• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please grade my JIM 83

Started by marvelcollector,

25 posts in this topic

divad

divad

Posted
Posted
I admit, that it looks like a fugly book with the tape repair, but I think you need to look past that, David. sumo.gif Are we grading for eye appeal? or what we think CGC would give it? I'm so confused. crazy.gif

 

Pete,

 

My point was that I didn't know where the definitive 2.5 statement came from - certainly not the OSGG. This book is structurally weak, with very large, significant tears - I do not think it merits a straight GD 2.0 regardless of being ahem, "complete" - which we are not even sure of. Hence the 1.8.

 

Both of my 1.8's had nicer eye appeal btw (even if they were Spidey's and not FF's) insane.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marvelcollector

marvelcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
MC, Is this book complete or is it hanging on by a thread? (i.e. are you afraid you are going to disingregate the spine by touching it? angel.gif)

 

Yes, the book truly is "solid". The pages are securely attached, etc. It is

complete; i.e. all pages there, nothing cut out, etc. Except for the area where the

tape is, both covers are all there.

 

I don't really see anything that would exclude it from the 2.0 description in the OCGG...

Considering the example of the Captain Marvel on pg. 289 with a chunk of the front cover actually missing . (..and don't say it's GA; I don't believe in grading on a curve...)

 

 

I was thinking 2.0 with the tape situation really being all that was keeping it from a 3.0..

 

(I know,...if things were different they wouldn't be the same wink.gif )

 

Guys, I'm really not emotionally (or otherwise) invested in this book and I appreciate the discussion. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
MC, Is this book complete or is it hanging on by a thread? (i.e. are you afraid you are going to disingregate the spine by touching it? angel.gif)

 

Yes, the book truly is "solid". The pages are securely attached, etc. It is

complete; i.e. all pages there, nothing cut out, etc. Except for the area where the

tape is, both covers are all there.

 

I don't really see anything that would exclude it from the 2.0 description in the OCGG...

Considering the example of the Captain Marvel on pg. 289 with a chunk of the front cover actually missing . (..and don't say it's GA; I don't believe in grading on a curve...)

 

 

I was thinking 2.0 with the tape situation really being all that was keeping it from a 3.0..

 

(I know,...if things were different they wouldn't be the same wink.gif )

 

Guys, I'm really not emotionally (or otherwise) invested in this book and I appreciate the discussion. thumbsup2.gif

 

No doubt - Personally, I consider a three inch tear along the corner of the front cover repaired with tape, analagous to a very large piece missing . . . call me crazy but insane.gif

 

The tear also extends on the BC at the top staple another 3/4" 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Again, interpretation of the guide can be confusing. Just because it shows an example of a 2.0 with a "chunk missing" does not mean that anything without a "chunk miissing" is better than a 2.0 makepoint.gif It's not a threshhold - it's an example of what may or may not be allowable in a certain grade. 893blahblah.gifgrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marvelcollector

marvelcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

 

Again, interpretation of the guide can be confusing. Just because it shows an example of a 2.0 with a "chunk missing" does not mean that anything without a "chunk miissing" is better than a 2.0 makepoint.gif

 

Not implying that. But in some cases (this one) with the book looked at in its entirety, something attached (by amateur repair - allowed in 2.0 grade) can't be worse than something that is completely missing...

 

It's not a threshhold - it's an example of what may or may not be allowable in a certain grade. 893blahblah.gifgrin.gif

 

IMO, I find the OCGG oddly mute on the subject of tears in general... confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted

 

Again, interpretation of the guide can be confusing. Just because it shows an example of a 2.0 with a "chunk missing" does not mean that anything without a "chunk miissing" is better than a 2.0 makepoint.gif

 

Not implying that. But in some cases (this one) with the book looked at in its entirety, something attached (by amateur repair - allowed in 2.0 grade) can't be worse than something that is completely missing...

 

It's not a threshhold - it's an example of what may or may not be allowable in a certain grade. 893blahblah.gifgrin.gif

 

IMO, I find the OCGG oddly mute on the subject of tears in general... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

I agree - I find the OCGG "oddly mute" on many common defects. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

By my comment, I didn't mean that YOU were implying that, but rather as a clarification - believe it or not there are more people reading this than you and I. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
uclapeterg

uclapeterg

Posted
Posted

 

Again, interpretation of the guide can be confusing. Just because it shows an example of a 2.0 with a "chunk missing" does not mean that anything without a "chunk miissing" is better than a 2.0 makepoint.gif

 

Not implying that. But in some cases (this one) with the book looked at in its entirety, something attached (by amateur repair - allowed in 2.0 grade) can't be worse than something that is completely missing...

 

It's not a threshhold - it's an example of what may or may not be allowable in a certain grade. 893blahblah.gifgrin.gif

 

IMO, I find the OCGG oddly mute on the subject of tears in general... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

I agree - I find the OCGG "oddly mute" on many common defects. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

By my comment, I didn't mean that YOU were implying that, but rather as a clarification - believe it or not there are more people reading this than you and I. grin.gif

 

hi.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aces

Aces

Posted
Posted
What's 1.7? Fugly? Still. Impressive book. thumbsup2.gif

 

For the Low Grade impaired:

 

2.0 = Good

1.8 = Good-

1.5 = Fair/Good

1.0 = Fair

0.5 = Poor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing