Non UAD Condition Ratings Compared to UAD

[NJ Valuator]

Remember the days of Excellent, Good, Average+, Average, Average-, Fair, and, Poor when describing condition?

What would be their UAD counterparts?

My conclusion is that C1 is Excellent, C2 is Good, and C6 is Poor, but what would you have used for C3 and C4's back then?

 

[Fernando]

Nothing really changed. I would put C3 or C4 and make adjustments same as before thinking "Average+, Good, etc" in my head.

 

[Surf Cat]

My conclusion is that C1 is Excellent, C2 is Good, and C6 is Poor, but what would you have used for C3 and C4's back then?

Umm....you really don't need to conclude. The ratings are described on the C rating description page. Sure, there's some grey area between a couple of the ratings.

There's another thread going on about subjective words in describing attributes of the subject and or the comps. I just use the descriptions of the C ratings..... they're hardwired into the form.

I do however revert back to the old ways when I use the GP form. It's more comfortable for me and I don't have to put all those zeros all over the place on the grid. It looks cleaner and easier to read.

 

[Fernando]

Fannie can change the forms and have UAD and have ANSI but we still appraise subject to the market value whatever changes put (burden) upon us.