Looks under graded to me. Here's mine by comparison. Yours has way better pages as well.
I agree.
Must be something we can't see in the inside or perhaps on the back cover. Judged purely by the front cover I think Kelholts looks slightly better.
There's a bindery chip at the top of the back cover URC which likely caps the grade at 8.0.
As I told Kelly, this book has one of the nicest spines I've ever seen on an early GA book. There's barely even a single tiny fleck of color missing at the staple areas... it appears unread, or very very close to it.
I'll miss it, but I'm pleased it found a good home.
Here is the back
Yes it must be due to the bindery tear.
Curious though, isn't that a production defect?
Sure is a nice copy, thanks for sharing!
I think it is a production defect and does completely influence the grade for cgc but not for me. I once owned a Planet 29 CGC 9.2 with a similar bindery chip on the front, but it was half the size. That time CGC did not account for the production flaw. I think if the size of the defect was half the size, this book would be a CGC 9.2 as well. My