PGM Sub-mariner 16

[southerncross]

Like to hear some views where this book may grade as a Universal and as a Qualified. thanks

[W16227]

wow - one of those you wish could only be graded from the front.

 

scans are not the greatest -

 

a little writing (c above the SUB)

 

cannot see if there are any spine stress marks on front - looks to be on back

 

 

Along the yellow - foxing? (there is discoloration) -

 

 

would be probably 6 or so qualified

 

(really hard to tell with the scans) - I think the foxing is the worst of it (for qualified) - if that is just a camera "trick" - then it could go higher as the FRONT cover looks complete

 

 

The holes on the back cover - would probably be graded as if that entire area were removed - which would be more than 1/4 of the cover - so like a 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rjpb]

I agree, it's hard to tell from the scan what the FC appearance is exactly, as it's hard to tell if that's a stain or what along the upper spine. It does have a generally mid-grade look from the front. The damage on the back would pull it down to maybe 1.8 technically, the kind of book more suited for a "qualified" description. Value wise I'd think it was probably comparable with a 2.0/2.5.

[W16227]

I agree, it's hard to tell from the scan what the FC appearance is exactly, as it's hard to tell if that's a stain or what along the upper spine. It does have a generally mid-grade look from the front. The damage on the back would pull it down to maybe 1.8 technically, the kind of book more suited for a "qualified" description. Value wise I'd think it was probably comparable with a 2.0/2.5.

 

If you click on the bottom link to his photobucket - you can get a better and larger pic of the cover. Some spine creases and there is something going on on the yellow. Might be foxing - and the yellow makes the brown more of a rust/reddish color. Also - the defect is in other areas of the yellow - making me think it is foxing or some other "organic" type of staining.

 

Still - a very complete cover and nice looking.

 

Shame at what the back cover damage is - even with a qualified, it hurts the presentation. To me (and others probably differ on this) - I would rather have some big chunk missing at the same grade level - than the paper punching I see. Still a nice book though.

 

[ROBTOTHEC]

When I had my paper route we punched the peoples cards when they paid,

but I would never use it on a comic book! 3.0 IMHO...

[ARK]

2.5/3.0

[southerncross]

better pics

My 4 year old laptop is starting to have some senior moments

that's the reason for the bad scans.

front cover to ,me looks like a 6.0 but with the back I think a 2.0

But as a low grade copy the front cover has lots of eye appeal

The red you can see on the front cover is ink from manufacturing

[southerncross]

As for the punch holes in the back cover I don't mind

without them I would never have bought the book due to cost (thumbs u

[rjpb]

As for the punch holes in the back cover I don't mind

without them I would never have bought the book due to cost (thumbs u

 

messed up back covers are a flaw I can always live with when it makes a book with a nice looking front cover cheap.

[Hibou]

I'll say a 2.5

[timfinz]

I am unsure how CGC would grade this but in my opinion the front cover is in such nice condition and the back cover is only advertisement. That is to say it is not a wrap around cover, pin-up or additional art on the back cover.

 

I would give this book a Blue Label 4.0 on the basis of certain defects are allowed if others are not present. The hole punches though they are ugly are not over obtrusive and do not effect the story.

[DR.X]

2.5