PGM ASM #361 Direct Edition First Print

[timfinz]

This is a direct edition copy of ASM #361. The book lies flat and the staples are tight. Many copies of this book have miswrapped covers similar to this. This copy also exhibits the binder pull tears on the lower back cover and the over-sized staple holes. CGC however does not view any of these as a defects effecting the grade. The interior pages are white. There are no hidden defects. Your comments and grades are appreciated as always. Links to large High Res Scans are below each image for your viewing - be sure you click on the image in the link to blow it up to full size. Thanks in advance.

 

ASM #361 Front Cover

Link to High Res Scan ASM #361 Front Cover

ASM #361 Front Cover High Res

 

ASM #361 Back Cover

Link to High Res scan ASM #361 Back Cover

ASM #361 Back Cover High Res

[vaillant]

If the miswrap (slightly at an angle) is no big issue (and usually is not, for CGC, up to 9.4), I’d say this is an almost perfect copy. NM/M? M-?

 

Personally I would prefer a lower grade copy without the miswrap, but hey, it’s yours and you must be happy with it! (thumbs u

[DavidTheDavid]

I'm unsure how to judge miswrap tbh. Looks pretty darned near flawless, but what's the line running across Carnage's right kneecap to calf? And is that ink spray above "Bagle"?

[timfinz]

I'm unsure how to judge miswrap tbh. Looks pretty darned near flawless, but what's the line running across Carnage's right kneecap to calf? And is that ink spray above "Bagle"?

The miswrapped cover has no effect on the grade right up to 9.9 from what I have seen. The other two items that you have noted are just two more of the standard defects for this book. CGC has graded copies with all of the above noted defects at 9.8! Thanks for looking!

[vaillant]

It doesn’t have but it should – your other copy is a lot better than this one, and the centering is important. They should not allow it above a certain grade, IMO.

[timfinz]

It doesn’t have but it should – your other copy is a lot better than this one, and the centering is important. They should not allow it above a certain grade, IMO.

Agreed, but I'm not CGC so I just tilt my head slightly and everything looks great!

[Treco]

It doesn’t have but it should – your other copy is a lot better than this one, and the centering is important. They should not allow it above a certain grade, IMO.

Agreed, but I'm not CGC so I just tilt my head slightly and everything looks great!

 

. I'm not level headed, so it's all good to me!

[vaillant]

It doesn’t have but it should – your other copy is a lot better than this one, and the centering is important. They should not allow it above a certain grade, IMO.

Agreed, but I'm not CGC so I just tilt my head slightly and everything looks great!

 

To me, it’s not a problem of the angled miscut per se, but of the fact a good deal of artwork gets lost, when the miswrap is "back to front" like in this case.

 

That is why, even if it is a manufacturing defect, I think they should weight towards grade evaluation.

[Treco]

It doesn’t have but it should – your other copy is a lot better than this one, and the centering is important. They should not allow it above a certain grade, IMO.

Agreed, but I'm not CGC so I just tilt my head slightly and everything looks great!

 

To me, it’s not a problem of the angled miscut per se, but of the fact a good deal of artwork gets lost, when the miswrap is "back to front" like in this case.

 

That is why, even if it is a manufacturing defect, I think they should weight towards grade evaluation.

 

I agree. I know it's a huge factor for me when choosing a book.

[hermster]

looks like a 9.8 copy to me

[ROBTOTHEC]

IF I was selling that I would most likely call it a NM 9.4.

[divad]

Looks just like my copy . . . same miscut: