IMHO. The 22% that say it raises the quality are subscribing to the "lipstick on a pig" approach. If you take a C4, Q5 shoebox ranch in a tract development and put granite counters, upgraded cabinets, walk in shower with imported tiles etc, etc. The overall quality has changed some but the base structure is still what it was. Condition has improved to maybe a high C4 or low C3 but it is still a Q5 with upgrades. What I see as being part of the problem is some of the definitions within the Q ratings. They refer to "stock" or "builder grade" for instance. What is stock. When I first got into this business. The big box stores were just starting. Most of the stock items were very basic and I would consider them to be Q5 all day long. Now, the big box stores have items on the shelf that were one time only available from specialty suppliers through the contractor. Kitchen cabinets that were once considered the "top of the line" are now available off the shelf. That also applies to just about everything else from roofing materials, siding and floor coverings. In my experience. Many field appraisers are overly impressed by "bells and whistles". Did a review on a 900K+ new build about a year ago in a relatively upscale country club PUD. Custom builder, lots of square footage, some unique roof lines, brick faced exterior, some exterior fenestrations. But the interior was extremely basic. Kitchen had upgraded off of the shelf cabinets and laminate counters. With the exception of the master bath the remaining 3 baths were vinyl floors, one piece fiberglass tub inserts. Basic trim package and molded interior doors. OA called it a Q1. Made me shake my head in wonder. The new build comps were all rated Q1. Resale comps rated Q2-3 with quality and condition adjustments all positive. Subject and all comps were really all Q3. Conditions were C1 for new builds and C2 for resales since they were all less than 4 years old. Review came in a little lower than OR. Client called and asked why I did not use same Q ratings as OA. Gave a brief explanation and referred them to Fannie definitions. When the rebuttal came back. The OA stated that I was wrong on my Q ratings because the OA considered subject a Q1 because everything was new. Took less than 1 paragraph to respond to rebuttal. When it comes to Q ratings. I take into consideration the structure as a whole. Top to bottom, outside to inside. I guess I am just lucky to have a relatively extensive construction background and have been exposed to the various construction methods, materials used and workmanship over the years.
