Even after a lifetime buying and selling things that folks collect, I've gotta say the whole thing often mystifies me. Quality as setting a value: by no means always the case. High priced items are usually well done, but so are lots of other items costing less. Looks? Perhaps, but there are a lot of great looking bikes in the low hundreds of dollars. Now here is the kicker RARIT Y. You say it is rare and therefore inherently valuable. Not so! Something can be so rare, such as whimseys in American blown three mold glass or early American needlework decorative pockets that there is virtually no market for them. No one collects them. There were 135 Confentes made. There were 75 Wizards made. They are roughly equal in appearance and quality of construction. Anyone ever seen a Wizard go for more than a couple thousand bucks? Which is the real value? Folks just want a Confente more, I guess (they're fashionable, somehow?). Anyone ever seen a used Sachs Anniversary model go for anything like the sale prices being commanded by a Confente? There might not have ever been a better bike made than these Sachs bikes. In any way.
If you are not a bit conversant of the prices being commanded by these bikes there really is hardly any objective way of differentiating which is more valuable. This is where collecting can get dangerous for the neophyte. It is very nearly impossible to set a value on such a bike as a Richard Moon. Put one at auction and it will be settled solely on the basis of how badly anyone wants one( I guess that's really the case in all auctions, though). I want one! I love the looks of them. Not entirely rational, but that's the way it is.
Tom Sanders
Lansing, MI USA