Grading Fun. Scans I have laying around part #1: DD #1

[rob_react]

[FFB]

9.0-9.2 based on front cover.

[JMcD]

9.0

[sfilosa]

Is that the White Mountain copy?

[rob_react]

Yes. It's my one of my "Most Wanted Collectibles."

[sfilosa]

I hear ya there.

 

Looks like a 9.4 to 9.6, but it the spine looks like it might have some "wrinkles". Hard to tell because the scan is pixelated.

 

[supapimp]

i thought that "64" looked familiar, 9.0-9.2.

[drbanner]

9.2, with a hint of wear to the spine tips, but no translucency on this white-covered gem! However, has this book been graded? I know I saw it on your site (no peeking cheaters! ), but can't recall if it was slabbed, guess we'll know soon enough....

[burntboy]

I hear ya there.

 

Looks like a 9.4 to 9.6, but it the spine looks like it might have some "wrinkles". Hard to tell because the scan is pixelated.

 

right edge upper and lower corners are super sharp. left edge not as good. some slight color flaking in the solid green surrounding DD in the ulc logo. would appear to be a number of minor creases along the left edge. if the back cover is similar i'll guess a 9.0

[rob_react]

9.2, with a hint of wear to the spine tips, but no translucency on this white-covered gem! However, has this book been graded? I know I saw it on your site (no peeking cheaters! ), but can't recall if it was slabbed, guess we'll know soon enough....

 

I've actually posted two DD #1s on my site. Neither are CGC graded (to the best of my knowledge.) Actually, I've never posted any grades next to them so cheaters are completely out of luck. The one in the gallery is my personal copy. This one is the White Mountain copy. The scan is out of a Sotheby's auction catalog. I'd love to know what it got if it is graded.

[drbanner]

I've actually posted two DD #1s on my site. Neither are CGC graded (to the best of my knowledge.) Actually, I've never posted any grades next to them so cheaters are completely out of luck. The one in the gallery is my personal copy. This one is the White Mountain copy. The scan is out of a Sotheby's auction catalog. I'd love to know what it got if it is graded.

 

So I guess we're not going to find out "the answer"!?!?

 

Burntboy's were funner...even if I did lose the bet!

[sfilosa]

Not really directed at anyone in particular, but which copy looks nicer?

 

The White Mountain copy.

 

Or this:

 

DD #1 Heritage

 

 

I think it is very easy to assume that a book that you can actually see a defect, can not be NM (9.4).

 

The truth is a book that you can't see a defect would be a M (10.0).

 

I am not implying that the WM copy is 9.4 or higher, just saying based on the scan, I can not see why it couldn't be a 9.4.

 

 

[burntboy]

Not really directed at anyone in particular, but which copy looks nicer?

 

The White Mountain copy.

 

Or this:

 

DD #1 Heritage

 

 

I think it is very easy to assume that a book that you can actually see a defect, can not be NM (9.4).

 

The truth is a book that you can't see a defect would be a M (10.0).

 

I am not implying that the WM copy is 9.4 or higher, just saying based on the scan, I can not see why it couldn't be a 9.4.

 

tough call since the heriatge copy is such a big clear scan. as such, it shows a bit more of it's faults. frankly, i'm a bit surprised at the 9.4. unless those are scratches in the case, there appear to be 3/4 color breaking creases in the logo box ulc and is that another crease extending from foggy's mouth to karen?? and i think i'm seeing some slight tanning at the upper staple.

 

if i could see the white mountain copy better, then we'd know for sure whether those are creases on the left edge.

 

but, i see your point and would almost call it a draw, instead i'll go with heritage by a majority decision

 

[uclapeterg]

9.0