PGM Tales of Suspense 96

[pickycollector]

 

[MustEatBrains]

Gorgeous book IMO. I'm thinking 8.5 all day.

[pickycollector]

Gorgeous book IMO. I'm thinking 8.5 all day.

8.5, really?! Which defects do you see that bring it down to a VF+ ?

[romanheart]

9.0

 

Foxing on top right, browning on back cover spine

[pickycollector]

There is no foxing at all, not sure where you see it

 

As for bc spine, it is more a scanner effect than real browning, I have to change parameters of my new scanner.

 

Maybe I should change the question into: what CGC grade do you think it got?

 

 

[Ghost Rider]

9.0 Slight chance of a 9.2 As you say the browning is a scanner issue. Very nice book regardless.

[romanheart]

When I zoomed to the top right I saw a vertical region that was darker. If that's from the scanner then all is good.

[blue808]

9.4

[pickycollector]

9.4

(thumbs u

[pickycollector]

9.0 Slight chance of a 9.2 As you say the browning is a scanner issue. Very nice book regardless.

When is your next FS thread ?

[Ghost Rider]

I've seen a few that are very close condition get those grades. My grade is based on the OP and his explanation of the scanner settings. Generous perhaps, but such is the grading life. It may well be a bit lower grade in hand.

 

[paperheart]

There is no foxing at all, not sure where you see it

 

As for bc spine, it is more a scanner effect than real browning, I have to change parameters of my new scanner.

 

Maybe I should change the question into: what CGC grade do you think it got?

 

 

9.4

[pickycollector]

I've seen a few that are very close condition get those grades. My grade is based on the OP and his explanation of the scanner settings. Generous perhaps, but such is the grading life. It may well be a bit lower grade in hand.

I cannot wait to buy from you, when is your next FS thread of raw books?

 

[vaillant]

But it looks like it has some slight dust shadows… Or am I wrong?

These can’t be scanner artifacts. No less than a 9.0, anyway, IMO. Spine looks super-sweet.

 

GCG generally is not much lenient on dust shadows. My FF#36 is a deslabbed 8.0 (it also has some bc foxing, but minimal) even if it looks a lot better:

 

[1Cool]

Is there a dust shadow on the back cover? CGC seems to be hitting these hard for some reason.

[vaillant]

What I asked, right?

[Phill the Governor]

But it looks like it has some slight dust shadows… Or am I wrong?

These can’t be scanner artifacts. No less than a 9.0, anyway, IMO. Spine looks super-sweet.

 

GCG generally is not much lenient on dust shadows. My FF#36 is a deslabbed 8.0 (it also has some bc foxing, but minimal) even if it looks a lot better:

 

 

Never noticed the FF fighting Sandman, Magneto, Medusa & Paste Pot Pete in one issue!

[vaillant]

Never notices the FF fighting Sandman, Magneto, Medusa & Paste Pot Pete in one issue!

Actually this joke is spot on: the delightful taste in color schemes of the day (probably due to George Roussos?) makes the costumes of the Frightful Four close to the unusual similar coloring in that Journey into Mystery #109, which given the overall great taste I would credit to the same colorist. (thumbs u

[pickycollector]

Yes, there is a very light and narrow dust shadow on lower left side of back cover edge although it looks worse on scan than on reality. There is none on bc spine.

 

CGC seems to be inconsistent with dust shadows (and with many other things), I have seen CGC 9.6 copies with larger dust shadows, especially with Golden Age books

[Phill the Governor]

Never notices the FF fighting Sandman, Magneto, Medusa & Paste Pot Pete in one issue!

Actually this joke is spot on: the delightful taste in color schemes of the day (probably due to George Roussos?) makes the costumes of the Frightful Four close to the unusual similar coloring in that Journey into Mystery #109, which given the overall great taste I would credit to the same colorist. (thumbs u

 

The colors are awesome. (thumbs u