PGM Avengers #55

[Ottobord]

 

Thanks in advance

 

[/img]

[HighStakesComics]

7.0ish

[fullerjason]

I was thinking 5.5 to 6.0. I came to this conclusion because in the top scan I thought the top staple was rusted and had stained some of the cover slightly. Adding in the other staining, corner dents and paint loss on the spine that was were I was at. Just my opinion from the images.

[vaillant]

It‘s in the FN+ range at best, IMO, because aside from the mentioned wear it has foxing, and foxing is heavily hammered by CGC standards.

[divad]

I don't see any foxing on this book, dirt and shadowing yes, but no foxing.

[HighStakesComics]

It‘s in the FN+ range at best, IMO, because aside from the mentioned wear it has foxing, and foxing is heavily hammered by CGC standards.

 

Water they hammer. Foxing you will see as high as 8.5. What I'm seeing would probably be considered dust shadow/oxidization. I stand by my 7.0.

[ROBTOTHEC]

6.5 IMHO... too much soiling.

[Still Only 35c]

6.5 from me based on the scan, but I know scanners can sometimes misrepresent white covers.

[vaillant]

I don't see any foxing on this book, dirt and shadowing yes, but no foxing.

 

My faulty english, sorry. I was speaking of the dust shadow.

[vaillant]

It‘s in the FN+ range at best, IMO, because aside from the mentioned wear it has foxing, and foxing is heavily hammered by CGC standards.

 

Water they hammer. Foxing you will see as high as 8.5. What I'm seeing would probably be considered dust shadow/oxidization. I stand by my 7.0.

 

As I explained to Divad, I used the wrong word. I meant the dust shadow, and based my evaluation on my FF #36, which looks a lot better than a 8.0 but has a similar dust shadow on the back cover.

 

[HighStakesComics]

I don't see any foxing on this book, dirt and shadowing yes, but no foxing.

 

My faulty english, sorry. I was speaking of the dust shadow.

 

You're English is very good. These are very advanced words if its your second language