CGC Green Eggs Grading Contest Round 5

[thirdgreenham]

Those paper covers have some pretty weak spines and this one looked shot to me. Was that just me seeing through the spine?

 

I gave it a 4.5...

 

But I did get a bullseye with the HoM93!

 

That was exactly my thinking! I thought the spine was structurally shot, like you pick it up and it would "flop" over the sides of your hands if you give it enough room to. I went 5.0.

 

Exactly what I thought too. I'm of the view that CGC marks down structural weaknesses pretty consistently and that's what I thought I saw here.

 

I guess pressing would improve the look of bottom end bends on the PL. It's a decent looking copy, 4.0 would be harsh IMHO, but has too many issues, particularly with the spine to be a 6.0. I would be very surprised if it were sold as a FN raw.

 

Personally I thought the HoM was more a 7.0 with the FC corner crease, but bumped it figuring it may have been graded around the same time as the MiS.

 

I bought it as a raw 6.0.

[Azkaban]

Nice

[rjpb]

Those paper covers have some pretty weak spines and this one looked shot to me. Was that just me seeing through the spine?

 

I gave it a 4.5...

 

But I did get a bullseye with the HoM93!

 

That was exactly my thinking! I thought the spine was structurally shot, like you pick it up and it would "flop" over the sides of your hands if you give it enough room to. I went 5.0.

 

Exactly what I thought too. I'm of the view that CGC marks down structural weaknesses pretty consistently and that's what I thought I saw here.

 

I guess pressing would improve the look of bottom end bends on the PL. It's a decent looking copy, 4.0 would be harsh IMHO, but has too many issues, particularly with the spine to be a 6.0. I would be very surprised if it were sold as a FN raw.

 

Personally I thought the HoM was more a 7.0 with the FC corner crease, but bumped it figuring it may have been graded around the same time as the MiS.

 

I bought it as a raw 6.0.

 

But did you think it was a 6.0?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I graded the PL #16 a 4.5. I couldn't get past the very rough spine. Otherwise, it was quite lovely. I was quite surprised by the grade.

 

The HOM I had at a 7.0, inching towards 7.5. The crease in the LRC is what killed it. Otherwise, a beautiful book.

[thirdgreenham]

Those paper covers have some pretty weak spines and this one looked shot to me. Was that just me seeing through the spine?

 

I gave it a 4.5...

 

But I did get a bullseye with the HoM93!

 

That was exactly my thinking! I thought the spine was structurally shot, like you pick it up and it would "flop" over the sides of your hands if you give it enough room to. I went 5.0.

 

Exactly what I thought too. I'm of the view that CGC marks down structural weaknesses pretty consistently and that's what I thought I saw here.

 

I guess pressing would improve the look of bottom end bends on the PL. It's a decent looking copy, 4.0 would be harsh IMHO, but has too many issues, particularly with the spine to be a 6.0. I would be very surprised if it were sold as a FN raw.

 

Personally I thought the HoM was more a 7.0 with the FC corner crease, but bumped it figuring it may have been graded around the same time as the MiS.

 

I bought it as a raw 6.0.

 

But did you think it was a 6.0?

 

Excellent question! actually, no. I had it at a 5.0, thought the seller over graded it, but just really wanted the book.

 

In the end, obviously, I'm very pleased with the outcome, and the book is still a killer!