Amazing Fantasy #15.....................

[divad]

2.0, 2.5.... What gives..?? I'm looking at the overstreet guide right now and this book in no way matches the description for a 2.0 or 2.5. There are no missing pieces or tape. No spine roll. No tears to cover and the inside is decent. There are no spine splits and the centerfold is attached securely, too.

 

A 2.0 or 2.5 grade can have alot of defects to the book and this book has none of those "defects" at all!!

 

All that considered, what justifies a grade of 2.0 or 2.5..?? This book is definately a 3.0 or 3.5. according to the Overstreet Guide.

 

Please, all respond....thank you.

 

Since the owner of said book claims it to be an Overstreet 3.5, I hereby respectfully withdraw my earlier grade of 1.8 and submit hereafter, that it is a bonafide . . .

 

POS

 

And to Dr. B, FFB and all of my illustrious colleagues: I KNOW low grade books!

 

[divad]

2.0, 2.5.... What gives..?? I'm looking at the overstreet guide right now and this book in no way matches the description for a 2.0 or 2.5. There are no missing pieces or tape. No spine roll. No tears to cover and the inside is decent. There are no spine splits and the centerfold is attached securely, too.

 

A 2.0 or 2.5 grade can have alot of defects to the book and this book has none of those "defects" at all!!

 

All that considered, what justifies a grade of 2.0 or 2.5..?? This book is definately a 3.0 or 3.5. according to the Overstreet Guide.

 

Please, all respond....thank you.

 

Are we looking at the same book? You clearly can't see the tears on the back cover. Or the spine roll. Or the fact that the cover is barely attached at the staples. Or the mega-creasing that takes this book out of 3.0.

 

Nevermind that it looks like it's been throught the washer and dryer a couple of times

 

For all of the above reasons and more.

[drbanner]

The Heritage archives have 6-8 scans of low-grade (below 4.0) AF 15's, and all the books below 2.0 have some kind of serious defect (pieces missing, loose cover, etc.,.). This book appears to be complete (with the exception of Marvel chipping) and retains it's structural integrity. It's not a 3.5, but it's not a 1.5 either!

[divad]

The Heritage archives have 6-8 scans of low-grade (below 4.0) AF 15's, and all the books below 2.0 have some kind of serious defect (pieces missing, loose cover, etc.,.). This book appears to be complete (with the exception of Marvel chipping) and retains it's structural integrity. It's not a 3.5, but it's not a 1.5 either!

 

No, it's a 1.8 and I, like FFB very much question its "structural integrity" (one of my favorite phrases)

 

and besides - those are Heritage books you're looking at!

 

[verygoodplus]

My two cents on this book:

 

2.0

[Comcasthawk]

I don't really want to tear apart a grail book.

 

But if you insist.

 

Multiple corner creasing at both the top and bottom.

I count 7 at the bottom and 3 at the top with one big one at the top.

 

Lots of spine wear with the top staple missing some of the spine and the bottom staple has tears. I bet the cover is barely attached.

 

Right edge has marvel chipping and the pages are fanned from the back cover scan. That fanning normally means spine roll even though it may have been flattened out over the years in a stack of other comics bagged and boarded.

 

 

Send it in!

Standard is what? A month?

For $45-$50 bucks we will all get a grading lesson.

 

I stand by my 1.8 and if it gets higher than a 2.0 I'm sending my goods in so they get slabbed at 3.5.

 

 

If the cover was "hardly attatched", I would have stated that. Also, I'm not saying this book deserves a higher grade than what it actually is. What i don't understand is this, since there are NO chunks missing, creases that can be clearly seen, no tape, no big time or major tears, complete interior pages, no spine splits, how can 1 1.8 or 2.0 be given this book..? I could buy a worse off copy in that grade!! There is no way this is a 2.0, if one goes by the Overstreet guide of acceptable defects!!

 

I like how some people like to "add" to the grading "requirements" sometimes to validate a grade they apply to a book.

 

I think this book a VG. It may be a low VG, but in now way is this book a Good or good+.

[KingOfRulers]

It's definetly a toughy to grade. I'd still stick by my grade of 1.8 though. I tried to find some low grade books that have no serious defects but just general wear to compare them, and how CGC gradede them. This is the best I could do right now. Both of these books to my knowledge got these grades just out of general wear.

 

A 2.5 was mentioned as a candidate grade, but I'd say a 2.5 is way out of it's league. 2.5's are usually just worn books, with no major defects (coupon clip for example) For instance here is my X-men #1 CGC 2.5:

 

 

This is IM's Spider-man #1 CGC 1.8...which somehow got a 1.8; it always stumps me but a 1.8 it is. Now in my opinion the Spidey #1 is in better condition than the AF #15, but even so I don't think the AF #15 is so bad to warrant a 1.5.

 

So, in the end I'd say this book is actually a pretty good example of a 1.8 in my opinion. Not so bad as to make a 1.5, but not so good as to make a 2.0. So in my opinion, to say this book makes it to the VG range at all is being really, really generous and hopeful.

[rjpb]

While it's pretty hard to judge scans of slabbed books , especially when they are on the dark side - that 2.5 X-men #1 looks to be in about the same shape as the AF #15 posted. Not as rough at the staples I guess, but more evident soiling and color loss. As for the 1.8 ASM #1, I agree that grade seems a tad harsh, perhaps there is brittleness in the spine or some other hidden defect - what do the notes say?

[iron maniac]

While it's pretty hard to judge scans of slabbed books , especially when they are on the dark side - that 2.5 X-men #1 looks to be in about the same shape as the AF #15 posted. Not as rough at the staples I guess, but more evident soiling and color loss. As for the 1.8 ASM #1, I agree that grade seems a tad harsh, perhaps there is brittleness in the spine or some other hidden defect - what do the notes say?

The ASM #1 is mine, the notes don't mention anything like that. The tear on the cover is what kills it(in between the "2" and "great"). I'm sending that ASM #1 to Tracey Heft soon BTW.

[rjpb]

Okay - I couldn't tell if that was a tear or a crease - but that makes sense.

[KingOfRulers]

While it's pretty hard to judge scans of slabbed books , especially when they are on the dark side - that 2.5 X-men #1 looks to be in about the same shape as the AF #15 posted. Not as rough at the staples I guess, but more evident soiling and color loss. As for the 1.8 ASM #1, I agree that grade seems a tad harsh, perhaps there is brittleness in the spine or some other hidden defect - what do the notes say?

 

The X-men #1 is in better shape in my opinion by a long shot. The water damage is what killed it the most, and it is not even that severe when refering to a low grade book. The spine is in far better shape, there is only one dog ear compared to the many on the AF #15, and as you mentioned the damage around the staples is worse on the AF #15.

[micmack]

Hey, don't let the grades they throw out upset you. I went through the same coal raking when I posted my x-men 1 last year. I felt my book was a nice, solid 4.0 but was mortified when everyone just shrugged thier shoulders at it and gave it a range from 2.0 to 3.5 MAX, with one person who had the gall to claim it was most likely restored! I got the last laugh when it came back a 4.5.

 

Unfortunately your book seem that it may get no higher than 2.5 (3.0 on a sunny day in Sarasota and every one is feelin' groovy!)

[mrwoogieman]

There's nothing unfortunate about an AF15 unrestored 2.0 or higher book! Be proud, it's a grail even in this low grade. I'd be happy to own it!

[drbanner]

Are you going to get this book graded by CGC?

[micmack]

There's nothing unfortunate about an AF15 unrestored 2.0 or higher book! Be proud, it's a grail even in this low grade. I'd be happy to own it!

 

Unless he paid 3.5-4.0 prices?

[drbanner]

The X-men #1 is in better shape in my opinion by a long shot. The water damage is what killed it the most, and it is not even that severe when refering to a low grade book. The spine is in far better shape, there is only one dog ear compared to the many on the AF #15, and as you mentioned the damage around the staples is worse on the AF #15.

 

 

Earlier you said:

 

Both of these books to my knowledge got these grades just out of general wear. A 2.5 was mentioned as a candidate grade, but I'd say a 2.5 is way out of it's league. 2.5's are usually just worn books, with no major defects (coupon clip for example) For instance here is my X-men #1 CGC 2.5:

 

The AF 15 pretty much looks like a "worn book with no major defects (coupon clip for example)", whereas the X-men 1 looks to have a large area of water damage (which is not "general wear"). A bunch of creases and small tears are perfectly acceptable in the Good range...when you start getting pieces missing, stains, large tears, tape damage, etc.,. is where you fall below good.

[divad]

Hey, don't let the grades they throw out upset you. I went through the same coal raking when I posted my x-men 1 last year. I felt my book was a nice, solid 4.0 but was mortified when everyone just shrugged thier shoulders at it and gave it a range from 2.0 to 3.5 MAX, with one person who had the gall to claim it was most likely restored! I got the last laugh when it came back a 4.5.

 

Unfortunately your book seem that it may get no higher than 2.5 (3.0 on a sunny day in Sarasota and every one is feelin' groovy!)

 

[divad]

The X-men #1 is in better shape in my opinion by a long shot. The water damage is what killed it the most, and it is not even that severe when refering to a low grade book. The spine is in far better shape, there is only one dog ear compared to the many on the AF #15, and as you mentioned the damage around the staples is worse on the AF #15.

 

 

Earlier you said:

 

Both of these books to my knowledge got these grades just out of general wear. A 2.5 was mentioned as a candidate grade, but I'd say a 2.5 is way out of it's league. 2.5's are usually just worn books, with no major defects (coupon clip for example) For instance here is my X-men #1 CGC 2.5:

 

The AF 15 pretty much looks like a "worn book with no major defects (coupon clip for example)", whereas the X-men 1 looks to have a large area of water damage (which is not "general wear"). A bunch of creases and small tears are perfectly acceptable in the Good range...when you start getting pieces missing, stains, large tears, tape damage, etc.,. is where you fall below good.

 

He's consistently inconsistent

 

[divad]

Are you going to get this book graded by CGC?

 

Grade it only if you plan on selling it - otherwise enjoy! All of us want even THAT copy!

[KingOfRulers]

The X-men #1 is in better shape in my opinion by a long shot. The water damage is what killed it the most, and it is not even that severe when refering to a low grade book. The spine is in far better shape, there is only one dog ear compared to the many on the AF #15, and as you mentioned the damage around the staples is worse on the AF #15.

 

 

Earlier you said:

 

Both of these books to my knowledge got these grades just out of general wear. A 2.5 was mentioned as a candidate grade, but I'd say a 2.5 is way out of it's league. 2.5's are usually just worn books, with no major defects (coupon clip for example) For instance here is my X-men #1 CGC 2.5:

 

The AF 15 pretty much looks like a "worn book with no major defects (coupon clip for example)", whereas the X-men 1 looks to have a large area of water damage (which is not "general wear"). A bunch of creases and small tears are perfectly acceptable in the Good range...when you start getting pieces missing, stains, large tears, tape damage, etc.,. is where you fall below good.

 

He's consistently inconsistent

 

 

What an insufficiently_thoughtful_person.