Originally published in the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies - 2009

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 captains 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 characteristics 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 accumulation of factual evidence. Too often appraisals that we have seen rely on idiosyncratic and subjective 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

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 appraising 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-ranking approaches, (2) introduces a practical alternative assessment method accepted 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 contained 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 methods 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
56 Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

practicable perspective on knowledge, a perspective well supported by referential 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 perspective 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 structure.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 catalogues, 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 knowledge 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
Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model 57

claim discipline specific methodologies. Since we can all agree that value is a social construct, we propose that we look to psychology, sociology, anthropology, 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 scholarship and 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 subjectively score and enumerate aspects of material culture using nominal or ordinal scales designating classes of objects or the rank ordering of important 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 denominators for evaluating material culture in the 1980s and published the methodology 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
58 Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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 Montgomery/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 evaluating decorative 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 integration of design aesthetics.

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

59

2. Form: For our purposes form includes the evaluation of an objects outward 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 to form and ought to heighten its effect rather than obscure it. Therefore, 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 purpose to enhance form and function. 4. Materials: The purpose of this point is to identify the materials used in creating the property. This includes, but is not limited to, the identification of woods, textiles, metals, ceramics, mounts and artist colors 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 in the 14-point process. Some connoisseurs believe that cultural property 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 enhance value, but others such as antique copper, even a minor cleaning may destroy patina and negatively affect the desirability and value. 6. Color: This point emphasizes the originality of the colors used in the manufacture or creation of the property. Have the colors faded or otherwise been negatively impacted? The appraiser attempts to determine the original color intent and how much or little fading and discoloration has occurred.
60 Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

7. Craft Techniques: According to Montgomery, the analysis of craft techniques encompasses four points. 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 the property, 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 evidence 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 of form, 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 specific style 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, which may include the place and time of origin, along with documented proof of past ownership and exhibition. The point references methods used in determining authenticity. 13. Condition: Montgomery suggests, Evidences of natural aging and wear, such as coloration, patina, and softening of edges, corners and contour, are but a few of the attributes of the antique that add fascination to any object. This, like many of the fourteen points can be Quality of craftsmanship, techniques used, artist personal touches and creativity, and the use of

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

61

very subjective, and as the level of connoisseurship analysis increases, so do the level and expectations of condition. 14. Evaluation: Evaluation is where the appraiser and connoisseur balance 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 measure of metrics to create a hybrid methodology incorporating both a modicum of objective certainty and the subjective inputs of connoisseurship and experience. Weighted-Factor Scoring Models Drawing from medicine, law, product development, and other professional 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 alternatives whether we realize it or not. Presented with a choice, we rank alternatives 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.

62

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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 survey of 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 fivepoint 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 ownership/provenance and trade practices. If the item being appraised is Georgian silver and all comparables and the subject property have appropriate hallmarks 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
Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model 63

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 to determine 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

64

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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 Montgomery/Lanmon 14-point rating framework and the tacit knowledge of thirtytwo 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, standards, and metrics.

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

65

Table 1 Average Evaluation Factor Percentage Weighting and (Range)

66

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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 decorative arts categories each total one hundred percent. The individual factor percentages were entered into a spreadsheet for further statistical treatment and analysis. The spreadsheet was constructed to incorporate adjusted mean methodology (Sigety, 2008) and allow for the evaluation of a subject property 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.
Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model 67

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. This process 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

68

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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 of the 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

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

69

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 decorative 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 evaluation 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 three hypothetical 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 appraiser. 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 percent, the subject property is valued (70% x $6,416.23) at $4,497.65. (figures rounded).

70

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

71

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 obtained 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 in importance 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 professional 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 definitive answer to the problem. When using the model, the comparable property and values along with the assigned rating factors must be relevant,
72 Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

viable, and be statistically appropriate when compared to the subject property. 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 evaluation 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 subjective differences and personal bias and eventually bring balance and a measure 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 appraisers 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 rjcoreyappraisals@hughes.net or Todd W. Sigety, ISA CAPP at toddsig01@gmail.com)

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 (rjcoreyapCombining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model 73

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: rjcoreyappraisals@hughes.net. 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 board of directors. His shop specializes in American and English antique furniture, fine art, and decorative accessories. Contact info: 425 South Washington St, Alexandria 22314 or toddsig01@gmail.com

End Notes

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

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

Gregg, Richard B. Symbolic Inducement and Knowing: A Study in the Foundations of Rhetoric. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1984.
3 4

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

Weimer, Walter B. Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.
5 6

Sack, Albert. Fine Points of Furniture, New York: Crown Publishing. 1950. Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambium Press. 1968 Fleming, E. McClung. Artifact Study: A Proposed Model. Winterthur Portfolio (9:153)

74

Robert J. Corey and Todd W. Sigety

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

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

Combining Metrics, Standards, and Connoisseurship: A Weighted-Factor Scoring Model

75