PGM - Human Torch #12

[october]

6.0 with off white pages. My guess is that the back cover damage killed the grade but this is ridiculous as I have seen 8.0 books that look far, far worse. I once owned a FF#3 that had a chunk missing from the top corner and it was a 6.0 and it couldn't even stand next to this book.

 

That sucks. You going to sell it or crack it out? Do I get a discount for nailing the grade? Best looking fine I have EVER seen.

[drbanner]

I wonder if the book would have still received a 6.0 if the back cover paper loss was on the front cover instead? If so, we'd probably all be saying how over-graded the book was since there appears to be several square inches of paper missing when you add it all up.

 

It's a great looking 6.0 no doubt, but as noted above, with that much paper loss I don't feel the book is under-graded. That said, I would personally pay a whole lot more for this 6.0 than a run-of-the-mill 6.0 with spine wear, creases, etc.,.

[Detroit MIke]

it's still a great copy of a great issue.

[Silver Surfer]

With all due respect to the graders at CGC I think a 6.0 is complete horseshat.

Even with the slight paper loss at the back I do believe that the grade deduction was harsh as this book was tight.

[Calamerica]

I had it at VF 7.0.

 

The back cover damage is where the grade was decided.

 

CAL

[thedude]

Surfer, that is a beautiful book, no matter the technical grade,

[Silver Surfer]

6.0 with off white pages. My guess is that the back cover damage killed the grade but this is ridiculous as I have seen 8.0 books that look far, far worse. I once owned a FF#3 that had a chunk missing from the top corner and it was a 6.0 and it couldn't even stand next to this book.

 

That sucks. You going to sell it or crack it out? Do I get a discount for nailing the grade? Best looking fine I have EVER seen.

 

No I think I'll keep this book, maybe list it on Comiclink at some ridiculous price and if someone wants to BIN it then thank you very much. Think I'll leave it in the slabb for now.

[Silver Surfer]

Graders notes:

Pre screened at 5.5 and 6.0, final 6.0. Some bug chew on back cover and top edge, slight spine stress and a two inch stain in the "to" of Torch. Time for stain removal perhaps? If someone can point out the stain let me know.

[SurfingAlien]

Graders notes:

Pre screened at 5.5 and 6.0, final 6.0. Some bug chew on back cover and top edge, slight spine stress and a two inch stain in the "to" of Torch. Time for stain removal perhaps? If someone can point out the stain let me know.

 

I had that paper loss pegged for bug chew - i'm pretty sure it was silverfish as I posted earlier - but that 6.0 is very harsh. Your copy looks much fresher and sharper than the one I used to own, which also came back 6.0. Mine had two long creases on the front cover that didn't break color, but they were long - one abt 6 inches and one 4 inches - and the corners were much less sharp. I'd take yours over it any day of the week.

 

Take heart though, in that I got over $1200 for mine on Ebay back when the book was under $600 in the guide - it has that kind of appeal no matter the grade.

[divad]

With all due respect to the graders at CGC I think a 6.0 is complete horseshat.

Even with the slight paper loss at the back I do believe that the grade deduction was harsh as this book was tight.

 

I, for one, would be all over that "6.0" - like white on rice . . .

 

 

 

[divad]

I had that paper loss pegged for bug chew - i'm pretty sure it was silverfish as I posted earlier - but that 6.0 is very harsh.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Can anyone see a 2 inch stain on the front cover?

[divad]

It must be verrrrry subtle . . .

 

[SurfingAlien]

Can anyone see a 2 inch stain on the front cover?

 

Nope - I just don't see anything at all except translucence - unless its one of those very light oily type stains that you can only see if you hold the cover open and up to the light?

[Silver Surfer]

I don't want to get off on a rant but this is a 7.5?

[G.A.tor]

remember folks, we buy the "book", not the grade

SS, it is still a beaut!...

however, in my 7.5 assessment, I didn't realize "paper loss"...to cgc, that is a structural downer...6.0 is probably fair, but it looks VFish!

gator

[rjpb]

I don't want to get off on a rant but this is a 7.5?

 

No.

[SurfingAlien]

I don't want to get off on a rant but this is a 7.5?

 

I'd rant if i wuz u2... but.. my own edumacation as to how CGC grades evolves... in the case of non-production defects like bug-chew - it is apparently the physical size of the defect, rather than the eye appeal of the defect that CGC "polices"... of course we have all seen production chips bigger than this bug chew on 9.0+ CGC grades...so the question remains complicated ... this isn't even like the "intent" question involved with resto issues - whatever it is...it is ... but many of us probably feel this HT 12 is a BETTER book overall than the 7.5 YM 28, even though the softer corners & staple softness on the YM is physically smaller in area than that chew on the back cover of the HT. Just MHO...