63848b9370f27 2

If you collect, study, or informally appraise antiques and art, you already know that “What’s it worth?” is the least interesting—and hardest—question. The answer depends on context: which market, which date, what evidence of authenticity, what state of preservation, and who is buying. This guide distills a defensible, replicable process you can apply to most categories—from paintings and prints to furniture, ceramics, silver, and sculpture.

Think of this as a field-usable protocol. Each section builds toward a reportable conclusion you can stand behind.

Value Isn’t Singular: Define the Assignment First

Before you study an object, define why you are valuing it and for which market. The same vase may have four different values depending on the assignment.

• Fair Market Value (FMV): The price a willing buyer and seller would agree to, neither under compulsion, both with reasonable knowledge, in the relevant market. Common for estates and charitable donations.
• Retail Replacement Value (RRV): The cost to replace with a similar item in a reasonable time at retail. Typical for insurance scheduling.
• Orderly Liquidation Value (OLV) or Forced Liquidation Value (FLV): Discounted values reflecting time-constrained sales, often for collateral or bankruptcy.
• Marketable Cash Value (MCV): FMV minus anticipated costs to sell (commissions, shipping, restoration). Useful for owners considering a sale.

Pick the most relevant market tier for your subject and value type:

• Primary retail (galleries, dealers selling contemporary works).
• Secondary retail (dealers in secondary-market artworks and antiques).
• Auction (public, competitive sales; remember buyer’s premiums).
• Trade/wholesale (dealer-to-dealer, house-to-house).

The assignment also dictates scope of work: a limited desktop valuation using provided photos differs from a full inspection appraisal, and each has different uncertainties. State what you are doing, what you are not doing, and why the chosen approach is appropriate.

Authentication and Attribution: Building the Identity Case

Valuation rests on who made the object, when, and whether it is largely original. Authentication is cumulative: no single sign is definitive across all categories.

Key evidence types:

• Maker’s marks and signatures: Verify placement, period-appropriate forms, and techniques. For silver, inspect assay and maker’s marks; for porcelain, factory marks, painter’s marks, and date codes; for sculpture, foundry marks and casting numbers; for paintings, signature style and paint stratigraphy.
• Materials and techniques: Confirm that pigments, alloys, fasteners, canvas, wood, and finishes match the claimed period. For furniture, check saw marks, tool marks, dovetails (hand-cut vs. machine-cut), secondary woods, screws (hand-forged vs. machine-made), and finishes (shellac, varnish, lacquer).
• Labels, stamps, and numbers: Gallery labels, exhibition tags, inventory stickers, and stretcher or frame inscriptions can anchor provenance and dating.
• Stylistic and connoisseurial analysis: Compare to catalogued works and period norms. Focus on details that are hard to imitate—letterforms in inscriptions, hand-specific idiosyncrasies, structural joinery habits, or a foundry’s chase work.
• Scientific tests (when warranted):
  • UV fluorescence and raking light for overpaint and repairs.
  • Infrared reflectography for underdrawing in paintings.
  • X-ray for compositional changes, inscriptions beneath paint, or internal structures.
  • XRF (X-ray fluorescence) for elemental makeup of metals and pigments.
  • Dendrochronology for panel paintings and wooden sculptures.
  • Thermoluminescence (TL) for archaeological ceramics (with caveats about sampling and date ranges).

Red flags to weigh:

• Overly perfect provenance claims lacking verifiable documentation.
• Wrong materials for the purported period (e.g., Phillips screws on “18th-century” furniture).
• Foundry marks known to have been used posthumously or by different workshops.
• Signatures executed in modern paint atop aged varnish layers.
• “Too good to be true” condition for an object of supposed age.

If you cannot fully authenticate, you can still conclude: attribute cautiously (“Attributed to…”, “Circle of…”, “School of…”, “After…”). Each term carries established market meanings and materially affects value.

Condition, Conservation, and Originality: The Quality Multiplier

Condition isn’t a footnote—it is a multiplier on value. Learn to describe and grade condition with specificity and neutrality.

For paintings:

• Note craquelure type (age-consistent vs. traction), abrasions, paint losses, tenting, blistering.
• Identify restorations: overpaint, inpainting, consolidation, patches, relining (old glue-paste vs. modern BEVA), varnish type and clarity.
• Use UV to distinguish inpainting from original passages; report with location and extent.

For works on paper:

• Assess foxing, staining, mat burn, cockling, tears, paper acidity, light staining, and whether margins are trimmed.
• For prints, note edition details, state, watermark, and whether the sheet is full.

For sculpture and decorative arts:

• Record chips, losses, hairlines, reglued breaks (ceramics), metal pitting, corrosion, replating, re-gilding, and replaced elements (e.g., missing finials).
• For furniture, differentiate between age-consistent wear and later damage. Flag refinish, replaced hardware, re-veneering, over-restoration, and structural instability.

Originality and completeness:

• Original frames can add value; period-appropriate later frames can still be positive.
• Matching pairs or services command premiums; single pieces from sets may carry discounts.
• Patina often contributes to value in metals and woods; aggressive cleaning can remove value along with grime.

Conservation impact on value:

• Stabilizing conservation that preserves originality is usually value-neutral or positive.
• Overpainting and refinishing that obscure original surfaces reduce value, sometimes drastically.
• For insurance RRV, high-quality restoration can raise replacement cost. For FMV, extensive restoration typically lowers value relative to untouched examples.

Document condition methodically with measurements, directional orientation (“upper right quadrant”), and high-resolution images in normal, raking, and UV light when possible.

Provenance and Documentation: The Paper Trail That Pays

Provenance substantiates authenticity and influences desirability. Build it like a chain, link by link.

Evidence hierarchy (strongest to weaker, in general):

• Unbroken documented chain of ownership from creation to present, with dated invoices, receipts, and inventory cards.
• Appearance in published catalogs raisonnés, exhibition catalogs, or scholarly literature.
• Labels and stamps from known galleries, exhibitions, or institutions that can be verified.
• Inclusion in earlier auction catalogs with lot numbers and images.
• Family histories and affidavits (useful but corroborate where possible).
• Certificates of authenticity (COAs) whose weight depends on issuer’s authority.

Best practices:

• Cross-check dates, addresses, and stock numbers on labels against known records for that period.
• Verify the plausibility of gaps: wartime displacements, export restrictions, and restitution claims may affect title and value.
• For objects with potential cultural property issues, research export/import laws and any applicable ownership claims before concluding or marketing.

When provenance is partial, state what is known and what is inferred, separating fact from assumption. Even partial, well-documented provenance can differentiate an item in the market.

Market Intelligence and Comparables: From Data to Decision

The sales comparison approach is foundational. Select comparables that share:

• Creator or maker, or a closely related workshop.
• Medium, subject, period, and edition (for prints, edition size, number, and state).
• Size and format (panel vs. canvas; dining chair vs. armchair).
• Condition and restoration history.
• Market venue and geography (New York evening sale results differ from regional day sales).

Analyzing comparables:

• Normalize sale prices: include buyer’s premium for auction, adjust for currency and date. Note whether a sale is outlier-high (celebrity provenance, fresh-to-market) or outlier-low (heavily restored, compromised).
• Time adjustments: fast-moving markets may require temporal adjustments. Justify your rationale and magnitude conservatively.
• Quantity and quality: 3–8 strong comparables often suffice; too many marginal comparables can cloud the conclusion.
• Private or dealer sales: when used, note the source and the level of verification.

Other approaches:

• Cost approach: Useful for contemporary craft or furniture still in production; less relevant for unique historic art.
• Income approach: Rare but applicable to objects generating predictable income (e.g., licensing of images, high-demand rental props). Document assumptions transparently.

Synthesis:

• Reconcile your comparables into a range, then a point conclusion within that range, explaining the weighting. For instance, an example with superior condition but weaker provenance may be placed midrange relative to a benchmark.

A Replicable Appraisal Workflow

Use a standardized, auditable process from intake to report.

1. Intake and scope

• Define purpose (FMV, RRV, etc.), intended use, and intended users.
• Identify property type and quantity; set inspection conditions and schedule.
• Disclose limiting conditions, assumptions, and any conflicts of interest.

2. Inspection

• Measure accurately; record materials, construction, marks, labels, and inscriptions.
• Photograph systematically: overall, details, signatures/marks, and condition issues, plus raking and UV images.
• Document condition with neutral language and location descriptors.

3. Research and analysis

• Authenticate via marks, maker literature, catalogues raisonnés, and technical assessment.
• Build provenance chronologically with citations.
• Select comparables; normalize and annotate them.

4. Valuation and reconciliation

• Choose the appropriate approach(es); explain why alternatives were not adopted.
• Develop a supported value range; reconcile to a conclusion tied to the assignment’s value definition and date.

5. Reporting

• Include object description, scope of work, analysis, comparables summary, value conclusion, definitions, assumptions, limiting conditions, credentials/signature, and date of value.
• For US practice, ensure compliance with applicable professional standards; use consistent terminology.

6. Review and file

• Peer review complex conclusions where possible.
• Archive images, notes, citations, and drafts; maintain a defensible record.

Appraiser’s Field Checklist (Concise)

Bring and do:

• Measuring tape, calipers, scale, flashlight, UV torch, loupe (10x), and gloves appropriate to the material.
• Camera with manual control; color chart or gray card; raking light source.
• pH-neutral sleeves and folders for documents and loose papers.
• Note templates for condition and provenance; preformatted intake forms.
• Verify signatures/marks; photograph all labels, backs, undersides, and hardware.
• Record dimensions (H x W x D), excluding/including frame as needed; note orientation.
• Capture condition with specific terms; avoid value-laden adjectives.
• List at least three strong comparables with notes on differences.
• State value type, market level, and effective date; record assumptions and limits.

Practical Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

• Overreliance on a famous sale: One record-setting price doesn’t reset an entire market. Use medians and multiple comps.
• Ignoring buyer’s premium: Auction totals often include buyer’s premium; be consistent across comps.
• Edition confusion: For prints, state, edition size, and printing date matter. Later restrikes or posthumous casts can be a fraction of the value.
• Condition “blind spots”: Fresh varnish can hide inpainting; raking light can reveal abrasion. Use multiple light angles.
• Misattribution by proximity: A frame label from a prestigious gallery doesn’t prove that gallery sold the work; verify with records.
• Restoration cost vs. value: A costly conservation doesn’t guarantee a value increase. Compare the post-conservation object to unrestored examples when possible.

Short FAQ

Q: What’s the difference between authentication and appraisal? A: Authentication determines identity and originality—who made it, when, and whether components are genuine. Appraisal determines value for a specific purpose and market. You can appraise with uncertainty by stating attribution levels and how they affect value.

Q: How often should I update an appraisal? A: For insurance, every 3–5 years or after major market moves or conservation events. For estates and donations, value is as of a specific date; you don’t “update” but rather commission a new appraisal for a new date.

Q: Does restoration always reduce value? A: Not always. Stabilizing, well-documented conservation can support value, especially for insurance. Extensive overpainting, refinishing, or replacement parts usually lower FMV. State what was done and why; weigh market preferences for that category.

Q: Are auction prices the best comparables? A: They’re transparent and widely used, but dealer sales can be equally valid, especially for rare categories with thin auction data. Use whichever market mirrors the value definition and likely venue for the subject property.

Q: What if provenance is missing? A: Document what is known, search for labels or inventory numbers, and pursue maker/dealer archives. You can still conclude a value with appropriate caveats and often a lower range to reflect risk.

By defining the assignment, building an identity case, grading condition precisely, documenting provenance, and reconciling market data transparently, you’ll arrive at conclusions that withstand scrutiny—and better serve collectors, insurers, and institutions alike.