• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

bronzemarvel

Member
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bronzemarvel

  1. Overall, pretty sharp copy! There are a few assorted defects (limited spine stress, foxing or tanning halo on back cover, color loss on FC -- see the black outline of Spidey's eyes) that don't look too bad, but... back cover top center... is that a stain? That and the crease at BRFC are potentially going to weigh this down. As far as a 6.0 if that's a stain??
  2. Looking at that corner, it looks like rat chew. I also notice the rear bottom right corner is blunted and there are ripples well into the book? In fact, is the whole bottom edge of the back cover wrinkled or wavy? Moisture exposure? As for the missing piece, people who believe what the Overstreet guides say might tell you 6.0 is as high as this book could go. But there is an interesting thread on here about the CGC guide going as high as 8.0 for missing pieces somewhere in this size range.
  3. Thanks for the good advice. Original post edited. Just so you know I'm no high, I know it isn't going to get the ruby red slippers grade I had posted
  4. Clean looking book, except miswrapped cover (see back) and see top staple at back.
  5. I'm closer to 5.0, considering the wear at front top, that bend at back bottom left corner, what looks like other bends on the cover and the amount of foxing.
  6. Ditto. Also, I know not everyone has the same setup, but better resolution/lighting are necessary for accurate grading. That top edge, for example, seems sort of fuzzy. Not sure people can see everything that's going on there. (Nice issue, BTW!)
  7. Can you tell me what I'm looking at on the front cover? Are those staples about 1/4" away from the spine? And, if so, where do they go, as I don't see any on the back cover. What's the interior like?
  8. Can't wait to see how this one comes back. I'd say 5.5. I tend to be lower in my estimates, but I am becoming a believer in the CGC forgiving attitude toward keys, and this is a major key.
  9. I'll just say it... holy mess. (Well. I used a different 4-letter word, but I guess CGC wants it nice and clean in here -- like the back cover on that book.)
  10. 1.8 to 2.0. Clean and press isn't going to do anything about those tears.
  11. I'd actually say not to be shocked with a 1.5 to 2.0 (maybe 1.8) due to the size of the missing piece. Book has some virtues, but spine splits, tons of creasing on cover, etc., not sure the size of that missing piece can be mitigated.
  12. Lots of fun -- thanks for the post, Mr. Zipper
  13. Ditto. Resubmitting = more money for same or lower grade. I can't see it going higher.
  14. Agree with marvelmaniac. I think this is going to max at 7.0 with that tear. Bottom (from what I can see) would be 5.5. The book's virtues include decent binding and clean staples, clean covers (no foxing) with dimpling and moderate gloss. You can maybe get over $100 for it raw (you'll see this listed around $150, but that doesn't mean there are buyers at that price), and not a whole lot more if graded, esp considering you have to pay for the grade.
  15. Hard to see in these pics, but looks like there might be dents/chips along front top, almost definitely at back top, and edge wrinkle at front right. If I am seeing those correctly, I would put this around 8.0 as-is. Clean and press can't undo all of those things, but maybe gets it to 9.2.
  16. I'm trying to get a good look at that bottom staple. Seems bent? Discolored? The other area I can't make out clearly is the top of the back cover. Appears to be wavy? So I'm curious about that. If that is a stain on back cover, you could get dinged all the way to a 6.5, as grades beginning with 7.0 say "no obvious soiling, staining...except for minor foxing." I've seen multiple books get graded at 8.5, etc., with notes of stains, but those stains are virtually imperceptible. That would be sad, as it otherwise presents as a 9.2.