Comp Feature Extractor

Feature-Detection Safety Net ยท Sales Comparison Approach
Detection aid only. This tool reports what appears in the MLS data, remarks, and photos. It cannot confirm a feature is absent โ€” a shop can sit off-frame. The appraiser owns the final call.

1050 Edinburgh Dr ๐Ÿ“„ Workfile PDF

API usage this job: ~$1.25 (batch pricing)
This page expires Sep 27, 2026 โ€” download the workfile PDF for the permanent record.
Cards Side-by-side Commentary ReviseManage comps

Relative Quality & Condition ADVISORY (beta) โ€” appraiser assigns ratings

Condition

2465 Lilac Drive, 1880 Indigo Cove, and the subject (1050 Edinburgh Drive) present as essentially new, unworn construction consistent with C2. 2580 Overcup sits just behind that group, a modest step down tied to its disclosed 2023 kitchen fire repair rather than any general wear. 1060 Turnberry Drive trails further, described as freshly painted and move-in ready but showing a more resale-level presentation than the near-new cluster above it. 1845 Mullberry Drive and 1030 Turnberry Drive round out the bottom at a straightforward, well-maintained C3 impression consistent with homes several years past construction; note that 1030 Turnberry Drive's condition placement rests on exterior-only evidence with no interior photos and carries low confidence.

Quality

The subject (1050 Edinburgh Drive) sits at the bottom of the quality range, presenting as a straightforward Q4 builder-spec product with stock shaker cabinetry and painted trim. 1060 Turnberry Drive is a modest step above, blending builder-grade massing with upgraded touches (crown molding, corbel brackets, tiled garden tub) that push it toward Q3-to-Q4. The remaining comparables โ€” 2465 Lilac Drive, 1845 Mullberry Drive, 2580 Overcup, 1880 Indigo Cove, and 1030 Turnberry Drive โ€” cluster tightly at Q3, each showing brick exteriors, quartz/quartzite counters, crown molding, and tiled bath surrounds beyond typical builder stock; differences among them are minor and the group is otherwise fairly homogeneous on quality.

Versus subject

Relative to the subject, nearly every comparable shows a modestly higher quality impression, since the subject's design and material palette reads as stock builder-grade (Q4) while the comparables show upgraded materials and trim consistent with Q3. On condition, the subject's new, vacant, unlived-in presentation (C2) is matched by 2465 Lilac Drive and 1880 Indigo Cove, roughly matched by 2580 Overcup, and exceeded in wear (though still well-kept) by 1060 Turnberry Drive, 1845 Mullberry Drive, and 1030 Turnberry Drive, which present as several-year-old, lightly-used homes rather than near-new stock.

Notable gaps

Confidence notes

Category1050 Edinburgh Drive SUBJECT
MLS # 26027730
1060 Turnberry Drive
MLS # 25035787
2465 Lilac Drive
MLS # 25037456
1845 Mullberry Drive
MLS # 26008469
2580 Overcup
MLS # 26015233
1880 Indigo Cove
MLS # 26018654
1030 Turnberry Drive
MLS # 26035643
Q/C impression
beta
MEDIUM Q4 / C2K: updatedB: updatedMEDIUM Q3-to-Q4 / C3K: updatedB: updatedHIGH Q3 / C2K: updatedB: updatedHIGH Q3 / C3K: not updatedB: not updatedHIGH Q3 / C2-to-C3K: updatedB: not updatedHIGH Q3 / C2K: updatedB: updatedLOW Q3 / C3K: not observedB: not observed
Vs. subject
beta
โ€”Q similarC inferior
Quality sits at a Q3-to-Q4 lean via select upgraded touches (crown molding, corbels, tiled garden tub), only marginally above the subject's Q4 baseline, so the gap is treated as similar rather than a full step; condition is a step below the subject's near-new presentation, reflecting a well-kept but previously-owned resale rather than vacant new construction.
Q superiorC similar
Above-builder-grade selections (brick arched entry, tray ceiling, quartz counters, fully tiled shower with soaking tub) place this comparable a full step above the subject's stock Q4 finish; both properties present as like-new/vacant construction with no visible wear, so condition reads as similar.
Q superiorC inferior
Craftsman-level upgrades (custom vent hood, tray ceilings, shiplap accents, custom tile shower) place this comparable above the subject's stock builder finish on quality; being roughly six years old at sale with lightly-used (not vacant/new) finishes, its condition reads a step below the subject's near-new presentation.
Q superiorC similar
Full brick multi-gable exterior, substantial trim, and a furniture-style kitchen island exceed the subject's stock builder finish on quality; condition is only marginally behind the subject's near-new state (largely due to a disclosed, reportedly fully-repaired 2023 kitchen fire), so the gap is treated as similar rather than a clear step down.
Q superiorC similar
Upgraded quartzite counters, herringbone backsplash, wood-look tile flooring, and a custom pantry system exceed the subject's stock builder-grade finishes; both properties are effectively new/unused construction, so condition reads as similar.
Q unclearC unclear
Exterior brick, architectural shingle, and quartz-counter data suggest a quality level above the subject's stock Q4 finish, but with no interior photos and an overall LOW confidence assessment, both the quality and condition calls versus the subject are too uncertain to state with confidence.
Detached outbuildingsโ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

Detached two-car garage (per structured data)

โ€”
Photo-only findingsโ€”โ€”โ€”

Wall-mounted TV and ceiling fan built into covered back patio brick wall

Built-in cabinet/bench seating along covered patio wall

Garden/soaking tub in primary bathroom

Built-in mudroom drop-zone (bench, cubbies, coat hooks, cabinetry) near laundry/garage entry

Covered front entry porch with wood/cedar tapered columns and iron railing

Black metal fence enclosing side/rear yard area

Pools & site improvementsโ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

Rocked fire pit area with paver border, seating, and Thermacell mosquito system

โ€”
Site & view

Elevated rear deck with wide view over neighborhood rooftops and green space, consistent with a sloped lot

Gated subdivision with green space and walking trails

Rear yard backs to wooded/open field providing a private, tree-lined view

Large multi-level wraparound wood deck (site improvement/outdoor living space)

โ€”โ€”โ€”

Elevated, sloped lot with tree-lined backdrop offering view and privacy

Cul-de-sac lot location

โ€”
Dated renovationsโ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

Kitchen fire (cooktop-caused) in 2023, insurance claim made, reported as completely repaired

โ€”โ€”
Review required

Confirm whether the elevated deck/rear view constitutes a marketable view amenity or is incidental to the sloped lot, as remarks do not explicitly market a view.

Deck is elevated on wood support posts (Photo 43) due to a sloping rear yard grade โ€” recommend field-verifying grading and drainage under and around the deck structure, as this was not clearly visible in photos.

Left and right side building elevations were not fully photographed; full perimeter exterior condition should be field-verified.

Confirm garage floor concrete staining (Photo 33) is cosmetic/construction-related and not indicative of moisture intrusion.

Confirm whether patio built-in cabinet/bench and TV mount are permanent improvements or removable furnishings, as this affects site improvement valuation.

No renovation dates were provided in remarks; effective age assumed equal to actual age (~2019 build) pending appraiser verification.

Disclosed 2023 kitchen fire (cooktop-caused) with insurance-funded repair โ€” appraiser should confirm repair documentation/permits and assess any lingering effect on effective age or marketability, despite no visible damage in photos.

Confirm builder reputation/grade associated with 'Tom Watson custom-built' claim in public remarks, as this informs the Q3 quality anchor assigned here.

Verify actual garage configuration (attached vs. detached) โ€” structured data and photos disagree, which materially affects grid comparability.

Confirm actual kitchen/bath counter material (quartz vs. quartzite) given discrepancy between structured field and public remarks.

Interior condition and kitchen/bath update status could not be assessed due to lack of interior photographs โ€” appraiser should verify directly.

A structure with its own garage door is partially visible at the right edge of Photo 1; it appears architecturally consistent with a neighboring residence rather than a subject outbuilding, but ownership/boundary cannot be confirmed from the single available photo.

Public and Agent Remarks contain no descriptive information ('Sold before Listed'), so no corroborating narrative exists for any condition or update claims.

Contradictionsโ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

Structured field PARKING lists the garage as 'Detached,' but Photos 1, 2, and 3 show the garage built under the same roof structure and directly attached to the house โ€” appears to contradict the detached designation.

Structured field KITCHEN feature lists 'Kit Counter - Quartzite,' while Public Remarks describe 'beautiful quartz countertops' โ€” a discrepancy in stated counter material between the two sources.

โ€”

โ† all jobs