scburdet

Ron Marz from Jan. 2023. The "first appearance" of Harry Potter

I've got a 4.0/4.5. Seems to me that c/p might look a little better, but the creases are kind of heavy so I'm not convinced you'd move the needle that much

Last of my CC candidates based on significance & condition. No notes

9.2±0.2. Pretty unusual to see a date written on a comic this "new", no? Just based on recent experience, the slight miswrap probably keeps this down a bit. There does seem to be some inconsistency on when this counts as a defect and when it doesn't tho.

>9.2

I'm going to come in low b/c of the stains. I've seen too many small stains torpedo what looks like a nice book. 6.0/6.5

From January 2023

From January 2023. Apparently, there's a bend I can't see

all square bounds are harder to press b/c you can't just mash them like a regular binding. They use a spacer of some sort to protect the binding, which I believe limits the degree to which something get pressed. I've not seen the process, just had it described to me.

probably need to call up Marv Wolfman & Roy Thomas as those two members of the Tribe are no longer with us. I found a 2nd group called the New York Tribe through this auction: https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/panel-pages/john-buscema-tony-dezuniga-and-neal-adams-attributed-tarzan-11-story-page-4-original-art-marvel/a/121845-12018.s When you read about some of the Marvel history, it almost sounds like they had to grab whoever was least busy to get some things finished. Perhaps not taking a lot of note for giving credit. Hell, I went digging for a book from the fairly recent past (Iceman Vol 2 No 3) b/c it appears to be the first published work by Skottie Young. The cover credits still list the penciler who did issues 1-2 & 4. SY is only credited on the title page. Something tells me the records don't get better when you wind the clock back another +25 years.

Don't usually like to bump my posts, but I'm a big enough fan of Marvel horror & dumb enough to be considering this one over potentially more rational options.

Another offering from my periodic re-discovery of Thor books in my collection that actually look kind of nice.

I'll offer 7.0±0.5 with c/p. If the spine area is wavy (I have a couple of square bounds from the same area like this), it would need to be flattened out to max out the grade. Back soiling is the other limiting factor. Maybe a tiny chip out above the price box?

Not much to add here except to complain again that my 1st UK appearance of Captain Britain is still sitting at CGC almost a year after the in-house private signing

Almost every defect discussion in the CGC Guide includes qualifiers about GA (and some SA) comics b/c the manufacturing process was slapdash b/c the books were considered cheap, disposable entertainment. Miswraps like this only count for deductions if the book is in otherwise ≥9.0 condition, which is not the case here. To me this book looks really nice given the age & era. 5.0±0.5 where the different defects along the edges set the grade.

I'd keep this together unless the goal is to display different pieces in different holders. CGC's official position in their book is that anything missing >1/3 of the cover or >1/2 of an interior page is incomplete by default & receives a NG. I believe there used to be an INC grade, but that was discontinued.

I can't quite tell what's going on along the spine of the front cover. Is that glare in the photo or something going on with the book?

9.0/9.2

Tear as long as the piece remains attached. 8ish overall

4.5/5.0

My big regret is that I started getting my comics by mail instead of going to the grocery newsstand (which was a PITA). Little did I know a few decades later people would pay a premium for the ones with the UPC symbol. This one I got on the secondary market tho.