scburdet

This is a companion to the Abraxas fanzine I posted over the weekend (the apparent first work of Walt Simonson). This appears/might be the first creative work by Louise Simonson (Jones) scripting a story for her ex-husband. The only credit I see inside is on the issue editorial introduction to the issue (red circle is my photo edit). This would be 9ish years before 'Weezie' started doing work in Warren magazines, and 13 years before she married Walt. There are a couple of articles & photospreads on the original Superman & Captain America actors.

around 5.5. I don't see much that's pressable as the creases I see break color. Might make it look incrementally better, but no grade bump likely

5.0/5.5, but presents well

A smashing success

One fantastic result, one not so much

So, there's always one to kick you in the 'nads. This book met my standards for sending an older key to a signature series event. I'm not interested in "desecrating" a significant older book that might grade out at, or over, 9.4 (a big reason I didn't send CC my X-Men 129 or 109). My only goal is not to "lose" money on the transaction, so this grinds my gears. The two Grade Notes are a full length printer crease on the back cover & a corner crease on the back cover. I didn't really ID the printer crease as that before, but it's there. It's no worse than a polybag crease I have on a 9.2, so I'm pretty sure that wasn't a significant factor in determining the grade. As some people indicated, the corner crease doesn't break color; however, it would if it was not on a white background so I viewed it like a color breaking crease more or less. Based on my reading of the CGC guide, such a crease would bring a book down to the 7.0/7.5 range on the front cover, but being on the back it should grade at least a grade higher. I was expecting an 8.0 based on the overall eye appeal, so pretty disappointed (also why this is 4/4 on my updating the 'grade is in' updates 🙄).

Had this down as at least a 9.2 based on the limited number of magazines I've had graded. It did come out a grade higher than anything else, which is consistent with how it looked in hand compared to those others.

Looks like most of the forum came it too low. Very happy with this one & Layton does signature placement well (I did box the upper half of the magnifier).

Only Signature Series on the Layton fanzine on the census. Two Universal copies are there, both 8.5s. I think Bob had them take it out of the window bag to sign the back (I had a note he could choose to do this). More details on my PGM update.

I'm taking photos of my window-bagged books now b/c I thought I put this one in front cover up. I did put a note on the bag indicating they could remove the book & sign on either side since it's a wraparound cover. Plus, I had emailed Bob ahead of time to as him a question about this book & he said he hadn't seen one in years. Figured he deserved a chance to look it over if he wanted. Super happy to have not only the only Signature Series copy of this on the census, but also beat out the existing Universal copies.

Incoming in 3...2...

That marker is not a restoration attempt (color touch), so it would be counted as a defect. I'm a yes on the grading b/c the front looks pretty good, especially the main art below the title. I give this a 3.0±0.5. That ink loss on the back is pretty severe, but it's on the back. Most of the worst defects are on the back, and this is a big key. If that damage was on the front, I'd say 2.0 or lower. As it is, I think it gets a little boost for being a presentable copy.

My read of the CGC guide is that the staple rust won't drop you below the detachment ceiling (unless my memory is bad b/c I don't have the book in front of me). Also, the crease just off the spine is probably the level-setter anyway, as it goes almost the full length of the book. 5.0/5.5. I think the detachment & rust are acceptable at that grade.

Kind of looks detached at that staple, is it?

9.2 or better, I don't assign grades higher than 9.2 from photos. Any manufacturing defect is a wild card IMO as individual graders assessment can vary as gripper holes are one thing, gripper holes that have become enlarged are a different story.

gripper holes, common for this book. Treated like other manufacturing defects.

Look at the back shot of the book at 0:30. Those pages are not square. Yours are. Different type of issue despite some similarity in what the front looks like. I do highly recommend the book: https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/10586/cgc-guide-grading-comics-nelson/ For $30 you can get CGC's definition of everything, and pictures of all the defects, restoration, conservation, etc.. A lot of terminology gets tossed around colloquially, or incorrectly. For example, color rub is one that gets used here, but it's not define by CGC, they just refer to ink loss.

a spine roll would be accompanied by the pages having an uphill/downhill stack (i.e. not square like a ream of paper). This is more like a poorly produced copy, which is typical of the era as the earlier poster said. It is not correct to say manufacturing defects don't impact the grade, but they are treated less harshly. Manufacturing defects keep things out of the highest grades and will reduce further depending on how bad they are. The CGC book describes these types of issues pretty well.

around 9.0. The tanning is the limiting factor b/c otherwise it looks pretty rock solid

dust shadow on the back outer edge. Other than the tears (possibly Marvel tears), it looks to me like some moderate tanning on the cover, evident on the inside of the front & back covers. Tanning isn't CGC's favorite, but this is also an older book, and otherwise pretty nice. 6.5±0.5. I'm lower end of the range for what this actually looks like, but not going to be surprised if a SA ASM comes in higher than what I think.