PGM Creepy 17 another high grade copy

[CatskillMike]

I'm still digging deep into my pile to find a 9.4, so here goes.

 

[Pirate]

back cover is dirty, will need a ruling on this as the rest is pretty good. I'll say a 9.0 but i'm not good with dirty covers

[CatskillMike]

Yes, there is dirt? on back cover. Mostly on spine side. Must be from rubbing on other books in a stack. I don't know how to treat the dirt, or whatever it is.

[october]

9.4

[Pirate]

9.4

 

with that much dirt? m will have to reevaluate how i grade dirty covers

[october]

9.4

 

with that much dirt? m will have to reevaluate how i grade dirty covers

 

The soiling looks pretty mild to me. Maybe a 9.2 though...

[Pirate]

9.4

 

with that much dirt? m will have to reevaluate how i grade dirty covers

 

The soiling looks pretty mild to me. Maybe a 9.2 though...

paging the king

[october]

9.4

 

with that much dirt? m will have to reevaluate how i grade dirty covers

 

The soiling looks pretty mild to me. Maybe a 9.2 though...

paging the king

 

You would have better luck paging Divad...he has slabbed many a magazine in the past.

[divad]

Solid 9.2 The edge wear at the BEBC and slight bends at TEBC should keep it out of a 9.4 - nize book!

[Pirate]

9.4

 

with that much dirt? m will have to reevaluate how i grade dirty covers

 

The soiling looks pretty mild to me. Maybe a 9.2 though...

paging the king

 

You would have better luck paging Divad...he has slabbed many a magazine in the past.

 

He gives out grades? i thought he just talked about tomato boxers and how they're all 10.0

[bounty_coder]

Solid 9.2 The edge wear at the BEBC and slight bends at TEBC should keep it out of a 9.4 - nize book!

 

I'm there with Divad. 9.2 , BackUpperLeftCorner BULC has some bending as stated above.

[burntboy]

unless mags are graded on the comic book GA scale, i'd call this one a 9.0........nice copy..........

[bounty_coder]

unless mags are graded on the comic book GA scale, i'd call this one a 9.0........nice copy..........

 

According to the OSGG that is how Magazines are suppossed to be assessed. Not quite sure if CGC follows that though...

[burntboy]

unless mags are graded on the comic book GA scale, i'd call this one a 9.0........nice copy..........

 

According to the OSGG that is how Magazines are suppossed to be assessed. Not quite sure if CGC follows that though...

 

actually, i didn't know that there was truly a GA (golden age) scale for Comics according to anyone...........

 

i've always perceived it to merely be a seemingly somewhat less strict approach by CGC in grading older GA books................. sometimes referred to as the GA "curve"..........

[divad]

Harry,

The first thing to remember is that magazines are larger. The size of defects should be judged proportionately. A few other criteria are taken into account also, like original production quality, square bindings when used (same variances in grading as squarebound or 100-Pagers etc.), and defects that appear on each and every copy.

 

Magazines due to their size, weight, number of pages, and various bindings have different considerations than the lesser 16-wrap comic book. Sunken staples, spine rubbing due to stacking, mis-aligned covers, bindery chips, and the like are much more common in magazines, and a "softer" assessment is generally applied. Like Bounty and Jayman have said before, true high grade pre-1975 mags 9.4 and above are few and far between, and should be worshipped

 

In a nutshell, side-by-side, a 9.0 comic is going to look superior to a 9.0 magazine, and the differences only get greater as you move down to 8.0 and lower grades.