1 to 5 scale?  It seems that not all ratings are necessarily equal.  I am sure that this would always be a source of debate and that you possibly could never arrive at a perfect scale.  It just seems that there are some significant differences in rarity especially among the most rare items.  For example, a Domesday Book and 10th Anniversary Combo Packs are both given a rating of 5 in rarity.  Or a Ghost Tower of Inverness DM Copy versus a Greyhawk 1st Print.  Even some of the commons can have some variations in rarity.  For example, a G1 Lizard Logo Mono versus a G1 Fourth Printing Mono.  
I am very grateful for the existing setup and the time and effort it must take to maintain and update the information.  It has been invaluable to me as a collector.  I was just wondering if there had been discussions regarding the scale for rarity.
Thanks,
Melnibonean

It's simply because we're guessing that we've limited it to a 1 to 5 scale; unfortunately, we have little concrete print-run data, and absolutely no concrete existing-copy data.  So as you said, increasing the granularity would only serve to increase the disagreements in whatever value we assigned.

I think it's generally understood that not all items of a particular rarity score are equal in rarity.  And as stated in numerous places, rarity does not necessarily equate to value.

Foul

I think that this is where the Acaeum, given it's reputation could really do a service to our collecting community, by putting out a siren call to collectors asking them to send in their itemized lists of their class 5 rarities (as an example). Then I would propose that Scott create class 6, representing up to 10 registered copies, and class 7, representing up to 5 known copies. If more copies of something later turned up, then an item could move "down". This has the advantage of using the existing structure with a tweak to represent the nearly unique items, while being fluid enough to adjust over time. Scott wouldn't have to ask for all rares all at once either; this could be done in groups, and after waiting for the results to trickle in from all of the outlying precincts, Scott could announce (at the end of the month for instance) that we have a new class 6 rarity! I would think that this would only serve to amp up collector interest (while some would see it as elitist no doubt). Others may want a different delineation, for instance class 6 up to 50 registered copies, class 7 up to 20, and class 8 up to 10, but i wouldn't think we'd want to move far past the current 1-5 structure, so that it maintains its current importance.

Hi, we discussed this at various lengths in 2004 and 2005 (I'm getting old!), and the general agreement -- albeit with my personal reluctance -- was that the lack of print run data rendered the issue one of ongoing qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) personal monitoring of offered copies for sale.  In other words, rarity would be based on the integration of isolated silos of anecdotal evidence.

We had some cool print run discussions:  one where I projected tentative print runs based on the known maximums (i.e., B2 and other best sellers with print runs bragged about by the company), but that only brought to light the facts that (a) TSR kept suck-ass records, (b) WotC still don't know what's in all the warehouses (now 15 years after integration!), and (c) module print runs varied by orders of magnitude when one considers the G1/2/3 con release, the B2 Basic Set inclusion, and the slow post-Gygax decline of individual module sales as TSR over-diversified their world selection and began to get hammered by Magic: The Gathering.  There was an interesting anonymous TSR staffer response conveyed re: print runs, but that only (a) dashed my system to pieces, (b) directly contradicted known data elements and (c) offered cursory number ranges without chronological consideration.  (Rendering it both "authoritative" and "useless" IMO.)

Most of the evidence, sparse as it is, is now memorialized at Print Run.

Keep in mind that these data scarcity issues are completely fundamental before we even consider things like ... supply, demand, emotional pursuit (people hold onto modules they like and sell ones they dislike), profit-motive pursuit (if I put an H1 and an OA5 in front of ten savvy collectors, which one will the majority pick?  Ha!), component completeness (B10 is a pain in the butt to find complete, T1-4 less so, Book of Lairs no problem at all), shrinkwrap-present commonality (Dragonlance DLs are all over the place in shrink, Forgotten Realms FRs are much harder to come by), product dumps (Birthright had lowish print runs, but almost none of the product sold it seems, and it's still all over the place just like Ravenloft but more so), and ...

Gah.  Scars are opening, I'm remembering why I can't work on the Valuation Board and drive everyone nuts    

I did perform a personal rarity research project by approaching people who dealt in modules all the time.  Not just collectors, but more shopkeepers, resellers and con traders who were not the "big guys" but still dealt a lot of out-of-print product.  My reasons for selecting that group for anecdotal data were varied, but basically I found that the big guys were so blind to non-rare product that they could not always be relied on to evaluate gradations of commonality, because they saw huge stacks of Acaeum-rarity 1s and 2s every day.  The collectors, despite awareness of personal bias, were jewel-in-the-crown guys where they would remember (for example) snagging one DM Tamoachan, but forget (for example) whether they saw 10, 25, 50 or 500 monochrome C1s in a given calendar year.

Worst of all, I learned that despite eBay, Abebooks and all that, some rarities were still regional to a varying degree.  My personal rarity estimations, even based upon (a) 6 years of eBay sales and daily market flux reviews, (b) personal "Goodwill, shop, local collection and estate sale" recollections from several states over 20+ years, and (c) limited access to various supplier "dumps" all pointed to an horrific conclusion which caused me to abandon the issue for good:  my data was provably wrong!  I could excellently annotate my own collector experience, but that data was DIRECTLY CONFLICTED by similar data held by other people who had kept records of their own experiences over their own 12-23 years.  There was, sadly, zero historical authority to fall back upon when the numbers conflicted, and they conflicted at every turn.

Sorry for the long post, but please allow me to provide a little friendly advice from my own experiences:  walk away.  Any further granularity concocted for the rarity ratings, however well-intentioned, would never accurately reflect the intangible reality of actual historic vs. perceived historic vs. actual current vs. perceived current scarcity.  Worse, a general consensus of granular refinements, vetted by a collector gathering riddled with confirmation bias (truth hurts, sorry sais, say thankya), would yield data that THE CREATORS BELIEVED and EVERYONE ELSE WOULD BELIEVE, because -- even though it was inaccurate! -- would become gospel, "The Acaeum sayeth this."  The current ratings are highly flawed, we know that now and we knew it in 2004, but replacing them would create the implication that further research has created a revised and systematic consensus.  And, barring the frequent use of Resurrection and/or Reincarnation, that cannot be the case.

K

I'm not sure if you were referencing my post in your post dark seraphim, but just to clarify, i don't think we should change the 1 through 5 classes AT ALL. I merely think we should add-on a rarity 6 level and a rarity 7 level which would not be based on any ebay samplings, or anecdotal evidence, but by direct contact with Scott (or his representative). There has not been heretofore a direct request for members to actively verify their super-rare items. Scott/Acaeum would not be specifically claiming that only 8 copies of x exist, merely that 8 are what we know of right now after requesting this SPECIFIC info from our members and guests. Given the cachet of this site, and word of mouth grew, I think others that owned such items would come here as well (certainly a win-win).

Hi Strat, I was actually addressing the OP and the silent masses who might look at this a year or two from now  

I think dividing the 1-5 Acaeum Rarity Ratings would be a bad idea, but I can certainly see the value and validity in classifying and/or voluntarily registering the 5s.  That would follow the tradition of, for example, the "Lost Tamoachans accounted for" at the bottom of C1.  Not only is such partial data interesting, it's useful to collectors who are trying to estimate bids for very rare items based on a nearly non-existent (or outdated) auction history.

My only concern on that end is that there should not be an expectation for poor Foulfoot or someone else to become the curator of that data ... that would be an endless thankless minijob.  My recommendation would be a "Register your rares here" thread, which would create a fun and informative place for people to talk about their rares and variations held in collection.  Threads like that have uncovered, for example, interesting sub-rarities in things like the Kask-illustrated character record sheets which I think is good "insider information" for collections prowling the auctions.  Creating a master thread would create a place for people to discuss their prizes and figure out "perceived current rarity," which I think is one of the most valuable variables to know when bidding.  Someone could definitely get interesting results by pinging major collectors and inviting them to the thread (what collector does not love talking about the finest pieces?).  Then, maybe, someone would like to cull that thread on a yearly basis or so to further define rarity level 5 with the possibility of expansion.

Won't be me, but I think it's a good idea.  

Yes, I agree it would be excellent!  But I can't volunteer someone to do the work  

Let's don't turn this from a hobby to a full time job, guys.  This is the kind of thing that messed up the comic and baseball card industry.

Mike B.

Please grade and value the following:

Warning: the following photos depict images that may be disturbing to some:

http://www.petrick.ca/ac5shrink.jpg
http://www.petrick.ca/ac5shrink2.jpg

New in shrink?