PGM Fantastic Four #65 (Copy A)

[vaillant]

Last one of my favorite FF run, I have recently bought a copy a bit better than this with whiter pages but so far I still prefer this one.

 

Your evaluation is much appreciated! (thumbs u

 

 

Higher resolution: http://i.imgur.com/0qo1mPr.jpg

 

 

Higher resolution: http://i.imgur.com/moKPe5r.jpg

[marvelcollector]

7.5, due to softish corners...

[AGGIEZ]

8.0

[Kramerica]

This is a tough one. It looks like there are two very small pieces missing from the back cover and that probably hits the book more than the soft corners IMO. Wow, really tough one but I see why you like this copy - it's perfectly centered with no miscut or wrap misery.

 

This is a tweener. Depending on the day, temperature and whether or not the grader got some the night before it could go 7.5 or 8.0.

[DR.X]

7.5

[ROBTOTHEC]

I keep going back and forth. Is there a 7.75? OK.. 7.5

[vaillant]

You guys are great, I was thinking a bit better than 7.5 as well, not a 8.0 as Aggiez suggested because of the small pieces out. They are on the back cover but grading considers it more or less at the same level of the front cover.

 

Wow, really tough one but I see why you like this copy - it's perfectly centered with no miscut or wrap misery.

Yes, this issue tends to suffer from miswraps, a lot more than #66 and #67. It is also more noticeable because of the darker color. This is my CGC 9.0 copy, equally good centered, but the colors are not brighter as mine and even if the paper is a bit whiter I am unsure to break it out because you can’t tell how the interiors are printed.

This is my favorite story and I favor the quality of the interiors printing (which is often pretty bad in these issues) over the cover appearance.

 

[timfinz]

I loved the front cover on this book and I cried when I got to see the back cover. Missing pieces and the spine stress is more prevalent here than on the front cover. I graded the front cover 8.5 to 9.0 but the back cover dropped the overall grade IMHO to 5.5 to 6.0.

 

I can see after I decided on my grade that I was way off the mark that everyone else gave this book.

Do missing pieces on the back cover not effect the grade? Say as much if they were on the front cover? And why would the guessed grades vary so widely if the standard is no missing pieces on grades above 4.5??? Help me understand this?

[Kramerica]

I think that small chips, especially small corner chips are not what they mean by missing pieces. It's a art not a science. You need to use the guide as a guide and detract accordingly. 4 otherwise perfect books all with pieces missing are not going to automatically be dropped into the same grade. Just like all stress lines are not created alike.

[vaillant]

Like Mark said: The pieces are tiny in an otherwise nice book, so they won’t detract as much as you had guessed. Maybe 7.5 is the maximum this book could grade at, but I assure you in hand is no less than a 7.0, and the small pieces – well I noticed each and every one in detail just when I scanned it.

[vaillant]

Do missing pieces on the back cover not effect the grade? Say as much if they were on the front cover? And why would the guessed grades vary so widely if the standard is no missing pieces on grades above 4.5??? Help me understand this?

 

There are issues in which the OSCBPG and CGC grading criteria differ pretty much: in this case, "pieces" means actual pieces, 1/6", 1/4" or 1/2" and above. In the case of a detached or partially detached centerfold, CGC downgrades about 1.0 to 2.0 points, depending on the overall condition as well, while Overstreet allows a 4.5 maximum.

[timfinz]

I think that small chips, especially small corner chips are not what they mean by missing pieces. It's a art not a science. You need to use the guide as a guide and detract accordingly. 4 otherwise perfect books all with pieces missing are not going to automatically be dropped into the same grade. Just like all stress lines are not created alike.

I stand corrected! I was once again fooled by the large scans

When I reviewed the scans again and put the missing pieces into perspective they are indeed "chips".

I respectfully withdraw my previous guess and hereby raise it to 7.5 to 8.0!

Damn those large scans!

[jimjum12]

8.5 ....... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[vaillant]

Hey, Jim you are being too generous, I think 8.5 would be a stretch!

 

Still undecided between 7.5 and 8.0, however, given the bits out from the BC…

[etanick]

8.5 is not a stretch