One of the conundrums that face collectors is the question of rarity. Everyone has a story of being told that something being offered to them is so rare that no other example exists in the whole world, only later to discover that there are in fact many examples out there and the rarity thing is just hyperbole. Rarity is, of course, determined not only by the scarcity of an object but also the demand for that item. If no one cares what it is or has interest in collecting it, whether its unique or one of millions, the value is just not there. But, if people want it and there is truly a limited quantity in circulation, then the value in rarity is whatever someone is willing to pay. Lets take an example from a couple of decades ago before the internet. Modern first-edition books were a hot, hot, hot item to collect. Book scouts, dealers and collectors would seek out that holy grail of a first edition, perhaps signed, of an authors very first printed work. Those early works usually had a limited printing. The result was the market was crazy for modern firsts of works by major authors before they were well known. Then the internet came along and all of a sudden, where a collector might have a choice of only one copy, there were now dozens. And if there were dozens, that did not necessarily mean they were all so rare. This did not happen for every modern first edition, but it happened enough to pop the artificial bubble of rarity pretty quickly. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to purchase a print for my collection. Wall space is at a premium at chez Seibert, but I made room for it. I had owned another copy of this print some years prior but sold it when we moved to New Mexico. I remembered the print because I had to borrow money to buy it (the first time I ever did that). I went back into my notes and found that I had an inventory, started by a collector of this same print back in the 1960s, listing every time he had seen one sold. He was attempting to create a log to track the various copies over time. In it, he noted how rare the print was and that only probably 50 total copies were known. Going to any of the online auction databases, I plugged in the print title and discovered several dozen had been sold in the last three decades. Add into those copies of the print in museum collections. Well, the end result is that the print, while not common, is not as unique as the 1960s collector had originally thought. The internet is an amazing gift to the world of antiques. It allows anyone to walk into a shop and with a few clicks determine if the piece is as rare as one is being told. It is a tool, however, that requires skill to master. Not every Victorian-era crazy quilt is equal in value to an early Baltimore album quilt. From a distance they may look alike, but the values are vastly different. Its why the web is a great tool for the collectibles world but not so hot for the antiques trade. In any case, it behooves all of us to really ask the hard questions when we talk about rarity as to whether that is in fact true or not. Born to collect should be the motto of Peter Seiberts family. Raised in Central Pennsylvania, Seibert has been collecting and writing about antiques for more than three decades. By day, he is a museum director and has worked in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Virginia and New Mexico. In addition, he advises and consults with auction houses throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, particularly about American furniture and decorative arts. Seiberts writings include books on photography, American fraternal societies and paintings. He and his family are restoring a 1905 arts and crafts house filled with years worth of antique treasures found in shops, co-ops and at auctions.