PGM Fantastic Four #67 (Copy D)

[vaillant]

OK, here’s probably the nicest copy I have of the book. It’s a deslabbed book, so I’ll tell you the assigned grade afterwards.

 

I don’t like it because the inner cover ad shows through the cover paper – it’s a thing which can happen to some degree (especially with white or light colored covers) but here’s really weird. The paper is clearly of the same type, but the more copies I get of this book, the more I see the differences. Seeing this one it seems like they could have done more than a print run at the time, or maybe the showthrough is caused by the environment of conservation? I don’t think so, as there is no ink "bleeding" as it always happens when some color (notably Magenta) shows through the cover of a SA book. Maybe it’s just a slightly different stock of cover paper? I don’t know.

 

Anyway this copy is intriguing, it could have been my keeper, but I still prefer a F+/FVF copy I bought from crassus (thanks Robert! )

 

Anyway, your evaluations are MUCH appreciated as usual. (thumbs u

 

 

High resolution: http://i.imgur.com/UpbJXnl.jpg

 

 

High resolution: http://i.imgur.com/IF1gTuO.jpg

[AGGIEZ]

Looks verrrry sharp...I'm going with 9.0

[ImperiusRex]

I agree the bleed through diminishes eye appeal, but most silver age books I've seen with this type of cover, in high grade (which this definitely is), with OW/W or W Pages commonly bleed through.i look at it as a good thing actually.

 

That being said the only defects I can see are

 

FC

 

Minor abrading, price box

Spine stresses (CB) near the Things's foot and Mr. Fantastic (Price Box)

lower left corner wear

Ink stain above fantastic 'c' are the dots near the 'c' bleedthrough?

 

BC

 

Most I can see is some minor spine and top edge soiling. Could be a minor dust shadow

 

Grade: 9.0. I think CGC probably gave it 9.2 W

[vaillant]

@ImperiusRex: Sharp eye!

 

The ink dots are printing ink, not staining, so I don’t think it counts as it’s production related.

No dust shadow, it’s probably my scanner. In fact, among my copies that’s probably the one with the most homogeneous cover color (although yellower than others).

 

Now, the most important thing: are you implying there is a correlation between this bleeding through of the printing in the inside cover and page quality? If so, that is really interesting, I’d like to know more.

 

I’ll reveal the grade when we have a number of evaluations. (thumbs u

[ImperiusRex]

@ImperiusRex: Sharp eye!

 

The ink dots are printing ink, not staining, so I don’t think it counts as it’s production related.

No dust shadow, it’s probably my scanner. In fact, among my copies that’s probably the one with the most homogeneous cover color (although yellower than others).

 

Now, the most important thing: are you implying there is a correlation between this bleeding through of the printing in the inside cover and page quality? If so, that is really interesting, I’d like to know more.

 

I’ll reveal the grade when we have a number of evaluations. (thumbs u

 

I'm sure this can't be claimed 100% of the time, but it makes sense to me the whiter the pages the easier for bleed through, especially if the book isn't encapsulated and vacuum sealed pushing the cover tightly against the centerfold.

 

I am probably wrong, in part. Look at GSXM 1, a very bright white cover that rarely sees bleed through. Then again. The cover stock is thicker on that book

[vaillant]

Yes, I think GSXM #1, and most of the early or mid-Bronze books have a better cover paper stock.

 

So you are saying the paper’s acids are the responsible for this? – but I can’t see how this might be related to the conservation of the book.

 

I have kept my old #67 copy in a polyetilene bag for about 20 years, and nothing happened (I just started using Mylite bags). Also, each copy sometimes seems a beast of his own. I have a Dr. Strange #180 and a FF in the higher numbers before #100 which have crazy white covers compared, say, to FF #67 or Avengers #55.

Who knows?

 

Even if less sharp, as far as the cover paper goes, I prefer these, anyway (I did previous PGM threads for those, if you are curious to compare):

 

[ROBTOTHEC]

that technically looks like an 8.5

[ImperiusRex]

Interesting points! Perhaps it is the other way around? The more tanning/acidity or the cover paper stock; the more bleed through? The second one you have a scan of here has little to no bleed through, and has e whitest/least tanning on the cover

[marvelcollector]

ULFC makes me want to say 9.0, but I think CGC gave it a 9.2...

[vaillant]

that technically looks like an 8.5

 

Why? I can't see substantial flaws.

Most of you is close, anyway…

[timfinz]

My HO would be 9.0 but CGC may have been generous and gave it 9.2. The book looks sharp and clean. I think CGC probably turned a blind eye to the ULC and some of the spine stress since the rest of the book looks so pristine

[Jaylam]

No worse than 8.5, 9.2 tops. OK, I'm going with 9.0. Nicely centered with none of that pesky overlap by the way.

[timfinz]

No worse than 8.5, 9.2 tops. OK, I'm going with 9.0. Nicely centered with none of that pesky overlap by the way.

 

Hey! You missed a couple of grades... like 8.0 and 9.4 and 7.5 and....

 

JK!!!!

[vaillant]

What is the "pesky overlap", Jay? You mean "overhang"?

 

Thanks for the grading! (thumbs u

[Jaylam]

Maybe a better term would be "overwrap", where some of the back cover shows on the front at the spine or the front cover shows on the back. This books seems to have an abundance of copies where the wrap is not centered on the spine very well. This one looks very nice though.

By the way, how do I get an image to drop in here? I can't copy and paste any images in my text.

Here's a link to a nice copy I sold back in 2009. Looking back I should have gotten it pressed as it had 2 very subtle vertical dents near the spine.

 

http://www.comicconnect.com/data/Image/gallery800/FAN1.7613a.jpg

[vaillant]

Thanks Jay, for that defect the correct term is "miswrap", "overhang" is when the cover paper exceeds a bit the pages format (due to paper shrinkage depending on conservation conditions).

 

And yes, I hate it, too.

 

Here’s your picture: you just have to paste the image address between two IMG tags, as in this example (or click the "picture" button in the reply window interface, and paste it to automate the same process):

 

  [img]http://insert-your-address-here [/img]  

 

 

I see the inside cover ad shows a bit in your copy, too.

[Jaylam]

Hey, thanks for the info, I'll give it a try next time.

After 4 years I've still not found a copy to replace the one I had there in that image. I originally bought it fairly cheap as a PGX 9.2, I took a chance and sent it to CGC and it got the same grade. Decided to sell it as I thought I could find a nicer copy, I'm still looking, .

[vaillant]

For these issues, I care a lot about the quality of the printing in the interiors, and I have always favored that over the cover.

I have four copies now, but my keeper remains a copy in the F/VF range which has better printing than all the VF and VFNM…

[Jaylam]

Here's my unslabbed copy of FF #67. I picked it up from Mile High Comics about 10 years ago, let me know what grade you think it is. There's some overhang of the cover at the right lower corner that has kind of been crinkled that doesn't show up very well on the scan. Sorry, I couldn't get the back cover image to upload.

 

 

[vaillant]

Hi Jay – it’s a bit difficult because of the dominating yellow (a scan problem) and also a bigger scan would have helped.

Centering is good, corners look pretty nice, but the minor wear and noticeable spine ticks would bring this into the VF range (8.0-8.5), I think.

 

Personally I wouldn’t care about keeping a VF copy, even for a book I love so much as this one: copies that are at the same time white, well centered and in high grade seem hard to come by… I myself I would sell first this one which is easily my nicest, but I like it less than the others! (thumbs u

 

Hey, we could make this an ongoing FF #67 grading thread!