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