- 38 -
Everett chose the correct market in which to value the
collection. However, for other reasons discussed below, we also
reject his valuation. Warren conceded in testimony that
Everett's valuation was accurate for the New York retail store
market in 1985 because retail store prices were markedly higher
than those found at conventions. However, our analysis of the
record indicates that Everett’s valuation is too high.
There are two major problems with Everett's valuation.
First, Everett’s use of flawed methodology in determining base
prices inflated the entire valuation. In determining a base
price for each category of item, Everett used an “average price”
for that category. As respondent correctly points out on brief,
this meant that Everett assumed that each item in the collection
was worth at least the average value in the marketplace of all
such items for sale. Even when taking into account the mint
condition of the collection, this approach improperly inflates
the valuation. As our analysis infra shows, Everett's assigned
values for 106 one-sheet posters were 1.76 times greater than
prices shown in catalogs and price guides in evidence for those
same items.12 Everett should have used a base price for items in
12 See also Table 2, which is a comparison of Everett’s and
Warren’s valuations of 106 one-sheets for which the record also
contained prices from independent pricing guides, and supra note
8, and infra notes 15-17 and accompanying text, which explain the
methodology used in Table 2. Everett’s valuation was $4,760,
1.76 times greater than the total prices of $2,697 for the same
one-sheets found in other pricing guides.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011