When Comparable Sales Point in Different Directions

First confirm that the conflict is real

Two sales can look contradictory because one is quoted by headline price while important facts are missing. Begin with the settled date, property type, land or floor area, title structure, accommodation, parking, condition and exact position. Confirm that each transaction is final and that the described features come from a verifiable public record rather than an old advertisement treated as complete truth.

Then state the apparent conflict precisely. One result may be higher despite smaller land; another may be lower despite better presentation. That is a question to investigate, not proof that appraisal is arbitrary. The comparison should show which facts are known, which are inferred and which require a title, plan, inspection or other qualified source.

Align the evidence by sale date

A six-month gap can matter when buyer confidence, finance conditions or available stock has changed. Put every sale on a timeline and note the contract or settlement date used by the official dataset. Do not compare one source's listing date with another source's settlement period as though they describe the same market moment.

Older evidence may remain useful where the property type is scarce, but the appraisal should say why it still deserves weight. A recent weak match is not automatically better than an older close match. The agent should explain how time and similarity were balanced, without inventing a market adjustment percentage that the evidence cannot support.

Place current competing listings beside the settled evidence but keep their role distinct. Listings show alternatives and seller expectations, not achieved prices. If a current listing appears to contradict a settled sale, note its days on market, property differences and status rather than treating its headline price as confirmation of value.

Separate land and dwelling influences

Land size alone does not explain usability. Frontage, shape, slope, access, orientation, easements, existing improvements and planning controls can change how buyers respond. Equally, a renovated dwelling may dominate the result even where another site is larger. Compare site and building factors in separate columns before deciding which sale is superior overall.

Do not describe a planning zone, corner position or broad land area as guaranteed development potential. A current VicPlan report shows mapped controls, not feasibility or approval. Address-specific title, survey and planning questions belong with the conveyancer, licensed surveyor, planner or other qualified adviser. The appraisal can flag the difference without deciding its legal or development effect.

Account for condition and presentation honestly

Renovation quality, maintenance, natural light, layout and street appeal can affect buyer response, but advertisements rarely provide a complete condition assessment. Label observations as verified, observed or assumed. A renovated kitchen does not prove the rest of the home is equivalent, and an unrenovated appearance does not establish structural condition or the cost of work.

Ask whether the subject property would compete with buyers seeking a finished home, a project or a particular style. Different buyer pools can explain why superficially similar sales diverge. Use qualitative reasoning rather than a fixed dollar allowance for every bathroom, garage or renovation. Any formal valuation need remains with a qualified valuer.

Consider micro-position and transaction context

A main-road position, outlook, school boundary, station route, adjoining use or quiet court can distinguish sales within the same suburb. Verify each claim for the exact address. Do not transfer a view, beach relationship or walkability statement from one property to another simply because their postcodes match. Micro-position can be material even when straight-line distance is small.

Transaction circumstances may also be unknown. A public result rarely reveals every contract term, inclusion or seller priority. Avoid inventing motivation or describing a result as distressed, emotional or competitive without evidence. The appraisal should work from verifiable property and sale facts, then openly identify the context that cannot be known.

Where the two strongest sales remain genuinely divided, show a sensitivity range. Explain how the conclusion changes if condition receives more weight, if the micro-position is decisive or if the older result is discounted. This is not a mathematical valuation model; it helps the seller see which professional judgement produces the difference.

Reach a weighted conclusion, not a simple average

After the feature review, ask which sale is the closest overall, which provides a lower or upper reference and which deserves less weight. The answer may be a range rather than one exact figure. The report should explain why a high result was not followed, why a low result was not ignored and what new evidence would change the conclusion.

Do not average three prices mechanically when the properties differ materially. A transparent appraisal may say that evidence is limited or divided. That is more useful than false precision. The seller can then compare the home's current condition and proposed campaign with the evidence, while understanding that the agent's estimate is not a valuation or guaranteed selling price.

Keep the source, extraction date and property facts beside every comparison so another reviewer can follow the conclusion without relying on memory or an unexplained spreadsheet number.