waver99 Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Hi all, some blue ink that seems like a production defect? Of course that doesnt matter as some paint looks to have been scratched off Batman on the FC. Other than that, seems a nice-ish copy. Galen130 and Juventus FC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 8.0 IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicginger1789 Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 I will second 8.0, 8.5 at best. Nice copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juventus FC Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 8.5 imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funnybooks Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 29 minutes ago, Juventus FC said: 8.5 imo same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilskip Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 At least an 8.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpoolica Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 8.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galen130 Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Is that light soiling I see near the top staple on the back? A clean/press might help that. 8.5 afterwards...IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ries Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 (edited) 8.5 and some good news: That scuff on Batman's shoulder is very common on that book. It is a production flaw. On mine, I can see a dot where the production error began. As we see examples of this book, we notice a whole LOT of them have exactly what yours has. It's actually more difficult to find this book w/o that production flaw. CGC should already be aware of this flaw and grade accordingly. I have seen 9.6's and 9.8's with that error. That IS a nice book. And an overlooked key, IMO. It SHOULD be "1st Bronze Age Appearance Of Two Face", not silver age. Edited September 20, 2020 by Randall Ries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
