scburdet

Yeah, I'm not a 9.8 or bust collector. It's a really nice looking book and my jaw hit the floor when I saw 5.5. I'm not offended by it per se, but it's a big glaring scarlet number right on the front. I've heard you can fix these grades with a well-placed piece of painter's tape and a marker

I don't have the book or a photo of the back cover on me, but if Pukie wants to see it, I can post it later tonight. You can see a small stain at the top of the book here. The one on the back is smaller and much lighter than the one on this ASM238 as memory serves from examining it last night. If you aren't going over this book thoroughly, you'd think it was a much higher grade.

Working my way through important books with flaws that I don't know how to weigh. I so wish I could swap this back cover with some other books that have great front covers, but flaws on the back. There's some typical edge and corner wear for a book from this era that's been handled. My overwhelming concern is the scuff(?) on the 'P'. It's small, but quite noticeable. If Stan Lee was still alive, I'd send it to him for signature and tape the window right on the box so it would get covered up. Of course, Stan would find a way to cover the art with his name anyway. There I said it. Stan Lee signature books are often ugly b/c of poorly placed signatures.

I just got back my Iron Fist 14 that had some staining (much less severe). It is otherwise sharp. Grader notes only mention the stain. Came back at 5.5 much to my dismay. With this 1 data point and what I've seen people report here, they are hammering stains. I would not send this without cleaning get as much of this removed as possible, and then, it might be a questionable investment if it doesn't clean well.

I was thinking about this, but the opposite was my interpretation of the policy. An internal clipping would not necessarily be noted on the label, but would be in the grader's notes. When the book appeared in my queue, I read the grader's notes, and didn't see the cutout mentioned, so I assumed the label would say something. Then I opened the box yesterday and it's not on the label either. There seems to be ample evidence in the comments here that occasionally CGC misses something, or misses recording it correctly. In this case it sort of benefits me because I could sell and never mention it. I'm not sure there's much incentive for any one to ever open it again, so it could be an unknown defect until the heat death of the universe. The only remaining creators who are still living are McLeod (inker), Rachelson (colorist) and Orzechowski (letterer), so only McLeod seems like reasonable 2nd signature & I have no plans for that.

I would love either. I'm a little wary that the rough edges will set this back, but who knows with an almost 60 year old book. I've seen some of the returns today (and had some myself) where people got a better grade than anyone predicted.

Here's what I see: the curling and the right edge of the cover has some downward turning (don't know that that's called). I also see a crease or indention on the inside page you show that's parallel to the spine. IMO untrained opinion that will all be greatly improved by pressing. You do have a cover miscut (the "TM" is cutoff and there's white on the spine). There's nothing you can do about that. I'm not sure how CGC is treating miscuts these days. I have a "first gen" CGC graded comic that's a 9.2. I think your miscut is less severe. So, I think C&P gets you to a 9.2 for sure, the 9.4 or higher depends on how harshly miscuts are treated.

One would think, but I've been around long enough to realize that a lot of people aren't that good at their jobs

I've been sitting on this one since the show announcement came out. It wasn't even in my "box to grade" because I never bought it with any intent other than wanting a reasonably collectible copy of the first Wonder Man. Nostalgia is a powerful drug and I read the out of a copy of Avengers 158 as a kid and was always interested in the (green costume) version of Simon Williams. Now Disney is making me consider sending to CGC.

Kind of what I was thinking. If I ever sell, the future buyer will have to be content that I am an honest man and will mention the clipping.

2nd the "Dang". I would not have guess that high based on the original photos

I just got this back from the Claremont signing (https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/4030430001/). I sent it in knowing about (and not caring) the color touch. I bought it knowing the raw book was restored. What's not in the grader notes or label is any mention of an internal clipping. I know it's there b/c when I bought it, I got a partial refund b/c the seller disclosed the restoration, but didn't notice the clipping. This is one of the "does not affect story" clippings. It was some coupon or mail-in something. It does not look like CGC has a combined SS/R/Q label, but I'm surprised it's not mentioned on the label or grader notes. Is this unusual? Did the graders forget to add that note, or is the R label considered a significant enough defect that the the Q wouldn't matter?

Thanks. I hope so. I find it hard to price the MJs but I'm willing to make a sizable bet the FMV is more than the $5-10 this cost as part of the whole run.

Yeah, after lobbing this grenade into the forum, I should move this up the the submission queue to settle the argument I expect my last set of submissions to come back sometime around the end of next month give or take shifts in CGC's semi-arbitrary turnaround times, we can put this to bed sometime in November I'm guessing.

Of course Odda can go find my recent Jungle Adventure 6 with overspray post and see how passionate some people are about this

Hope this doesn't get me a purple label, but I took the book out rubbed my fingers over the spot and whatever that was just flaked off. I think it's best not to speculate too much on what it was

That's what I'm worried about on all the G.I. Joe books. Give them a silver or bronze age book they'll be a little more understanding of how the industry and collecting game were harder on books from that era.

Here's my final G.I. Joe issue (😏). Unlike issue 1 and 21 that I shared, no discoloration on the edges. Looks pretty OK on the front. I think the bottom left corner can be improve with pressing (the glare makes it look worse I think). What gives me the most pause is the wear along the bottom edge of the back cover.

This is part 2 of 3 on my quest to determine if any of these are worth sending to Larry Hama. Issue 21 is obviously the most iconic. The front cover is pretty sharp. Like issue 1, there's some discoloration along the top edge of the back cover, but it's way less. The big problem is the bend at the bottom of the back cover. A press might make it present better, but it's not going away.

It's very nice. I wonder a bit about the little bit of yellow along the top of the back cover. That's the only think I see that could keep in <9.2.

3.0 isn't a bad guess IMO depending on the back and the rest of the book (e.g. back cover). It could make a 3.5, but I don't think multiple tears will let it go any higher.

G.I. Joe: A Real American Bummer Yeah, we all have those Schrödinger's comics that are both a 9.8 and a 7.0 until we open the box and take the book out of the bag to realize it isn't as perfect as we remember.

IDK if that "KC" written on the cover will be considered a distributors mark or what. I haven't come across that before. I can imagine it getting a Qualified grade, being considered a significant defect or being deemed acceptable. My guess is that tear on the back cover is going to relegate this to 5.0±0.5 despite the fact that the rest of the book (minus the possible marker issue) looks better than that.

I'm a 7.5 as is. At least 8.0 after C&P. If the person with the FF #1 doesn't accept my offer of a crisp $10 bill for their books, I will put it on the table for this one. It's very nice.