Riggs v. State, 561 S.W.2d 196, 197 (Tex. Crim. App.1978) involved an allegation of theft of a CB antenna, but the only proof of value was for the aggregate value of the antenna along with its trunk mount and coaxial cable. See Riggs, 561 S.W.2d at 197. The court of criminal appeals held that, in the absence of proof that the antenna's value alone exceeded the minimum jurisdictional amount, proof of the aggregate value was insufficient to support a conviction based on theft of the antenna alone. See id. Wilson v. State, 536 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. Crim. App.1976) involved an allegation of theft of a camera, but the only proof of value was for the aggregate value of the camera along with its case and accessories, which were taken with the camera. See Wilson, 536 S.W.2d at 377. The court of criminal appeals held that this proof of aggregate value, without any mention of the value of the camera alone, amounted to no evidence at all of the camera's value. See id.; see also Passmore v. State, 411 S.W.2d 723, 724-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). In Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), the court of criminal appeals merely stated that, in a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence where the trier of fact is presented with two different values for a stolen item, the trier of fact is free as the sole judge of weight and credibility to accept one and reject the other. See Keeton, 803 S.W.2d at 306. In such a situation, a reviewing court must find the evidence to be legally sufficient. See id. In Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the owner stated on direct examination that the value of the weapon stolen was $ 500, but on cross-examination admitted that he did not know what the fair market value of the gun was. See Sullivan, 701 S.W.2d at 909. The court of criminal appeals held that the owner's opinion of the value of property is alone legally sufficient to prove value, even if the owner does not know the fair market value. See id. In Ketchum v. State, 707 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1986, no pet.), the court of appeals held, citing Sullivan, that the owner's testimony of value was sufficient even though it was not an opinion of fair market value. See Ketchum, 707 S.W.2d at 719.