PGM: TMNT #1

[cyberjad]

PGM I know scans would be better, but what do you think?

 

 

 

PICTURE OF THE BACK OF THE BOOK HAS BEEN EDITED FOR A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE. PLEASE VIEW BELOW

 

 

 

[Earl Davis]

Hard to tell from the scan. Some obvious PQ issues. Front cover looks high grade but the shadows on the left edge make it hard to tell for sure. The problems on the back make it look no better than a 9.0 in IMHO, but the lighting on the pic may make it look worse than it really is.

[Boozad]

I'm pretty loathe to grade from photos, but I'd put that at 8.0, possible 8.5.

[cyberjad]

Hard to tell from the scan. Some obvious PQ issues. Front cover looks high grade but the shadows on the left edge make it hard to tell for sure. The problems on the back make it look no better than a 9.0 in IMHO, but the lighting on the pic may make it look worse than it really is.

 

 

Yea the lighting on the back is really horrible. I did some exposure adjustments in photoshop on the image and it does seem to look quite a bit better, but there is some stuff there still. The corners look square and I can only see that one spine stress. So the whitish "rubbed" (is there a technical term for this?)area's are of the most concern to me. Think thats a manufacturing error? Also, what are you thinking the page quality would be?

[cyberjad]

 

This the adjusted picture of the rear of the book that should present it more accurately.

[colugo]

Actually the first back cover scan is better than the updated one. The front scan needs to be lighten so that damage, if any is easier to spot. The 'Front cover" really needs to be lightened up more, it's too dark. You'll probably have more people grade it if they can see it better.

 

T-U-R-T-L-E Power!