A useful Antelope pricing analysis begins by deciding which properties belong in the comparison and what the sale evidence actually proves. Three public publisher-reported sales can demonstrate the reasoning without becoming a community price estimate. The selected records below concern three-bedroom, two-bath detached houses with September 28–30,2026 sale labels. Their reported prices, areas and garage counts allow a transparent comparison, but they do not supply verified condition, concessions or a supported dollar adjustment for an individual home.
The Antelope guide introduces property-by-property pricing. This article develops a small evidence audit rather than repeating broad market commentary. The Sacramento County guide provides geographic context, while the selling process guide places a broker’s final pricing work within a transaction. No subject property was valued for this article, no private MLS export was obtained and no named broker supplied an adjustment or professional review.
Define the sample before calculating anything
The source was a public MLSListings95843 search reviewed October 26,2026. The three rows were deliberately selected for matching reported property subtype and bedroom/bath count within a short reported sale window. They are not every sale in that period. The ZIP filter is also not a certified Antelope planning boundary or a distance radius around a subject house. Those limits belong beside the results, before the numbers acquire an unwarranted market-wide meaning.
A reported sold label is a useful lead, but this research did not independently authenticate a deed, closing statement or consideration for any row. The analysis therefore attributes the facts to the publisher and calls them reported sale prices. It reproduces no listing remarks, images or publisher charts. Permission for a private data export was not obtained, and the publisher’s reuse restrictions require review before public use of the draft’s factual comparison. The calculations and interpretation are original, with no claimed license to redistribute a larger dataset.
Three selected rows and an adjustment test
| Reference/MLS | Reported sold label | Reported price | Living/lot area | Garage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3505 Pinehill Way;ME226104542 | September 28,2026 | $469,000 | 1,235 sf/5,101 sf | 2 |
| 8518 Scotswood Way;ME226103092 | September 28,2026 | $510,000 | 1,233 sf/7,087 sf | 3 |
| 7638 Plaid Circle;ME226098001 | September 30,2026 | $430,000 | 1,377 sf/5,663 sf | 2 |
Own arithmetic: sum$1,409,000;mean$469,666.67;median$469,000;range$430,000–$510,000. These describe only the selected three rows.
| Observed difference | What follows | What does not follow |
|---|---|---|
| Scotswood living area is2 sf smaller | Reported area is almost equal | Equal interior utility or condition |
| Scotswood lot is1,986 sf larger;garage count higher by1 | Investigate site use and actual garage configuration | $41,000 attributable to either feature |
| Condition,rights,terms and concessions unverified | Retain unresolved causes of price differences | A supported causal adjustment or subject price |
Method: purposive factual research sample, no complete-period census, independently authenticated closing or broker appraisal. Publication/data-rights review remains required.
Nearly equal floor areas can conceal important differences
Pinehill and Scotswood are reported within two square feet of one another, yet their reported sale prices differ by $41,000. That combination is a good reason to investigate, rather than a reason to assume the houses are equivalent. Room arrangement, usable storage, natural light and the relationship between indoor and outdoor areas can differ at similar reported sizes. The public rows used here do not establish those qualities, so the comparison must leave them unresolved instead of inventing a condition ranking.
The site fields also differ: Scotswood reports a larger lot and an additional garage space. These observations suggest concrete follow-up about accessible parking, garage configuration, yard usefulness and restrictions. They cannot isolate the contribution of any single feature to the price gap. A paired-sale adjustment needs evidence that the relevant differences have been identified and adequately controlled. Two houses with similar floor-area fields do not automatically form such a pair.
The larger reported house did not have the highest price
Plaid’s reported 1,377 square feet exceeds both other living-area fields, while its reported price is lower. That does not establish a negative value for additional space. It demonstrates that floor area alone does not explain this selected set. Before drawing a pricing conclusion, investigate condition, layout, location, transaction terms and the reliability of the measurements. The correct next step is to find missing evidence, not to invent a universal dollars-per-square-foot correction that forces the rows into a preferred pattern.
A seller’s improvement list needs the same discipline. An invoice can document expenditure, while a permit and final record can help establish the approved scope and recorded completion. Neither automatically establishes market contribution. Ask whether the comparable buyers encountered similar improvements and whether their sale evidence supports a difference. If that information is unavailable, retain the improvement as a documented feature with an unresolved pricing effect. An unsupported adjustment can make an apparently detailed analysis less reliable than a candid unadjusted comparison.
Keep competing ownership types visible but separate
Antelope buyers may also consider condominiums or builder-marketed homes. Those alternatives can influence an individual buyer’s choice, but they should not be silently pooled into this three-row detached-house sample. A condominium brings different ownership documents and shared responsibilities. New construction can involve homesite terms, purchase inclusions and delivery timing that a resale lacks. Identify those alternatives in a separate section of a subject analysis so that a change in ownership structure does not masquerade as a change in neighborhood price.
The local public references at Walerga Road and Villas at The Preserve illustrate why the separation matters. The Walerga condominium record requires a current association file to resolve its obligations. The builder’s community page discloses exclusions from posted pricing and describes future amenities. A seller comparing a resale asking price with a builder’s advertised starting figure should first reconcile actual homesite inclusions and terms. Neither advertising figure is a verified closed comparable for the resale subject.
Check record identity and chronology
Retain the address, unit designation where applicable, listing identifier and date attached to each observation. Multiple versions of the same property can appear in public searches, and a search count can change with filters, pagination or updates. A different listing number should trigger an identity check before it becomes another independent sale. For a serious subject analysis, resolve the actual transaction identity and closing evidence rather than treating each visible web row as a unique comparable.
Separate sale timing from publication timing. The date a page was retrieved records this research; the publisher’s sold label describes its reported transaction chronology. Neither proves when a buyer formed an offer or which market conditions influenced it. If current competition has changed since the selected sales, a broker should examine that change with dated evidence. An old sale can remain informative while requiring a carefully supported explanation of its relevance to the present subject.
Use the arithmetic as an audit, not a valuation
A floor-area calculation creates another useful check on interpretation. Dividing each reported price by its own reported area produces approximately$379.76 for Pinehill,$413.63 for Scotswood and$312.27 for Plaid per square foot. These ratios summarize each entire reported transaction against one measurement. They are not the price of adding another square foot to a subject house. Applying any one of them to an addition would import the property’s land, condition and transaction differences into an unsupported construction or valuation estimate.
Even an average of those ratios answers a different mathematical question from dividing the combined prices by the combined areas. A broker should state which statistic is used and why it helps the actual subject comparison. Here, neither statistic repairs the missing condition and terms evidence. The more useful finding is the spread itself: superficially similar bedroom counts and floor areas leave substantial unexplained differences that deserve investigation before a seller adopts a listing range.
The selected median is $469,000 and the selected mean is about $469,667. Their closeness does not validate the selection or turn three rows into Antelope’s typical price. A median describes the middle observation after sorting this small set; it does not correct incomplete coverage, different conditions or unverified terms. The useful result is that another reader can reproduce the arithmetic and see exactly which facts are still needed before a pricing recommendation is possible.
Before using a subject recommendation, obtain appropriate data rights and qualified broker review, verify the relevant transaction evidence and explain each inclusion or exclusion. Preserve unsupported adjustments as open questions. Refresh the file when the subject condition, competing inventory or verified sale evidence changes. This small Antelope exercise shows how to keep reasoning visible: identify the comparison boundary, distinguish reported facts from verified ones and resist assigning a price effect to a feature until the evidence supports it.
