theCapraAegagrus

I would like to thank you for the pleasant/mature discourse, even though you're acting like a jabroni by not seeing this movie just to spite TLJ.

I think he's referencing anecdotal evidence that people may try to use to support their opinion. Is there still a CGC "Golden Age bump"? There shouldn't be. In grading, overall, there should be no biases. The entire reason for grading companies business is predicated on being third-party (unbiased).

Shouldn't be difficult to do considering how low they set the bar with the first one.

Basically... THR: Openly woke. Marvel: Going woke, but being professional about it.

To quote the OP: "Can the grading on this Playboy be improved..." That would tell me that condition and not value matter most. The difference between C and A can be singularly, or combined, materials and/or quality. Let's say the glue is the problem? A pro restorer could both remove it and replace it with conservation material (maybe).

Having already been restored? Value can't really drop. Pro restorers may improve designation from C to B or A, as well. I see nothing but potential.

I don't see much room for improvement, but I would not be surprised if it got a bump to 6.0 range. Pressing can sometimes perform 'miracles' and make it look much better overall.

I haven't ever really looked at Q labels that exist to expound on a "large defect". That's new to me.

That's ironic. Enjoy your millionth ban.

You've confused this with your own self-delusion, pal. I suggest moving on, Stu.

That's cute. You're no expert, either.

I haven't ever had a comic restored, but CCS (sister brand of CGC) is a reputable restorer. You may want to inquire other professionals, though. From the CCS section of CGC's home page: If you think your comic book would benefit from restoration or conservation, the first step is to email us a scan of the front and back of the comic in question to service@cgccomics.com. Based on your scan, we will determine whether either service is viable and provide a ballpark cost. If we decide the comic may benefit from restoration or conservation, the next step is to submit the comic for screening to finalize feasibility and cost. The questions and answers below will help guide you.

There are outliers in everything. There are people that somehow "enjoyed" TLJ. Most people will agree that 86% is a "fair" assessment of how 'good' TROS is. It's not a score that's outright lying to anyone. I understand your skepticism, but consistency isn't a verdict.

I've seen in-demand comics go for close to their universal counterparts. I'm not an expert on Qualified books, though. That's just my experience looking at some stuff.

I prefer the barcode over Spider-Man's face (on a Star Wars comic).

What attitude? Doesn't one have to convey emotion for another to infer "attitude"?

C = amateur restoration which also = damage if attempting to remove. The OP wants to improve the grade.

"Evidence #1" is meaningless. You and I both know that box office numbers and audience reviews are not inclusive. Good movies can get low financial results and big $$$$$ does not make a good movie. People, like you, were also turned off by how bad TLJ is. People are putting their money where their mouth is, for once. It's a double-edged sword, as they're sacrificing a good experience to spite Lucasfilm. "Critical reaction" from other movies is also meaningless. Surprise! The critics loved TLJ and TROS carps on it. Were you expecting the critics to positively review a movie devoid of PC that gives middle fingers to their favorite modern Star Wars film? Come on, man. Your retort is devoid of actual evidence. The movie is generally 'good' with an audience score that most people would say, "fair". So, people who have actually seen the movie agree with its score, but someone who has not seen the movie cries "tampering" Do you see where the logic takes place?

I can't see the stain, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. A 7.5 here could make sense, then.

Affirmative action is prejudicial. If you were writing a movie about Ancient Egypt, would you hire the director with the most knowledge of Ancient Egypt, or the Egyptian director with the most knowledge of the subject matter? When you pull from the smallest pool - you're being the most prejudicial. It's simply a bad concept.

What...? -insert Billy Madison quote-

Except for the fact that you hate on a movie and claim "tampering" despite not knowing how to perceive the product yourself? I'm not being hypocritical as I actually watch the content. I criticized the Shazam trailers for being 'meh'. I criticized the movie itself as "good", because that is what those contents provided. Critics liked TLJ. Audiences didn't. Now critics dislike TROS and you don't want to see it...? "Potential" is not equal to evidence, Bosco. Again; can happen = will happen. I'm sure there are other movies who have maintained good, mediocre, or poor 'scores' over time. TROS' 'score' does not paint a picture of something that it generally isn't. You're simply feeding your "I just don't want to see this movie" face hole with BS arguments. Don't create BS reasons not to see a movie that people generally like. It's not a valid argument. You don't need to provide an uncorroborated argument to convince me of anything. I'll keep telling you to see it. You probably won't I'm not gonna stop trying to convince, but don't try to convince us that there's tampering when there is no actual evidence to support that. Is it kind? Is it true? Is it necessary?

Externally, I can't see why this would receive lower than an 8.5. I'm not sure what to tell you, other than maybe there's some internal defect, like a folded page that led to this outcome.