Wat would this Green Lantern #2 Grade

[Ares]

Going by cover alone what would you grade this?

Ignore the yellow striped.

Thats just the bad scanner

[PUNYHUMAN]

I would say a solid GOOD , maybe a GOOD+ I would have to see the rest of the book though! COOL book still.

[143ksk]

Good 2.0

[CentaurMan]

Good, Good+ tops. Just too much general wear, plus the top staple pull and the bottom left corner in particular are too weak to go any higher.

 

Fun book anyway.

[sterlingcomics]

My "un"professional opinion:

 

Good- at least; chance of Good

[comicwiz]

Going by cover alone what would you grade this?

Ignore the yellow striped.

Thats just the bad scanner

 

It appears from some of the responses, I'm a little stricter with my grading; I would say a Fair/Good 1.5, at best. More likely a Fair 1.0.

[Aces]

Good range.

I'm a spine freak so that top staple makes me cringe.

I might grade it a G- 1.8, but it stands a chance at a full G 2.0.

[backtomarvel]

I'm a spine freak too. Cool book. Solid good in my minor-league rookie opinion.

[PovertyRow]

I'd give it a Good+ because there are a lot of G+ books that can be a heck of a lot uglier. That didn't come out right. The book is not ugly at all - quite pretty for a low grade book.

[Zanarkand]

Wow are you guys rough. A book that has no pieces missing larger than 1/4" triangle or 1/8" square, has both cover and centerfold completely attached at both staples, has no long tears, and no major soiling or staining is at least VG-. The centerfold and cover can even be a little loose.

 

If the centerfold or cover is detached at one staple, or there are larger pieces missing from the back or interior, or there are soiling/stains not visible, or there are tears longer than 1/2" not visible, it'd go down to G/VG.

 

If more than one of the above, GD to G+.

 

No way a complete and completely readable, structurally sound book with no large piecess out or soiling/staining could be Fair. Go read you grading guides.

[Mr. Zipper]

Wow are you guys rough. A book that has no pieces missing larger than 1/4" triangle or 1/8" square, has both cover and centerfold completely attached at both staples, has no long tears, and no major soiling or staining is at least VG-. The centerfold and cover can even be a little loose.

 

If the centerfold or cover is detached at one staple, or there are larger pieces missing from the back or interior, or there are soiling/stains not visible, or there are tears longer than 1/2" not visible, it'd go down to G/VG.

 

If more than one of the above, GD to G+.

 

No way a complete and completely readable, structurally sound book with no large piecess out or soiling/staining could be Fair. Go read you grading guides.

 

I agree. The way I see it, Fair and Good are for books that are soiled, missing pieces, pages, large tears and/or detached staples/cover.

 

This book appears to be structurally sound and complete with an accumulation of moderate creases, staple tears, etc. To me, this is a VG minus. A few less creases and it'd be VG.

[comicwiz]

Wow are you guys rough. A book that has no pieces missing larger than 1/4" triangle or 1/8" square, has both cover and centerfold completely attached at both staples, has no long tears, and no major soiling or staining is at least VG-. The centerfold and cover can even be a little loose.

 

If the centerfold or cover is detached at one staple, or there are larger pieces missing from the back or interior, or there are soiling/stains not visible, or there are tears longer than 1/2" not visible, it'd go down to G/VG.

 

If more than one of the above, GD to G+.

 

No way a complete and completely readable, structurally sound book with no large piecess out or soiling/staining could be Fair. Go read you grading guides.

 

I'm fairly comfortable with my grading skills, thanks.

 

My question to you: are we looking at the same book? Look again, as there are two areas on the GL 2 where pieces are missing (the one at the bottom being the worst, and a close second, the corner missing in the top left corner). Granted, it doesn't appear that the GL 2 has any soiling, but the combination of the low-res scan, dark cover, and a problem with the contrast on the scan, and the yellow streaking artifact from the scanner all make it really difficult to see if there are any foreign substances, markings, or soiling on this cover. The wear in the way of creasing/folds and compound impact marks breaking colour really weighs heavily on the overall conidtion of the book -- moreso than the pieces missing. As well, the inability to really hold this book real time makes it difficult to arrive at an assessment of how severe both the visible and hidden tears are, and their length.

 

Even if I were not to factor in the possibility of tears from the extent of creasing/folds, this book ought not grade higher than a 1.5.

 

And according to your comments above, this book should have recieved a GD-GD+

 

 

No pieces missing, and no chunks from the cover. In fact, I would say that this book has better over-all eye appeal than the the GL 2 in question (the purple streak along the bottom is an artifact of the scanner).

 

Want to take a guess at the final CGC grade?

[Mr. Zipper]

My question to you: are we looking at the same book? Look again, as there are two areas on the GL 2 where pieces are missing (the one at the bottom being the worst, and a close second, the corner missing in the top left corner).

 

Even if I were not to factor in the possibility of tears from the extent of creasing/folds, this book ought not grade higher than a 1.5.

 

And according to your comments above, this book should have recieved a GD-GD+

 

No pieces missing, and no chunks from the cover. In fact, I would say that this book has better over-all eye appeal than the the GL 2 in question (the purple streak along the bottom is an artifact of the scanner).

 

I guess this is why they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

In my view, the GL has much better eye appeal than the Zap. The Zap spine is very worn, rolled and soiled, plus it looks as if the staples are very loose. There appears to be long tears (under No. 1 and in the TLC) and a spine split.

 

BTW, I would consider the GL to be chips and not "pieces missing."

 

Could be that CGC would give GL a good or less, but I don't place much value in CGC for low grade (and even some midgrade) books. I think they are great for 5.0 or 6.0 and over, but IMO, they are unecessarily harsh on lower grade books.

 

 

 

[Zanarkand]

Both pieces missing are smaller than they appear due to the size of the scan. Eyeballing it, even the bigger piece looks no more than 1/8" square. The corner is certainly smaller than the 1/4" triangle allowed.

 

I have to admit that after measuring, the piece on the bottom is actually a tad larger than that. Seems about 3/16" x 5/16". When added to the corner, the total area of pieces out would be over the threshold by a bit. Splitting hairs.

 

No other major defects are visible or are mentioned. I'm going by "cover alone".

 

Now your book is clearly a whole different ballgame. Going by "cover alone" again, and assuming: Both the cover and centerfold are attached, there are no pieces missing not apparent, no tears more serious than I already see, and no large areas of staining/soiling on the back or inside.

 

I see multiple long tears, especially at the staples, which compromises the structural integrity of the book. Right there we're out of the VG range. There also appears to be a split to the bottom spine, maybe as much as 1" since I can't see the bottom of the book. That ain't allowed in VG either. Neither are the multiple spine tears.

 

We can ignore the heavy creases, including the book length one, since now we're in Good country and they don't matter. Since structure is already compromised and we're assuming that it's not any worse than apparent, the deciding factors come down to eye-appeal. This book has very little of it. No gloss, serious fading, and moderate surface wear. Also a degree of soiling, most clearly visible in the white area of the right.

 

This book is probably Good-. It has a large accumulation of minor defects and a fair accumulation of more serious defects too. But nothing that would be called "severe" - defects that render parts of the book unreadable or art unviewable. That is what knocks a book down beyond the Good range.

 

After peeking, I am not surprised CGC gave it a 1.0. That was the point of the game, right? Simply put, CGC is not following Overstreet standards.

[uclapeterg]

GL 2: 1.8 (Good Minus)

 

Zap 1: 1.5 (Fair/Good)

[burntboy]

that GL 2 has lots wrong with it in addition to the three missing chunks.

 

i believe that the accumulative effect of all of those spine bends , creases, abrasions, overall wear on the edges, etc places this right around a good 2.0 (IMO).

 

and i also agree that the super-sized scan makes all of this much easier to see. suspect that to the naked eye the book may even have some beauty (in an ugly kind of way).

[comicwiz]

No other major defects are visible or are mentioned. I'm going by "cover alone".

 

Upon further observation, I noticed that there might well be one other defect which we both may have missed. If you look closely on the right outer edge, right beside GL's shoulder, there appears to be a tear that is not as clear/visible (might be because it is being pressed/mended together by the flatbed. The black hairline tear (which may measure as much as 1/2") may well just be an artifact of the scanner.

 

Ares could confirm whether its a tear or not.

 

If that is a tear, then IMO, the GL 2 is definitely a 1.5, and possibly even as low as a 1.0.

[Ares]

No other major defects are visible or are mentioned. I'm going by "cover alone".

 

Upon further observation, I noticed that there might well be one other defect which we both may have missed. If you look closely on the right outer edge, right beside GL's shoulder, there appears to be a tear that is not as clear/visible (might be because it is being pressed/mended together by the flatbed. The black hairline tear (which may measure as much as 1/2") may well just be an artifact of the scanner.

 

Ares could confirm whether its a tear or not.

 

If that is a tear, then IMO, the GL 2 is definitely a 1.5, and possibly even as low as a 1.0.

Well its not a book i own yet but the seller did confirm ther is a tear on the cover

[Zanarkand]

No other major defects are visible or are mentioned. I'm going by "cover alone".

 

Upon further observation, I noticed that there might well be one other defect which we both may have missed. If you look closely on the right outer edge, right beside GL's shoulder, there appears to be a tear that is not as clear/visible (might be because it is being pressed/mended together by the flatbed. The black hairline tear (which may measure as much as 1/2") may well just be an artifact of the scanner.

 

Ares could confirm whether its a tear or not.

 

If that is a tear, then IMO, the GL 2 is definitely a 1.5, and possibly even as low as a 1.0.

Well its not a book i own yet but the seller did confirm ther is a tear on the cover

 

. A tear greater than 1/2", in addition to everything else, would probably drop it further. Another quality that could come into play is the "feel" of the book. Does it retain it's rigidity, for want of a better word, or is it more floppy, like tissue paper. That's a structural integrity issue that would count against it as well. Now we're in Good country here too. I still don't see Fair in a book that's stapled securely with no evidence of rust, and is complete and completely readable. I wonder what CGC's definition of "Fair" is?