Well now I'm totally bewildered. Had two more valuations today. One said worst case scenario she'd expect 25k more than we paid, best case scenario 45k more than we paid.
This gives a differential of £95,000 between the lowest estimate and the highest.
The third guy agreed with the first guy (the lowest estimate) but also talked about other agents in the are and specifically mentioned the second agent (who gave the high valuation) as being good at what she does and pricing realistically and they often agree on prices.
So she's obviously not a bloody cowboy who's just trying to win business - she has colleagues/competitors who rate her.
The difference seemed mostly in that the low estimate guys (both guys) were focused strongly on the stats - square footage, price comparisons, recent sales etc... Whilst the high estimate woman was focused on the house as a home, what benefits it offered buyers, what set it apart from other houses, how the place felt.
If she was only a tiny bit higher then I'd probably go with her, because that approach felt more buyer-focused and I liked it, but honestly I am bewildered.
I have emailed to ask what she thinks a realistic sale price might be, but she's basically suggesting pricing high, accept negotiating offers.
The other two are suggesting pricing low to get footfall, then hoping they'll bid each other up.
My personal minimum - so I am in a reasonable position to buy - would be exactly in the middle of the lowest estimate and the price I paid, so 25k lower than what I paid.
So wtaf do I do now? Which strategy seems the best? They were all complimentary about the house, location, decor, improvements everything. It is just what price to enter the market that will determine interest or not.
What would you do?