Please grade my Adventure Comics #237

[Silver Surfer]

The FF#13 looks under graded to me, perhaps because of the corner chip at the top? Did the graders notes mention anything that you haven't covered?

[FFB]

The FF#13 looks under graded to me, perhaps because of the corner chip at the top? Did the graders notes mention anything that you haven't covered?

 

It's not undergraded. It graded out exactly as I thought it would when I bought it raw. You just can't see the spine wear and edge tears as clearly because of the cover colors. And that chip out of the top corner is a doozy. Much bigger deduction than a light water stain.

[Sal]

looking at it online, i think a 7 sounds about right. depending on the gloss level - the amount i would see vs. what you say it is (no offense) - i would prolly feel good about 7.5, 8.0 if it included a bottle of Rubicon.

 

just kidding. i didn't care for the Rubicon, in all honesty, although I did have a great bottle at Zin in Healdsburg called Albertina "Weddington Ranch" 02 Cabernet

[casey1870]

7.0 it is....

[Aces]

Nice FF 13.........

[FFB]

looking at it online, i think a 7 sounds about right. depending on the gloss level - the amount i would see vs. what you say it is (no offense) - i would prolly feel good about 7.5, 8.0 if it included a bottle of Rubicon.

 

just kidding. i didn't care for the Rubicon, in all honesty, although I did have a great bottle at Zin in Healdsburg called Albertina "Weddington Ranch" 02 Cabernet

 

The 1997 Rubicon was outstanding, as was the 1994. I haven't paid much attention to the wine since the 1997 release, which was my last year on the Rubicon list at N-C. Too many other wines of consistently superior quality for the price, although once in a while they really nail it.

 

We will have to touch base on what you thought of Napa. (PM me if you want and let me know where you went and what you liked and disliked.) Hopefully you and the missus will be able to come back out this way for another trip and we can join you for a day of tasting on Spring Mountain. That'll blow your socks off!!

[FFB]

Here are some photos (not scans) to show actual color of the book, page quality, and to better illustrate how the stain and back cover bend look in hand.

 

Here is a scan of most of the front cover, showing how fresh the colors and gloss are, and how invisible the top edge water tidelines are in hand.

 

 

Here is a magnified view of the water stain up close. Note the gloss and colors too.

 

 

This shows the page quality. Compare whiteness to the pure white of the fullback behind the book.

 

 

Here's an interior, magnified view of the water tidelines along the top edge of the cover.

 

 

An even more magnified view of the tideline along the top of the cover.

 

 

A clear shot of the back cover bend. The white thing poking out from the bottom of the book is the Full Back backboard.

 

[rjpb]

Excellent gloss!- those photos really do show how nice the book looks.

Of course the effort you've gone to in order to convince us the book is a solid 7.5 (you win!) shows that you are a few books shy of a full run if you know what I mean.

[FFB]

Excellent gloss!- those photos really do show how nice the book looks.

Of course the effort you've gone to in order to convince us the book is a solid 7.5 (you win!) shows that you are a few books shy of a full run if you know what I mean.

 

Very funny.

 

As I said before, I am not solid on 7.5. I think it's a strong 7.0/possible 7.5. When I compare it to a lot of the 7.0s in the grading guide, this book blows them away (especially its peers in terms of age, like the Weird Science Fantasy Annual 1953 in the 7.0 section). The spine flaking is what concerns me about 7.5.

 

But there is no way this book is a 6.5.

[rjpb]

Your book illustrates why I am a big fan of eye-appeal - I'd rather have a

7.0 - 7.5 that looks like that Adventure than a 8.0 - 8.5 with dulled gloss and a tanned edge. It's a sweet copy.

[burntboy]

Excellent gloss!- those photos really do show how nice the book looks.

Of course the effort you've gone to in order to convince us the book is a solid 7.5 (you win!) shows that you are a few books shy of a full run if you know what I mean.

 

Very funny.

 

As I said before, I am not solid on 7.5. I think it's a strong 7.0/possible 7.5. When I compare it to a lot of the 7.0s in the grading guide, this book blows them away (especially its peers in terms of age, like the Weird Science Fantasy Annual 1953 in the 7.0 section). The spine flaking is what concerns me about 7.5.

 

But there is no way this book is a 6.5.

 

agree that it is a LOVELY book and a rare one to boot!!!!

 

i know this will sound silly, but i have always felt that DC's are graded more harshly than marvels. here's a Superman from 1964 and a Wonder Woman from 1962 that were just graded as 7.5's and didn't make the "cut" for my sale. they are presented for comparison purposes..........

 

 

the corners on these books are sharp. the colors are gorgeous. the Supes has the half inch crease on Atlas' thigh and some stress around the lower two staple holes, and a couple of tiny spine nicks. the WW has some roughness along the top left edge and not a helluva lot more that i can see. (i won't have these in hand for another week or so at which time i will study these two closely).

 

the point being that things like that LLC bend, staple stresses, color loss at a couple of corners and water stain on the FC may take your copy down as far as 6.5. i hope you're right and know you'll keep us informed..........

 

BTW - how is your AF #15 resto coming?!?!

[FFB]

Your book illustrates why I am a big fan of eye-appeal - I'd rather have a

7.0 - 7.5 that looks like that Adventure than a 8.0 - 8.5 with dulled gloss and a tanned edge. It's a sweet copy.

 

Me too. I am also a page quality freak.

 

Take a look at the highest graded copy of this book on Heritage (the CGC 9.0 copy). It has cream to off-white pages and lots of tanning, oxidation shadows, and dulled colors. It is a very nice book structurally, but not a very bright or fresh copy. Link to the CGC 9.0 copy.

 

Aside from this 9.0, there is only one book higher than my copy in the census -- an 8.0 with indeterminate page quality. I'd like to see that book.

[burntboy]

Your book illustrates why I am a big fan of eye-appeal - I'd rather have a

7.0 - 7.5 that looks like that Adventure than a 8.0 - 8.5 with dulled gloss and a tanned edge. It's a sweet copy.

 

the Collector in me agrees with that statement, totally...........

[divad]

Excellent gloss!- those photos really do show how nice the book looks.

Of course the effort you've gone to in order to convince us the book is a solid 7.5 (you win!) shows that you are a few books shy of a full run if you know what I mean.

 

This is precisely why you don't buy books that are photographed, and not scanned!

[nik]

The book is real sharp FFB, but maybe I'm talking out my bunghole with this statement,

 

Dont know why or for whatever reason, to me, CGC has always graded DCs much harsher than Marvels from my limited experience. This is not a fact, but something I have noticed from my submissions over the last couple of years.

 

I hope you do receive a 7.0 if you submit the book, but my gut tells me otherwise.

[FFB]

The book is real sharp FFB, but maybe I'm talking out my bunghole with this statement,

 

Dont know why or for whatever reason, to me, CGC has always graded DCs much harsher than Marvels from my limited experience. This is not a fact, but something I have noticed from my submissions over the last couple of years.

 

I hope you do receive a 7.0 if you submit the book, but my gut tells me otherwise.

 

I'm not planning on submitting the book anytime soon, so it's a question that will have to wait for another day. Anyway, thanks for the opinions. I hope you're wrong about DCs being graded more harshly than Marvels though. I guess I'll find out if that's true when I get back the B&B #25 that I submitted at Golden State Con.