Point Five

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    23,932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Point Five

  • Boards Title
    TOTAL NEWBIE

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Graphic Designer
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

3,555 profile views
  1. Crazy! I see what you mean with that one. Definitely 'borrowing some equity' there.
  2. Man. That would have bought a LOT of diapers. ... Congrats!
  3. Honestly, hard to say DC is wrong when you see those covers. That's pretty much "Siri, show me copyright infringement" right there.
  4. Presenting my first... and possibly my last... full run of Bakers. I like looking at them as a set with the #24 first. Kind of a "before and after marriage" narrative.
  5. OK, I give this thread maaaybe 5 or 6 posts before it's locked. But I'll respond, deftly avoiding politics: "Thanks for the info!" I picked up the regular edition of the book and it's... interesting. I don't know the creative teams but much of the writing and art is amateurish to the point of being embarrassing. To borrow a phrase Larry once used here about a new title, I guess I'd say I like the concept better than the execution. Some of the variant covers are cool.
  6. Nice! Has that missing piece but still many positives. I agree with your assessment, 3.5/4.0 as is and IMO should reach 4.0 no problem with a press.
  7. I can't say you're wrong. But IMO, since the problem is on the back and the front looks nice for the grade range, I would hope worst case it's a 2.0. Who knows though. I can think of a few similar examples, one being SA Marvels with their front cover ULC boxes cut out that received 2.0s... but this piece is a touch bigger, and hard to say how much CGC factors in the front vs back thing.
  8. Great stuff. Beast Boy and I go way back. I like 3.0 on this.
  9. Thread closed, will move remaining books elsewhere if no further interest. See you next time!
  10. Paging @skypinkblu . But until she gets here... There were GA books manufactured in the wartime 1943-1944 era which do indeed fit this description -- 16 pages in the front and 12 pages in the back, with half-inch strips of paper like that peeping out in the back to secure the extra pages in the front. The concerning thing is that those strips pictured are by far the roughest I've ever seen -- not sure if even the worst production cuts would look like that. I wonder if someone could have tried unsuccessfully to rip or cut out those extra strips for some odd reason.
  11. I'll guess 6.5. Looks good! but not sure how much traction a press & clean would get.
  12. I didn't get it and I looked through my account pages and didn't see anything. If it's there, it's hiding well.
  13. Yep, looks good overall. I'd guess 4.5 unless the corner marks actually go through the pages.