Please grade my bug eaten ASM 100 0

[Bird]

(cue Lyle Lovett) She looked ugly from the front. But the back showed an even worse problem, what appears to be a hole from bug eating? Anyway, I have no clue on how low this goes (is this a 1.5? what is a 1.8 even?) So here is my chance to learn. If you need more pics of the front let me know but I figured they were irrelevant considering. The bug ate from the back cover to page 26.

[Gnasher]

I'm going to say that they would treat it as incomplete, assuming it affects the story on some pages as well as the artwork, so 1.5 at best, more likely a 1.0. That's my take, which could be completely wrong.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Gnasher

[1950's war comics]

i would advertise it as a 1.0 reader copy

[Bird]

5 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

i would advertise it as a 1.0 reader copy

Thanks. At a value of $10 or whatever I will likely just keep it.

[1950's war comics]

5 minutes ago, Bird said:

Thanks. At a value of $10 or whatever I will likely just keep it.

i take it back, i was too harsh... if it is structurally sound (which it looks like it is) then CGC will likely still give it at least 2.0 iv'e seen bug chew books get 3.0

there is a real lousy one, way worse than yours that sold on eBay for $25.00 ... yours has to be worth at least that !!

[1950's war comics]

sold for 24.50 on eBay and way worse than your copy...

[Bird]

 No you weren’t too harsh at all too good thanks for your opinion and the research 

[Ride the Tiger]

Call it the Roach Variant and it will sell for tons!

[Bird]

24 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

Call it the Roach Variant and it will sell for tons!

Do I have to make it smell like weed then? (My daughters all say people are "doing weed" and when I say dope they think I mean heroin, not the mary jane.)

 

And can anyone tell me what the heck gets a 1.8? What is the difference between 1.5 & 1.8? That part of my OP got no love (or special sauce).

[Ride the Tiger]

Low grades baffle me. I'm pretty good from the 4.0 to 9.0 range but the low and high side still cause me confusion. A 1.8 hmmmm.....  your average 2.0 is beat to chit (not the type we used to smoke) so I guess a totally beat copy with 1 additional flaw??????  

[1950's war comics]

the difference of a 1.5 and a 1.8 is between this and this......                                                                                

   

Edited November 24, 2018 by 1950's war comics

[Gnasher]

I think the 1.5 and especially the 1.8 are a hark back to the early days of modern grading when OS had it's 100 point system but with some revision by CGC.

IIRC 1.5 was the bottom end of the G grade, where books could have a piece missing or cut outs so long as it didn't affect the readability of a comic, now with CGC it's a FR/G,  but still meets that aformentioned criteria. heavy wear. 1.8 is structually better, but can still have pieces missing on the cover and spine splits 2"/3".

[Harry Lime]

The front doesn't look too bad. I think it could well make a 2.0.

[Bird]

Just now, Harry Lime said:

The front doesn't look too bad. I think it could well make a 2.0.

Thanks for the opinion. I have been getting that feeling as well. It still may not be worth pressing and slabbing but it wouldn't look that bad in the slab until you turned it over!

[FoggyNelson]

21 hours ago, Harry Lime said:

The front doesn't look too bad. I think it could well make a 2.0.

Yes front of comic looks nice ‼️‼️👍 at first glance I thought it might be fine 

not sure how to grade comic with that back damage🧐😣🤧🤭

[Bird]

@joeypost Do you think that this bad bad boy is worth sending your way? Or is it too far gone to make it worthwhile? It is a 1977 comic, so modern era at least.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Bird

[joeypost]

6 hours ago, Bird said:

@joeypost Do you think that this bad bad boy is worth sending your way? Or is it too far gone to make it worthwhile? It is a 1977 comic, so modern era at least.

Not worth investing the time and money. 

[Bird]

2 minutes ago, joeypost said:

Not worth investing the time and money. 

Thanks (again). I just hate to see it like this but I see what you mean, not worth all that to maybe get a few extra dollars.

[Ahsoka Tano Jedi Apprentice]

1.5

[ComicLink Rick]

ASM #100 is from 1971, not 1977.