• 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.

Famous Monsters of Filmland #4 (8/59)

Started by Batko-migration,

11 posts in this topic

Batko-migration

Batko-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know that I was not being very objective when I said my FM #4 was a VF+/8.5. However, I can't agree with the 6.0 grade. I checked out comparisons with CGC examples graded at 6.0, and my FM #4 is way better than a 6.0. Despite the "ticks" near the spine, the spine itself is in perfect shape which is amazing for early FMs, especially those with black colored covers.

 

Coming down to earth somewhat, I would argue that it is a 7.0 to 7.5. In any case, I really appreciate the input and invite other graders to chime in. Thanks, guys!

 

Mike

 

P.S. Just as an FYI, this query was for personal edicfication only since I am not planning on selling this magazine or any other from my collection.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bounty_coder

bounty_coder

Posted
Posted
I know that I was not being very objective when I said my FM #4 was a VF+/8.5. However, I can't agree with the 6.0 grade. I checked out comparisons with CGC examples graded at 6.0, and my FM #4 is way better than a 6.0. Despite the "ticks" near the spine, the spine itself is in perfect shape which is amazing for early FMs, especially those with black colored covers.

 

Coming down to earth somewhat, I would argue that it is a 7.0 to 7.5. In any case, I really appreciate the input and invite other graders to chime in. Thanks, guys!

 

Mike

 

P.S. Just as an FYI, this query was for personal edicfication only since I am not planning on selling this magazine or any other from my collection.

 

 

If there is no tearing at the staples then I say that a VF- 7.5 would be just about tops on this one. That is a lot of spine creasing.

 

If you got tears going on near those shiny things then FN 6.0 would not be out of the question... (thumbs u

 

 

- b :insane: unty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodan57

rodan57

Posted
Posted
I know that I was not being very objective when I said my FM #4 was a VF+/8.5. However, I can't agree with the 6.0 grade. I checked out comparisons with CGC examples graded at 6.0, and my FM #4 is way better than a 6.0. Despite the "ticks" near the spine, the spine itself is in perfect shape which is amazing for early FMs, especially those with black colored covers.

 

Coming down to earth somewhat, I would argue that it is a 7.0 to 7.5. In any case, I really appreciate the input and invite other graders to chime in. Thanks, guys!

 

Mike

 

P.S. Just as an FYI, this query was for personal edicfication only since I am not planning on selling this magazine or any other from my collection.

 

 

I see many tics, rubbing on the spine and lower staple tears. In addition the right edge appears to have damage with what looks like a thumb indentation nearer the bottom.

 

I'd agree with the 6.0 unless somehow I am misreading the scan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batko-migration

Batko-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted

bounty coder wrote:

If there is no tearing at the staples then I say that a VF- 7.5 would be just about tops on this one. That is a lot of spine creasing.

If you got tears going on near those shiny things then FN 6.0 would not be out of the question... (thumbs u

- b :insane: unty

 

 

 

I guess it's not visible due to glare in the scan of the spine, but there are no tears at the staples. As I mentioned, this is one that has an excellent spine. Most early FMs have major issues with the spine area, especially the ones with black covers.

 

I don't know what you mean by spine creasing. If you are refering to the small ticks on the cover running along near the spine area, these are alot less visible when looking at the magazine in your hands (and I have 20/20 unaided vision! lol). The photos are extremely close up and the black cover emphasizes every tiny imperfection in the photos. I would guess that many magazines with more "spine ticks" are rated 7.5 because their covers are a color that does not show these tiny imperfections. (At least they're "spine ticks." "Deer ticks" would be worse! lol)

 

When you look at this magazine without the benefit of close up photography it looks like an 8.5. I'm not saying it is, but a 6.0 is grade is way too low. In my opinion a 7.5/VF- would be in the ballpark. I wouldn't argue much with a 7.0.

 

Out of curiosity I would send this to CGC, but I don't want to keep it in a slab. I have it on a Fullback board (acid free throughout) inside a Mylite2 sleeve with micro-chamber paper in the center and between both front and back covers. I could be wrong, but I believe this is a better way of preserving it than in a CGC slab.

 

Again, thanks for the opinions. Grading is more of an art than a science, and I appreciate everyone's input (even the opinion of the graders that gave us a 6.0! lol).

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing