“Conditional” Isn’t a Cop-Out. It’s Responsible Practice: A Response to ARTnews

You know when you read something and think, “Eh, I don’t really agree, but whatever”? That was my initial reaction to George Nelson’s piece, “‘Conditional’ Authenticity and Appraisal Reports Are Making a Murky Industry Even Murkier.” It read to me like someone who hasn’t spent much time reading appraisal reports or speaking with actual appraisers. And that’s fine. We can’t all be cool enough to attend ISA Assets 2025 in DC. Or spend hours on Zoom with seasoned appraisers in USPAP classes every two years, or in three-day requalification marathons every five. That doesn’t even count the years of undergraduate and graduate education and early-career slog in the art industry, which I promise is much less glamorous than it sounds.

So initially, I shrugged. He doesn’t get it. But then I kept stewing. Because the more I thought about it, the more I kept coming back to one central question: What exactly is the expectation here?

Appraisal Isn’t the Problem. Expecting Certainty in an Uncertain Market Is.

The article implies that the increasing presence of caveats and conditions in appraisals is making the art market less transparent. But let me ask: what is the alternative? Should we just pretend data is clean when it isn’t?

Caveats aren’t a loophole. They are a mark of rigorous thinking. Good research, whether in economics, science, or art appraisal, acknowledges where data is incomplete or assumptions are being made. I would love to have comprehensive provenance records going back to 1695 for every piece I examine. I would also love clients who let me spend unlimited time chasing those leads, flying internationally on their dime. But that is not the world we live in. For some pieces, and some appraisal assignments, that is realistic. But it’s not realistic for many assignments or intended uses.

Appraisal reports are practical tools for navigating a market that is deeply imperfect. When information is missing or unverifiable, it’s our job to clearly say so and explain how we worked around it.

Let’s Talk About These So-Called “Conditional” Reports

For starters, “conditional” isn’t a word appraisers even use in our reports. What we do use are concepts defined under USPAP like hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions.

A hypothetical condition is something known to be false, but temporarily assumed true for the purpose of the assignment. For example, if a painting is damaged and the client wants to know what it would be worth if conserved, I have to imagine a future state that doesn’t currently exist. That is a hypothetical condition. Not including that in a report would be irresponsible.

An extraordinary assumption is something uncertain but assumed to be true in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Like when a client texts me a photo and asks for a valuation. If it’s just for market insight and not for insurance, legal, or tax purposes, I might proceed, but only if I clearly state that I am assuming the artwork exists and that the image accurately represents it.

This isn’t hedging. It’s clarity. It tells the user of the report how I got from A to B.

Imperfect Information Doesn’t Equal Irresponsible Work

Here’s a real example. I once appraised a seven-foot-tall bronze sculpture. I couldn’t lift it to examine the underside. I could have brought in a team of art handlers at extra cost to the client, or I could state, plainly, that I did not view the underside and am assuming it is consistent with the rest of the work based on visual inspection, artist estate input, and gallery consultation. The intended use of the appraisal and the scope of the project determine the level of rigor required for the report. In some use-cases, it would be imperative to view the underside, but in some use-cases, that is excessive. And this is where the scope of work in an appraisal report is imperative. It explains what I did and why I did it.

There is nothing disingenuous about disclosing limitations. In fact, the failure to do so would be far more misleading. That is how due diligence works in the real world.

Good Research Doesn’t Hide the Gaps. It Shows Its Work.

One of the biggest misunderstandings in the article is the idea that reports with caveats or conditions are somehow evasive. In reality, they’re often the most responsibly constructed.

Good research doesn’t pretend to be omniscient. It marks the blind spots, flags the uncertainty, and explains how conclusions were reached anyway. That’s what makes the report useful. Without that transparency, you’re not offering insight. You’re offering false confidence.

In appraising, we deal with missing invoices, dead-end provenance trails, inconsistent cataloging, and markets shaped by confidentiality. The work isn't about pretending those gaps don’t exist. It's about saying: here is what we know, here is what we don't, and here is the logic that connects the two.

When done correctly, these reports aren’t making things murkier. They are helping users of the report, real-life clients, attorneys, courts, and insurers, to understand exactly how to think about the object in question, even in the presence of uncertainty. That is what credibility looks like in the real world.

The Bigger Problem: Expecting Appraisals to Be Something They Aren’t

An appraisal is an opinion of value, not a declaration of fact. Its credibility rests entirely on the expertise and integrity of the appraiser who writes it. The expectation that every valuation must come with airtight certainty is precisely what fuels confusion, misinterpretation, and litigation.

So why do appraisal reports include caveats? Because someone, somewhere, is likely to challenge the report in court. I want my reasoning on record—clearly written, grounded in the available data, and honest about its limitations. That includes highlighting incomplete information, explaining assumptions, and accounting for any discrepancies. I am not in the business of erasing ambiguity in an ambiguous market to try and appease a headline.

The idea that transparency means absolute certainty is misleading. In reality, transparency means showing your work. Appraisals are being held to higher standards than ever before, and that is a good thing. They are making an intentionally opaque market more legible, one report at a time.

Let’s Not Go Backward

If the goal is to pressure appraisers and authenticators back into the 19th-century connoisseurial mold, where a hubristic old white guy in a velvet jacket declares something genuine because “he just knows,” then I’ll pass. That is not progress. That is regression.

I deal in imperfect data. I apply reason, experience, and discipline to offer an informed and defensible opinion of value. That is the work. And I stand by it.