The State cites several cases for the proposition that the trial court may infer the property's value because it is "common knowledge" that 120 T-shirts would be worth more than $300. Of those cases, People v. Tassone, 41 Ill. 2d 7 (1968) is most closely on point with the case currently before us. In that case, our supreme court upheld a defendant's conviction for theft of property exceeding $150 in value although there was no direct evidence of the property's value. In doing so, the court stated that it was "common knowledge that a large tractor and trailer [were] worth more than $150 ***." The Tassone court further held that while courts were "reluctant" to take judicial notice that property had "any specific value," a court may take notice of the fact that property has "some value." Tassone, 41 Ill. 2d at 12. In Tassone it was readily apparent that the value of the property exceeded $150. Such is not the situation in the case at bar. Clothing varies greatly in price, dependent upon the quality and maker of the item. This disparity is such that we cannot say one could properly infer the value of the T-shirts at issue without any evidence regarding their quality, design, or price. See Scott, 59 Ill. App. 3d at 865-66 (finding insufficient evidence on the element of value and stating that it is not "common knowledge" that a color television which projects only black and white is worth more than $150).

In contrast to the case at bar, other cases relied upon by the State involved some evidence of the value of the property which was at issue. In People v. Greene, 50 Ill. App. 3d 872, 874 (1977), the victim testified that the value of plumbing fixtures and cast iron grates taken from his salvage yard was greater than $300. In People v. Roby, 202 Ill. App. 3d 143, 144 (1990), the victim testified that the steering column of his luxury model car was "completely ripped out" and that the electric door locks and windows were damaged. The victim estimated that the damage was "in excess of $200." We concluded that the evidence regarding the nature and extent of the damage to the car was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for felony theft of property exceeding $300 in value. Roby, 202 Ill. App. 3d at 146-47. Unlike the case at bar, these cases did not involve the absence of any evidence with respect to the element of value. Accordingly, we do not find them persuasive.

Therefore, for the reasons previously stated, we reduce defendant's conviction from felony theft to misdemeanor theft and reduce his sentence to 364 days' incarceration. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615 (b)(3), (4). Recognizing that defendant has served in excess of his sentence for this offense, we hereby order the Department of Corrections to take the appropriate action, including defendant's immediate release if he is not currently incarcerated on any additional charges.

Affirmed as modified.

ZWICK, J., and BUCKLEY, J., concur.