David Haberstich wrote:
[snip]
>     Having asked those questions, I'd like to return to "fair market
> value" and offer a caveat about an inconsistency I've detected in the
> practices of appraisers. I assume that the photographic collections
> we're discussing contain negatives, which represent relatively uncharted
> territory. One of the remaining collecting frontiers in photography
> involves negatives, which seldom have much collector interest, and
> therefore little "market value." Even negatives by famous photographers
> whose prints sell in quintuple digits seem to have little collector
> interest and therefore no established market value. (I predict that this
> will change eventually.) The appraisers whom I know tend to substitute
> "value of materials" for items with minimal collector value, but I find
> this problematic. It seems to me that materials with NO "market value"
> should be appraised at ZERO. "Value of materials" does not fit the
> definition of "fair market value." The inconsistency seems to exist
> because you can't expect a donor to pay an appraiser to say the donation
> has no value! "Historic value," of course, is not the same thing as
> "fair market value" either.
[snip]

To bring in a broader discussion of fair market value and intrinsic
value (value of materials) I offer these two cases for consideration.

A points about fair market value, in Canada, the valuation of
intellectual property (copyright, patent and trademarks) can be included
in an object's fair market value - independent of the value of the
curltural object per say.  A certified business valuator (i.e., a member
of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators) can do this
appraisal.  I don't know if there is a similar group in the States, but
the value of this intangeble property would have a potential impact on
the value of the negatives.

A second point is about the intrinsic value (value of materials) for an
object with "no" market value - while this may not apply to photographs
- I recently had a silver salver appraised for tax purposes where the
only value was the silver weight.  (It was, um, "restored" in the recent
past - an interesting teaching piece however.)  Objects made of precious
metals, stones, etc. might indeed have value simply by virtue of their
material make up.  The inverse of the case of a canvas with pigment
being with millions because Monet applied the paint.

I have to agree that trying to establish what something is worth well
enough to satisfy a tax court can be problematic, but isn't that why we
pay appraisers obscene ammounts of money for expert opinions?

Richard Gerrard