I commented the other day regarding this matter. My comments were judged harshly rather than accepted for the assistance it could have provided. I responded and have yet to see it published. I am repeating my original response at the end of this post.
New information has emerged that is potentially very important as far as the collectability of this bike. You can choose to ignore it not only at your own peril, but at the risk of destroying a very valuable set.
I think everyone will agree 24kt gold plated bikes aren't the norm. Now we learn that there were at least two. Why? Are there more than two? Who are/is this couple and how/why do they come into possession of these bikes? Very potentially there is a story here that is every bit as important as the bikes themselves, if not more so. That story needs to be uncovered and quickly. The number of these potentially gold plated bikes makes all the difference in the world. Was a limited edition? Was it made for a particular person or friend? Was it intended as a trophy or reward? They story might indicate the significance of the bikes and more to the point their gold plated garb. I gave my (now ex) girlfriend an "engagement bike" to go with the ring. I only wish I might have afforded to have it diamond dusted or something of the sort. Yes, I did have the bikes made to match. If the Prince had given the dutchess a bike, you could be sure it would be a collectable, but imagine if it was a set treated in 24kt gold.
That there are two of these potentially 24kt gold bikes in the possession of one couple begs to ask these questions, which could greatly enhance the value.
Personally, also, I wouldn't break up the set unless someone else threatens to do so. I would urge the women to hold onto hers until her husband it prepared to let his go as well. The matched set is undoubtedly worth more, and more marketable than the individual one.
If you do not agree with what I have written, that is fine. It is your opinion and you are welcomed to it. Do not bother to write to tell me I am wrong. I am not. If you would like to respond with a thought or comment, or add to the discussion, I encourage it.
Thanks,
Matt
Below is my comment responding to two individuals who chose to be judgmental and critical of my original comment. That comment apparently did not make it onto the board. Hopefully it now will. My comment was founded in good intention, experience and knowledge. It should have been helpful, and not attacked. That (responding) comment is below:
Okay,
perhaps I need to write more exactingly, or perhaps readers need to be
more open and less judgmental of others who participate.
The question was about valuing a unique item. The inference was that the party in possession placed an extreme value on it.
The statement was clear that it had no knowledge of how to value the item in question.
My suggestion took into account the many people that "donate" items. I
can suggest hundreds of reasons people donate beyond the ones put forth
by those of you negatively reflecting on my comment.
There is a difference between people who bring in a bike (or any item)
for "donation" and leave it, and those that "donate" in exchange for a
receipt "for value" with the intention of taking a tax deduction or otherwise. If you check a dictionary the term donation isn't associated with a tax return or other value, its associated only with helping an individual or organization.
I'm not going to address the differences, because they should be clear, but if they are not, then its not for me to teach.
I never said people are greedy, but experience has taught me that if they are seeking a receipt "for value", and are assigned a lower than their estimated value they will show their displeasure.
I'm sure my response to the two comments of negativity will bring more
negative responses. Save your time and energy. My comment was what it
is, and remains valid.
The reason the taxing authorities don't want direct appraisals, is
because everything would be valued significantly below its actual value,
enabling the vendor to earn copious ill gotten gains at the expense of
the one who donated it.
If that isn't greed, I don't know what is? But then that was your comments, not mine.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Reda Ashour <redajashour@gmail.com>
To: The Think Tank <thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org>
Sent: Mon, Aug 11, 2014 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Appraising the value of a bike
But honestly, when it comes to a donation, we ask the donor to give an estimate they feel its worth, and when they don't know, we help them. From what I understand, it's between the donor and the IRS when it comes to tax deductions. So we don't care what they want to estimate it at, and we've never had an issue.
-Reda