AF 15

[blue808]

No. It's on ebay. I was just browsing

 

How about this book?

[Dark Knight]

I want it, but his starting price is too high..

[Count]

I want it, but his starting price is too high..

 

Just a weee bit

[JohnT]

I was debating between 1.8 and 2.0. The spine looks ravaged.

[burntboy]

That's what surprised me. Heck I might as well post a pic as this is up on ebay anyways.

 

 

 

Dang that was too fast. My gut said 3.0 despite the spine and BC because, as Pointfive stated, the image area is quite nice. no chipping, no big creases, pretty much just a nasty spine, but even that doesn't extent too far out into the central image. the BC is a mess but it is the BC afterall.

 

oh, and this book does seem to get the kidglove treatment, afterall.............

[Point Five]

 

To me the staple areas were the main problem with a 3.0...it does look like that kind of book where you can't even open the cover all the way because the paper at the staple areas will give at the faintest stress. Especially the top staple area, which just looks beat to death. Other than that and the worn ULC, it's a nice-looking lower-grade copy, and in fairness, it may have more eye appeal than the somewhat muddy photos are showing us.

[143ksk]

2.0

[FourthWorld]

The usual problem that you have with this book (CHIPPING) seems to be absent though, I think that definitely helped the grade. But yeah I was thinking 2.0.

[-cryptkeeper-]

2.5 at top

[The Troll King]

I immediately thought 3.0 when I saw this book as my ASM #3 that received the same grade looked very much like this book.

[Dr. K]

While I understand why folks feel it should be a lower grade I would also say that 3 is consistent with CGC grading, so I'm not surprised at all. For me it would depend on what it was like to actually open the cover. If it is literally falling apart at the seams then 3 is bogus but obviously its hard to tell once its enslabbed.

[Shadow]

Well, my 2.0 guess was wrong.

[Dollarbill]

That would have been my guess too. What the heck, I'll say 2.5. Maybe too much staple wear for 2.5, but the image area does look nice so I'd think there's a shot.

What he said, 2.5.

[fishbone]

.

 

This was graded by CGC as 2.5 and was de-slabbed by me (sorry, too lazy to scan BC right now, but nothing major wrong with BC)

 

[Count]

[qualitycomix]

This one got a 1.8. I thought it was a 2.0 minimum. No major flaws on b/c.

 

[Transplant]

Fairly heavy marvel chipping and that tape pull don't seem to equal a 1.8 on that book. Presents really well, especially since it has OW pages.

[Mac Man]

Brent- I have no idea why yours got a 1.8 and the one Count saw got a 3.0. Switch the grades on the comics and THAT would make sense to me. :shrug:

[qualitycomix]

I recall one time that I had a CGC 1.8 AF #15 (that I bought already slabbed), that I thought was WAY undergraded. I resubbed it and it came back 2.5.

 

This copy the same thing could happen for whoever the current owner is, although I think the conservative grade is 2.0.

[Fedoraman]

That really looks like a gift grade to me...3.0 seems high