How would a 2" cover tear impact the grade?

[FFB]

Thanks for the scan. That makes it much easier. I don't think you can call this an 8.5 but for the tear. More like a 7.5. The spine wear, creases on the LRC, and the bends along the leading edge below the tear are too much for VF+. So, with the tear, it's about a 5.0. A gorgeous 5.0 with superb colors that will probably sell at something of a premium to a standard 5.0 with more creasing and duller inks, but still a 5.0.

 

Here is the book. More Fun #9 (1936), very rare.

 

You can see the 2" tear to the right of the "N" and price.

 

I welcome any other thoughts, comments or grade suggestions.

 

[FFB]

Oh, and by the way, how much?

[rjpb]

Without the tear - 6.5 - multiple spine creases, notable corner wear, wrinkled LRC, small spine split LLC, thumbnail creases along right edge. even with an "old book bump" - 7.0 would be the top limit.

 

With the 2" tear - 4.5 Sorry, but imagine if it were a Bronze Age book - people would be calling it a 3.5 tops.

 

I wouldn't restore it or slab it, it has enough eye appeal, even with the tear, that I could see giving it the same value as a typical 5.0 (whatever that is).

[Mr. Zipper]

I agree with those that give it a technical 5.0. It has 7.0 eye appeal IMO, but -2.0 for the tear seems about right. There is too much eye appeal remaining for it to drop to a straight VG.

[Point Five]

Without the tear - 6.5 - multiple spine creases, notable corner wear, wrinkled LRC, small spine split LLC, thumbnail creases along right edge. even with an "old book bump" - 7.0 would be the top limit.

 

With the 2" tear - 4.5 Sorry, but imagine if it were a Bronze Age book - people would be calling it a 3.5 tops.

 

 

Still a great scarce book, with plenty of positives going for it despite the flaw.

[Dad&Son-migration]

I don't think it would grade out at an 8.5 even without the tear, but that's just MHO. The tear would probably make it a blue label given the era but around a 5.0 at the very best.

 

I was factoring in the CGC really old book bump!

 

That's your X-factor!!! Because of the era I could see a bump, especially since it's a popular title for the times. Are you going to send it in or sell it "raw"??

[esquirecomics]

Thanks for the scan. That makes it much easier. I don't think you can call this an 8.5 but for the tear. More like a 7.5. The spine wear, creases on the LRC, and the bends along the leading edge below the tear are too much for VF+. So, with the tear, it's about a 5.0. A gorgeous 5.0 with superb colors that will probably sell at something of a premium to a standard 5.0 with more creasing and duller inks, but still a 5.0.

 

I am more in line with your 7.5 assessment, but given the book/year I honestly would not be surprised to have seen an 8.5 grade from CGC. I've seen it before, as have no doubt all of us. But I agree with you.

[esquirecomics]

Oh, and by the way, how much?

 

Actually this baby will be for me. I don't have a #9 in my More Fun collection.

 

HOWEVER, I do have some sweet early More Fun issues in between #11 - #36 for sale (though not listed anywhere). If anyone is interested in what I have please PM me.

[Silver Surfer]

Somewhere in the FN 6.0 range is my best guess. Although this is one of those places where CGC has historically used the green Qualified label.

 

This is confusing to me because I own GA books that are missing the whole top right corner of the cover (about an inch of paper) and it is in a blue label. You would think a piece missing would be look at alittle harsher than a tear. Something tells me the qualified label for a tear this size would get a blue label today?

[esquirecomics]

Somewhere in the FN 6.0 range is my best guess. Although this is one of those places where CGC has historically used the green Qualified label.

 

This is confusing to me because I own GA books that are missing the whole top right corner of the cover (about an inch of paper) and it is in a blue label. You would think a piece missing would be look at alittle harsher than a tear. Something tells me the qualified label for a tear this size would get a blue label today?

 

CGC would use the Green label when the defect is so specific and were it not for that fact the book would grade much, much higher, like in this case. I don't believe, however, we are aware of any specific parameters/guidelines that CGC applies to determine when to utilize the Green label.

[FFB]

Somewhere in the FN 6.0 range is my best guess. Although this is one of those places where CGC has historically used the green Qualified label.

 

This is confusing to me because I own GA books that are missing the whole top right corner of the cover (about an inch of paper) and it is in a blue label. You would think a piece missing would be look at alittle harsher than a tear. Something tells me the qualified label for a tear this size would get a blue label today?

 

CGC would use the Green label when the defect is so specific and were it not for that fact the book would grade much, much higher, like in this case. I don't believe, however, we are aware of any specific parameters/guidelines that CGC applies to determine when to utilize the Green label.

 

Yeah, there's a big difference between a missing chunk and a long tear that might not even be visible unless you're looking for it. The green label has been used historically for details such as the latter, not the former.