PGM - JIM 86

[Chadwick]

THANKS THANKS THANKS!!

 

click for high res:

 

 

[timfinz]

2.5 IMHO But for different reasons than your JIM #89. This one has a really nice front cover, but what happened on the back should stay on the back.

You know what I mean?

[tjanse]

1.8/2.0 paper loss on back with staining amazing cover a favorite of mine

[Chadwick]

2.5 IMHO But for different reasons than your JIM #89. This one has a really nice front cover, but what happened on the back should stay on the back.

You know what I mean?

 

Oh I know, I actually forgot about that until just now when I scanned it, broke my heart all over again.

[timfinz]

2.5 IMHO But for different reasons than your JIM #89. This one has a really nice front cover, but what happened on the back should stay on the back.

You know what I mean?

 

Oh I know, I actually forgot about that until just now when I scanned it, broke my heart all over again.

I feel for you!

[cpannell]

Yep, a 2.5. Possibly a 3.0 because the front cover belongs on a much higher grade book. But the water staining . . . . (it's a shame).

[SuperiorSpiderMan]

2.5

 

Yeah, the back is a killer, but the front is really nice. Wouldn't mind having in my collection.

 

 

[Primetime]

2.0/2.5 overall. FC looks 3.0/3.5. Presents nice from FC. Love that full date stamp on BC.

 

Would have been a 3.0 if the POBC and water damage weren't present.

[makeminemego]

2.0. My second favorite early JIM cover, after 89 of course.

[SuperiorSpiderMan]

2.0/2.5 overall. FC looks 3.0/3.5. Presents nice from FC. Love that full date stamp on BC.

 

Would have been a 3.0 if the POBC and water damage weren't present.

 

+1 on the date stamp. I forgot to mention that in my first post.

 

 

[Chadwick]

Does anyone know if those water stains can be removed in anyway if they're only on the back cover?

[vaillant]

Water staining can’t be removed, as far as I can tell.

But in this grade it would not add too much to grade detraction, IMO.