1. Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology: A
Comparative Valuation Tool for the Appraiser
by Todd W. Sigety, ISA CAPP
Introduction
This paper explores the process of using a quality/condition adjusted
mean methodology (Q-CAMM) to determine value of a subject property. A
quality/condition adjusted mean regulates comparable values based upon
condition level and quality points, and arrives at a final value conclusion relative
to the subject property’s intrinsic features and state of preservation. Q-CAMM
continues to rely upon the personal opinion and experience of the appraiser
while introducing additional mathematical components to basic statistical
averaging. Relative to the subject property, the appraiser determines and selects
sample comparables from an appropriate market level population and assigns
quantified ratings for subjective quality attributes and condition levels. To use
Q-CAMM correctly and effectively, the appraiser must have sufficient knowl-
edge and points of reference to assign the subjective factor data points within
the selected data set.
A quality/condition adjusted mean appraisal methodology should re-
duce the amount of guesswork and randomness in arriving at final value conclu-
sions for singular items of decorative art. The final value conclusion of the
subject property will be directly correlated to relative comparative values, as
determined by appraiser ranked quality and condition. Before delving into the
mathematical valuation model, a discussion on measures of central tendencies,
market levels, quality characteristic, and condition is necessary.
Measures of Central Tendencies
Personal property appraisers typically use a combination of methods and
techniques when arriving at value conclusions. Depending upon circumstances,
such as number of comparables located, similarity of comparables, quality
characteristics, and property condition, different appraisal techniques and
2. methods can be employed in developing value conclusions. Some appraisers use
mathematical or statistical formulas, such as measures of central tendencies,
including the mean and the mode when appropriate. Appraisers may also rely
upon connoisseurship and experience in determining final value conclusions,
intuitively adjusting values based upon research and comparable samples located
and deemed suitable.
Using a mode appraisal methodology is one of the more statistically sig-
nificant methods in determining credible value conclusions. This holds true so
long as sufficient parallel items are located within a sample population having
similar age, utility, quality, and condition characteristics. Valuation using a mode
methodology works well on objects such as household appliances and relatively
new items of property. With this type of property a large sampling of nearly
exact items can typically be located in sufficiently large numbers and in similar
condition. In these instances a mode methodology functions properly from a
statistical point of view, and perhaps more importantly, removes much opinion
and guesswork in determining a suitable and objective value conclusion. USPAP
(2008) Standards Rule 7-6 states that “in developing a personal property ap-
praisal, an appraiser must reconcile the quality and quantity of data available and
analyzed within the approaches used and reconcile the applicability and rele-
vance of the approaches, methods and techniques used to arrive at the value
conclusions.”¹ In short, the data analysis and method of determining value must
be relevant and appropriate for the type of property being appraised.
Methods of central tendencies do not work nearly as effectively as valua-
tion tools for singular items, such as antique decorative arts. In appraising
singular items, the subject property and similar comparable items are assessed
and evaluated on their own individual aesthetic qualities, provenance, age, rarity,
condition, and utility. When dealing with subjective evaluations of singular form
decorative arts, there is typically room for additional variables and reinterpreta-
tion based upon appraiser background, experience, prejudices, connoisseurship
and emerging scholarship.
Depending upon the uniqueness of the subject property and scope of
work issues, exact or suitably close comparable samples may not exist or may
not be available for comparison in sufficient quantities for significant statistical
34 Todd W. Sigety
3. averaging. In these instances markets are researched and similar or parallel
property is located for comparison. Values are then typically adjusted accord-
ingly for differences in design aesthetics and condition in determining final
opinions and value conclusions. In situations where a central tendency method-
ology is deemed inappropriate, the appraiser, based upon comparables and data
points found, may use subjective experience and empirical knowledge in adjust-
ing value. The appraiser may intuitively adjust value based upon condition
levels, rarity, and design aesthetics relative to the subject property. This is a
system that typically works well yet may be considered somewhat arbitrary and
random especially to the uninformed. If final value conclusions are not repeat-
able or are lacking in supporting documentation an intuitive method in arriving
at value can become problematic. This is especially relevant in an appraisal
review situation where finial valuation is scrutinized, leaving the appraiser’s
opinion open to challenge and potential legal exposure.
When researching comparable decorative art values the appraiser fre-
quently reviews and researches a large statistical population of similar items,
then selects appropriate samples to use as comparables in valuing the subject
property. Sample or comparable property selection is not an arbitrary process.
The appraiser must select sample comparables from a statistical population of
possibilities which are similar in quality and condition in addition to selecting
the appropriate market level for comparison to the subject property. In statisti-
cal terms, the population should have a normal distribution (bell curve). The
selected sample items should fall near the middle/mean of the data range,
avoiding outliers or extreme occurrences within the population which might
significantly alter the final value conclusion of the subject property. Compara-
bles should be selected within the appropriate market with items of similar
utility, quality, and condition. As an example, an appraiser seeking a valuation on
an inlaid American Federal mahogany sideboard should select similar inlaid
American mahogany sideboards of the Federal period with related design
aesthetics, condition and provenance as comparables. For the proper selection
process to occur the samples can not be randomly chosen; the appraiser must
rely on his experience and expertise to select relevant samples from the statisti-
cal population as comparative examples to the subject property.
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 35
4. Simple mathematical formulations such as averaging have a tendency to
foil the appraiser by not taking into account subjective quality and condition
differences of comparative property relative to stated value. These factors
greatly impact comparative value and should be recognized within any appraisal
related mathematical model or statistical formulation. Fundamental measures of
central tendencies such as the mean and mode, when calculated by an appraiser
typically are used without regard to any subjective weighting, and are specifically
limited to the data set of selected comparable values. Since exact comparables
are typically not available within many antique decorative art property special-
ties, a defendable appraisal methodology should be used to document and
reconcile quality and condition relative to the comparative value data points. Q-
Camm was developed as an accurate, repeatable and defendable appraisal
methodology.
Markets
When selecting comparable property the appraiser must be mindful of
the multiple levels of trade available for sample selection, including retail,
wholesale, and liquidation markets and various sub-divisions within each market
model. When comparing property, it is important to stay within the same
market level and also understand that markets are imperfect and are not always
balanced. Imperfect markets can result in similar property with related quality,
condition, age, desirability and provenance being valued differently. According
to USPAP (2008) section 7-3, comments, “The appraiser must recognize that
there are distinct levels of trade (measurable marketplaces) and each may
generate its own data. For example, a property may have a different value at a
wholesale level of trade, a retail level of trade, or under various auction condi-
tions. Therefore, the appraiser must analyze the subject property within the
correct market context.”²
On October 3, 2007 Christies in New York sold an 18th century Phila-
delphia pie crust tilt top tea table for the record sum of $6,761,000.00 including
buyer’s premium. The table is thought to have been carved by the “Garvan
Carver” of Philadelphia. The previous auction record for a pie crust tilt top table
was $2,442,500.00, and the Christie’s table also exceeded the previous high of
36 Todd W. Sigety
5. $4,620,000.00 for all Philadelphia colonial period furniture.³ The differences
between the two record sales add to the subjectivity and uncertainty of property
valuation and connoisseurship, and reinforce the concept that markets are not
perfect. Christies had a 2/3 million dollar estimate on the tea table with access
to the previous record auction price of 2.4 million dollars. Was the estimate an
intentionally low value? Typically not when international auction houses catalog
and estimate the upper market level of property in specialty sales. It appears the
auction pre sale estimate was based upon the previous record and possibly an
allowance for economic appreciation. Sotheby’s NY auctioned a similar Phila-
delphia tea table during Americana Week on January 19, 2008. The similar tea
table at Sotheby’s now carried an expanded pre sale estimate range of 2/6
million dollars and was entitled in the auction catalog as the “Acme of Perfec-
tion”. The tea table at Sotheby’s was also attributed to the Garvan Carver, was
in similar condition and had a strong family provenance dating back to the
creation of the table. The Sotheby’s table failed to reach the low estimate and
sold for $1,833,000.00 including buyer’s commission.⁴
These drastic differences in value opinions and ranges versus final sale
or hammer prices all support the difficulties and subjectivity in properly select-
ing pre-sale estimates, and by association potential appraisal valuation conclu-
sions within any given market level. The value of the tea table can be debated by
appraisers based upon pre sale estimates, hammer price, previous sale compari-
sons and past record prices. The final record selling price of $6,761,000.00 for
the tea table remains difficult for the appraiser to rationalize based upon past
sales and previous record prices. As such, the Christie’s tea table may not be a
suitable candidate as comparative property for an appraisal, yet the record price
should be revealed and analyzed within the report.
Additionally, it would be inappropriate to compare the record priced
masterpiece tea table to a fine, yet somewhat pedestrian 18th century Philadel-
phia tea table which typically sells at the middle market retail level of trade. A
solid middle market Philadelphia tea table might have issues and questions of
stylistic quality, provenance, rarity, surface condition, restorations and an
assortment of additional valuation variables. It is left to the appraiser’s discre-
tion to properly analyze and select appropriate market levels and sub-levels, and
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 37
6. not compare pieces that are outside the same category of aesthetic quality,
provenance, condition and desirability. Assigning market levels to cultural
property is a subjective process with numerous philosophical and associated
mentalities evolving while deciding upon the significance of value, quality,
condition, rarity, utility and provenance. Relevant market level assessments are
typically opinions and at times can be controversial, debated and divisive.
Therefore, the appraiser must use the proper amount of due diligence in
researching the subject property to relative comparative property. This is
especially true if the subject property has the potential to be included in an
upper market.
Provenance is an important element in determining market level, au-
thenticity and cultural significance. Provenance is typically the combination of
place of origin or creation, proof of authenticity, along with a record of prior
ownership, historical significance and public/private exhibitions. Museum
curators are eager to establish provenance for works of fine and decorative arts
within their collections. Museum collections are typically researched and studied
in order to add significance, importance, and stature to the collection, as well as
documenting the property for present and future generations. Appraisers are
interested in past ownership, authenticity and historical significance as well in
order to determine placement in correct market levels and to assist in establish-
ing a credible value.
The quality/condition adjusted mean methodology does not use factors
for market level. The appraiser, based upon experience, education, and research
is responsible for selecting the proper market, sub market and associated
comparative samples within a statistical population for relative valuation analysis
within the model.
Quality
Q-CAMM continues to embrace the subjective philosophical questions
of quality, authenticity, rarity, condition, and desirability as relevant. In apprais-
ing, the subject property and comparative samples all must be viewed individu-
ally, analyzing all essential characteristics which might influence proper
valuation. The debate of authenticity and quality characteristics resonates when
38 Todd W. Sigety
7. discussing value, and therefore is worth exploring. In The Expert versus the
Object, Francis V. O’Connor discusses authentication and three approaches
used to determine authenticity. The three approaches include scientific analysis
such as forensic examinations, historical documentation including provenance,
and most importantly visual inspections in the form of connoisseurship.
O’Connor states “since the ability of the connoisseur to perceive the rightness
of a work usually precedes the need for the lab or archive, the ideas of connois-
seurship is crucial to the whole matter of authenticity.”⁵ O’Connor elevates the
importance of visual inspections over forensics and provenance, yet the subjec-
tivity of the process to quantify quality attributes and assign associated values
through connoisseurship to the decorative arts remains.
Albert Sack’s popular book The Fine Points of Furniture is written to
specifically use 5 levels of categories and assignations to rate furniture. Q-
CAMM borrows much from Sack’s philosophy in ranking quality characteristics.
According to Sack “there are many more than five categories and that all
categorization is rigid and subject of interpretation and debate.” Sack continues
“This debate, however, is stimulating and is what the book is trying to accom-
plish. I do expect that some categories will be challenged; some represent very
hard choices”.6 Connoisseurship of the fine and decorative arts, like personal
property appraising is not an exact science, and many opinions of value, authen-
ticity and quality are open to debate, re-interpretation and advancing scholar-
ship. Furniture historian Ronal Hurst writes “the prudent researcher knows that
additional information may in time come to light and either reinforce or refute
his or her findings. On occasion such unexpected discoveries lead to a complete
departure from long-accepted conclusions.” 7
When examining qualitative rankings within a particular market level,
consideration must be given to decorative quality, provenance, rarity, stylistic
impact, age, construction characteristics and importance of the property. The
American Society of Appraisers personal property appraisal manual includes the
principle of qualitative rankings. The ASA defines the principle of qualitative
rankings as “a sound opinion of relative quality, or relative value, which can be
derived from comparison of characteristics and features of the subject property
with the corresponding characteristics and features of another property selected
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 39
8. as a standard for comparison”. The definition continues “ranking by quality is
primarily a question of aesthetic judgment and connoisseurship and is inde-
pendent of economics and fashion.”8 The principle of qualitative ranking
follows sound reasoning, yet in reality may be limited due to the evaluator’s
connoisseurship experiences, property biases, and market knowledge. The
appraiser must have the knowledge and connoisseurship to effectively compare
and rank based upon qualitative attributes. According to the competency rule
from the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) 2008-
2009 edition “background and experience of appraisers varies widely, and a lack
of knowledge or experience can lead to inaccurate or inappropriate appraisal
practice. The competency rule requires an appraiser to have both the knowledge
and the experience required to perform a specific appraisal service compe-
tently.”9
For the purpose of model development, quality attributes will be divided
into 5 levels. The quality attributes of sample comparables and subject property
are rated and quantified within the mathematical model. It is the responsibility
of the individual appraiser to properly assign and justify the quality levels of
both the subject property and the sample comparables.
Condition
Current trends within the scholarship and connoisseurship of the deco-
rative arts are to allow cultural property to remain in original condition as long
as possible. “Museum conservation departments have been partially responsible
for this new age of enlightenment. Their highly qualified specialists are now far
more communicative, and the conservators’ twin precepts of stabilizing past
deterioration and protecting from future damage rather than undertaking major
overhauls have filtered down to the general public. Restoration is as much about
an attitude, or even a philosophy, as it is about manual activity.”10 The more
original the piece of property, typically the higher the value, especially if there
has been little or no required restorations or conservation. The subjective nature
of evaluation including quality and restoration levels opens many areas of
debate, especially when considering the valuation of personal property.
40 Todd W. Sigety
9. The appraiser is required to be familiar with all aspects of the property
being examined. This includes but is not limited to condition and restoration
issues, market levels, provenance, market trends, fakes, forgeries, revival exam-
ples, period attributes, artisan techniques, and aesthetic qualities. Furniture
conservator Robert F. McGiffin, Jr. states “Scholars have long been aware that
each artifact is unique. When an artifact, or any part of it, is destroyed, a part of
history is lost and can never be recovered. An increasing general awareness of
this fact may help to change a significant number of methods of caring for,
interpreting, and protecting historical and artistic work.”11
Personal property appraising requires the accurate identification of the
subject property and related comparables to arrive at credible valuation conclu-
sions. The International Society of Appraisers defines identification as the “act
of determining a property’s nature, its origin or its definitive characteristics”.
The ISA continues, “Identification is quantitative and scientific – it involves
intrinsic characteristics such as dimensions, materials, form, construction
techniques, weight, condition, damages, signs of aging, etc.”12 Through identifi-
cation, the appraiser should posses the knowledge to adequately identify prop-
erty, determine market levels, assess quality attributes and determine condition
levels.
In order to arrive at proper value conclusions, the subject property and
comparative samples must be properly examined for condition. The appraiser
must establish the proper balance between connoisseurship and forensic
examinations to determine the existing state of preservation. Many reference
databases available to the personal property appraiser for research and compa-
rable selection include images and basic sales information. Condition reports on
these databases, if listed at all are typically incomplete and many times deficient
and lacking significant detail. Knowledge of the subject property and selected
comparable property condition is paramount when appraising personal prop-
erty. The appraiser, using appropriate due diligence must take condition factors
into account in determining value; otherwise value conclusions may not be
credible, valid or defendable.
It is difficult to properly characterize all of the objective and subjective
variables that potentially impact the value of the decorative arts. Valuations are
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 41
10. typically left to individual subjective observations, connoisseurship, and empiri-
cal knowledge of the appraiser. The appraiser is responsible for selecting
acceptable comparables with related yet unique condition variables in order to
make credible value conclusions. It should be noted that many decorative arts
condition issues can be corrected with proper conservation techniques, while a
poorly designed and constructed piece will not rise to a higher aesthetic level.
Sub-standard restorations may cause a negative impact upon value and cost
more to first remove and then correct and properly conserve
In order to develop a quality/condition adjusted mean formula, 5 condi-
tion level factors are used. The quantified factors are used in adjusting the mean
value of the sample set. Like quality rankings, it is the responsibility of the
individual appraiser to properly assign and justify the condition level of both the
subject property and the sample comparables.
Q-CAMM Mathematical Model
Now that market levels, quality attributes and condition levels have been
discussed, a quality/condition adjusted mean methodology (Q-CAMM) ap-
praisal model will be developed. The hypothetical example formulation of the
quality/condition adjusted mean will include a subject property, 5 comparable
items of property with values, 5 subjective quality attribute levels, 5 subjective
condition levels and a few basic mathematical and statistical formulas to ma-
nipulate the data set. As noted in the quality and condition rankings, the 5
quality and 5 condition levels are each rated from 1-5, with 5 being the highest.
The appraiser selects and subjectively ranks each comparable item with a
quality and condition factor between 1 and 5, then totals the two factors and
multiplies by 10 in order to later use percentages. The 5 hypothetical compara-
ble items are assigned values and quality and condition data points as noted in
the following table. When arriving at quality and condition levels for the model,
the appraiser should assign factors comparatively and not hierarchically. The
appraiser can also use critical assumptions in determining sample item condition
factors should a full condition report not be readily available. Any critical
assumption made which impacts value must be disclosed in the appraisal report.
42 Todd W. Sigety
11. Hypothetical Data Points
Selecting data points from the above table, the next operation is to aver-
age the 5 comparable values to determine the mean and then average the
summation of the quality and condition factors which have already been multi-
plied by 10. The selected comparable mean value is $4,940.00, while the mean of
the summed and multiplied quality/condition factors are 84. Next, convert the
totaled and average quality/condition factor to a percent, (84%). The compara-
ble value mean of $4,940.00 is representational of 84% of a total value based
upon the 5 comparable values and the 10 quality/condition factors. The next
step in the process is to calculate the relative comparable value at 100% which
will represent the quality/condition adjusted mean and maximum value of this
particular data set. Convert the 84% to a decimal, (.84) and divide into the
comparable value mean of $4,940.00 to determine the quality condition adjusted
mean value at 100%. The value at 100% is $5,880.95, and represents the qual-
ity/condition adjusted mean of the comparables.
The next operation is to rank the subject property for quality and condi-
tion in relation to the comparable property. For this exercise the hypothetical
quality level will be rated a 3 and the condition factor will be a 5. As with the
comparables property the two factors are totaled, equaling 8, and multiplied by
10 and converted to a percentage, equaling 80%. Calculate 80% of the compa-
rable quality/condition adjusted mean of $5,880.95 for a subject property
valuation of $4,704.76. The $4,704.76 represents a relative value based upon the
quality and condition of the subject property compared to the quality/condition
adjusted mean of the comparable items of property.
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 43
12. Sample Excel Spreadsheet
The formulas are basic enough to easily compute by hand, or set up in a
simple spreadsheet program to perform the proper functions necessary to
determine the quality condition adjusted mean. Should five comparables not be
necessary, the mathematical model may also be constructed to use only three by
changing the division component from 5 to 3. Rankings, calculations and
valuations can all be retained in the work file for future reference and may also
be placed in the appraisal report documenting final value conclusions. The
above model works well for similar items of comparative value, quality and
condition. It must be noted that by straying too far from a small standard
deviation of rankings within the data set, such as using random samples, multi-
ple outliers or statistical anomalies such as all 1’s and 2’s as condition and quality
factors for comparable samples will result in ineffective results. The comparable
values and assigned rating factors must be relevant, viable, and be statistically
appropriate. The methodology requires quality and condition factors to fall
within the range of values that could reasonably be expected to occur from
using appropriate appraiser generated samples. If the samples are not properly
selected or relative to the subject property the quality/condition adjusted mean
will not function effectively.
44 Todd W. Sigety
13. The quality and condition factors when totaled and averaged should
typically fall above 50, and preferably above 60 for the methodology to function
properly. If the quality and condition factors when totaled and averaged are
below these thresholds then the selected comparables and assigned quality and
condition factors may not be appropriate for a statistically significant compari-
son. A selection of different comparables and/or a reassessment of the assigned
factors would then be necessary for a credible and statically appropriate value
conclusion.
The Q-CAMM mathematical model can be applied to hypothetical ap-
praisals based upon potential changes in condition or for insurance damage
claims which may include pre and post repair valuations. The appraiser can
compare existing condition valuations to hypothetical condition valuation
models using experiential factoring and derivative comparables within the
spreadsheet model. The methodology is straightforward and can reveal credible
results and points of comparison for restoration cost/value analysis.
Incorporating sophisticated statistics and mathematical formulations, the
Q-CAMM model can be expanded to include weighted averages and further
adjustments for market changes such as inflation or depreciation. The factors
can be weighted to reduce the impact of outliers and to incorporate a larger
standard deviation, thus reducing the possibility of skewed or impractical results.
The quality condition factors might also be weighted to strengthen the signifi-
cance of the quality attributes since condition issues can usually be mitigated
with proper conservation treatments. The appraiser might wish to weigh the
quality factor to 60% and the condition factor at 40%. If the appraiser is familiar
with an index such as the Antique Collector Club English Antique Furniture
Price Index, dated comparable values found could be adjusted based upon the
index. The index based results would impact comparable property valuation and
adjust the final value conclusion of the subject property. Each new element
added will further balance and refine the methodology, but also increase the
sophistication of the valuation formula. Just as the case was built to support
market assignations, quality levels and condition factors, should additional
elements be added to the model, a credible analysis will be necessary to docu-
ment and substantiate the expanded methodology.
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 45
14. Conclusion
In summary, using a quality/condition adjusted mean methodology (Q-
CAMM) continues to integrate subjective techniques by obtaining sample
comparative property from a statistical market population while analyzing and
assigning quality and condition ratings. When using a quality/condition adjusted
mean, no longer are mean calculations of singular items limited in significance
since they have been quantified relative to value, quality, and condition. The
final value conclusion is now determined by a mathematical model which
incorporates a specific measured methodology not based upon random or
arbitrary conclusions, but upon the combination of both factual and quantified,
although subjective data points. The quality/condition adjusted mean method-
ology can be considered a hybrid formulation. The methodology relies upon
both factual data points chosen by the appraiser in the form of comparable
values, and subjective input in rating the comparables and subject property on
quality and condition dynamics.
When using Q-CAMM to determine value, it is recommended that a
statement be inserted into the appraisal document defining the methodology. Q-
Camm does consume more appraisal time, and therefore may not be practical
for lower valued property. In the event of potential challenges, contentious
clients and high value property the methodology is both defendable and repeat-
able. Although not completely scientific in its approach due to subjective input
from the appraiser, when using appropriate comparable property the model
develops reasoned and sound value conclusions. Q-CAMM was developed as a
supplementary tool to be used by the personal property appraiser in developing
and supporting value conclusions of singular items of decorative arts, and
should be used with proper judgment and deliberation.
(For a sample Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet of the Q-CAMM model, please
contact the author at toddsig@attglobal.net)
46 Todd W. Sigety
15. Todd W. Sigety is a certified member of the International Society of Appraisers,
specializing in appraising American and English antique furniture, decorative
and fine arts. He operates two antique galleries in Old Town Alexandria, VA,
and displays at select antiques shows. He is a partner in the Appraiser Work-
shops offering “The Good, Better, Best Appraiser Workshop” and is the Editor
of the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies.
12008-2009 USPAP Plus. 2008-2009 USPAP plus Guidance from the Appraisal Standards
Board. The Appraisal Foundation, 2007. p. U-58
22008-2009 USPAP Plus. 2008-2009 USPAP Plus Guidance from the Appraisal Standards
Board. The Appraisal Foundation, 2007. p. U-57
3Solis-Cohen,
Lita. “Maine Antique Digest.”
http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/stories/index.html?id=266.
4“Sotheby's - Auctions - Calendar - Important Americana.”
http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=N08400&live_lot_id=
168.
5Ronald D. Spencer. The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in
the Visual Arts. Oxford University Press, USA, 2004. p. 6
6Sack, Albert. Fine Points of Furniture. Crown Pub, 1979. p. 14
7Beckerdite, Luke. American Furniture 2006. Chipstone Foundation, 2007. p.29
8The Appraisal of Personal Property: Principles, Theories, and Practice Methods for the
Professional Appraiser. American Society of Appraisers, 1994. p. 15
92008-2009 USPAP Plus. 2008-2009 USPAP Plus Guidance from the Appraisal Standards
Board. The Appraisal Foundation, 2007. p. U-11
10De Bierre, Julia. Restoration Recipes. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1999. p. 7
11McGiffin, Robert F. Furniture Care and Conservation. Nashville, Tenn: American
Association for State and Local History, 1983. pp. 5-6
12Core Couirse in Appraisal Studies. Renton, Washington: International Society of Apprais-
ers, 2005. p. 144
Quality Condition Adjusted Mean Methodology 47
