PGM Jumbo Comics 12 1 1

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

 

 

 

 

Corner factory defect or possibly man-made?

 

[flashlites]

One of the famous Larson books! It looks like a trimming defect to me. Probably during the folding and trimming process at the printers. I will take a stab at it and say its in the 7-7.5 range? Lets see what some of the veterans have to say about that bindery corner defect. In any case you have a true treasure there! I was just reading about Lamont Larson last year. Thanks for sharing!!!

[theCapraAegagrus]

6.0-6.5 IMO.

[comicginger1789]

I would feel good in the 7.0-7.5 range as it is a solid GA book. I am jealous. 

[Point Five]

The book looks insanely nice from the front. But the corner issue looks like a chew to me. It seems to affect both the front cover and some of the pages, and there's a decent amount of real estate missing. I'd have to guess a strict 5.0.

 

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

On 7/28/2019 at 7:08 PM, flashlites said:

One of the famous Larson books! It looks like a trimming defect to me. Probably during the folding and trimming process at the printers. I will take a stab at it and say its in the 7-7.5 range? Lets see what some of the veterans have to say about that bindery corner defect. In any case you have a true treasure there! I was just reading about Lamont Larson last year. Thanks for sharing!!!

My pleasure! Here's to 7.5 or better 

15 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

6.0-6.5 IMO.

Thank you!

13 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

I would feel good in the 7.0-7.5 range as it is a solid GA book. I am jealous. 

Thank you Sir! The seller didn't know it was a Larson until I pointed it out. Still got a decent deal I think. I guess being honest does pay off sometimes. 

8 hours ago, Point Five said:

The book looks insanely nice from the front. But the corner issue looks like a chew to me. It seems to affect both the front cover and some of the pages, and there's a decent amount of real estate missing. I'd have to guess a strict 5.0.

 

Yeah that corner is a bummer but I'm hopeful for the best. 

[Krismusic]

I would go with a 6.5 as there is a lot of blue ink on the back cover and looks like some water damage at top spine and the corner chew might keep it out of 7 or better range.

my only question to the pros and worry is all that red ink smear on the FC could that be wet resto or cover cleaned?

[flashlites]

You're probably right it may be the dreaded rat chew defect. If that's the case it would push it under 7.0 I believe. Still its amazing to have a Larson! 

[flashlites]

For comparison, from my collection, the dreaded 'rat chew' defect! Yours is relatively minor. What puzzles me is how its seems confined to just the interior of the book. This lead me to speculate that it may have been some trimming error. As you can see my culprit was not so selective and seemed to like the cover just as much as the interior.  As for the 'wet restoration/cleaning', this is the advantage of experience you get here on the boards! The discerning experienced eyes of real pros. Not much can get past these guys. I have no experience in cleaning or restoration but some of us do. It is something to keep an eye out for.

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

12 hours ago, Krishosein said:

I would go with a 6.5 as there is a lot of blue ink on the back cover and looks like some water damage at top spine and the corner chew might keep it out of 7 or better range.

my only question to the pros and worry is all that red ink smear on the FC could that be wet resto or cover cleaned?

Here's a 9.0 that I found for comparison. Under the Sheena, is that what you mean by the red ink smear? 

 

8 hours ago, flashlites said:

You're probably right it may be the dreaded rat chew defect. If that's the case it would push it under 7.0 I believe. Still its amazing to have a Larson! 

No complaints! I'm happy to have one in any condition. So much history. 

1 hour ago, flashlites said:

For comparison, from my collection, the dreaded 'rat chew' defect! Yours is relatively minor. What puzzles me is how its seems confined to just the interior of the book. This lead me to speculate that it may have been some trimming error. As you can see my culprit was not so selective and seemed to like the cover just as much as the interior.  As for the 'wet restoration/cleaning', this is the advantage of experience you get here on the boards! The discerning experienced eyes of real pros. Not much can get past these guys. I have no experience in cleaning or restoration but some of us do. It is something to keep an eye out for.

They certainty got their fill with your book! I agree! This board is amazing.  Everyone is super helpful

[Krismusic]

10 hours ago, flashlites said:

For comparison, from my collection, the dreaded 'rat chew' defect! Yours is relatively minor. What puzzles me is how its seems confined to just the interior of the book. This lead me to speculate that it may have been some trimming error. As you can see my culprit was not so selective and seemed to like the cover just as much as the interior.  As for the 'wet restoration/cleaning', this is the advantage of experience you get here on the boards! The discerning experienced eyes of real pros. Not much can get past these guys. I have no experience in cleaning or restoration but some of us do. It is something to keep an eye out for.

yeah that's what I want to get better at spotting I've been reading and watching videos on CT and tear seals and pieces added, still learning and not nearly as good as the pro's but want to get better at that. As many mentioned black lights only help so much and can miss things. I do know to watch for smears/smudges or bleed through for cover cleaned or CT. still learning and will absorb and appreciate whatever info the pro's share 

[Krismusic]

9 hours ago, Silver_Couch_Surfer said:

Here's a 9.0 that I found for comparison. Under the Sheena, is that what you mean by the red ink smear? 

 

No complaints! I'm happy to have one in any condition. So much history. 

They certainty got their fill with your book! I agree! This board is amazing.  Everyone is super helpful

Yeah that's what I was talking about as I have my flags set up that if I see a smear, smudge or bleed through to check that and question it, but in the case I am guessing paper was thin and the red ink kind of printed through or became a bit see through as I am guess that red smear is from the inside FC or the way the ink was applied to the FC. Be interesting to get someone who knows more to tell me more about it. 

[flashlites]

My guess, judging from seeing two examples of this smearing, is that an over print was done on the covers at the printing plant. After the main cover was printed, they were run through a second time with the text to go inside the circle. Maybe they used a different ink, with the red being not as stable as leaded ink used on the rest of the cover. It could also be that during this second run the red plate on the press may have just been washed with solvent. Usually the pressman would run several sheets of blank or waste paper called "make ready" through the press after washing a plate, but sometimes a few could slip through like this.

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

14 minutes ago, flashlites said:

My guess, judging from seeing two examples of this smearing, is that an over print was done on the covers at the printing plant. After the main cover was printed, they were run through a second time with the text to go inside the circle. Maybe they used a different ink, with the red being not as stable as leaded ink used on the rest of the cover. It could also be that during this second run the red plate on the press may have just been washed with solvent. Usually the pressman would run several sheets of blank or waste paper called "make ready" through the press after washing a plate, but sometimes a few could slip through like this.

Interesting take on that. Thank you.

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

 

[Deadpoolica]

42 minutes ago, Silver_Couch_Surfer said:

 

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

1 hour ago, Deadpoolica said:

I'll be sending this into a third party for resto removal. Sigh.