• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PGM Tomb Of Dracula #19 (Vampires DON'T Sparkle BTW)

Started by Kramerica,

20 posts in this topic

divad

divad

Posted
Posted
I was thinking 8.0 / 8.5 myself.

 

That foxing may look worse than it actually is...

I love this cover because it was the issue used in the book and record set from the 70's. :)

 

You guys are nuts - just the opposite I bet, the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
Foxing is an area of GREAT debate. IMO it costs you about a grade point. So I am thinking 8.0.

 

Well, here's the question you have to ask yourself, if you bought that book (based on the FC scan) as an 8.0 and then received it, and only then saw the BC . . . would you be happy? hm

 

I think not. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holmes

Holmes

Posted
Posted
Foxing is an area of GREAT debate. IMO it costs you about a grade point. So I am thinking 8.0.

 

Well, here's the question you have to ask yourself, if you bought that book (based on the FC scan) as an 8.0 and then received it, and only then saw the BC . . . would you be happy? hm

 

I think not. :grin:

 

Perhaps not but if I saw it before hand I would know what to expect! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

 

One of my points here, is that a mid-BA book shouldn't have this degree of foxing. There are so many copies of this issue that are stunning, I'm sure. In 1974, books were plentiful, HG collecting was beginning to get serious, and archival storage was just starting to take hold. There really is no excuse (except for the obvious one - neglect) that a BA book should look like this. It's a shame, but it should be devalued accordingly.

 

This is one reason (among many) that books from different ages are graded differently. There should be little, to no tolerance here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holmes

Holmes

Posted
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

 

One of my points here, is that a mid-BA book shouldn't have this degree of foxing. There are so many copies of this issue that are stunning, I'm sure. In 1974, books were plentiful, HG collecting was beginning to get serious, and archival storage was just starting to take hold. There really is no excuse (except for the obvious one - neglect) that a BA book should look like this. It's a shame, but it should be devalued accordingly.

 

This is one reason (among many) that books from different ages are graded differently. There should be little, to no tolerance here.

 

Most of your last point makes perffect sense. I have seen stunning copies of that book. In fact I HAVE one. But it is interesting that BA books actually had SMALLER print runs than either Silver or Modern Age Books. I am not sure why that is but I read it in a CBG article some time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kramerica

Kramerica

Posted
  • Author
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

 

One of my points here, is that a mid-BA book shouldn't have this degree of foxing. There are so many copies of this issue that are stunning, I'm sure. In 1974, books were plentiful, HG collecting was beginning to get serious, and archival storage was just starting to take hold. There really is no excuse (except for the obvious one - neglect) that a BA book should look like this. It's a shame, but it should be devalued accordingly.

 

This is one reason (among many) that books from different ages are graded differently. There should be little, to no tolerance here.

 

Make it personal why don't you. :sorry: Unlike yourself you old goat I wasn't old enough to buy this off of the stands. :baiting:

 

So don't hand me this "There is no excuse..." jive. I feel like I'm being taken to task by a Nun at the Covenant. I just bought the friggin' thing on eBay you...you....hippy. All I wanted was a Pepsi.

 

I just wanted to present a challenge for the boards and you ruined it with your 700 Club Burn In Hell take care of your funny books lecture. Accusing me of neglect. I'll give you something to take hold of you walking archive Zappa groupie.

 

"No tolerance".....What a blowhard.

 

And Bobo: you are really in for it now. 5.5? Why don't you kick my dog too. Troll is on his way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

 

And Bobo: you are really in for it now. 5.5? Why don't you kick my dog too. Troll is on his way!

 

:o NOOOOOOOO! It's a 9.0 I swear.

 

In all seriousness, I consistently see CGC hammering the grades on books that are very nice copies but have one big flaw(like the foxing seen here).

 

I like those copies especially if the flaw is on the back cover. Low to midgrade price for a highgrade front cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

 

One of my points here, is that a mid-BA book shouldn't have this degree of foxing. There are so many copies of this issue that are stunning, I'm sure. In 1974, books were plentiful, HG collecting was beginning to get serious, and archival storage was just starting to take hold. There really is no excuse (except for the obvious one - neglect) that a BA book should look like this. It's a shame, but it should be devalued accordingly.

 

This is one reason (among many) that books from different ages are graded differently. There should be little, to no tolerance here.

 

Make it personal why don't you. :sorry: Unlike yourself you old goat I wasn't old enough to buy this off of the stands. :baiting:

 

So don't hand me this "There is no excuse..." jive. I feel like I'm being taken to task by a Nun at the Covenant. I just bought the friggin' thing on eBay you...you....hippy. All I wanted was a Pepsi.

 

I just wanted to present a challenge for the boards and you ruined it with your 700 Club Burn In Hell take care of your funny books lecture. Accusing me of neglect. I'll give you something to take hold of you walking archive Zappa groupie.

 

"No tolerance".....What a blowhard.

 

And Bobo: you are really in for it now. 5.5? Why don't you kick my dog too. Troll is on his way!

 

:roflmao: Since when did this become the "suck up to me and give my book a high grade" thread??? :baiting:

 

Have to say . . . I love the stream of consciousness lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kramerica

Kramerica

Posted
  • Author
Posted
the foxing is worse than it looks. At this degree of foxing, it is considered no different from staining.

 

6.0 at best, and probably lower - it's a BA book :makepoint:

 

That's where I'm at too.

 

One of my points here, is that a mid-BA book shouldn't have this degree of foxing. There are so many copies of this issue that are stunning, I'm sure. In 1974, books were plentiful, HG collecting was beginning to get serious, and archival storage was just starting to take hold. There really is no excuse (except for the obvious one - neglect) that a BA book should look like this. It's a shame, but it should be devalued accordingly.

 

This is one reason (among many) that books from different ages are graded differently. There should be little, to no tolerance here.

 

Make it personal why don't you. :sorry: Unlike yourself you old goat I wasn't old enough to buy this off of the stands. :baiting:

 

So don't hand me this "There is no excuse..." jive. I feel like I'm being taken to task by a Nun at the Covenant. I just bought the friggin' thing on eBay you...you....hippy. All I wanted was a Pepsi.

 

I just wanted to present a challenge for the boards and you ruined it with your 700 Club Burn In Hell take care of your funny books lecture. Accusing me of neglect. I'll give you something to take hold of you walking archive Zappa groupie.

 

"No tolerance".....What a blowhard.

 

And Bobo: you are really in for it now. 5.5? Why don't you kick my dog too. Troll is on his way!

 

:roflmao: Since when did this become the "suck up to me and give my book a high grade" thread??? :baiting:

 

 

Have to say . . . I love the stream of consciousness lol

 

OMG. I had so much fun writing that - I had a feeling you would enjoy. Two of my favorite peeps on the boards slandering my book like a cheap 2 dollar ho! It so called for a tirade!

 

Bobo: I need your address(s). Workplace and home to start will be good. They are packaged and ready to go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing