How much would this be worth if it were discovered in the American backwoods today? How much more if it had been found in the early 1700s, when no-one really knew the ancient Egyptian “style”?
Image by Artie_Navarre from Pixabay
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Two weeks ago, in the then-final part of the Economics in RPGs series, I presented the Asset Valuation Worksheet (Version 1.0, though I didn’t know that at the time).

I’ve since had occasion to use the worksheet extensively, and that has led to a number of revisions and improvements. So today’s post is to present you with the new and improved version.

There has been (by the time you read this) a slight delay in publication because of a Doctor’s appointment that I could not shift to a more convenient date.

An Introduction To The Changes

The infographic above was designed to introduce the changes.

• Revised Category Headings – the headings for “History” and “Antiquity” have been changed to the more descriptive “Maker Fame” and “Social Desire”.
• New Landscape Orientation – in addition to the old vertical orientation, there are now additional options in the form landscape orientation, which permits more items per page. Both the original A4 size and the landscape A4 size are pictured, so that you can make a direct comparison. The vertical version had room for 5 assets, the landscape holds 8.
• Version 2.0 has New Features: – the revised version has new features that make life a lot easier when using the form as a digital document.
  1. It’s now a single table instead of a series of three. This makes it easier to navigate as a digital document.
  2. Color Coding has been applied to all the headings within the table.
  3. The revision permitted Even more description space. The old space varied from adequate to insufficient.
  4. The Asset Identification details (especially the description) have now been centrally located so that when using the worksheet as a digital document, they can be seen while filling out both the top section (Inherent Value) and bottom (Appraised Value). No more scrolling back up to the top of the page!
  5. And, of course, the clarified headings already mentioned.
• Finally, there is a New Window-sized version – this is the one that I have been using. It’s not designed for hardcopy, it’s designed to fill the screen and be legible using my monitor (1396 pixels wide). The extra space allows for still more description and a massive nine entries – with the capacity for a tenth if you re-task the duplicate headings on the right-hand-side.

“How much for the car?” — “To heck with the car, how much for the Mansion!?”
Image by NoName_13 from Pixabay

An Instruction Manual

To accompany version 2.0, I have compiled brief notes on using it into a short instruction manual. This is included in the zip file as a PDF, and I will be reproducing the contents below with some added notes in italics.

This is not the same content as appeared previously. It’s a lot more sparse and practical in orientation.

What’s the minimum normal retail price of a standard item to do this job? ie, what is the price for performing this function for the owner?

Always, in the currency of the time and place. Convert if you have to from some other standard.

If there is a wide variation, you can apply a genericized type. Instead of “What’s the minimum retail price for a hat”, you might need “what’s the minimum retail price for a Cowboy hat?”

Add the price of any materials, in local currency, at the time of purchase, in excess of the normal.

Treat precious metals and gemstones with care; it’s often useful to list them separately in the Factor column, adding the local / converted price each on a separate line in the box. Large or unusual gemstones should also be dealt with individually.

EG, I might list 600g of gold in the factor box, and 40 carats of rubies (or simply $20,000 USD 2023, the modern-day price) and the value of that 600g (plus everything already priced) in the Value column, and then the value of the rubies in the relevant era..

I’ve made extensive notes on the value of precious commodities relevant to the period of valuation. I’ll attach a redacted set of these to the article as an appendix, just to give you some idea of what should be done.

The retail price is assumed to include the basic costs involved in producing the minimum-quality item. This space is for any unskilled labor costs in excess of that.

If your function is “the price of a hat” and the item itself is a Crown, then there will be the labor of extracting enough precious metal, the labor of extracting the precious stones, and the labor of transporting those materials to the craftsman, and the labor of transporting the finished product to the seller.

As a rule of thumb, I count up man-days for this, then apply the minimum wage or its equivalent per day. If I don’t get too bogged down in fractions, a simple tally of man-days gets me a quick valuation for this element.

NB: Workers in a factory are also considered “unskilled” by the system.

It might take one man a day to chop down a big tree on his own. It might take two men with a saw 1/4 of a day each (total of 1/2 man-day). One man with a chainsaw might be able to do eight to ten in a day, so we’re talking 1/8th or 1/10th of a man-day.

Transport to the timber mill might take four men five days – but they are transporting a hundred logs at the same time, to that’s effectively 1/5th of a man-day per log.

The timber has to be dressed and turned into planks and panels. This is generally a fairly quick job unless it has to be done by hand, which might take a couple of man-days.

And so on. The more you can aggregate all this quickly in your head, using the Factor column to keep a running total, the more quickly you will get an answer and move on.

The retail price is assumed to include the basic costs involved in producing the minimum-quality item. This space is for any skilled labor costs in excess of that.

That includes the craftsman who gets paid more than most in his line of work because he’s good at this job, the craftsman who spends extra time to get this item just right, and the craftsman who has to bring skills outside the norm for this type of product.

Skilled craftsmen are usually paid a man-hourly rate, not a man-day rate, and it’s usually multiple times what an unskilled worker would earn in a full day. Five times is a good rule of thumb, ten times or more in an industrialized economy.

Again, think “hat” vs “crown” – the latter involves a jeweler, a gem-cutter, and a jewelry designer, none of which are involved in producing the basic “hat”.

A Maker’s Fame at the time of manufacture always adds value to an item. In the case of a document, the “maker” is deemed to be the person whose name appears on the document, and not any lawyers or functionaries who have worked on his behalf.

This can get tricky when there are several “Makers” involved. Don’t let yourself get bogged down – and remember that the Maker’s labor is already factored into the price.

No matter how skilled a cook you are, and how good the recipe, sometimes a pie comes out of the oven burnt. This category is not about the skill of the maker, it’s a valuation of how well they have used that skill.

Good workmanship can double the value of an item. Great workmanship can increase it tenfold.

The Maker’s Fame can be a good guide, as there is usually a reason that a maker becomes famous. But it’s not the be-all and end-all.

This will usually be where the owner obtained the item, but sometimes it can be more useful to list where it was originally manufactured, and not where it happened to be bought.

It can often be useful to list both – for example, “Cairo, Egypt (Roman Empire)” would describe a Roman item that just happened to be bought in Cairo.

“Babylon (Iraq) aka Mesopotamia” tells you everything you need to know, including the ancient civilization responsible for the item and the modern-day location.

Give each item a specific number to avoid confusion when referring to them. So important that it’s the only heading with a colon.

Some GMs may want to make this a global referent – items from adventure 21 will start being numbered one more than the last numbered item from adventure 20.

I’ve learned from cataloging images that you get a lot more usefulness and flexibility, if this is to be your approach, using a format of “Adventure number – Item within adventure”.

This should list everything that you need to know about an individual item to value it. You will need to be concise, though – no descriptive text, just raw facts.

An example:

“Scarab Brooch – Lapus Lazuli, Carnelian, Turquoise, Jade, 18 ct Gold, c.3210 BC. Tainted Provenience 10%. 1400, 120g.”

• It’s a Brooch in the form of a scarab.
• Lots of semi-precious gemstones, totaling $1400 modern value.
• 120 grams of 18 carat gold.
• It’s old, dating from c. 3210 BC – allegedly.
• Tainted Provenience can mean a number of things – suspected fake, suspected stolen, unproven claims, possibly looted. The percentage shows how much the item is worth as it stands (10% of what it otherwise would be).

Note that there’s no mention of exceptional workmanship. Doesn’t mean it isn’t exquisitely made, just that this was to be decided as you were valuing the item.

I will often base such decisions on what images I can find for an item. In this particular case, it was quite pretty, so I gave it a +100% value for craftsmanship.

Rarity valuation is a function of two things: How many of this item were made, and how many remain available? This excludes any factor for famous owners, it’s about the rarity of this type of item in general. Rarity should NOT take into account the actual age of an item.

There’s a temptation to label unique objects as “priceless”. Don’t do it. Apply levels of generalization until you find a definition that lets you assess the rarity – then inflate that factor for each level of generalization that you had to use.

To continue considering the Scarab example – Scarabs are one of the most commonly-found treasures of ancient Egypt, and they are usually a brooch. But it’s still from ancient Egypt, and that makes it rare. So I put x50 for the rarity, instead of x500 (a value that has been used for an alleged scroll from the Great Library of Alexandria).

Objects that are modern but still comparatively rare, like a gold armband, get a +% instead a multiplier.

“What dark and terrible secrets are contained within these pages — and how much are they worth?”
Image by Petra from Pixabay

Age represents an increase in value because an item is old. This shifts the basis of comparison from “all other items of this type” to “all items of this type and age.”

I usually work this as a factor – an increase of X% every 20 years (deliberately keeping the rate frequency fixed).

The sequence with my calculator is: (Age) / 20 =, Memory Clear, Memory Plus, (Age Value Factor per 20 years), x^y, Memory Recall, equals.

• The more fragile an item, the higher the factor.
• The more inherently valuable the materials are, the higher the factor.
• The more famous the maker, the lower the factor (it has to be presumed that they made lots of them, hence their fame).
• The higher the workmanship, the higher the factor.
• The older an item, the lower the factor (I’ll explain in a moment).

1. Each of these factors is rated between zero and five – but these aren’t linear assessments; a ‘1’ is typical, 2 is more than normal, and so on.
2. Add all four factors together, and divide by five, then divide by 10 to get a number between 0 and 0.5.
3. There’s also a sixth factor based on gut instinct and rarity, that’s worth up to 1 on it’s own. These results are percentage increases in value every twenty years.
4. Add 101 to the total and divide by 1000 to get the factor, a range of 1.01 to 1.03.

But once I have a ‘feel’ for what the results will be, I don’t follow the formal process – I’m quite happy to pluck a total out of thin air, based entirely on gut instinct for what the result will be. In some cases, I’ve even used a resulting factor of 1.05, going way above the usual limits.

• @ 10 years: 1.01 = +0.5%; 1.015 = +0.75%; 1.02 = +1%; 1.025 = +1.25%; 1.03 = +1.5%; 1.035 = +1.75%; 1.04 = +2%; 1.045 = +2.25%; 1.05 = +2.5%
• @ 20 years (obvious, used to check the math): 1.01 = +1%; 1.015 = +1.5%; 1.02 = +2%; 1.025 =+2.5%; 1.03 = +3%; 1.035 = +3.5%; 1.04 = +4%; 1.045 = +4.5%; 1.05 = +5%
• @ 50 years: 1.01 = +2.5%; 1.015 = +3.8%; 1.02 = +5%; 1.025 = +6.4%; 1.03 = +7.7%; 1.035 = +9%; 1.04 = +10%, 1.045 = +12%; 1.05 = +13%
• @ 80 years: 1.01 = +4%; 1.015 = +6%; 1.02 = +8%; 1.025 = +10%; 1.03 = +13%; 1.035 = +15%; 1.04 = +17%; 1.045 = +19%; 1.05 = +22%
• @ 100 years: 1.01 = +5%; 1.015 = +7.75%; 1.02 = +10%; 1.025 = +13%; 1.03 = +16%; 1.035 = +19%; 1.04 = +22%; 1.045 = +25%; 1.05 = +28%
• @ 160 years: 1.01 = +8.3%; 1.015 = +13%; 1.02 = +17%; 1.025 = +22%; 1.03 = +27%; 1.035 = +32%; 1.04 = +37%; 1.045 = +42%; 1.05 = +48%
• @ 200 years: 1.01 = +10.5%; 1.015 = +16%; 1.02 = +22%; 1.025 = +28%; 1.03 = +34%; 1.035 = +41%; 1.04 = +48%; 1.045 = +55%; 1.05 = +63%
• @ 300 years: 1.01 = +16%; 1.015 = +25%; 1.02 = +35%; 1.025 = +45%; 1.03 = +56%; 1.035 = +68%; 1.04 = +80%; 1.045 = +94%; 1.05 = +108%
• @ 400 years: 1.01 = +22%; 1.015 = +35%; 1.02 = +49%; 1.025 = +64%; 1.03 = +81%; 1.035 = x2; 1.04 = x2.2; 1.045 = x2.4; 1.05 = x2.7
• @ 500 years: 1.01 = +28%; 1.015 = +45%; 1.02 = +64%; 1.025 = +85%; 1.03 = +109%; 1.035 = +136%; 1.04 = x2.7; 1.045 = x3; 1.05 = x3.4
• @ 750 years: 1.01 = +45%; 1.015 = +75%; 1.02 = +110%; 1.025 = x2.5; 1.03 = x3; 1.035 = x3.6; 1.04 = x4.4; 1.045 = x5.2; 1.05 = x6
• @ 1000 years: 1.01 = +65%; 1.015 = x2.1; 1.02 = x2.7; 1.025 = x3.4; 1.03 = x4.4; 1.035 = x5.6; 1.04 = x7; 1.045 = x9; 1.05 = x11.5
• @ 2000 years: 1.01 = x2.7; 1.015 = x4.4; 1.02 = x7.25; 1.025 = x12; 1.03 = x19; 1.035 = x31; 1.04 = x51; 1.045 = x82; 1.05 = x132
• @ 4000 years: 1.01 = x7.3; 1.015 = x20; 1.02 = x52.5; 1.025 = x140; 1.03 = x370; 1.035 = x1,000; 1.04 = x2,550; 1.045 = x6,660; 1.05 = x17,300
• @ 6000 years: 1.01 = x20; 1.015 = x87; 1.02 = x380; 1.025 = x1,650; 1.03 = x7,100; 1.035 = x30,350; 1.04 = x128,825; 1.045 = x543,000; 1.05 = x 2,274,000

I could extend this table but it’s more than enough to make my points.

This process is an attempt to capture a non-linear process in a regular and simple progression. And, if you choose the right factor, it works perfectly – for a while.

Changes in value due to age are clearly not so straightforward; they are much faster than is reasonable over the longer term and then slower with increasing age. But trying to build that into the model makes it excessively complicated. So, instead:

You should Break The System. Deliberately choose a higher factor than you are supposed to for ‘younger’ time periods and scale it back with increasing age.

This requires you to note very carefully the rise in effect of regular increases in factor. It’s to make this clear that I extended the table as far as I did. Try something that seems about right, and if the results don’t feel right, modify it.

For the record, I got my best results by changing that flat 20-years interval to 15*log(age). But they still weren’t right.

Recommended Factors:

• 0 – 50 years: 1.2 – 1.35
• 51 – 100 years: 1.15 – 1.25
• 101 – 200 years: 1.2 – 1.25
• 201 – 250 years: 1.125 – 1.2
• 251 – 450 years: 1.11 – 1.15
• 451 – 600 years: 1.05 – 1.125
• 600 – 850 years: 1.05 – 1.1
• 851 – 1200 years: 1.045 – 1.1
• 1201 – 3000 years: 1.025 – 1.075
• 3001 – 4000 years: 1.015 – 1.05
• 4001 – 10000 years: 1.015 – 1.04
• 10,000+ years: Don’t calculate it, set it. 1.005 is too low, 1.01 is massively too high, and it’s too sensitive to small changes in factor.

If there are doubtful elements to the ownership or legitimacy of an item, this is where they get taken into account. There are several possible causes of such doubt, too many to go into in any detail. I use values of 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, and 90% to indicate different levels of doubt as to the legitimacy of the item or the legality of its ownership.

On the other hand, even an otherwise unremarkable object – or even a somewhat dilapidated one – can accrue a massive boost in value because someone famous once owned it. Again, though, you have to be able to prove it.

Movie props actually seen on-screen are worth up to 1,000 times as much as ones that were legitimately made for the production but may have been used by a stunt double or as an unneeded backup.

A previously undiscovered Dead Sea Scroll? Until you prove it, it’s worth only 1% of what it otherwise would be valued at – and that much only because there’s a chance that it might be genuine.

In general, art and precious objects (Gold, Gems, etc) bump up to one step higher simply because they are innately valuable.

When assessing this adjustment, always think about what the seller could prove when the owner bought it / obtained it. And bear in mind the possibility that a Provenience can be flawed – you might not be able to prove that an item came from a fabulous Egyptian tomb but can prove that it is 4500 years old? It will lose some of its value, but far from all of it.

Deduct a percentage of the value for damage beyond that which would be expected of an item of this type of the claimed age.

One observation to note: Fools sometimes attempt to clean or repair such damage, in the process damaging Patina, i.e. the marks of natural time on the item. This can cut the value of an item by 90% or more, while the original damage only cost it 10% or less of its value.

This is also a good opportunity to round the value off to a neat round number.

Gems never lose value through damage unless subjected to extreme conditions – lava, fire, electrical damage, acid. Precious metals can be dented, and lose some of their value, but this loss is small. That’s why these things are popular – they hold their value except in extreme circumstances.

Deduct a percentage of the value for damage resulting from the age of the object. Depreciation only operates for 50 years. Over the 50-100 year range, it’s normal for depreciated objects to regain most or all of their losses.

Gems and Precious metals never depreciate. Art can depreciate through age, but this takes centuries and can be undone by professional restoration.

Unless the object is less than 100 years old, I tend to ignore depreciation.

When it comes to ordinary objects, Depreciation can be massive – a 50-year old walking stick or table is close to valueless, perhaps holding only a few percent of its original value. It’s not old enough to be valuable as an antique, and generally worn or damaged by age. Only 5% (at best) of such objects will survive long enough to reclaim their value, let alone become expensive.

The state in which an object is kept has a massive influence on losses through Depreciation. It is normally calculated based on the assumption of normal usage and normal wear-and-tear. If neither of those holds true, losses can be halved or even quartered.

But note that a lot of this ‘preservation of value’ is psychological, founded on the assumption that there will be a demand for it because it’s old. The antiquities lesson described in the Economics In RPGs final post – that the antiques market has largely collapsed – should be borne in mind.

Add a percentage increase or a multiplier for any increase in actual value. Most of the time, there won’t be any – the factors of rarity and age account for most such. But it can happen – the abilities of artistic genius can be underappreciated and then massively boost the value of one of his works.

There may be the prospect of cleansing a tainted Provenience, until this is actually done, the increase gets filed in the Appreciation space.

A critical role in history can add significant value – selling the crown jewels to finance a war, for example. This is a space in which to apply any adjustments not dealt with elsewhere.

FORGET most of what was written in the final post of the Economics In RPGs under this heading. It’s more trouble than it’s worth; the instructions here and in Depreciation, above, supersede them, and for good reason.

As a general rule, this category values the past history of the object. It’s a place to reflect any narrative that you want to add to the object, making the item itself more plausible and interesting. ANY SUCH NARRATIVE SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED SOMEWHERE – which is where the Source and Asset Number can be useful, linking the two pieces of information.

Contemplate, for example, a Viking Shield discovered in North America that can be proven to have been buried there for more than 500 years. Rarity would be sky-high (there’s only one of them); Age would add notably to the value; Provenience – you don’t know who owned it, but there’s no deduction for fraud, etc, either. Depreciation is irrelevant because of the age. Appreciation is where the tremendous historic value gets placed.

In particular, any object that extends historical knowledge, or that proves a suspected extension, gains massively in this area.

Whenever you have an artwork by a famous artist, you have to research them to discover when they became famous, and what they were famous for. A portrait by a notable landscape artist might be a curiosity but it’s unlikely to hold as much value as one the works for which he is famous.

It can be useful for narrative purposes / reference NOT to reduce Depreciation because of the condition in which something is kept, but to restore that value in the Appreciation space.

There are objects that people just want to own. A particular artist may be especially “Hot” in the market at the moment, for example. This space adjusts value for this sort of thing.

People didn’t really become fascinated by Egyptology until the major finds of the late 19th and early 20th century, for example; everyone knew it existed (you can’t hide the sphinx), but the discovery of the Valley Of The Kings (and other sites), with their treasures intact, caused a massive swell in interest, and that sent prices skyrocketing. As a conservative estimate, that lack of interest reduced the value of Egyptian Artifacts by 50%, and probably more.

This is where such ‘over the top’ value influences are incorporated. Add a percentage or a multiplier to the value, or subtract a value, to reflect social attitudes at the time of the valuation.

Wikipedia yesterday featured a book about the practice of covering books in Human Skin. Horrid and Compelling, both at once. A book covered in leather created in this fashion would increase in both Rarity and probably Provenience – but how many people would be comfortable owning such a tome? I suspect that the value in general terms, would take a bath.

Anything that is or was representative of, used by, or desirous of, a religion adds at least something to the value of an object. Adherents of that religion, or those who want to know more about such worshipers, will pay extra to obtain such items, and if anyone else wants the item, they will have to pay more, too.

The amounts can vary considerably – from 5% for a token from a faith that only experts have ever heard of (which can include those invented from whole cloth by GMs) to 100% or more.

I always remember seeing advertising on the early internet – “You too can own a genuine piece of the cross” or “…of the ark, just send $$$ to….” when thinking about this subject. These were (presumably) simple pieces of wood, perhaps old wood (if I give undeserved credit in case it’s due) – worth $1, perhaps less – inflated in value 50- or 100-fold because of the religious element. And people paid, I’m sure of it.

Initially, that was all that I had in mind for this valuation element. But then I remembered that to burn Beatles albums in the wake of the ‘Bigger than Jesus’ gaffe, people had to go out and buy them… And then there is the religious element of many of the Egyptian Treasures, which undoubtedly adds a little something to their cache in modern times…

Of course, if you really want to boost the value in this section of the worksheet, get the religion banned, and just watch how much the Black Market will charge for such objects.

The more I thought about it, and the more I worked with the Valuation Worksheet, the more I realized the simpler truth encapsulated in the directions above.

 
 
 
 
 
 
I use these lines to make notes about factors that affect everything in a category or from a particular source.

For example, the 1860 valuations pages have the text:

     “NB: 2023 USD x6.07/2800 -> 1860 USD”

at the top of each sheet. If I estimate that an object has 25000 worth of gemstones (2023 USD), this gives me the conversion to the value to use in the chart ($25000 x 6.07 / 2800, which equals $54.1964 in 1860 money – which I would immediately round to $54.20.)

The 1938 pages that I’m working on at the moment update the 1860 values for another 78 years of history and technological progress. The notes on those pages reads:

     Inherent Value: 1938 [Inflation x1.7595. Gold x1.69328, Silver x5.31064, Plat x1.06796,
     Gems x46.6123, Unskilled Labor x0.7×2.5, Skilled x 0.5×5, Age +77

Let’s break that down:

• Inflation bumps the price of materials and labor up by a factor of x1.7595 unless otherwise noted.
• Gold has risen by less than inflation – prices in both 1860 and 1938 were fixed by government regulation. It adjusts by x1.69328.
• Silver has massively risen in value -back in 1860, it was worth about 1/80th of the equivalent weight in gold, now it’s more like one-fifth. Adjust the value of any silver in an item by x5.31064.
• Platinum has barely changed, which means that it’s fallen massively in comparison to inflation. $1 of platinum back in 1860 is worth $1.06796 in 1938.
• Gems have risen in price even more dramatically, almost fifty-fold- x46.6123.
• It takes, on average, an unskilled laborer 0.7 times as long to perform a task, but the basic wage level has risen by a factor of about 2.5, considerably more than inflation. Ordinary people have disposable income and the economy is re-engineering itself to the presumption that they will find something to do with it.
• Skilled workers are even better off; it takes them about half as long to achieve a task as it used to, but their basic income per hour has risen 5-fold.

which is the recommended practice.

These might seem pointless, especially if you are avoiding maths and updating the total values as you go, which is my recommended technique.

In modern times, Ancient Egypt is symbolic of fabulous wealth, both historical and material. That wasn’t always the case. The same is true of every source of legendary wealth.
Image by Thorsten Dittmar from Pixabay

I find that having a more prominent value draws attention to the bottom line.

You can, should you wish, use these to aggregate the value of multiple items across the page.

But there’s a potentially more important function: Objects are worth what someone will pay for them. Everything else is hot air and supposition, theory at best. The values recorded in these spaces do not have to be an accurate reflection of the totals to their respective points in the process.

Another point worth making is that the “Subtotal” is what the new owner can reasonably be expected to have paid (plus any after-purchase expenses, like postage, delivery fees, other freight costs, etc. Updating the subtotal to incorporate those extras gives you the number both ways – the “book cost” and the actual price that has to be paid for the item.

Most of the time, that won’t be of any value to you; it’s a dirty little technical detail that only bogs a game down. But there will be times when it’s a relevant factor – getting 100 tons of industrial machinery shipped interstate, for example.

 
 
 
 

So, what’s in the Zip file version 2.0?

Click to download Campaign Mastery’s Free Asset Valuation Worksheet v2.0 in all it’s glory!

Legacy Files:

• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – PDF Format

New Files:

• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – PDF Format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – Word format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – Open Document format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Word format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Screen-sized – Word format
• V2.0 – Screen-sized – Open Document format
• Instructions excerpt- PDF

Value notes example (and other reference material

The following is an extract of the notes made for valuing precious goods etc in the Adventurer’s Club campaign, but they can be applied fairly universally with a little research. In particular, inflation calculators can be very useful.

A Cubic Inch Of Gold

1 cubic inch of gold
   = 10.013 troy oz
   = 11.06 normal oz
   = 313.54573 g

   = $206.96871 USD 1860 (fixed)
   = $350.455 USD 1938 (fixed)
   = $20066.92672 USD 2023 (26-10-23)

The Purity of Gold

Pure gold is 24 carats, meaning that it is 100% gold with no other metals added.

18-carat gold is 75% pure gold and 25% other metals, while 14-carat gold is 58.3% pure gold and 41.7% other metals. The higher the carat of gold, the more valuable it is, but it also tends to be softer and more susceptible to damage or wear.

To get value of impure gold, determine the weight of pure gold.

24 ct = 100%
22 ct = 91.6%
21 ct = 87.5%
20 ct = 83.3%
18 ct = 75.0%
15 ct = 62.5%
14 ct = 58.3%
12 ct = 50.0%
10 ct = 41.7%

Gold found in the wild is generally assumed to be 14- or 16-ct unless proven otherwise with an assay, which can cost USD $25-$50 1850s prices.

White gold has added Rhodium which adds strength and durability. It is normal for jewelers to add sufficient yellow gold to the alloy that the price matches i.e. 14-ct white gold is worth as much as 14-ct yellow gold.

The Silver Ratio

Long Term Trends gives the ratio of silver price to gold price over many decades.

Current = approx / 85.51
1938 = approx / 80.35
1860 = approx / 15.13

Platinum Ratio

Similarly, SDBullion gives the historic ratio of platinum price to gold prices (the page is less user-friendly though, be warned).

current = approx 1.996
1938 = approx 1.1
1860 = approx 1.03

Gemstones – General Notes

There has been very little study of the price of gemstones through the ages, notably because it’s a very hard subject to research. The most recent significant paper on the subject was published in 1934!

Three characteristics: determine gem value.

• Beauty (aka fire, brilliancy, or color)
• Durability
• Rarity

There is Fourth, artificial, characteristic:

• Perfection of Cut, aka the gem’s “Make”.

This is strongly responsive to changing tastes and other social factors.

Most Valuable Gemstones

From AD 26 to 1500, one-carat white diamonds were the most valuable gemstones. From 1501 to 1800, the ruby led; from 1801 to 1872, it was again the diamond; from 1872-1934, it was the emerald.

Rule Of Linchoten

A rule formulated by Linchoten gives a (frequently inaccurate but ballpark) valuation for exceptionally large gems:

Value = 1-ct price x square of size in cts.

This rule applies to all gemstones prior to 1874, and applies to all except diamonds post-1874.

The Carat – perils and pitfalls

Since 1907 the term Carat has referred to a Metric Carat, equal to 0.2 grams (0.00705 oz, 0.00643 ozt). The Carat is divisible into 100 Points.

It was originally a unit of weight equal to 1/1728 (1/12^3) lb.

While the term and concept spread from the ancient Romans and Greeks, it was normal until the adoption of the Metric Carat for each country to have its own definition.

An ‘international carat’ of 205 milligrams was proposed in 1871 by the Syndical Chamber of Jewelers, etc., in Paris, and accepted in 1877 by Diamond Merchants in Paris. This definition was used for Diamond sales exclusively; existing ‘national’ Carats continued to be used for other gemstones.

Notably, London and New York used the same measure of 205.303 mg and from 1887 on, 205.409 mg, while Paris and East India used 205.5 until the 1877 change.

Cyprus had the smallest Carat (187 mg), while Livomo in Tuscany, Italy, had the highest (215.99 mg). The United States adopted the metric carat on July 1, 1913, the United Kingdom on 1 April 1914. The Metric Carat is now used universally.

Measurement by Carob Seed

You read that right. Carob seeds have been used throughout history to measure jewelry, because it was believed that there was little variance in their mass distribution – but this was not true, and has caused significant reappraisals of some precious stones.

Uncut vs Cut

Up to 75% of a gem may be lost during the cutting process, depending on the flaws that have to be avoided. More typically, 1/3 to 1/2 will be lost.

Since cutting can greatly enhance the value, but can also completely destroy the gemstone being cut or reduce it to fragments, it is a very nerve-wracking process. Ironically, a steady hand is one of the most important factors in a successful gem cutting. In some eras and settings, the gem-cutter is responsible for any loss incurred during the process – which won’t help steady those nerves any. Particularly difficult stones may wait years or decades before anyone is brave enough to risk cutting them.

Especially large stones produce ‘Off cuts’ that are in and of themselves of gemstone size and quality. One of the crowns of England is decorated in diamonds that were off-cuts from the Star Of India.

Ease Of Cutting is second only to size in determining the value of an uncut gem. The most difficult cases are worth 1/25th of the cut gem’s value – bearing in mind the size loss. The easiest are worth about 1/5th. As a general rule of thumb, allow for cutting losses and use ten-to-one.

EG: A 1 ct cut ruby, worth about $4625 can be assumed to have been a 2-3 carat uncut ruby before cutting. That means the uncut gem would have been worth $4625×2-3 / 10 = $925 – $1387.50.

Valuation rule of thumb

As a general rule of thumb, exclude and manually calculate values of significant gems, and treat the rest by weight.

Diamond Notes

The most valuable (and rare) diamonds are deeply colored red, blue, or green. Next are white diamonds of unusual brilliance or size.

Diamonds are the gemstones with the highest Durability.

A Paragon Diamond is a flawless stone of at least 100 ct. in size.

Base 2023 prices: USD $4500-6000 / ct.

The price per carat does not increase linearly with increasing size. Instead, there are sharp jumps around milestone carat weights, as demand is much higher for diamonds weighing just more than a milestone than for those weighing just less. 0.99 carat diamonds are worth a LOT less than 1.01-carat diamonds.

Ruby Notes

Rubies of > 4 ct are especially valuable, worth much more per ct than smaller rubies. The largest run to about 9 ct. 1934 $3000-7000 per ct.

Rubies of 3-4 ct are the next most valuable per ct.

Rubies have high Durability, but are not quite as resilient as diamonds..

Base 2023 prices: USD $4625 / ct.

Sapphire Notes

Sapphires of exceptional quality are especially valuable relative to the more common stones. This is a more important factor than size, which is the second most-important factor in Sapphire value.

The largest Sapphire on record is the Star Of Adam at 1404.49 carats, mined in Sri Lanka in 2015 and owned anonymously. The previous record holder was the Black Star Of Queensland at 733 carats, mined in Australia in 1938.

Sapphires have the third-highest durability out of the major precious stones.

Base 2023 prices; USD $450-1600 / ct.

Emerald Notes

Emeralds of especially deep color, regardless of size, are the most valuable per ct.

Emeralds of unusual size and consistent (‘unblemished’) color are the next most valuable.

Both values are considerably greater than the base value of a 1 ct emerald.

Truly Flawless emeralds are practically non-existent [unless artificially produced by modern technology]. As a marketing device, gem dealers and Jewelers refer to any stone whose inclusions or imperfections are too small to be visible to the naked eye (assuming normal visual acuity) as ‘flawless’.

The largest emerald in the world is the Bahia Emerald at 180,000 carats (!), still uncut. It currently resides in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It is allegedly Cursed.

Emeralds have the lowest durability of the precious stones, mostly because of the imperfections, which are points of weakness. It is sometimes claimed to be possible for a heavy emerald dropped from a height or struck with a hammer to shatter into numerous smaller stones of a mere fraction of the value.

Base 2023 prices USD $500-1100 / ct.

Semi-precious Stones Notes

Many of these have been overproduced which has devastated prices. EG: Tiger-eyes (sister to Cats-eyes) were highly esteemed from 1880-1890 and once sold for $6 a carat or about $11,200 per pound. Two speculators independently flooded the market in 1890, causing the price to crash to just 25 cents a pound – a loss of 99.997% of their value.

• SPINEL: Base 2023 prices USD $200-500 / ct
• AQUAMARINE: Base 2023 prices USD $100-200 / ct
• OPAL: Base 2023 prices USD $60-100 / ct
• AMYTHEST: Base 2023 prices USD $15-100 / ct
• TURQUOISE: Base 2023 prices USD $10-100 / ct
• PERIDOT: Base 2023 prices USD $50-80 / ct
• AGATE: Base 2023 prices USD $5-100 / ct
• AMBER: Base 2023 prices USD $50-60 / ct
• LAPUS LAZULI: Base 2023 prices USD $20-50 / ct
• JADE: Base 2023 prices USD $10 – 100,000 / ct
• QUARTZ: Base 2023 prices USD $8-65 / ct
• CITRINE: Base 2023 prices USD $10-30 / ct
• JASPER: Base 2023 prices USD $2-5 / ct

How much would you pay to own an antique desk in such pristine condition? How much would someone else pay? That’s the question at the heart of any Asset Valuation System.
Image by Siala from Pixabay

BONUS CONTENT:

Since I have the files open in order to extract the above, there’s some addition material that might be of use to GMs out there.

The Weight Of Rock

On average, a cubic foot of rock weighs 165.2 pounds, but depending on the type of rock it may weigh between 143.6 and 186.0 pounds.

Typical weights by size:

• Pebble: Diameter: 0.5 in., Weight .035 ounces = 1 g
• Landscaping Rock: Diameter: 1.25 in., Weight 1.41 ounces = 40 g
• Skipping Stone: Diameter: 1.6 in., Weight 1.41 ounces = 40 g
• Cobblestone (the largest it’s practical to throw): Diameter: 4.5 in Weight 2.6 pounds = 1.2 kg
• Basketball sized (most people can manage to carry these at least a short distance). Diameter: 9.5 in., Weight 42 pounds = 19 kg
• Yoga ball sized: Diameter: ~26 in., Weight ~920 pounds = ~418 kg
• Car sized: Diameter: ~10 ft Weight ~86,500 pounds = ~39,271 kg
• Bag of Landscaping Rocks: Weight: 50 pounds = 22.7 kg
• Pallet of Landscaping Rocks (50 bags): Weight 2,500 pounds = 1,136 kg

Density of rock types:

• Sandstone: Density: 1 ft3 2.30 (g/cm3) = 143.6 (lb / ft3) = 65.2 (kg / ft3)
• Limestone: Density: 1 ft3 2.70 (g/cm3) = 168.6 (lb / ft3) = 76.5 (kg / ft3)
• Shale: Density: 1 ft3 2.35 (g/cm3) = 146.7 (lb / ft3) = 66.6 (kg / ft3)
• Dolomite: Density: 1 ft3 2.60 (g/cm3) = 162.6 (lb / ft3) = 73.8 (kg / ft3)
• Granite: Density: 1 ft3 2.63 (g/cm3) = 164 (lb / ft3) = 74.5 (kg / ft3)
• Marble: Density: 1 ft3 2.71 (g/cm3) = 169.1 (lb / ft3) = 76.8 (kg / ft3)
• Basalt: Density: 1 ft3 2.90 (g/cm3) = 181.0 (lb / ft3) = 82.2 (kg / ft3)
• Quartzite: Density: 1 ft3 2.65 (g/cm3) = 165.4 (lb / ft3) = 75.1 (kg / ft3)
• Gabbro: Density: 1 ft3 2.98 (g/cm3) = 186.0 (lb / ft3) = 84.4 (kg / ft3)

Weight Of Paintings

A good quality canvas in a wooden frame weighs roughly the same as a typical canvas in a glass-front frame, i.e. 3kg for 60cm x 90cm.

Of this, 2/3-3/4 of the weight will be the frame.

This information can be used to derive the weight of most art, with or without frame, on good or typical canvas.

Standard Bricks – Of Gold

US Bricks were standardized (more or less) in the 1800s to 9×3.5×4.5 inches. What if you had one made of gold? And what if it fell on you from a height of about 2 feet?

It was to answer this question that I went looking for the weight and price of a cubic inch of gold.

• 1 standard brick has a volume of 141.75 cubic inches.
• x 313.54573 g = 44.88kg.
• …Worth 2,944,174.17 USD 2023, or 55,405.60 USD 1938, or 32,720 USD in 1860.
• Momentum = mass x velocity. So if such a brick fell on you from two feet overhead, it would be roughly equivalent to a 5lb crowbar hitting you at 125 km/h (77.64 mph). Ouch!

The Value Of Spices

Modern standards say 1-3 years lifespan, if properly stored, i.e. 1/2 value every 0.75 years.

Assuming sealed containers, you could maybe double this. = x 1/2 every 1.5 years – if the containers aren’t being opened regularly.

Standards in the past were less fussy (to put it politely), so assume 1/4 times the indicated rate of decay in value = x 1/2 every 6 years.

Cool, dark environments prolong spice life up to 4x, so if stored, decay becomes about x 1/2 every 25 years. And that’s giving the cache every possible benefit of the doubt.

EXCEPTION:
Saffron, in oil, can last for a century.

The oil itself becomes tinted and valuable in the process.

At the end of that century, though, it’s essentially worthless.

SECOND EXCEPTION:
Any spice mixed with honey will last for thousands of years. Good luck getting the honey back out, afterwards, though.

IN THEORY, a sealed container which is stored in another container that is filled with honey might be able to last longer, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.

Hopefully, all this will be of use to someone out there!