Relative Quality & Condition ADVISORY (beta) — appraiser assigns ratings

Condition

Best condition: 1017 Watkins Street and 1204 Harton Street present similarly at the top of the set — Watkins helped by a remodeled kitchen and updated bath (though offset by exposed wiring, an incomplete cabinet install, and plaster cracking), and Harton by an apparently maintained brick exterior with 2018 HVAC/water-heater replacement, though Harton's call is exterior-only. 356 Ash Street sits a step below, showing soiled siding and vacancy-related upkeep lapses, but no severe deferred maintenance is documented. The subject trails these three, its exterior showing significant peeling/failing paint and vegetation in direct contact with the walls plus dated, not-updated kitchen and bath finishes. 1037 Clifton Street is the weakest in the set, described in remarks as a 'landmark property' needing to be 'brought back to life,' sold as-is with no disclosures and overgrown grounds — though this call rests on low-confidence, remarks-driven evidence with no interior photos.

Quality

Quality is fairly homogeneous across the set, with everything clustering around builder/stock-grade (Q4) construction. 1017 Watkins Street and 1204 Harton Street sit marginally ahead with some traditional millwork/detailing noted, the subject and 1037 Clifton Street are comparable in the middle with plain, unadorned original construction, and 356 Ash Street trends slightly lower toward an economy-grade (Q4-to-Q5) starter-cottage form based on its plain massing and minimal trim — though that read is based on a single exterior photo with low confidence. None of these gaps are large.

Versus subject

Relative to the subject, which shows dated, not-updated kitchen and bath finishes plus significant exterior deferred maintenance (peeling paint, vegetation contact, and a noted interior crack), 1017 Watkins Street and 1204 Harton Street both present in better condition — Watkins through its remodeled kitchen and updated bath, and Harton through an apparently better-maintained exterior with recent mechanical updates (though this latter call is low-confidence and exterior-only). 356 Ash Street also appears modestly better maintained, though this rests on a single low-confidence exterior photo. 1037 Clifton Street likely presents worse than the subject given remarks suggesting substantial deferred maintenance and an as-is sale, though this comparison is weakly supported given the lack of interior photos. On quality, all four comparables are broadly similar to the subject's Q4 stock/builder-grade construction, with 356 Ash Street trending slightly toward a more economy-grade original build.

• 1017 Watkins Street — Q similarC superior Both are Q4 stock/builder-grade construction with comparable traditional detailing, but Watkins' remodeled kitchen and updated bath give it a condition edge over the subject's dated, not-updated kitchen/baths and exterior deferred maintenance, despite some offsetting issues (exposed wiring, incomplete cabinet install) at Watkins.
• 1037 CLIFTON Street — Q similarC inferior Quality reads as comparably Q4 builder-grade on both, but remarks describing Clifton as needing to be 'brought back to life' and sold as-is with overgrown grounds suggest condition below the subject's — though this is a LOW-confidence, remarks-only call with no interior photos to confirm.
• 1204 Harton — Q similarC superior Both read as Q4 builder-grade brick/frame construction, but Harton's exterior shows fewer visible maintenance issues plus a 2018 HVAC/water-heater update versus the subject's peeling paint and vegetation contact — though this call is LOW confidence given zero interior photos for Harton.
• 356 Ash Street — Q similarC superior Ash Street trends slightly toward more economy-grade original construction but remains broadly comparable in quality; on condition, its single available photo shows soiled siding without the severe peeling paint and vegetation contact documented at the subject, suggesting a modest edge, though this is based on very limited LOW-confidence photo evidence.

Notable gaps

• 1037 Clifton Street's condition stands out as notably worse than the rest of the set, driven by remarks describing it as needing to be 'brought back to life,' an as-is sale with no disclosures, and overgrown grounds — but this is a LOW-confidence, remarks-only call with zero interior photos, so it should anchor cautious adjustment discussion rather than a firm one.
• The subject's exterior deferred maintenance (peeling paint, vegetation contact with the walls) pulls its condition toward the lower end of the set, closer to 1037 Clifton Street than to 1017 Watkins Street or 1204 Harton Street.

Confidence notes

• 1017 Watkins Street and the subject are both MEDIUM confidence, giving the most reliable basis for comparison between the two.
• 1037 Clifton Street, 1204 Harton Street, and 356 Ash Street are all LOW confidence, generally due to missing or heavily obscured interior photos (Clifton and Harton have zero interior photos; Ash Street has only one exterior photo total).
• Clifton's condition impression relies heavily on subjective marketing language ('bring back to life') rather than itemized visual defects, so the inferior call versus the subject should be treated as directional, not firm.
• Harton's and Ash Street's superior condition calls versus the subject are exterior-only assessments and could shift materially if interior condition were documented.