My curiousity is raised be this discussion about valuation of collection
objects for insurance purposes. Many of the replies to the original poster
indicate that they use So-And-So's catalog, or some other dealer/market
expert assessment.
 
My impression is that most of the sources named are in the business of
valuating objects that are traded (or tradable) among private collectors and
or public galleries.
 
I imagine that many objects that would be of great interest to collectors
(i.e., they'd pay much to possess them) would have to be more highly valuated
if these objects were in the hands of a scholarly organization _and_ had
significant documentation of value to the scholar. On the other hand, objects
that might not be very attractive at all to a collector may be of great
scholarly value; does that cause the object, if held by a scholarly org,
to be highly valuated or not (for insurance purposes)?
 
Bottom Line:
How is the "scholarly value" of objects factored into the insurance
valuation?
Peter Rauch