fantastic_four

Yea the scan shows like a 9.0/9.2, I'm guessing there's something not easy to see from a scan. GREAT COPY!

Probably less than when tth last sold it for around $6K...didn't everyone notice after the last ComicLink auction that the Silver market has now crashed?

AAAHHH nice!!!! (thumbs u You get that from the last ComicLink auction? If so, how'd YOU get yours in so fast, paid for with store credit as well?

Ah, the younger "immediate gratification" generation. If me contacting them didn't make stuff all of a sudden get unstuck at least a third of the time with ComicLink, sometimes after weeks of inaction, I'd have given them two weeks...so offa my back, YOU!

They haven't even cashed my check yet, mailed it last Wednesday, actually just sent them an email asking WTF.

Whoa, ultracool Surfer painting, grats!

GRATS! I bet you could have gotten more within a month or two, but hey, you've got a great AF15 to fund.

Neither, until I've done something else first--attempted to place the CGC grade into the context within which the graders themselves weigh the defects. To even start the process, I'd need to see the grade-lowering defects on the lower-graded, higher eye appeal copy; we can't come to a conclusion on the example 6.5 AF15 because we can't see the major defect you described in that scan.

A dark, low-res scan is a far, far cry from a whole. By the way, we're derailing the shinola out of this thread.

Based upon the scans, the bottom copy. Based upon your description, the top copy.

When I mentally compare this book to the Pacific Coast AF15 CGC 6.5, CGC's weight on chipping is consistent; the Pacific Coast book's chipping is definitely twice as bad as this 7.5 on ebay.

I'm about 95% sure CGC doesn't ignore chipping, I think they just didn't weight on it enough on the AF15 we're talking about. The biggest example of this is the Pacific Coast Amazing Fantasy 15, which without chipping would be 9.x, but with it, CGC gave it a 6.5. Here's another bit of evidence, my FF #4; it's got a chipped tear on the right edge to the right of the Thing's knee where the piece is still intact, as well as a second tinier 1/16" tear to the right of his foot. Without it, that book is a 9.4/9.6, but with it, just an 8.5

Put me down for hating chipping, unless it's quite minor. Anything where there are 1/4" or more chunks missing from the side is a book I don't bid on. That AF15 CGC 8.0 that sold on Heritage for a relatively low price recently had a bunch of small chips missing from the right edge, NO idea how that one got 8.0. I can't really tell how many chips the FF #1 in question has, the scan is quite small and VERY fuzzy, but it does appear there's a 1/4" chip missing to the right of the fire hydrant.

I picked up copies of 1, 24, 106, and 114, I'll post scans when they arrive.

Nice book! (thumbs u That's one's tough to find in grade.

What was the apparent grade? Where'd you buy it from?

Call it now--before you actually know the grade!

Got a chance to scan my recent Spidey acquisitions besides the #1:

At least tell us what you THINK it is!

Who doesn't love Hitler dressed up like a smurfy member of the Klu Klux Klan?

Finally got a chance to scan my FF scores from recent months:

This was the first CGC slab I ever bought back in late 2000. Note it's not only an old-style slab, but it's OLD-OLD-style--one of the original CGC cases before they introduced the inner well.

Trade an Amazing Spider-Man for a crappy DC book? I'm mostly a Marvel guy, so help me out here, what's up with that book--James Rhodes' 8th appearance? Thirteenth reintroduction of Green Lantern? First appearance of Spunky the Super-Cat? I forget... Do you also have some wheat pennies you'd like to trade for my gold bullion?

I checked on this before I bought it--even though the label style is new, this book was graded in 2001 or 2002 when they were still using old label styles; it was reholdered in approximately 2005, which is why it has the new style label. I know this because the book used to belong to a board member who is a friend of mine in 2004/2005, and I traced whose hands it went through after that. I also have a scan of the book from 2004 where it's in an old-style holder with the same serial number. So it's possible it would grade with better PQ today, although I have no plans on resubmitting anytime soon. The book is also unpressed, which is obvious because there are multiple non-color-breaking creases on the back cover that would come out with a pressing.

Given that I have no kids myself, I suppose it could be argued that this is what I traded mine for...