scburdet

6.0±0.5. I almost want to give it a 7.0 but the spine stress gives me pause. I tend to under shoot GAs, so...

Looks like a production crease to me. I'll say 9.0/9.2. At least the BRFC is blunted.

So it's already on its way to grading? Fun stuff. The tears around the staple are the critical defect. Weighing CGCs policy on tape on older books, I don't think that's much to worry about. The CGC book has 7.0 as the lower limit for staple tears. That seems a tad generous here b/c they extend farther into the covers. On the other hand, a single staple books is going to experience more strain at the staple ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm going to throw out a 5.5/6.0 with a huge asterisk that I don't deal with GA books & therefore my opinion should not be taken seriously

Are you sure the middle staple that's left is original? It looks so clean & I could convince myself that the holes don't quite make since with the crimp of the staple. I could also be talking out of my backside.

Outer 5.5/6.0 (considering it's GA). Inside, more like 4.0/4.5 b/c that tanning looks dark. That seems like some significant spotting along that inside shot. That might make the overall grade trend a little lower than the outer cover, but IDK. On some level it doesn't matter b/c this is such a unique book.

Since I bought the book, I'll tell you want CGC put in print. Heavy fade will fall between 4.0 & 5.0, and moderate between 5.5 & 7.5. Looking at the images provided (Hulk 181 is used for a lot of samples in the book FWIW), the top 2/3 look closest to the heavy fade, and the bottom 1/3 looks more like moderate. Based on that, I think 5.0 is where it would come down all else being equal, on the high end of the heavy fade range.

I'm a no here too. All the notes are about color breaks and I believe two books I had CCS press had weaker staple attachments that came off. I think that's always a risk and even greater with a high throughput operation. Too much risk with minimal upside

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that. Bought this one 23ish years ago and hadn't even thought to look at anything like that.

Since I have the CGC book now, it seems that 4.0 is the upper limit for the completely detached cover, so you've hit pretty high to the max allowable. A little surprising all the other stuff would have a minimal deduction on top of that. I bet it looks pretty cool in the slab regardless.

Based on a skimming of the CGC book, this is best described as a missing piece. I don't see anything specific about a defect like this going through the book. Putting on my detective hat, it does look like the back corner, it seems probably this is some kind of handling issue rather than a problem from the production end. I would not bet $s on my analysis though. I'd put a ceiling of 5.0 on this b/c of the front cover damage, which impacts the appearance, plus the extent of the missing pieces. I don't have personal experience seeing a defect like this graded, but I do have a Marvel Spotlight 2 that has something similar, albeit on the outer edge (not corner), on the back cover, and doesn't go through the whole book. The issue goes through the backup/reprint story, not the new material, but it's kept it out of the grading queue anyway. A bit of a bummer b/c the front cover is quite nice.

generally, with *comic* magazines the grades are a little more lenient than comics (b/c of surface area) so it depends if you have a frame of reference. I am not sure if they have separate units that deal with comic magazines vs. other magazines, and in almost a year there have only been a handful of magazines posted to PGM and no sports books that I remember. There's some light creasing around the top edge, perhaps some wear or crimping around the spine, and some light soiling. These all are more minor defects & could be improved by a professional clean/press. I do see a long crease about 1/2 inch from the spine going down the back cover, and the writing on the cover (a letter I?). The source of the writing is important b/c it's treated differently whether it's a distributors mark, or just random writing. I don't know what to call this as I don't remember a mark like this before. I'm going to call this a 6.5/7.0, but with a high degree of uncertainty. IDK where they'd be chatting, but finding a community of people that routinely look at sports magazines would be advantageous as I don't feel qualified.

4.0/4.5

2.0/2.5

2.0/2.5

I was looking at getting this signed by FM, but I think a better copy is in order given the price point for his sig. Pretty significant miswrap, but the light crease along the top right edge was the deal breaker. TBF this is from the full run of FM DD I bought 23ish years ago and I'm definitely in the black on the investment (aka a nice copy of 168).

1.0

Spine corners seem like that might be a tad rounded. The white areas seem like there's some soiling. Hard to detect finger bends & the like in the holder. 8.0/8.5. I've got 10 red labels and I've wondered how the standards have changed, plus if these comics were ever pressed (guessing most not). They're only mid-tier keys so not a ton of incentive to re-grade after pressing, but the thought has crossed my mind.

no doubt. I agree that photos (glare, etc.) sometimes exaggerate the severity of some defects & sometimes mask others. It's just great to get a few more sets of eyeballs on something b/c I've missed things before. It think the easiest things to grade by photo are the lower grade books b/c the defects are pretty obvious.

I agree this is the inflection point. It's a light color-breaking crease

FWIW this is where I am just based on a similar graded book in my collection. I don't trust myself to be unbiased when grading books in my PC, however.

Different seller, but I think this one might have been under-graded too. Curious if others will come to the same conclusion.

We sent this one in specifically to complete the Wolverine trifecta. LFG.

Over/under for seeing this one again is Thanksgiving '23. Place your bets. I examined it more thoroughly after I posted. Still pleased 🤞