Who glued this in a scrapbook?

[MK Ultra]

 

 

 

 

[RickHigh]

Ouch!! I think Dennis did it.

[MK Ultra]

Does my book suck that much that no one would give a grade to it? I'm thinking 6.0 or so as long as nobody would take it out of the bag and board. Does that back cover make it a poor, [embarrassing lack of self control] poor, or would it be best to just throw it away? At least then I could post in that thread too.

[-cryptkeeper-]

Poor is The word for that one 0.5

[KingOfRulers]

To be honest I think you guys were a bit quick on using the 0.5 grade for this book.

 

Actually, I would NOT call this a "poor" book. I'd go with a 1.0. My reasoning for this is that the cover is still there, the book is still intact and for sake of presentation is mid grade. While the damage is asthetically catastrophic to the back cover, it is not technically catastrophic to the primary usage of the book. Because of that I go with a 1.0. Even the Overstreet Grading Guide has a book with the back cover completely missing, and the grade is a 1.0.

 

As far as grading is concerned (as I understand and interpret it), 0.5's come into play when there is damage so severe that it seriously hinders the usage of the book for its primary purpose of reading--not just because the book is butt ugly. That is where 1.0's come into play.

[divad]

Mr. Wilson?

 

 

 

 

 

[Sal]

To be honest I think you guys were a bit quick on using the 0.5 grade for this book.

 

Actually, I would NOT call this a "poor" book. I'd go with a 1.0. My reasoning for this is that the cover is still there, the book is still intact and for sake of presentation is mid grade. While the damage is asthetically catastrophic to the back cover, it is not technically catastrophic to the primary usage of the book. Because of that I go with a 1.0. Even the Overstreet Grading Guide has a book with the back cover completely missing, and the grade is a 1.0.

 

As far as grading is concerned (as I understand and interpret it), 0.5's come into play when there is damage so severe that it seriously hinders the usage of the book for its primary purpose of reading--not just because the book is butt ugly. That is where 1.0's come into play.

 

yeah, i'd buy that argument.

 

1.0 for me, too

[-cryptkeeper-]

all right K.O.R agree with you , as written in the overstreet , 1.0

[the blob]

"fair" 1.0 seems apropriate for a book with a nice cover, assuming the insides are nice too.

 

How about if the back cover is neatly sliced off rather than this sort of mess? 1.2?