the blob Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm thinking about a VG+. Some wear on the spine and a crease on the bottom right. Top staple is under duress, but still attached. Back cover looks pretty darn nice. My guess on page color is Off White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the blob Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 Ok, I don't have this on photbucket, so I guess you need to click on the attachment. Here's the back cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfRulers Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Yeah, 4.5 was what I was thinking. Looks better than your standard 4.5 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkknight Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I agree VERY GOOD+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Spine a little too rough to go beyond a straight 4.0 imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Top edge trimmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Five Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I agree with Aces, straight 4.0 or maybe even 3.5, though I imagine cover looks nicer/brighter in hand than in scan. Just too much spine wear (& a few light creases) to go higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the blob Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 Based on my CGC 4.0 JLA #2, not a 3.5. This looks better than that, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. The JLA 2 has a lot of creases, but the spine looks better. The FF 5 presents better, particularly if you factor in the back cover. Anyway, I kindah think it's about like this one, perhaps better because the CGC copy has some water/coffee stains on the top: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...bayphotohosting The CGC'd copy has more prominent spine stresses and a slightly worse back cover, stains and maybe a few extra creases, but less actual wear on the spine. The top is not trimmed, just the opposite, mis-cut because part of what would have been a separate cover is on this one. I just don't have the book in the scanner straight, it's a little crooked. If it had been trimmed one would think they'd have cleaned up this printing defect, not made it obvious. Anyway, I've owned this for almost 15 years, which doesn't foreclose anything, but makes it less likely that work was done on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Five Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I agree, not concerned about trimming in this case. Cool book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 The top right edge sure looks trimmed to me, are those interior pages that we're seeing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You guys are all way too high . . . may we see the BC please? And do you have the book? If so, please scan it out of plastic . . . it's not like you're going to hurt it or anything Found it! 3.5 max Perhaps lower in hand . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the blob Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 no, those are not interior pages. that black line you see is where the cover should have been cut, but was not. the grey is part of another FF cover. somewhere out there was another FF 5 with part of its bottom cover missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-cryptkeeper- Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 agree with Divad , 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 no, those are not interior pages. that black line you see is where the cover should have been cut, but was not. the grey is part of another FF cover. somewhere out there was another FF 5 with part of its bottom cover missing. Gotcha...it was just an elliptical collusion then, and not really a Ewert-wannabe-time job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the blob Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 what does the back cover show other than the book is mis-cut, which is readily apparent from the front? that's not a rip on the lower left, it's a printer's crease. the back cover looks better than that of a typical VG book. sorry, it looks no worse than the slabbed 4.0 I put up, which has frigging water stains on the cover. and looks no worse than another slabbed SA 4.0 I own. I think I'll go with that. 4.0 seems to be the average consensus anyway, I'll avoid trouble by not going with VG+. and yes, of course i have the book. i just didn't feel like cleaning the scanner before sticking my unprotected FF 5 in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 what does the back cover show other than the book is mis-cut, which is readily apparent from the front? that's not a rip on the lower left, it's a printer's crease. the back cover looks better than that of a typical VG book. sorry, it looks no worse than the slabbed 4.0 I put up, which has frigging water stains on the cover. and looks no worse than another slabbed SA 4.0 I own. I think I'll go with that. 4.0 seems to be the average consensus anyway, I'll avoid trouble by not going with VG+. and yes, of course i have the book. i just didn't feel like cleaning the scanner before sticking my unprotected FF 5 in there. hey, don't get me wrong . . . it's your book. You have the advantage of having it in hand . . . grade it what you want If you think it's nicer than a 4.0, than by all means grade it 4.5 Be true to your own opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourthWorld Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 3.0, maybe 3.5 on a good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfRulers Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I don't see what the fuss is about. I still say a 4.5, and as low as 4.0. It looks so typical of any other 4.0 book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 No fuss . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the blob Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 VG it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
