Grade this ASM 52 (large file)

[Murph]

Interesting, I didn't consider it that big of a defect.. since I saw that books with c-ow pages and tan-ow pages could get 9.4's?

 

Brian

[fantastic_four]

Interesting, I didn't consider it that big of a defect.. since I saw that books with c-ow pages and tan-ow pages could get 9.4's?

 

In all strictness, they should probably give it the "tan to off-white pages" descriptor, but I've noticed that when it's isolated to a single edge and not distributed across large parts of the interior pages, they seem to downgrade for the tanning and not include it in the page quality notation.

 

Anybody remember that 9.4-looking copy of Spidey #40 "Gorgo" posted a few years ago that got an 8.0 and he was screaming up and down about it? When he got the grader's notes, they told him it was due to tanning. Tanning is rather severe because it means that part of the book is a LOT closer to being brittle than the rest of the book...the integrity of the paper is seriously affected by it. Your Spidey 52 reminds me of Gorgo's book...it'll be interesting to see what grade they gave it.

[Murph]

Since the guessing has died down, I'll go ahead and reveal since I think it'll be easier to discuss after revealing.

The book got an 8.5 with ow pages. I was stunned because if you compare it to the 9.0 and 9.2 on Heritage, this book is easily just as nice. I have a 9.4 which it "compares" to but is just slightly lesser then. Structurally this book got absolutely hammered IMO, and should be a 9.0-9.2. But if they do indeed downgrade significantly for slight tanning, then I guess it's accurate.

For what it's worth, this book was sold to me by Doug Sulipa as were a few others. He graded it a 9.0, he also sold me an ASM 67 with the same tanning effect that he graded 9.2 and CGC also graded it a 9.2 w/ WHITE pages. IMO the 67 is a 9.4, as it's literally flawless with the exception to the tanning.

 

Brian

[Aces]

I didn't mean to hate on your book.

 

Since I was one of the first to grade I didn't get a chance to see some of the follow-up comments and only looked at the scan.

 

I thought some of the dark on the spine might have been brittle or something, so I just threw a wild guess out there.

Even a little brittleness would really kill the grade.

[Murph]

Not a problem, I don't take grades personally.. it IS a comic book. Obviously, there are others that do though, which is unfortunate.

The book doesn't show any brittleness, the cover just has dark hues and combined with this PoS scanner it looks REALLY dark.

 

Since I keep talking about it, here is the 67. It doesn't show as much tanning on the front of the spine but it's definately there on the back.

 

Brian

 

 

[Aces]

That one got a 9.4 right?

[Murph]

Nope, that one got a 9.2. :\

 

Brian

[Aces]

Close...

[COI]

The book got an 8.5

 

I knew my initial gut feeling was right, before you made me think I was being a nazi about the defects.

[Murph]

Realistically, you couldn't see the defect that made it an 8.5 because the majority of the tanning shows on the back, so your revised estimate was more accurate based on the scan. What do you think of the 67?

 

Brian

[COI]

What do you think of the 67?

 

Very nice looking book. If I guessed based on the scan, I would have said 9.4.

[uclapeterg]

What do you think of the 67?

 

Very nice looking book. If I guessed based on the scan, I would have said 9.4.

 

Me too. Altho 9.2 I can see too.

[inconceivable]

9.0 maybe a 9.2 on a good day? Refers to the 51. Didn't see the 67. Sorry

 

Dan

[davidking623]

9.0

 

Davidking623

[davidking623]

9.0 was my grade based on the front cover of the scan of the book on the 67 I think 9.4 But I thought my 67 was 9.4 that recieved a 9.2 a little over a year and half ago.

 

Davidking623