comicginger1789

5.0...i considered 5.5 but the spine has a bit too much noticeable wear I fear to go that high.

5.5 with outside shot at 6.0 if cleaned and pressed.

9.2-9.4 for that bottom edge and back cover issues. If grading for your own PC and you love it, do it. If grading to make vast quantities of money...don't.

When I have a production related question, I check other copies of the same issue for comparison. A quick look at a bunch of sold and listed copies on Ebay appear to have the same "flaw" so probably not really a flaw if that all books came out the same way.

Definitely humidity related and definitely something that can damage the comics too over time (more likely with older newsprint style comics than newer printed books). 80% humidity all the time is gonna be harsh on comics over time.

Devoid? If you’ve never read Warlord you are missing out. Great stories and even better art. Also Phantom Stranger may notnhave the best stories but the artwork is always a hit, covers and interiors.

7.0 seems right. Couple creases and marks I feel keep it from higher. Awesome book tho, I too love this story arc and the issues that follow.

I believe he is partners with his dad? Or something like that. At any rate, time catches up with poor and shoddy sellers. Sadly it usually comes after a number of people fall victim.

I feel as you narrow in on the perfect comic, it makes sense to have graded closer together. I’m fine with the current 9.0,9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8 format. What gets me is that I don’t get 9.9 versus 10. If it’s perfect give it a 10. If it’s minor imperfection then it’s 9.8

Yeah that spine (to me) appears 9.4ish but then again, I only grade my books with my own personal notes so...who knows, maybe if I ever sell my stuff someone will get an ECG graded comic (that my personal grading co) that is actually much better by CGC standards.

The lower grade the book, the less impact fading would have. For example, let's say you have a 9.0 book but it's faded. I could see 6.5-7.0 tops Let's say you have a 6.0 book but it's faded. I would say 4.0-4.5 tops If you have a 3.0 book that is faded, well, I think you would be around the same, maybe bumped to a 2.5 Does that make any sense? I don't know if that holds true for CGC but that is kinda how I set it up in my mind. Personally, I would rather the copy you have that a tattered 2.0 copy. However, I would expect to pay 3.0-3.5 range prices for your copy, even if structurally it is higher.

I mean, I know it would only complicate things but I almost think that books should have some other indicator. So like a gold star 9.6 means its a golden age book graded by golden age standards. Silver star for silver, copper star for copper, whatever star for modern. So you know that well a gold star 9.6 if it were a modern, might only be a 9.0. Maybe that is a terrible idea but its all I've got at 8am.

I think the current grading system is near perfection. The problem is consistency and stronger definitions for the grades. That and if you are gonna treat a Golden Age book different than a modern, that should be noted.

I wouldn’t go through with this experiment but if you do I’m intrigued by the results.

Just wanted to pop back over here and thank everyone for some guidance. I am excited because while I am not a die hard Western collector, I do have a couple random issues and do love the cover and art. I am going to view this collection in a week or so, and I will report back with news regardless of whether I buy or not!

Maybe it was some twisted strength training? Like if I can fight with two pairs of pants and do well, on the days I have one pair I will really feel agile. Clearly fighting Ras was a day for one pair...or maybe he knew he couldn't beat him so rather than be nude in the desert, he held some dignity. Clearly Ra's had no interest in the Batwang and wanted to save that for 45 years in the future...

^ Killer cover, one of my favs from Neal Adams and his Batman run. Also, we learn Bruce Wayne wore double pants. Who knew!

I will second a 6.5 A press and clean might sharpen up the back and might push into the 7.0 range.

Assuming the back is white and no stains or creases, I think this book has 9.0 or a smidge higher potential. Also, pages hopefully white/off-white. I know some of these ASM issues can start getting tannish/brown on the pages edges.

So yours is about 7.5 inches wide? A wider one would indicate older then?

So this isn’t a spinner rack but it’s one I am looking to own. Anyone have a rough idea on a date or era or how to tell/find out? I want to make sure I display correct era books in it when I get it:)

ASM 316 is Todd’s best. Best Venom cover for me of all time. ASM 300 is obviously iconic. Simply and beautiful. ASM 327 is everything I dislike about his drawing. It’s too much. ASM 306 is a great Action 1 homage An underrated fav of mine is 311. Great Mysterio cover. A couple though like 307, 308 and 312 I find the faces on Chameleon, Taskmaster and Green Goblin laughable.

Ya I have 340 raw. Hate how he draws Hulk. He’s a bulging mass of squiggles. McFarlanes work appears messy. It had that messy cartoonishness in ASM but it worked. Then the solo series I feel went back to being sloppy. Covers were fine but interiors were never as strong as his ASM work. Just this guys opinion though:)

If it had the cover, maybe $20-30 @collectiblepaper Google Batman #1 treasury and you will see the cover. As is, maybe worth $5

Congrats! I enjoyed McFarlane's ASM run. This solo series though, I feel the stories and art were terrible, outside of the first couple issues. I have not bothered to read any of his Hulk stuff outside of issue #340 which, the cover I can dig but the interiors are downright horrendous. Definitely a display book.