I believe there is a misconception in all fields of collecting that the quality of a collection is measured by the quantity of 'rare' acquisitions. Does the rarity of a collection automatically register that collection to be significant? I argue not. In fact, some of the most interesting and rewarding collections are those that may contain few, if any rare, items.
Actually, a collection need not be significant at all. Significance is a product of the viewer's response. Collecting is an active process, the final product- the display of the hunt, and the resulting 'Trophies', carry little psychological import to the viewer. The viewer of a collection is more interested in the process of that collection, in it's life as a continuing process as opposed to it's mummification of relics. A collection can become sterile in it's uniformity, predictability, and yes, rarity.
In conclusion, a collector need not hunt for rare acquisitions, if those examples add nothing of significance to their own course of gathering. I propose to those who may be starting, or continuing with their own collection to stay on course. A collection of the commonplace can be very rare indeed.
Dean