PGM: FF annual # 1

[herald2galactus]

recent pick up from a forum member

totally digging this book, despite the LG

 

 

[Mr. Zipper]

If that's NOT a spine split at the bottom, looks like a textbook 4.0.

 

[Dad&Son-migration]

I'd actually go with a 4.0 even if it's a spine split. I think there's enough redeeming qualities to keep it at VG.

[divad]

Yeah, it's a great issue. I sold my copy last month . . . and I'm already having seller's remorse . . .

 

One of my favorite SA issues

[Mr. Zipper]

I'd actually go with a 4.0 even if it's a spine split. I think there's enough redeeming qualities to keep it at VG.

 

If it was a split, I'd call it a 3.5.

[divad]

I'd actually go with a 4.0 even if it's a spine split. I think there's enough redeeming qualities to keep it at VG.

 

If it was a split, I'd call it a 3.5.

 

I agree - it looks to be about a 1.5" to 1.75" spine split, and the moderate spine trauma and small stain by the Torch on the FC . . .

 

3.5

[Aces]

Kind of a large spine split there...

3.0/3.5

[herald2galactus]

I'd actually go with a 4.0 even if it's a spine split. I think there's enough redeeming qualities to keep it at VG.

 

If it was a split, I'd call it a 3.5.

yeah it is.. but 3.5 is a bit higher then i expected so ..

[-cryptkeeper-]

3.5 sounds fair, great book

[MutantKeys]

3.5

[uclapeterg]

Kind of a large spine split there...

3.0/3.5

 

I agree.

[Point Five]

With the split I'd call it 3.0 to be safe. Still nice!

[mar-vell]

3.0 - couple areas on front cover look pretty rough

[rjpb]

I'd have to agree with 3.0 for the reasons above. Books in that shape can get slammed as a 2.5 by CGC, but that's probably a tad harsh.

[Shadow]

3.5 seems correct.