The Australian Corporations Law generally requires Independent Expert Reports to be presented in support of capital raising or in defence of mergers and takeovers. The introduction of the VALMIN Code in 1995 (and its recent revision issued as the VALMIN Code, 1998) made Assessment and Valuation Reports in these circumstances much more comprehensible than before because of its key requirements for transparency and materiality. By forcing the Independent Valuer to provide an explanation of the reasoning behind the estimation of a particular resource asset, VALMIN allows the reader to clearly see any error or illogicality in the valuation methodology used and to seriously question or even reject the resulting value. Even though many elements of resource asset valuation practice are undeniably subjective, there must be some basis of objective rationality to it. Independent resource asset Valuers are the essential link between mineral explorers/miners on the one hand and brokers/analysts/fund managers/investors on the other. The minerals and financial industries both expect them to not use inappropriate or invalid valuation methods and illogical steps within these methods. This paper examines some of the less sensible ways in which some of the main techniques that Valuers commonly use to assess the fair market value of mineral properties have been applied in recent instances. The authors hope to discourage the adoption or perpetration of the What-number-did-you-have-in-mind?' approach. It is MINVAL's view that as many methods as possible should be used in any resource asset valuation. If any of the resulting estimates are in approximate agreement (particularly if they were derived using the less subjective of the available methods), ie if they cluster, they are probably more persuasive as being the Preferred Value of the asset than outlier values within the Valuation Range.