combining metrics, standards and connoisseurship: a weighted-factor scoring model

8/2/2019 Combining Metrics, Standards and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

1/21

Combining Metrics, Standards and Connoisseurship:

A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

by Robert J. Corey, Ph.D. and Todd W. Sigety, ISA CAPP

"Without metrics, you are just another person with an opinion"

-Michael Mah

Introduction

Where does appraising stand among recognized professions? You

may recall the story of the little boy who dresses in a sailor suit with cap-

tains hat and epaulets. He says to his mother, Look ma, Im a captain.

With only a hint of skepticism she replies, To you, you are a captain, and to

me, you are a captain, but to the other captains are you a captain?

Like other recognized professions, the personal property appraisal

profession exhibits the defining characteristics thought to distinguish a

profession from a trade. According to the appraisal literature, these charac-

teristics include (1) a dominance of intellectual labor; (2) education and

specialized knowledge; and (3) generally accepted standards of practice.

However, reliant on the principles and concepts of economic theory, the

appraisal profession, for the most part, lacks the logical structure and

methodologies of a social science. Appraisal methods seldom produce

quantifiable data in sufficient quantity for the proper application of statistical

procedures. As a result, the personal property appraisal profession appears

too often subject to a reliance on the persuasive qualities of ethos, an appeal

that concentrates upon the source of the message rather than the accumula-

tion of factual evidence.

Too often appraisals that we have seen rely on idiosyncratic and sub-

jective methods disguised as specialized knowledge. The courts have deemed

such knowledge claims made by competing experts inherently imprecise.1

How many times have you read, Based on my 20+ years of experience I

conclude or, I doubled the auction price realized based on my extensive

knowledge of the market Such statements do a disservice to efforts to

build public confidence and the professional image of appraisers. In our

Originally published in the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies - 2009


2/21

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety56

opinion, any tradesman can produce an appraisal document, but only

professional personal property appraisers can muster the intellectual labor

and knowledge necessary to make explicit the body of rules, procedure, and

methods that validate their value opinions and justify recognition of apprais-

ing as a profession. To advance recognition of our profession we must seek

out hybrid methodologies that incorporate the certainty of metrics and the

subjective inputs of connoisseurship and experience fundamental to the

discipline.

In this article, we introduce an alternative appraisal approach aimed

at improving the consistency and quality of personal property valuations in

order to enhance the professional standing of appraisers and benefit users of

personal property valuation services. With this in mind, this article (1)

explores the nature of appraisal knowledge and various value-rankingapproaches, (2) introduces a practical alternative assessment method ac-

cepted and used by other professional disciplines, and (3) reports the results

of a survey used to create a hybrid appraisal methodology incorporating

both metrics and the subjective inputs of experienced appraisers.

Literature Review

Published academic literature of a social scientific nature dealing

with the tools, techniques, procedures, and investigative methods used to

collect, store, analyze and present appraisal information is limited in spite of

the long history of appraisal practice. Thus, the literature and theory con-

tained in this review is limited to presenting our perspective on appraisal

knowledge and methodology. Our initial concern is with types of appraisal

knowledge and the manner in which appraisers obtain and promulgate such

knowledge. We follow with the description of various value-ranking meth-

ods gleaned from the decorative arts literature and complete our review with

the introduction of a weighted-factor scoring model methodology.

A Perspective on Appraisal Knowledge

We shall not attempt to define knowledge for there are many kinds.

Nor, will we attempt a lengthy philosophical treatise on the nature of

knowledge and its possible limitations. What we do want to do is offer a


3/21

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-FactorScoring Model

57

practicableperspective on knowledge, a perspective well supported by refer-

ential evidence, and having application in general appraisal practice. From

our perspective, we view knowledge as a product of brain activity. It is the

result of a constructive process involving the evaluation of similarities and

differences and the representation of things in terms of relationships. (This

shouldnt be too hard to follow; it sounds a lot like appraising already). This

process of constructing knowledge avoids the chaotic flux of a universe of

sensory inputs. It is how we mortals make sense of our world. The perspec-

tive holds that, in essence, our brains are hardwired in ways that impose

order upon sensory input.2

The fundamental ordering principles involve the use of boundaries,

lists, association, classification, abstraction, and hierarchy to provide struc-

ture.

3

This ordered cognitive activity produces two types of knowledge,explicit knowledge, and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is factual

knowledge that has been codified, catalogued, and is available for reference.

For the professional personal property appraiser, explicit knowledge is

embodied in facts, data, course materials, manuals, books, auction cata-

logues, public and private libraries, internet sources, codes of ethics, and the

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

In contrast, tacit knowledge is knowledge that people carry in their

heads.4 Often thought to be a kind of out-of-awareness level of knowing,

our perspective holds that such knowledge is difficult, but not impossible to

access. According to Weimer,in actual human cognitive activity the

distinction [between explicit and tacit knowledge] turns into a continuum,

and knowing is formed by the intermingling.5 The manner in which we

construct tacit knowledge is the same as that for explicit knowledge. Thus,

to some degree, tacit knowledge can also be articulated, codified, catalogued,

and referenced. Our point is there is no reason why the specialized knowl-

edge characteristic of the senior appraiser or connoisseur should not be

made explicit in the justification of value opinions.

Having argued that virtually all appraisal knowledge can, and should

be, made explicit, we want to examine the manner in which specialized

appraisal knowledge might be made explicit and shared. Few professions can


4/21


claim discipline specific methodologies. Since we can all agree that value is a

social construct, we propose that we look to psychology, sociology, anthro-

pology, economics, linguistics, communication, marketing, and other social

sciences for applicable methods. However, because we are not dealing with

anything close to quantitative absolutes, it is difficult to apply the methods

of pure science to appraisal practice unless you want to determine the

composition of a silver alloy or date the fibers of an old canvas. For the

most part, our task is better addressed with a meaningful synthesis of

qualitative analysis (which deals with single choices of a personal-ideological

nature) and quantitative analysis (which focuses on patterned regularities).

Value-Ranking Approaches

Attempts at value ranking are common in decorative arts scholarshipand appraisal. Scholars have developed numerous systems and approaches

over the years. Indeed, many personal property appraisal organizations

advocate the importance of using value-ranking methodologies that subjec-

tively score and enumerate aspects of material culture using nominal or

ordinal scales designating classes of objects or the rank ordering of impor-

tant property characteristics. These systems and methodologies aid in the

documentation of case-to-case differences for appraisal purposes. For

example, Albert Sack in his book the Fine Points of Furniture developed his

Good, Better, Best and later Masterpiece rankings in the early 1950s.6 In

the late 1960s and 1970s David Pye, a professor of furniture design at the

Royal College of Art in England developed a system with six requirements

for design.7 Also in the 1970s E. McClung Fleming, another Winterthur

scholar published Artifact Study: A Proposed Model which integrates

history, material, construction, design and function with identification,

evaluation and judgments (comparisons), cultural analysis (aspects of the

artifacts culture) and interpretation (values of the present culture). 8 Past

Sothebys Chairman, John Marion advocated his system of nine denomina-

tors for evaluating material culture in the 1980s and published the method-

ology in 1989. Marions denominators include authenticity, condition, rarity,

historical importance/provenance, size, medium, subject manner, fashion,

and aesthetic quality.9 These individuals and many other contributing


5/21


59

scholars have devised legitimate descriptive systems and methodologies to

evaluate, score and rank cultural property on a subjective basis.

Fourteen Points of Connoisseurship

In this article, we employ a well-accepted and notable example of a

descriptive system contained in Dwight Lanmons book, Evaluating Your

Collection from the Winterthur Decorative Arts Series.10 We use Lanmons

system to instruct our approach to the evaluation of material culture.

Lanmons text documents Charles Montgomerys attempt to build and

codify a system for educating the eye and appraising the quality of an

object. Montgomery developed the original 14-point system of analysis and

connoisseurship in the 1960s

The fourteen points of connoisseurship included in the Montgom-ery/Lanmon system are overall appearance, form, ornament, materials,

finish, color, craft techniques, trade practices, function, style, attribution,

history of ownership, condition, and evaluation. The process of evaluating

decorative arts using Montgomerys 14-point system involves much more

than basic binary logic; it includes many thought progressions, inputs, and

levels of comparisons. In order to use the fourteen points correctly and

effectively, the appraiser must have appropriate scholarship, experience, and

points of reference to compare and properly rank and categorize objects of

material culture. Should the appraiser lack the appropriate evaluation skills,

the exercise becomes meaningless, as the rankings will have little to no

substance or credibility. With this in mind, we offer the following summary

of the fourteen points of connoisseurship:

1. Overall Appearance: This is the first factor considered in evaluatingdecorative arts. It is typically the first impression the appraiser or

connoisseur has of the piece. The property is to be viewed in total

while seeking answers to such questions as does it work, are the

lines clean, does it fit within the stylistic period and is there an inte-

gration of design aesthetics.


6/21


2. Form: For our purposes form includes the evaluation of an objectsoutward structure, shape and scope. This typically includes size and

proportions in comparison to the norm or average of similar types

of property.

3. Ornament: Montgomery states, Basically, ornament is secondary toform and ought to heighten its effect rather than obscure it. There-

fore, the appraiser or connoisseur makes the determination if the

ornamentation adds to the overall aesthetic or if it detracts. Does

the ornamentation fit with the piece and does it accomplish its pur-

pose to enhance form and function.

4. Materials: The purpose of this point is to identify the materials usedin creating the property. This includes, but is not limited to, the

identification of woods, textiles, metals, ceramics, mounts and artistcolors and pigments. At times closer inspection is necessary and

might include microscopy, x-rays, infrared reflectographic imaging,

and other potential scientific analysis to aid in identification.

5. Finish: To clean or not to clean, that is the emphasis of this point inthe 14-point process. Some connoisseurs believe that cultural prop-

erty should not be cleaned at all, others believe there should be some

minor conservation to the surface but nothing that would hurt or

diminish the originality , while others feel putting the piece back to a

condition as originally designed and intended (although removable)

is the most appropriate method. The appraiser and connoisseur

need to be aware of current scholarship and the level of care that is

being observed in museum conservation laboratories. For some

categories of property, a cleaning may be necessary and could en-

hance value, but others such as antique copper, even a minor clean-

ing may destroy patina and negatively affect the desirability and

value.

6. Color: This point emphasizes the originality of the colors used in themanufacture or creation of the property. Have the colors faded or

otherwise been negatively impacted? The appraiser attempts to de-

termine the original color intent and how much or little fading and

discoloration has occurred.


7/21


61

7. Craft Techniques: According to Montgomery, the analysis of crafttechniques encompasses four points. Quality of craftsmanship,

techniques used, artist personal touches and creativity, and the use of

original parts and materials of the period.

8. Trade Practices: This point deals specifically with marks and labels,as well as practices common to a specific country or region. Trade

practices may include items such as a cabinet makers label, silver

hallmarks, tariff law marks such as country of manufacture, registry

marks, date marks, assays marks or a specific means of determining

associated property from a region such as secondary woods used in

pre-colonial furniture or materials used during a specific period of

design.

9.

Function: Function defines the useful purpose associated with theproperty, such as a chair for sitting, a desk for writing and study, or a

glass for drinking. With age and usage, there should be telltale evi-

dence of use with appropriate wear-and-tear consistent with the

original function of the item.

10.Style: Montgomery states the analysis of style involves the study ofform, ornament, color, and craft techniques with the object being

evaluated based upon decorative arts knowledge, function, and the

evolution of stylistic periods.

11.Attribution: This step includes the signature, mark, label or specificstyle or element of design and/or manufacture process which may

be associated with a particular maker or creator.

12.History of Ownership: This point is based on provenance, whichmay include the place and time of origin, along with documented

proof of past ownership and exhibition. The point references me-

thods used in determining authenticity.

13.Condition: Montgomery suggests, Evidences of natural aging andwear, such as coloration, patina, and softening of edges, corners and

contour, are but a few of the attributes of the antique that add fasci-

nation to any object. This, like many of the fourteen points can be


8/21


very subjective, and as the level of connoisseurship analysis in-

creases, so do the level and expectations of condition.

14.Evaluation: Evaluation is where the appraiser and connoisseur bal-ance the importance of property versus rarity. Here Montgomery

states, How good or how bad is it in terms of beauty or aesthetic

value, intrinsic value in terms of materials and long hours of skillful

fashioning, and extrinsic value in terms of association, ownership, or

competition?

This method of value-ranking objects on various factors introduces

order to the appraisal process. To reach our goal we need only add a meas-

ure of metrics to create a hybrid methodology incorporating both a modi-

cum of objective certainty and the subjective inputs of connoisseurship andexperience.

Weighted-Factor Scoring Models

Drawing from medicine, law, product development, and other pro-

fessional disciplines, we want to introduce the concept of scoring models for

use in valuation of cultural objects and comparables. As suggested, medical

diagnosis, jury selection, and the ranking of new product ideas, among other

things, has been successfully accomplished using scoring models. A scoring

model can provide a bridge between the value-ranking observation of the

qualified appraiser and the tacit knowledge of the connoisseur.

A scoring process is what we use to make decisions among alterna-

tives whether we realize it or not. Presented with a choice, we rank alterna-

tives based on a selection of factors, some factors being more important

than others. We may choose to purchase gasoline for our car based on such

factors as price, convenience, availability, and the current reading on the gas

gauge. We assign a different level of importance to each factor and total the

results in our mind in making the decision about where and when we will

make the purchase. Cultural objects can be valued using a similar numerical

scoring process. In the following paragraphs, we outline the procedure used

to construct a weighted-factor scoring model.


9/21


63

Step 1: Define the decision factors of interest. As already noted,

decision factors in the proposed scoring model include the fourteen points

of connoisseurship defined previously: overall appearance, form, ornament,

materials, finish, color, craft technique, trade practices, function, style,

attribution, history of ownership, condition, and evaluation.

Step 2: Assign importance levels, or weights, to each decision

factor. According to Lanmon, Some criteria assume greater importance

than others depending upon the type of object. Thus, we chose to establish

a different set of importance scores or weights for each of four different

categories of antiques and decorative arts (furniture, ceramics, silver, and

glass) and a general category composed of an average of importance scores.

The weights assigned to the various factors are based on an objective surveyof qualified appraisers.

Step 3: Develop scales for changing decision factor values into

scores. Scales of various types allow the user to rate an object on each

decision factor. We used semantic differential scales in our model. A five-

point rating scale that has bi-polar adjectives at each end accompanies each

weighted decision factor. The adjectives are intended to capture the essence

of each decision factor.

It is the responsibility of the individual appraiser to determine his or

her own level of sensitivity for the scoring scales when evaluating the

fourteen factors. Scores for the comparable property and subject property

should be developed on a comparative scale as opposed to hierarchically.

In the Montgomery/Lanom evalution factors the appraiser must be

vigilant when it comes to scoring the importance of history of owner-

ship/provenance and trade practices. If the item being appraised is Georgian

silver and all comparables and the subject property have appropriate hall-

marks and assays, the scoring should be consistent for all items within this

data set. If an item of furniture has a label and the remaining property in the

data set does not, then the labeled property would of course be scored

higher. How much higher or the range between no label and labeled would


10/21


be a subjective decision by the appraiser based upon experience and known

information on the cabinetmaker. The same scoring rational could be

applied when evaluating the existence of substantiated provenance/history

of ownership. The key in using the scoring model is to be consistent when

comparatively scoring property in the data set for each of the fourteen

evaluation factors.

Step 4: Score each decision factor for each alternative, multiply

the score by its weight, and sum the weighted scores. The model user

rates the subject property and each comparable independently by selecting a

scale value indicative of their subjective appraisal with respect to the object

and factor under consideration. Each factor score is then multiplied by the

objectively assigned weight. The weighted factor scores are totaled todetermine the overall score for the subject property and each comparable.

All of the objects under consideration can be objectively ranked based on

their overall score.

Methodology

A convenience sample of ninety-six qualified professional appraisers

was contacted via email. All of the appraisers invited to participate were

members of the International Society of Appraisers and Certified Appraisers

of Personal Property (ISA CAPP) specializing in the appraisal of antiques

and residential contents or fine art. Gems and jewelry appraisers were not

included in the sample. Follow-up emails and phone calls were employed to

encourage participation. Since the survey was limited to decorative arts

issues, fifteen Fine Art CAPPs, as well as some individuals with other very

specialized product knowledge rightfully declined to complete the survey

and six email surveys were returned for improper addresses. Thirty-two

usable surveys were returned from the seventy-five remaining ISA CAPPs

uniquely qualified to participate. This represents a response rate of 43

percent. An examination of early and late respondents on fourteen different

factors (all decision factors contained in the scoring model) showed only

one significantly different factor between the two groups. These results


11/21


65

suggest that non-response bias is unlikely since the number of significant

differences is at approximately chance level.

Survey participants were asked to divide one hundred points among

the fourteen evaluation factors proposed by Montgomery/Lanmon to

indicate their perception of the importance of each factor. Respondents

were instructed to award as many or as few points as they desired to each

factor to reach a total of one hundred points. They followed the same

procedure for each of four classes of objects: furniture, ceramics, silver, and

glass. Each of the four survey columns representing the four types of

property totaled one hundred points. A general property category was

constructed from the average importance rating of the four specified

property types.

Results

The analysis of survey results brings together the Montgom-

ery/Lanmon 14-point rating framework and the tacit knowledge of thirty-

two certified senior personal property appraisers and connoisseurs. Each of

the fourteen points in the evaluation system was assigned an importance

weight based on expert opinions obtained from the survey of ISA Certified

Appraisers of Personal Property (ISA CAPP). The weight assigned to each

of the fourteen decision factors in our model represents the average of the

weights assigned by respondents converted to a percentage (Table 1). The

weights differ based on the type of object appraised (Figure 1). Reported

below are the factor percentage and the range of results from the completed

surveys. The divergent ranges from the survey reflect the concept of

experiential appraisal conclusions and connoisseurship subjectivity, while

reinforcing the need for the incorporation of percentages, statistics, stan-

dards, and metrics.


12/21


Table 1

Average Evaluation Factor Percentage Weighting and

(Range)


13/21


67

Figure 1

Decorative Arts Survey Results

Weighted-Factor Scoring Model Construction

The survey results provide an objective database permitting us to

employ basic mathematical functions intended to reduce the overall impact

of appraiser subjectivity in the valuation process. The model has two main

sections, the global or macro section that is represented by the survey results

and an individual subjective ranking system to be completed by the appraiser

on the individual subject property and comparables.

The sum of the fourteen evaluation points for each of the four deco-

rative arts categories each total one hundred percent. The individual factor

percentages were entered into a spreadsheet for further statistical treatmentand analysis. The spreadsheet was constructed to incorporate adjusted mean

methodology (Sigety, 2008) and allow for the evaluation of a subject prop-

erty with three comparable properties within a particular decorative arts

category or a general category. The process is the same for each of the

decorative arts categories.


14/21


Figure 2

Evaluation Factors and Rating Scales

Within the spreadsheet, three comparable property values are totaled

and averaged. The appraiser then subjectively ranks each of the fourteen

evaluation points for each of the three comparable properties on a scale of

1-5, with five being the highest (Figure 2). The evaluation factor percentages

from the ISA CAPP experience survey are multiplied by the score of the 1-5

ranking scale for a hybrid macro/micro weighted evaluation factor. Thisprocess combines the global input and uniformity/standardization from the

experience survey (Table 1) as adjusted by the subjective evaluation of each

comparable property based upon appraiser input. This hybrid formulation

returns a combination of standardized evaluation factors based upon the

survey results combined with the appraisers subjective evaluation of the


15/21


69

comparable property using the semantic differential scales (Figure 2) as

adjusted according to individual property features and attributes.

Within the spreadsheet, the fourteen weighted percentages are

summed for each of the three comparable properties; the three totals are

then averaged to arrive at a comparable weighted average score. This figure

is converted to a percentage by dividing the combined factor weight by five,

which represents the highest value within the semantic differential ranking

scales. This percentage score factor is now the average score of the three

comparable properties based upon the fourteen factors as determined from

the ISA CAPP experience survey and the appraisers individual subjective

evaluation. This percentage score factor converted to a decimal is divided

into the average value of the three comparables as previously determined.

The quotient represents the hybrid formulation and adjusted mean value ofthe comparable property based upon comparable values, experiential survey

weights, and subjective appraiser input. The subject property is similarly

evaluated, and the comparable adjusted value is used to determine the value

of the subject property after evaluation.

The next step in our model analysis is to rank the subject property

being appraised and valued based upon the ISA CAPP experience survey of

percentages (Table 1) and the appraisers subjective semantic differential

scale of 1-5 (Figure 2). As performed with the comparable property, the

fourteen evaluation factors from the survey are each assigned a ranking from

1-5 with five being the highest. This appraiser assigned scale returns the

weighted rank when multiplied by each of the fourteen evaluation factor

percentages from the survey. Next, total the fourteen weighted evaluation

factors, as was the case with comparable property. The fourteen summed

and weighted factors are divided by five to convert to a percentage. The

final step is to take the subject property weighted score percentage, convert

to a decimal and multiply it by the comparable adjusted value for a final

subject property valuation. The subject property final value is based upon

the value of the comparable property, the global importance of the fourteen

evaluation factors, and the individual and subjective assessment of the


16/21


comparable and subject property attributes and features as determined by

the semantic differential scale scored by the appraiser.

The spreadsheet example below (Figure 3) shows the furniture deco-

rative arts category being used with three comparable properties valued at

$5,000.00, $4,000.00, and $6,000.00 for a $5,000.00 average. The three

comparable average weighted factor scores of the fourteen evaluation points

as adjusted by the subjective semantic differential scale as scored by the

appraiser total 3.93, 4.15 and 3.61, for a 3.90 average score. In order to

reduce the chances of alteration from the original survey results, the evalua-

tion percentages of the fourteen factors are embedded and hidden within

the spreadsheet, and are therefore not shown or revealed. The comparable

property weighted average score of 3.90 is then converted to a percentage by

dividing by five (highest score), equaling 78 percent (3.90/5) for these threehypothetical items of comparable property. The 78 percent, converted to a

decimal is divided into the $5,000.00 average value of the comparable

property.

The resulting figure represents the comparable adjusted value at 100

percent and equals $6,416.23. The figure is the maximum value for this

particular data set of comparable property as selected and evaluated by the

appraiser. The final comparable property adjusted figure includes the

average value of the comparable property as adjusted by the experiential

survey results and the differential scale as subjectively scored by the ap-

praiser. The subject property is ranked in the same manner, in this example

returning a score of 3.5, which is converted into a percentage by dividing by

5 (3.5/5), equaling 70 percent. When converted to a decimal and multiplied

by the comparable adjusted value of the comparable property at 100 per-

cent, the subject property is valued (70% x $6,416.23) at $4,497.65. (figures

rounded).


17/21


71

Figure 3

Weighted-Factor Scoring Model & Graph

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we have discussed the nature of appraisal knowledge

and introduced a numerical scoring model methodology commonly used in

other social science disciplines. Our goal is to improve the consistency and

quality of personal property valuations. We believe that new appraisal

methodologies and techniques that incorporate contributions from both


18/21


metrics and experience will serve to enhance the professional standing of

appraisers and benefit users of personal property valuation services.

Using independently established weights, percentages, and data ob-

tained by means of a survey of appraisers is a significant advancement in the

study of decorative arts and personal property appraising. If followed

properly, the methodology we propose should moderate the subjective

nature of connoisseurship and valuation.

Even a cursory review of the range of importance ratings assigned

by individual respondents illustrates the current idiosyncratic nature of

appraisal practice and valuation. The range results from Table 1 suggests

that even when using a common value-ranking approach, two fully qualified

appraisers chosen at random from among respondents are likely to produce

significantly different appraisal valuations because of the vast difference inimportance each may assign to the various factors. Add to this the fact that,

in practice, no two appraisers are likely to use the same value-ranking

schema in their appraisal practice (nor are they required to do so under

USPAP) and you can begin to understand fully the need for incorporating

proven social science methodologies and metrics into appraisal practice.

As a profession, we cannot be so obtuse as to ignore the problem of

conflicting and idiosyncratic appraisal results. For those seeking further

evidence, the problem is reflected in the following statement expressive of

the courts dissatisfaction with appraisal standardization: In the absence of

settlement, we are left to adjudicate the validity of conflicting experts'

opinions who are convinced that both their conclusions and methods are

correct.11 Even more damning, in the Annual Summary Report for 2007

the IRS Art Advisory Panel12 reports that only 36 percent of the appraisals

reviewed by the panel were found to be satisfactory. Sixty-one percent of

the appraisals reviewed by the panel required adjustments. From a profes-

sional standpoint, would you hire a lawyer who wins 36 percent of his cases

or place your confidence in a doctor whose diagnoses are shown to be

incorrect 61 percent of the time?

We are aware the methodology described in this article is not the de-

finitive answer to the problem. When using the model, the comparable

property and values along with the assigned rating factors must be relevant,


19/21


73

viable, and be statistically appropriate when compared to the subject prop-

erty. The evaluation factors selected must be within the range of values that

reasonably could be expected to occur from using appropriate appraiser

generated samples. As an example, you would not expect the methodology

to function properly when comparing an ordinary depression-era glass vase

to a highly collectible and desirable Tiffany glass vase. In addition, the

appraiser must have the experience and knowledge base in order to properly

and effectively score both the subject property and comparable property. If

the samples are not properly selected, scored or relevant to the subject

property the adjusted mean methodology will not function effectively.

We are also well aware subjectivity will always play a role in the eval-

uation of cultural property and the decorative arts and it is no different in

our study, but it is our hope to reduce the variance associated with subjec-tive differences and personal bias and eventually bring balance and a meas-

ure of objectivity to value conclusions. In doing so, the system based upon

objective weighted rankings, percentages, and adjusted means may allow

final value conclusions to become routinely repeatable by different apprais-

ers and uniquely defendable in contested situations. We must stress that

evaluation of cultural property is not to be judged based upon what the

nonprofessional perceives as artistic or culturally significant, but must be

viewed within the appropriate market by those who have studied and

experienced the genre of property. In short, connoisseurs and qualified

appraisers with specialty knowledge and not the layman should make the

subjective element of evaluation of the subject property in this academic

exercise.

(For a sample Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet of the scoring model,

please contact Robert J. Corey, Ph.D. at [email protected] or

Todd W. Sigety, ISA CAPP at [email protected])

Robert J. Corey received his doctorate from Penn State University

and taught marketing, and product and price policy courses at the university

level for twenty years prior to founding RJ Corey & Associates (rjcoreyap-


20/21


praisals.com) in 2006. Dr. Corey received professional training in the

principles of valuation, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal

Practice at the University of Georgia, sponsored by the American Society of

Appraisers and the Appraisal Foundation, and maintains an active appraisal

practice serving Southwest Florida. Contact info: rjcoreyapprais-

[email protected].

Todd W. Sigety, ISA CAPP owns Washington Square Antiques, Inc.

and WSA Appraisals, located in Old Town Alexandria, VA. Mr. Sigety is a

certified personal property appraiser with the International Society of

Appraisers, editor of the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies published

by the Foundation for Appraisal Education, a partner in the Appraiser

Workshops and a member of the International Society of Appraisers boardof directors. His shop specializes in American and English antique furniture,

fine art, and decorative accessories. Contact info: 425 South Washington St,

Alexandria 22314 or [email protected]

End Notes

1Messing vs. Commissioner 48TC, 502, 512 (1967).

2 Weimer, Walter B. Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.

3 Gregg, Richard B. Symbolic Inducement and Knowing: A Study in the Foundations ofRhetoric. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1984.

4 Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Books. 1967.

5 Weimer, Walter B. Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.

6 Sack, Albert. Fine Points of Furniture, New York: Crown Publishing. 1950.

7 Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambium Press. 1968

8 Fleming, E. McClung. Artifact Study: A Proposed Model. Winterthur Portfolio (9:153)


21/21

C bi i M t i St d d d C i hi A W i ht d F t75

9 Marion, John L. The Best of Everything. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster.1989

10 Lanmon, Dwight P. Evaluating Your Collection: The 14 Points of Connoisseurship.Winterthur, Delaware: Winterthur Decorative Arts Series. 1999.

11 Messing vs. Commissioner 48TC, 502, 512 (1967).

12 Carolan, Karen E. Chair, Commissioner's Art Advisory Panel, Annual Summary Reportfor 2007. The Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Review.

combining metrics, standards and connoisseurship: a weighted-factor scoring model

Documents