This article was originally developed for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In the process of seeking publication, some editors expressed concern that, because I maintain a consulting practice through Margot Note Consulting LLC, the piece could be interpreted as self-promotional. However, the primary goal of this work is to contribute practical information and discussion to the profession. Rather than allowing the material to remain unpublished, I am sharing it here to make these ideas accessible to archivists who may find them useful. At the same time, I remain interested in pursuing publication in a professional journal, either in its current form or as a revised version, and I welcome feedback from colleagues.

Abstract

The monetary appraisal of archives and manuscripts is a critical yet underexplored intersection of library science and financial valuation. This article addresses the persistent knowledge gap between archival assessment and fiscal valuation and provides an overview of the monetary appraisal process in the United States. It focuses on concluding the fair market value (FMV) of noncash charitable contributions, a process governed by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). By documenting practices and terminology, the article serves as a resource for archivists navigating the complexities of donor relations and institutional stewardship. It advocates for increased fiscal literacy within the archival profession, suggesting that an integrated understanding of market dynamics and stewardship costs is essential for the care and financial substantiation of collections.

Introduction

The monetary appraisal of archives and manuscripts remains an underexplored area in LIS professional literature. While the field has developed methods for assessing the research value of archives, documentation aimed at archivists about monetary value[1] and how it is concluded[2] is scarce. As Terry Cook notes, “The appraisal of private-sector archival records for money is a well-known if difficult art, and it is one in which I had very little experience as a working-level archivist.”[3] This knowledge gap reflects the confidential nature of monetary appraisals in the United States and the hard-won wisdom appraisers gain through training and experience.[4] This article provides an overview of the monetary appraisal process for archives and manuscripts in the United States, with a focus on FMV for noncash charitable contributions. Documenting practices, terminology, and valuation strategies provides a resource for archivists seeking professionals to assess the financial value of donated collections.

Defining Monetary Appraisal

Appraisal in an archival context is “the process of determining whether records and other materials have permanent (archival) value.”[5] This evaluation can occur at the collection, creator, series, file, or item levels and at different stages, such as before donation or accessioning. Factors influencing appraisal decisions include the records’ provenance, content, authenticity, reliability, order, completeness, condition, preservation costs, and intrinsic value. An institution’s collecting policy guides these decisions.

In contrast, appraisal in a fiscal context is “the act or process of developing an opinion of value.”[6] An appraisal evaluates the value of collections by understanding market segments and identifying comparable sales. An appraisal estimates a property’s value at a specific time and place for a defined purpose and provides supporting documentation.

The profession categorizes appraisers into three areas: business valuation, real estate, and personal property. Business valuation appraisers analyze a company’s financial performance, assets, market position, and economic conditions to develop an opinion of value. Real estate appraisers evaluate the value of land and buildings. Personal property appraisers focus on tangible items, such as artwork, antiques, jewelry, collectibles, machinery, and other personal or professional assets, including archives. In this article, appraiser refers to a personal property appraiser rather than to those in business valuation or real estate.

Appraisals serve a range of purposes tied to financial, legal, or personal needs. Appraisers conduct them to conclude replacement cost values for insurance coverage or to support claims involving damage or loss. They typically use FMV for estate planning, estate tax filings, estate administration, and noncash charitable donations. Appraisals also support equitable distribution, such as in divorce or inheritance proceedings. Individuals may request appraisals to document their holdings for inventory or personal records. Appraising recognizes that more than one type of value exists, shaped by the appraisal’s purpose and context.[7]

Literature Review[8]

The evolution of monetary appraisal for archives and manuscripts in North America highlights a long-standing struggle to reconcile FMV with research significance.[9] David Walden initiated this critical dialogue in his 1980/81 article, “Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manuscripts,” where he identifies a schism between market and research values in the Canadian appraisal landscape.[10] He writes, “To distinguish between fair market (read monetary) value and the research value of a collection is often a difficult task, as no established market exists for research collections.”[11] He warns that archivists must understand the manuscript sales community or risk entering an undisciplined free market, where inflated prices for prestige items could deplete limited institutional budgets.

Kenneth W. Rendell focuses on appraisals of noncash charitable donations in his 1983 American Archivist article, “Tax Appraisals of Manuscript Collections.”[12] He believes that active dealers with market knowledge, rather than appraisers, should prepare appraisals, and cites a landmark U.S. Tax Court precedent establishing that valuations must rely on realistic market analyses and the fundraising capabilities of institutions.[13]

By 1984, the administrative consequences of tax incentives in Canada became a central concern. In “The Tax Credit System: Blessing or Burden?,” Walden argues that the system had inadvertently created a cottage industry where some donors manufactured documents for tax relief.[14] Doing so burdens Canadian archives, which underwrite third-party appraisals and devote resources to processing collections of marginal value to satisfy tax requirements.

Entering the 21st century, the field reflected a shift from institutional to private dominance. Rendell’s 2001 article, “The Future of the Manuscript and Rare Book Business,” notes that budget cuts and changes in librarianship led to material returning to private collectors rather than to repositories.[15] He critiqued the dogmatic rules of dealers and noted that the internet was deflating prices for archives and manuscripts while increasing access to information.

In 2006’s “Bucks for Your Bytes: Monetary Appraisal for Tax Credit of Private-Sector Electronic Database Records,” Terry Cook examines how the field must rethink monetary appraisal in response to digital records.[16] He argues that the costs associated with preserving digital materials alter appraisal decision-making by introducing the financial commitments of digital preservation.

Recent scholarship has called for a paradigm shift toward transparency and archival agency. Heather Home’s 2010 article, “Monetary Archival Appraisal and Tax Receipting in Canada: An Update,” notes that while the appraisal field responded to aggressive American institutional purchasing, the profession remains hampered by in-house appraisal limits and paperwork.[17] Finally, Rogers and Sassur’s 2020 article, “On Walden’s Fonds,” concludes that Walden’s schism remains unresolved.[18] They state, “Of all the processes involved in standard archival practice, monetary appraisal has remained particularly shrouded in mystery.”[19] They critique modern tools such as blockage discounts and cost replacement (discussed later in this article) as divorced from cultural values and advocate for a standardized “fair tax value” system in Canada.

Expertise and Ethics

Appraisers must possess specialized knowledge of the types of assets they evaluate.[20] Their qualifications include education, training, and accreditations from the Appraisers Association of America (AAA), the American Society of Appraisers (ASA), and the International Society of Appraisers (ISA). Appraisers undergo continuing education to stay current with market trends and valuation techniques. Additionally, appraisers must complete biennial USPAP courses to ensure adherence to ethical and professional standards.[21]

Ethical standards govern the appraisal process. The IRS enforces a three-year rule requiring appraisers to disclose any prior involvement with items, such as past appraisals, within that period.[22] Additionally, appraisers keep their compensation independent of the appraised value; they charge either a flat fee or an hourly rate.

Oversight mechanisms such as the IRS Art Advisory Panel provide an additional layer of scrutiny. The panel reviews appraisals of items valued at $50,000 or more, including archives. Any item exceeding this threshold triggers scrutiny, regardless of the total number of items in the donation or estate. If the IRS determines that an appraisal significantly misstates the FMV, it engages experts to reassess the valuation, and the court may intervene.[23] If the court concludes that an estate or donor misrepresented the value, it can impose tax liabilities.

Noncash Charitable Contributions

Many repositories rely on donations rather than purchases to build their collections. Institutional focus on digitization, access, and storage reduced acquisition budgets and limited collection scopes.[24] Over the last 25 years, institutions have become less active buyers. For example, five universities dominated the American archival market between 1950 and 2010, purchasing 32 of the 79 literary manuscript collections[25] offered for sale.[26] As a result, institutional sales have become less reliable benchmarks for FMV. Meanwhile, private collectors have gained influence, often driving prices for archival materials.

When donors gift archival collections to institutions, they often seek tax deductions. Under IRS rules, creators are ineligible to deduct the FMV of their own manuscripts when donating them to institutions.[27] Instead, they are limited to deducting only the cost of materials, such as paper or ink, regardless of the collection’s significance.[28] As a result, many creators are discouraged from donating their materials during their lifetimes, even though their involvement provides critical context. However, once these materials are inherited, heirs may donate the archives and claim deductions. Alternatively, creators may choose to sell their archives; however, finding an institutional buyer requires considerable time and negotiation.[29]

The IRS mandates that for noncash charitable donations exceeding $5,000, donors must obtain a qualified appraisal to substantiate the deduction.[30] It must be made within 60 days before the date of the contribution and received before the due date of the tax return on which the deduction is claimed. The donor must also file IRS Form 8283, “Noncash Charitable Contributions,”[31] with a copy of their appraisal report. The appraiser signs the form, attesting to the validity and accuracy of the appraisal. The donee also signs the form, acknowledging receipt of the donated property.

Noncash charitable contributions typically require FMV because it represents the price materials would sell for in the open market between a willing buyer and a willing seller.[32] The IRS mandates the use of FMV to ensure consistency in the tax system, allowing donors to claim deductions without over- or understating the value. For the receiving institution, FMV supports responsible stewardship by informing financial reporting and collection management. It also aligns with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), promoting transparency and accountability.[33] To arrive at an FMV that reflects the characteristics of archival materials, appraisers employ valuation methodologies.

Three Approaches to Value

Appraisers utilize the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach, and the Income Approach. According to USPAP, appraisers must consider all three approaches, even if one guides the final value, because each reveals different aspects of a collection’s potential worth. This method ensures that the valuation reflects the complexity of archives and that value may be unclear from a single perspective.

The Sales Comparison Approach assesses the subject property against similar properties that have recently sold in the marketplace. For example, an appraiser evaluating correspondence from a famous journalist might research recent auction sales of similar correspondence to conclude a comparable value.

The Cost Approach “concludes either the reproduction cost or the replacement cost of a new or depreciated property.”[34] It estimates the value based on the current cost to reproduce or replace the archival materials, accounting for depreciation due to factors such as age or condition. This approach is beneficial when comparable sales are scarce. For instance, for a manuscript without recent sales of similar items, an appraiser might calculate the cost to recreate the document, considering factors such as the materials used, labor, and research required, then adjust for depreciation to arrive at a value.

The Income Approach “considers value in relation to the present worth of future benefits derived from ownership and is usually measured through the capitalization of a specific level of income.”[35] It assesses the value based on the potential income the materials could generate through licensing fees or publication rights. For example, an appraiser might evaluate the anticipated revenue from licensing the reproduction rights of a collection of historical photographs to publishers or media outlets. Appraisers may also need a business valuation appraiser to work on the assignment.

When concluding the FMV of archives, the sales-comparison approach is typically the most appropriate method. Because a willing buyer and seller agree on a value in an open market, appraisers provide the most defensible valuation by using past transactions.

Sale Methods and Acquisition Practices

Most archival sales occur through negotiations rather than public transactions, limiting the availability of comparable sales data. Although institutions still purchase archival materials, sales are often undocumented.[36] This lack of information makes it difficult for appraisers to verify market behavior.

Archives are bought and sold through five methods: private treaty sales to individual collectors, auction sales, private treaty sales to used book dealers, private treaty sales to specialist dealers in books and manuscripts, and private treaty sales to special collections libraries or repositories.[37] Each method has its own advantages and challenges, which influence financial outcomes and collection integrity.

Private treaty sales to collectors occur infrequently because most collectors prefer acquiring items that align with their interests rather than entire archives. This inclination often clashes with a seller’s goal of keeping the collection intact. Auction sales occur more frequently but usually split archives into smaller lots. This practice lowers the overall value of the collection and makes unsold portions appear less desirable in the marketplace.

General used book dealers often lack the expertise to assess the value of archives and tend to break up collections. They may offer only about 15% of the collection’s estimated worth.[38] Many sellers avoid this method for that reason. In contrast, specialist dealers in rare books and manuscripts have the knowledge and networks to either purchase or broker the sale of archives. They offer around 50% of the anticipated value.[39] When acting as brokers, they charge commissions, reducing the seller’s earnings.

Private treaty sales to special collections libraries or repositories offer the most beneficial option. These sales enable the seller to maintain the collection’s integrity while achieving a higher price than other methods can offer.[40] Sellers who understand the collection scope, including relevance and capacity, can navigate the appraisal and negotiation process more effectively. Libraries may request a price reduction or an accompanying donation to offset processing and preservation costs.[41]

Whether purchasing a collection or accepting a donation, repositories follow a systematic approach when acquiring archival materials. The process begins when donors or intermediaries contact the repository. Archivists, collection managers, or a committee evaluate the proposed materials to determine their relevance to the collecting policy. This review assesses whether the materials align with the archives’ focus and priorities. If the materials seem promising, archivists arrange a meeting with the donor to discuss them and address concerns.

Archivists examine the materials, assessing their context, provenance, and use, and consider any legal, privacy, or copyright restrictions that may affect the preservation and accessibility of the donation. For materials of significant merit, donors may hire appraisers to conclude value for tax purposes.

If both parties agree to proceed, they sign a Deed of Gift. This document specifies the terms of the sale or donation, including ownership, access, restrictions, and any special conditions. Once the parties finalize the agreement, the donor transfers the materials to the archives.

Understanding Markets

Market trends influence the appraisal of archival materials. Appraisers rely on market data and valuation methodologies to assess FMV, but economic conditions can cause fluctuations that impact demand. For example, the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic led to decreased acquisitions and donor activity, which slowed sales. Conversely, periods of economic growth or increased interest in cultural heritage, such as anniversaries or media attention, increase buyer competition and drive prices upwards.

Because archival sales are typically private with limited price data, appraisers must rely on a narrow set of comparables informed by experience and market intelligence. They assess value by examining niche markets where specialty dealers or auction houses sell items or groups of records. These markets offer transparency and accessibility, enabling appraisers to justify FMV using sales data.

Appraisers draw on a range of sources, including media coverage of comparable sales or donations, market reports from trade associations, price guides, auction or dealer catalogs, databases, and conversations with auction specialists or rare-book and manuscript dealers. With online platforms, the availability of market data continues to expand.

Auction records provide a convenient starting point for identifying comparables because of their public availability and large volume of data. Appraisers often consult multiple databases and cross-check results with the auctioneer’s website to ensure accuracy, as inconsistencies and omissions occur.

Auction records rarely capture the full scope of the market. Specialist dealers and galleries often maintain detailed sales histories, particularly for niche materials. These venues may command higher prices than auction houses do, reflecting the premium collectors are willing to pay for curation and quality assurance.

The market context for archival collections, such as location, accessibility, and interest, influences their value. For example, a collection tied to New York City may attract less demand in the southwestern market. If auction activity outpaces gallery or dealer sales for similar collections, appraisers may treat auctions as the primary market. However, appraisers must consider the relationship between auction houses and specialist dealers. In all cases, appraisers explain which markets informed the valuation and which did not, and provide the reasons in the appraisal report.

Understanding the range of market behavior requires distinguishing among different pricing types. Auction results and private treaty sales may reflect forced sale or wholesale values. Appraisers recognize these distinctions and analyze them within their context. For instance, auction prices may be lower due to timing, urgency, or competition, while dealer prices may reflect wholesale margins or the full retail value. Without accounting for these variations, an appraisal can misrepresent the property’s value. To ensure a well-supported conclusion, appraisers must interpret the nuances of market data rather than treat all sales figures as equivalent.

Because archival materials often span categories, such as memorabilia, antiquarian books and manuscripts, fine art, photography, ephemera, published books, film, and personal or business correspondence, appraisers frequently group similar items for analysis. Organizing materials by format or type enables examination of similar objects and their market behavior. While this strategy differs from traditional archival arrangement and description, it facilitates a better assessment of value characteristics when comparable sales for entire collections are unavailable.

Appraisers often encounter collections without sales data for a particular creator or body of work. This gap can occur when the creator never sold their materials, worked outside of commercial channels, or faced systemic barriers that limited their visibility in the marketplace. The lack of documented sales, however, does not imply that the archives are without value.[42]

When comparables are unavailable, appraisers identify materials created by the subject’s peers, collaborators, or others working in a similar context. They adjust for differences in reputation, recognition, or market presence. If the creator is unidentified, appraisers may use comparables for similar unattributed material that carries historical significance.

Characteristics of Value

When evaluating items, appraisers may identify trade levels to categorize components within a collection. For instance, a collection might include casual snapshots alongside professionally produced photographs, each requiring distinct value tiers. Similarly, items with separate market demand, such as paintings within an artist’s archives, must be evaluated independently. The factors considered in concluding the value of archives include the Characteristics of Value.

The seven Characteristics of Value are condition, completeness, publication, value in use, celebrity status, discovery, and scarcity in the marketplace. Condition impacts value, as archives in good physical state command higher prices than those in poor condition. For example, a set of daguerreotypes in pristine condition would be far more valuable than a damaged set.

Completeness is assessed by whether an archives represents a whole collection or focuses on a specific project. For example, an archives documenting an author’s career is often more valuable than one centered on a single work. A collection’s value surpasses the sum of its components.

Publication refers to the contribution of published materials within an archives to its value, especially if they are rare or historically significant editions. Value in use relates to the practical applications of the materials, such as their utility for scholarly research. Celebrity status increases value when associated with notable figures, attracting public and historical interest. Discovery adds value when previously unknown archives generate excitement among scholars and collectors. Finally, scarcity in the marketplace enhances value, as unique or hard-to-find items command higher prices.

One critical characteristic is provenance, the origin or ownership history of the archival materials. Well-documented provenance enhances the desirability of the items. For instance, correspondence from a renowned scientist, accompanied by a documented transfer from the estate to a museum, is worth more than those with an uncertain connection to the scientist.

Appraisers adjust value when differences exist between the subject property and sales comparables. Because identical matches are seldom available in the archival market, appraisers select the most relevant sales data and evaluate how the subject’s records differ from the comparables. They adjust to reflect the subject property’s condition and characteristics.

A qualitative ranking system of good, better, and best provides a practical framework for comparison.[43] Rooted in connoisseurship, this approach relies on expertise and situates materials within a relative hierarchy, enabling appraisers to distinguish levels of significance.

Materials categorized as best exhibit a convergence of high-order attributes, such as strong provenance, clear authorship or association, rarity within the extant record, and demonstrable demand or institutional relevance. Better materials may reflect several of these characteristics but lack the full alignment necessary for a top-tier designation. Good materials retain baseline research value without possessing distinguishing features that would elevate them further. The system functions as an evaluative tool, translating value characteristics into a comparative structure.[44]

Appraisal Report Elements

Appraisers produce lengthy reports, even for straightforward assignments, because each section serves a purpose that supports the appraisal’s credibility.[45] Appraisers define the Scope of Work to outline the purpose of the valuation, identify the client, name the party who engaged them, and list the intended users. They also specify the applicable standard of value, such as FMV, and state the effective date of valuation and the date of report completion. Appraisers disclose assignment conditions, including assumptions or limitations that affect the analysis, such as restricted access to the materials. They also document the dates they examined the property.

Appraisals provide an analysis of the relevant markets and trade levels pertinent to the assignment, ensuring a reconciled conclusion of value. By applying caution in evaluating comparable sales data, appraisers account for the complexities of multiple markets to arrive at an informed valuation.

Appraisers include a summary of their qualifications to establish subject-matter expertise and demonstrate their competence to perform the assignment. They identify their credentials and note any relevant professional affiliations.

On the certification page, appraisers confirm their compliance with ethical and procedural standards. They disclose their compensation method, identify both the client and the users of the appraisal, note the date of their most recent USPAP course, and affirm their independence and eligibility to conduct appraisals.

In the methodology section, appraisers outline the steps taken to arrive at their value conclusions. Property inspection often requires collaboration between appraisers and archivists, including the exchange of contextual and descriptive information. Since it is rarely feasible to examine every item in a collection, appraisers may inspect a sample of the subject property. This process strikes a balance between thoroughness and the limitations of time and scale. When appraisers use sampling, they explain the rationale and describe the process to demonstrate its suitability. The documentation includes a signed Deed of Gift that records the transfer of ownership from the donor to the institution.

To support clarity, especially for users unfamiliar with the subject matter, appraisers may include supplementary materials to enhance comprehension. Glossaries of terms and summaries help readers understand the significance of the appraised items. These additions improve the report’s accessibility and reinforce its defensibility.

Appraising Digital Archives

Monetary appraisal of digital archival materials raises conceptual and practical issues beyond those encountered in the valuation of analog archives and manuscripts. Digital holdings often involve high volume, extensive duplication, and internal dependencies, which complicate inspection. They also participate less in collectible or auction markets, thereby limiting the availability of comparable sales data.[46] Jeremy M. Heil notes that book dealers are largely absent from the sales or donation of digital archives.[47] Without third-party sellers, the market of creators and repositories creates a closed system with limited visibility.

The absence of a robust market has grown interest in alternative valuation paradigms, such as those grounded in business acquisition.[48] Enterprises often value information assets during acquisitions, deriving their worth from anticipated utility and strategic advantage. Organizations subsume digital materials within the valuation of their information ecosystem rather than isolating them for separate valuation. This approach suggests an analogy for appraisal, where appraisers may infer value from perceived reusability, adaptability, or contribution to organizational capability rather than from external market comparators.

Emerging scholarship on the total cost of stewardship for digital collections provides another potential framework for monetary appraisal.[49] Tools and models developed through initiatives such as OCLC’s Total Cost of Stewardship encompass activities required to build, manage, preserve, and sustain access to collections over time.[50] These activities include appraisal and selection, processing and metadata creation, preservation actions, digitization and reformatting, storage infrastructure, and maintenance. Unlike replacement-cost models, which often rely on hypothetical substitutes, stewardship-based approaches ground valuation in expenditures. This shift opens the possibility of reframing monetary appraisal of digital assets around lifecycle costs rather than market-value surrogates. However, the relationship between stewardship costs and market value remains undeveloped. As computational tools for estimating stewardship costs become more widely adopted, they may reshape value estimations in archival transactions.

Appraisers may find comparables may exist in non-fungible token (NFT) transactions, commercial digital photography markets, the sale of proprietary data sets, and bankruptcy-related asset transfers involving information systems.[51] Another source may be galleries buying electronic art.[52] However, these examples remain inconsistent and difficult to generalize.

Compounding these valuation challenges are the technical and infrastructural vulnerabilities inherent in digital materials. Digital archives are subject to technological obsolescence, as files created in proprietary formats may become inaccessible without emulation or migration. Such interventions introduce costs and uncertainties that differ from those present in analog preservation. Digital collections are vulnerable to data degradation, corruption, and hardware failure, which can result in content loss. Recovery often requires digital forensics expertise. These factors complicate condition assessment and value estimation, as the probability of sustained access becomes a critical component of any appraisal. These challenges suggest that monetary appraisal of digital archives may require methodologies that integrate stewardship cost modeling, risk assessment, and limited market comparables, rather than relying solely on approaches to value developed for physical archives and manuscripts.

Recommendations for an Integrated Understanding of Value

The LIS field should develop the capacity to engage with monetary appraisal, including building baseline literacy in FMV and appraisal methodologies, so that archivists can interface more effectively with donors and appraisers. Closing the appraisal knowledge gap requires publishing anonymized case studies of appraisal-informed acquisitions and creating primers for archivists on working with appraisers to demystify appraisal practices. Institutions should also account for processing and preservation costs relative to appraised value, as well as stewardship obligations for digital materials.

The monetary appraisal of archives and manuscripts intersects with archival principles and market analysis, yet remains a difficult art. Appraisal work supports stewardship through donation valuations and aligns with, rather than competes against, archival practice. Appraisers determine value; archivists ensure preservation and use. Recognizing this complementarity allows both professions to work in concert, offering more comprehensive guidance to donors and institutions and strengthening the care and understanding of collections.

References

Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER). Dollars for Digital: Evaluating Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Content in Archival Donations: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER). National Archival Appraisal Board. January 13, 2022. http://naabforumcnea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MAER_Report_EN_FINAL.pdf.

The Appraisal Foundation. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Accessed January 2, 2025. https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/imis/TAF/About_Us/TAF/About_Us.

Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Archival Cultural Property. Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, July 2022. https://ccperb-cceebc.gc.ca/en/resources/documents/strategies-for-monetary-appraisals-of-archival-cultural-property.pdf.

Chen, Amy. Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market. University of Massachusetts Press, 2020.

Cloutier, Jean-Christophe. Shadow Archives: The Lifecycles of African American Literature. Columbia University Press, 2019.

Cook, Terry. “Bucks for Your Bytes: Monetary Appraisal for Tax Credit of Private-Sector Electronic Database Records.” Archivaria 62 (Fall 2006): 121-25. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12892.

Donadio, Rachel. “The Papers Chase.” New York Times. March 25, 2007.

Heil, Jeremy M. “Challenges in the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Archives.” Paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists conference. Archives, Disrupted. Ottawa. June 8, 2017. https://queensu.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/77fc5e96-ce40-4422-a3b6-b40abaa7f8f8/download.

Home, Heather. “Monetary Archival Appraisal and Tax Receipting in Canada: An Update.” ACA Bulletin (April 2010): 8-16. http://hdl.handle.net/1974/5569.

Internal Revenue Service. Form 8283: Noncash Charitable Contributions. Department of the Treasury, Last Updated March 30, 2026. https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8283.

Internal Revenue Service. Publication 526: Charitable Contributions. Department of the Treasury, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p526.

Internal Revenue Service. Publication 561: Determining the Value of Donated Property. Department of the Treasury, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561.

Juhasz, Kelly. “Appraising Archival Cultural Property in a Descendant Market.” Worthwhile Magazine. November 1, 2022. https://www.worthwhile-magazine.com/articles/appraising-archival-cultural-property-in-a-descendant-market.

Lunsford, Stephen, and Leslie Mobbs. “Large Digital Collections.” In The Future of Monetary Archival Appraisal in Canada Conference. Ottawa. October 22-23, 2007. 31-5.

Lutz, Stuart. “Can I Deduct That?” Worthwhile Magazine. Accessed June 18, 2025. https://www.worthwhile-magazine.com/articles/can-i-deduct-that.

Newman, Barry. “As the Trash Goes, Authors’ Clutter in the Right Hands Is Very Bankable.” Wall Street Journal. January 2, 2013.

Reeder, Sarah. “Understanding the Different Levels of Value: It’s Worth What, Where, and When.” Worthwhile Magazine. Accessed June 18, 2025. https://www.worthwhile-magazine.com/articles/understanding-the-different-levels-of-value-its-worth- what-where-and-when.

Rendell, Kenneth W. “The Future of the Manuscript and Rare Book Business.” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage (2001): 13-31. https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.2.1.191.

Rendell, Kenneth W. “Tax Appraisals of Manuscript Collections.” American Archivist 46, no. 3 (Summer 1983): 306-16.

Rogers, Simon Patrick, and Curtis Sassur. “On Walden’s Fonds: Life on the Frontier of Monetary Appraisal in the Canadian Archival Landscape.” Archivaria 90 (Fall/Winter 2020): 112-45. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13761.

Sisario, Ben. “Bob Dylan’s Secret Archive.” New York Times. March 2, 2016.

Smyth, Janella N., ed. The Appraisal of Personal Property: Principles, Theories, Legal Issues, and Practice Methods for the Professional Appraiser. 2nd ed. American Society of Appraisers, 2012.

Society of American Archivists. “Appraisal.” Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Accessed January 2, 2025. https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/appraisal.html.

van Ryzin, Jeanne Claire. “Stephen Enniss Puts Mark on Storied Ransom Center.” Austin American-Statesman. August 27, 2016.

Walden, David. “Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manuscripts.” Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980/81): 101-13. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/10841.

Walden, David. “The Tax Credit System: Blessing or Burden?” Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 84-90. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11080.

Weber, Chela Scott, Martha O’Hara Conway, Nicholas Martin, Gioia Stevens, and Brigette Kamsler. Total Cost of Stewardship: Responsible Collection Building in Archives and Special Collections. OCLC Research, 2021. https://doi.org/10.25333/zbh0-a044.

Endnotes

[1] Value and price are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct in appraisals. Value is an opinion of the worth of a property at a given time, based on market data, professional standards, and the purpose of the appraisal, and, therefore, must be qualified (for example, liquidation value). Price is the amount exchanged in a sale; once stated, price is a fact.

[2] Appraisers do not determine value; rather, they conclude value based on analysis. Their conclusion stems from an evaluation of market data, comparable sales, condition, provenance, and intended use of the appraisal. This process results in a well-supported opinion of value, recognizing that different contexts yield different valuations.

[3] Terry Cook, “Bucks for Your Bytes: Monetary Appraisal for Tax Credit of Private-Sector Electronic Database Records,” Archivaria 62 (Fall 2006): 121-25, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12892. Heil also states, “monetary appraisal has been the dark art of the archival world.” Jeremy M. Heil, “Challenges in the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Archives,” paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists conference, Archives, Disrupted, Ottawa, June 8, 2017, https://queensu.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/77fc5e96-ce40-4422-a3b6-b40abaa7f8f8/download.

[4] For transparency, personal property appraisal of archives and manuscripts constitutes one area of my consulting practice. Much of the information presented in this article is undocumented in the professional literature, but has instead been developed through experience. This article is intended to document and contextualize these practices to support a greater understanding of appraisal work and to provide citable discussion of concepts and methodologies that are understood among practitioners but rarely formalized in published sources.

[5] Society of American Archivists, “Appraisal,” Dictionary of Archives Terminology, Accessed January 2, 2025, https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/appraisal.html.

[6] The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), Accessed January 2, 2025, https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/imis/TAF/About_Us/TAF/About_Us.

[7] See Sarah Reeder, “Understanding the Different Levels of Value: It’s Worth What, Where, and When,” Worthwhile Magazine, accessed June 18, 2025, https://www.worthwhile-magazine.com/articles/understanding-the-different-levels-of-value-its-worth-what-where-and-when.

[8] I suspect that the relative lack of professional literature on monetary appraisal in archives and manuscripts stems in part from the fact that most individuals engaged in the practice are not academics. Further, based on feedback received during the peer-review process for this article, some editors appear to regard writing by practicing appraisers about appraisal as self-promotion. I dispute this characterization, arguing instead that practitioner-authored literature is essential for documenting methodologies and tacit knowledge that are absent from the published literature, but would be helpful for archivists to understand.

[9] The focus on North American, rather than exclusively American, approaches to monetary appraisal reflects the relative scarcity of U.S.-based literature on monetary appraisal of archives, while Canadian LIS scholarship offers analyses of the tensions between FMV and research value. The literature review begins in the 1980s, when personal property appraisal practices tightened due to tax and regulatory reforms. The U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986 imposed stricter requirements for noncash charitable gifts, mandating qualified independent appraisals, clearer FMV standards, and detailed reporting to the Internal Revenue Service, in response to widespread overvaluation. At the same time, the Savings and Loan Crisis exposed systemic appraisal inflation in real estate lending, prompting scrutiny of valuation practices. The crisis reinforced the need for standardized, defensible appraisal methodologies across asset classes.

[10] David Walden, “Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manuscripts,” Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980/81): 101-13, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/10841.

[11] David Walden, “Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manuscripts,” Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980/81): 104, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/10841.

[12] Kenneth W. Rendell, “Tax Appraisals of Manuscript Collections,” American Archivist 46, no. 3 (Summer 1983): 306-16.

[13] Otto Kerner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1976-2 (U.S. Tax Ct. 1976), docket no. 4686-73, published in Commerce Clearing House, Tax Court Reports, 1976, ¶ 33,616 (M). The court rejected speculative valuations and required appraisals to reflect market conditions, comparable sales, the purchasing power of institutions.

[14] David Walden, “The Tax Credit System: Blessing or Burden?” Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 84-90, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11080.

[15] Kenneth W. Rendell, “The Future of the Manuscript and Rare Book Business,” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage (2001): 13-31, https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.2.1.191.

[16] Terry Cook, “Bucks for Your Bytes: Monetary Appraisal for Tax Credit of Private-Sector Electronic Database Records,” Archivaria 62 (Fall 2006): 121-25, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12892.

[17] Heather Home, “Monetary Archival Appraisal and Tax Receipting in Canada: An Update,” ACA Bulletin (April 2010): 8-16, http://hdl.handle.net/1974/5569.

[18] Simon Patrick Rogers and Curtis Sassur, “On Walden’s Fonds: Life on the Frontier of Monetary Appraisal in the Canadian Archival Landscape,” Archivaria 90 (Fall/Winter 2020): 112-45, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13761.

[19] Simon Patrick Rogers and Curtis Sassur, “On Walden’s Fonds: Life on the Frontier of Monetary Appraisal in the Canadian Archival Landscape,” Archivaria 90 (Fall/Winter 2020): 114, https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13761.

[20] Appraisers develop a value opinion based on the assumption that the items are genuine, but verifying authenticity falls outside their scope. Authentication involves specialists who analyze features, materials, and provenance, and may employ scientific methods to verify authenticity.

[21] In 1986-1987, professional value associations created the Appraisal Foundation and developed USPAP. USPAP establishes the ethical and performance guidelines for appraisers in the United States, requiring them to act impartially and independently, while maintaining client confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest. USPAP evolves in response to changes in the profession and societal shifts, with each revision enhancing understanding and enforceability. For appraisals used in charitable contributions, estate settlements, or insurance claims, USPAP-compliant reports are required by the IRS, courts, or insurers. Without adherence to these standards, an appraisal lacks credibility and exposes clients to legal and financial risk, and may be rejected by governing bodies. Standards 7 and 8 of USPAP address personal property valuation.

[22] See 26 CFR § 1.170A-17.

[23] The IRS examines appraisals for misstatements of value. In donation cases, taxpayers may overvalue items to claim larger charitable deductions than warranted. In estate cases, executors may undervalue assets to reduce tax obligations.

[24] Kelly Juhasz, “Appraising Archival Cultural Property in a Descendant Market,” Worthwhile Magazine, November 1, 2022, https://www.worthwhile‑magazine.com/articles/appraising-archival-cultural-property-in-a-descendant-market.

[25] For more information, see Amy Chen, Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market (University of Massachusetts Press, 2020). Chen examines how authors’ papers are acquired, valued, and institutionalized. She analyzes the roles of authors, literary agents, dealers, and archivists in shaping the market for literary collections, highlighting the economic and cultural factors influencing these transactions. See also Jean-Christophe Cloutier, Shadow Archives: The Lifecycles of African American Literature (Columbia University Press, 2019). Cloutier examines how the acquisition and preservation of African American literary materials have been shaped by neglect and exclusion. He reveals how Black writers acted as their own archivists, anticipating future institutional interest in their work. Cloutier’s study urges collecting institutions to reconsider their acquisition priorities and to address archival absences.

[26] In the latter half of the twentieth century, many American institutions collected literary archives. By the early 2000s, a weakened economy and shrinking budgets reshaped the landscape. As funding declined, the price of writers’ papers rose, widening the gap between elite collectors and others. Today, the literary archives market reflects the interests of the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin and the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Yale University. Amy Chen, Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market (University of Massachusetts Press, 2020): 61, 78.

[27] Stuart Lutz, “Can I Deduct That?,” Worthwhile Magazine, accessed June 18, 2025, https://www.worthwhile-magazine.com/articles/can-i-deduct-that.

[28] A 1969 tax reform imposed this restriction to prevent abuses involving inflated valuations in charitable contributions. At the time, creators could deduct the FMV of their own work. Richard Nixon donated his own presidential papers to the National Archives and claimed a substantial tax deduction based on their appraised value. Nixon’s move was controversial because he donated self-created archives, backdated the gift to reduce his tax liability, and appeared to exploit the law for personal gain. The scandal fueled public outrage and contributed to broader scrutiny of his conduct. The reform remains in effect today under 26 U.S. Code § 170(e)(1)(A).

[29] Appraisers often conclude FMV for self-generated archives intended for sale, using methods like those used for donation appraisals. Appraisers may provide a value range to reflect market variability. John V. Henley, Senior Accredited Appraiser, American Society of Appraisers, email message to author, December 14, 2024. I am grateful to Henley for generously sharing his archives market insights with me over the years.

[30] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 561, Determining the Value of Donated Property, (Department of the Treasury, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561. See also: Internal Revenue Service, Publication 526: Charitable Contributions, (Department of the Treasury, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/publications/p526.

[31] Internal Revenue Service, Form 8283: Noncash Charitable Contributions, (Department of the Treasury, Last Updated March 30, 2026), https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8283.

[32] FMV is “the price that property would sell for on the open market. It is the price that would be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act, and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.” Internal Revenue Service, Publication 561, Determining the Value of Donated Property, (Department of the Treasury, 2024), 2, https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561. The definition of FMV relating to charitable contributions by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, is: “The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. If the contribution is made in a property that of a type which the taxpayer sells in the course of his business, the fair market value is the price which the taxpayer would have received if he had sold the contributed property in the usual market in which he commonly sells, at the time and place of the contribution and, in the case of contribution of goods in quantity, in the quantity contributed. The usual market of a manufacturer or other producers consists of the wholesalers or other distributors to or through whom he customarily sells, but if he sells only at retail the usual market consists of his retail customers. If the donor makes a charitable contribution of property, such as stock in trade, at the time when he could not have reasonably have been expected to realize its usual selling price, the value of the gift is not the usual selling price but is the amount for which the quantity of property contributed would have been sold by the donor at the time of the contribution.” 26 CFR §1.170A – 1.17A – 1( c ) ( 2 ). Another value is replacement value, which refers to the cost of replacing an item with another of similar quality, age, and condition at current market prices. Unlike FMV, replacement value focuses on what it would cost to obtain a comparable item today, often from a retail source. This valuation is most used for insurance purposes, so that, in the event of loss or damage, the insured can be adequately compensated to replace the item. Replacement value is often higher than FMV because it reflects the cost of purchasing a comparable item at retail, which includes markups for profit, overhead, and availability. FMV represents the price an item would fetch in the open market between a willing buyer and seller, which may be lower due to factors such as depreciation, demand, or secondary market conditions. All this underscores a key principle in appraisal: value is shaped by context and purpose.

[33] GAAP is a standardized framework of accounting rules used in the United States to prepare and present financial statements. It ensures consistency and comparability of financial information across organizations.

[34] Janella N. Smyth, ed., The Appraisal of Personal Property: Principles, Theories, Legal Issues, and Practice Methods for the Professional Appraiser, 2nd ed. (American Society of Appraisers, 2012), 20-3.

[35] Janella N. Smyth, ed., The Appraisal of Personal Property: Principles, Theories, Legal Issues, and Practice Methods for the Professional Appraiser, 2nd ed. (American Society of Appraisers, 2012), 20-7.

[36] Kelly Juhasz, “Appraising Archival Cultural Property in a Descendant Market,” Worthwhile Magazine, November 1, 2022, https://www.worthwhile‑magazine.com/articles/appraising-archival-cultural-property-in-a-descendant-market. Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Archival Cultural Property, (Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, July 2022), https://ccperb-cceebc.gc.ca/en/resources/documents/strategies-for-monetary-appraisals-of-archival-cultural-property.pdf.

[37] John V. Henley, conversation with author, July 24, 2025.

[38] John V. Henley, conversation with author, July 24, 2025.

[39] Specialists aim to double their investment, focusing on the most desirable items. In rare cases, they may offer 80 to 90% of the expected resale value. For sought-after items, a 10% commission may be accepted to remain competitive, reflecting the need for a prompt, attractive offer. John V. Henley, conversation with author, July 24, 2025.

[40] High-profile archives sales often make headlines, but they can distort perceptions of the market. For example, most literary archives sell for between $50,000 and $250,000, though lower-value sales are rarely publicized. Amy Chen, Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market (University of Massachusetts Press, 2020): 12. Notable exceptions include N. Scott Momaday’s papers, sold to the Beinecke for $500,000 in 2013; Gabriel García Márquez’s papers, acquired by the Ransom Center for $2.2 million in 2014; and Bob Dylan’s archives, purchased by the University of Tulsa for $20 million in 2016. Rachel Donadio, “The Papers Chase,” New York Times, March 25, 2007; Barry Newman, “As the Trash Goes, Authors’ Clutter in the Right Hands Is Very Bankable,” Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2013; Jeanne Claire van Ryzin, “Stephen Enniss Puts Mark on Storied Ransom Center,” Austin American-Statesman, August 27, 2016; Ben Sisario, “Bob Dylan’s Secret Archive,” New York Times, March 2, 2016.

[41] Based on professional experience, collections below $500,000 receive full valuation without discounts. Another type of discount is blockage, which reflects the reduced value of individual items when a large quantity of similar objects is introduced to the market at once, overwhelming demand. It assumes the materials function like inventory, generating income over time, and discounts their value to a single valuation date.

[42] However, archives often contain items, such as photocopies, newspaper clippings, or printouts, that lack monetary value. Appraisers exclude them from valuations because the market finds little appeal in their ubiquity and lack of originality.

[43] John V. Henley, email correspondence with author, April 29, 2026.

[44] By contrast, efforts to assign percentage-based value differentials often introduce a false sense of precision. In the absence of statistically valid datasets, supported by sampling methods and grounded in probability theory, numerical claims about relative value are difficult to substantiate. Without a robust evidentiary basis, such figures risk appearing arbitrary. John V. Henley, email correspondence with author, April 29, 2026.

[45] Appraisals may be written or oral, depending on the client’s needs and the assignment’s scope. In either case, appraisers are required to maintain a work file: a collection of all documentation, analyses, and supporting information used to develop the appraisal. The work file ensures that appraisal conclusions can be reviewed and substantiated, even if the report is delivered orally.

[46] Jeremy M. Heil, “Challenges in the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Archives,” paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists conference, Archives, Disrupted, Ottawa, June 8, 2017, 2, https://queensu.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/77fc5e96-ce40-4422-a3b6-b40abaa7f8f8/download.

[47] Jeremy M. Heil, “Challenges in the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Archives,” paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists conference, Archives, Disrupted, Ottawa, June 8, 2017, 5, https://queensu.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/77fc5e96-ce40-4422-a3b6-b40abaa7f8f8/download.

[48] Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER), Dollars for Digital: Evaluating Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Content in Archival Donations: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER) (National Archival Appraisal Board, January 13, 2022), 24, http://naabforumcnea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MAER_Report_EN_FINAL.pdf,

[49] Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER), Dollars for Digital: Evaluating Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Content in Archival Donations: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER) (National Archival Appraisal Board, January 13, 2022), 20-22, http://naabforumcnea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MAER_Report_EN_FINAL.pdf.

[50] Chela Scott Weber et al., Total Cost of Stewardship: Responsible Collection Building in Archives and Special Collections (OCLC Research, 2021): 5, https://doi.org/10.25333/zbh0-a044.

[51] Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER), Dollars for Digital: Evaluating Strategies for the Monetary Appraisal of Digital Content in Archival Donations: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Monetary Appraisal of Electronic Records (MAER) (National Archival Appraisal Board, January 13, 2022),7, http://naabforumcnea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MAER_Report_EN_FINAL.pdf.

[52] Stephen Lunsford and Leslie Mobbs, “Large Digital Collections” in The Future of Monetary Archival Appraisal in Canada Conference, Ottawa, October 22-23, 2007, 34.