another Hulk # 2 could use opinions....

[burntboy]

here's my OO copy from Sid's.

 

for reasons i have never been able to figure, the Hulks 1-6 routinely turned out to be among the worst examples of my 12 centers from 1962-1965. (and many of my early annuals that i think my nephews got into...........)

 

 

[mrwoogieman]

Did you turn up the brightness on your scanner? You can barely see the marvel chipping along the right edge FC.

 

3.0 for this one.

[divad]

I think you could sustain a 3.5

 

 

We've all seen edge chipping like that in up to 5.0

[burntboy]

Did you turn up the brightness on your scanner? You can barely see the marvel chipping along the right edge FC.

 

3.0 for this one.

 

the contrast is set fairly high but not the brightness. the chipping isn't immediately noticeable with the book-in-hand, either..........

 

thanks for the opinions - i'm waiting for SilverSurfer to make my day........

[Silver Surfer]

Did you turn up the brightness on your scanner? You can barely see the marvel chipping along the right edge FC.

 

3.0 for this one.

 

the contrast is set fairly high but not the brightness. the chipping isn't immediately noticeable with the book-in-hand, either..........

 

thanks for the opinions - i'm waiting for SilverSurfer to make my day........

 

Okay the last one was probably a 30.-3.5 after I looked at it more carefully. 2.0 if there are stains in it. Now this puppy is a solid 4.0. I think the creases keep it from going any higher.

[Fan4Fan]

here's my OO copy from Sid's.

 

for reasons i have never been able to figure, the Hulks 1-6 routinely turned out to be among the worst examples of my 12 centers from 1962-1965. (and many of my early annuals that i think my nephews got into...........)

 

 

heavy damage.... can't remember... BB for initials...

 

 

Gentlemen, we have found the Hulk!

[143ksk]

VG- sounds right to me

[Aces]

4.0

 

Front: 2.5/3.0

Back: 8.0+

 

If only the front was as nice as the back!

[uclapeterg]

Put me in the 3.5 camp. I could see it getting a 4.0. I probably downgrade more for chipping than CGC does.

[mrwoogieman]

Put me in the 3.5 camp. I could see it getting a 4.0. I probably downgrade more for chipping than CGC does.

 

Yeah, I also have chipping issues, but I think it's because I didn't collect these way back in the day and there was no chipping during the latter Bronze Age when I started collecting (not that I recall anyway). So SA Marvels with chipping don't look 'normal' to me like they would to another collector who is more aware of the prevalence of chipping in these books. For someone like me, chipping on an issue would almost always make it a to-be-upgraded issue in my collection (if I were that type of collector, which I'm not currently).

 

Really the only production related issue that I can think of in the past twenty + years from Marvel is the jagged right edge on many of the ASM 300 issues.

[burntboy]

Put me in the 3.5 camp. I could see it getting a 4.0. I probably downgrade more for chipping than CGC does.

 

Yeah, I also have chipping issues, but I think it's because I didn't collect these way back in the day and there was no chipping during the latter Bronze Age when I started collecting (not that I recall anyway). So SA Marvels with chipping don't look 'normal' to me like they would to another collector who is more aware of the prevalence of chipping in these books. For someone like me, chipping on an issue would almost always make it a to-be-upgraded issue in my collection (if I were that type of collector, which I'm not currently).

 

Really the only production related issue that I can think of in the past twenty + years from Marvel is the jagged right edge on many of the ASM 300 issues.

 

i'm surprised that i have so few books with marvel chipping, seeing as how many apparently came off the presses with weakened edges and slight tears. i never cherry-picked so i was just lucky.

 

and i agree that for me chipping is a big turn-off............