☢ test - Í

deductions exercising their own knowledge and ideas.’ (Punctuation and citation omitted.) Smith v. State, 207 Ga.App. 290, 291(1) (428 S.E.2d 95) (1993). See also Wilkerson v. State, 246 Ga.App. 621, 623(1) (540 S.E.2d 303) (2000).” Items here included clothes and household items. Accord, Perdue v. State , 300 Ga.App. 588, 685 S.E.2d 489 (October 23, 2009) (owner’s testimony plus jury’s knowledge of value of everyday objects sufficient to determine value of stolen tire rims); Reese v. State , 313 Ga.App. 746, 722 S.E.2d 441 (January 27, 2012) (evidence sufficient to establish value: “the stolen jewelry items in question were …’everyday objects,’ [fn] and the owner testified that she or her husband bought them and that they had a value of more than $500.”). Gray v. State, 273 Ga.App. 747, 615 S.E.2d 834 (June 17, 2005). Evidence was insufficient to prove value of items for which victim sought restitution. “[T]he victim failed to give a fact-supported opinion as to the value of the damaged items. With the exception of one item (a small TV), she did not identify the cost price of the items. She did not give any repair costs nor relate her efforts to salvage the items. [Cit.]. Nor did she state even the approximate dates the items were acquired. [Cit.] (even under a reduced standard of proof exception applicable to proving value in fire insurance cases, the owner must identify the ‘approximate date of purchase or acquisition of each such item’). She gave the age of only two items (a computer and a bed with night stand). Without identifying the condition of any of the goods either at the time of their acquisition or just prior to the crime, she estimated the depreciated value of each item not based on any formula or method, but simply based on numbers she ‘pulled ... out of [her] head.’ She submitted photographs of some of the items as they appeared only after they were damaged. Such proof was insufficient to sustain the court’s restitution award.” Patterson v. State, 272 Ga.App. 675, 613 S.E.2d 200 (April 7, 2005). Employee familiar with value of stolen items could testify thereto, thus authorizing conviction for felony grade of shoplifting. Citing Scott v. State , 234 Ga.App. 378, 506 S.E.2d 880 (1998). See also Alford (July 7, 2008), above, and Bell (August 18, 2003), below. Buckley v. State, 270 Ga.App. 493, 606 S.E.2d 581 (October 21, 2004). State failed to prove value of stolen pendant where “[t]he victim testified that the pendant recovered from the pawn shop was hers and that it had a value of $3,500 to $5,000 at the time of the theft. The victim did not, however, explain how she arrived at this value…. ‘Purchase price alone is not a sufficient criterion of value and the mere statement that the value of a thing is a certain sum without stating the reasons for this conclusion lacks probative value. (Citation omitted.) Pate v. State, 158 Ga.App. 395, 396(2), 280 S.E.2d 414 (1981).” Accord, Austin v. State , 315 Ga.App. 713, 727 S.E.2d 535 (April 27, 2012) (rare gun and coin collection). DeLong v. State, 270 Ga.App. 173, 606 S.E.2d 107 (October 15, 2004). Trial court erred in entering felony sentence where only evidence of value of stolen item was “based solely on [witness’s] approximation of the purchase price of the tub. While the cost of the property to the owner is relevant to the issue of value, it is not the ultimate determinant. [Cit.] Rather, ‘[t]he value of property which is the subject of the theft is the fair cash market value either at the time and place of the theft or at any time during the receipt or concealment of the property.’ [Cit.] Evidence of purchase price, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the fair market value of the property. [Cit.] Here, [witness] did not know the brand of the tub in question and provided no basis for determining its value other than the approximate purchase price. Under these circumstances, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the current fair market value of the tub exceeded $500. [Cit.]” As some value was shown, however, misdemeanor conviction was appropriate. In re: M.M., 265 Ga.App. 381, 593 S.E.2d 919 (February 2, 2004). Defendant could be found guilty of criminal trespass – damage to property less than $500 – based on victim’s description of the damage to his vehicle, without direct evidence of the value of the damage. “Although the State did not present clear evidence regarding the value of the damage, [cit.] the juvenile court, as fact-finder, was authorized to use its own experience in forming an estimate as to the damage to the car, an everyday object. [Cit.]” Wiseley v. State, 263 Ga.App. 452, 588 S.E.2d 277 (September 30, 2003). Defendant’s conviction for criminal damage to property, second degree (over $500) reversed. “The State provided no testimony as to the dollar amount of damage to the machines or the cost of repairs. The photographs showing the physical damage to the vending machines and testimony as to the value of new machines was insufficient to carry the State’s burden of proof.” Bell v. State, 262 Ga.App. 788, 586 S.E.2d 455 (August 18, 2003). Felony shoplifting conviction affirmed. Witness determined value of stolen items by having store clerk “‘ring it up’ on the cash register” [apparently with a bar code scanner]. Held, the prices thus obtained were not hearsay, just as witness could testify to value shown on price tags in Parham v. State , 218 Ga.App. 42, 460 S.E.2d 78 (1995); distinguished from Wilkerson v. State , 246 Ga.App. 621, 540 S.E.2d 303 (2000), where witness could not testify to value of items “based solely on documents examined by him but