Amazing Fantasy #15 Club

[Mac Man]

@ Mysterio: Even if it's old tape, the residue can still cause damage years later. Definitely shoot Kenny a PM.

 

@Boboloo: What? You hating on Marvel Chipping Actually, the second one looks spot on for a nice 3.0. What I'd really love to know is why that first AF 15 in 3.0 isn't MUCH higher in grade???

[etanick]

@ Mysterio: Even if it's old tape, the residue can still cause damage years later. Definitely shoot Kenny a PM.

 

@Boboloo: What? You hating on Marvel Chipping Actually, the second one looks spot on for a nice 3.0. What I'd really love to know is why that first AF 15 in 3.0 isn't MUCH higher in grade???

 

it wouldn't hurt to ask Matt/Kenny but I wouldn't be surprise if they say to leave it alone. I have a GA book with a few pieces of tape in the interior cover and Matt advised that I leave the book alone.

[Boba]

@ Mysterio: Even if it's old tape, the residue can still cause damage years later. Definitely shoot Kenny a PM.

Absolutely, they are the best. I had s serious amount of tape removed from a book recently and sometimes it can be a major project. A small piece, however, might be less of a problem, especially if it isn't fused into the paper like mine was. But I would always opt to attempt to have the tape removed, because as we all know, tape is corrosive and will only worsen with time. Better to get it removed, but that just my humble opinion.

 

@Boboloo: What? You hating on Marvel Chipping Actually, the second one looks spot on for a nice 3.0. What I'd really love to know is why that first AF 15 in 3.0 isn't MUCH higher in grade???

Yeah, I have a major problem with it. Especially since the one that looks higher is mine. I realized my post was a little out of context with the general conversation, but I am gearing up to bring my AF #15 to the CGC desk at the NYCC to raise a stink about the grade it received.

Based on the graders notes and how I've seen so many 3.0 & 3.5's that look much worse than my old slab 3.0 now reslabbed as a 3.5,

I think my book stands a chance at the full point upgrade it probably should have received in the first place.

 

But then again, that's only my humble opinion

 

@ Mysterio: Even if it's old tape, the residue can still cause damage years later. Definitely shoot Kenny a PM.

 

@Boboloo: What? You hating on Marvel Chipping Actually, the second one looks spot on for a nice 3.0. What I'd really love to know is why that first AF 15 in 3.0 isn't MUCH higher in grade???

 

it wouldn't hurt to ask Matt/Kenny but I wouldn't be surprise if they say to leave it alone. I have a GA book with a few pieces of tape in the interior cover and Matt advised that I leave the book alone.

I've heard that removing tape is the least fun thing a restorer does

[Mac Man]

@ Mysterio: Even if it's old tape, the residue can still cause damage years later. Definitely shoot Kenny a PM.

Absolutely, they are the best. I had s serious amount of tape removed from a book recently and sometimes it can be a major project. A small piece, however, might be less of a problem, especially if it isn't fused into the paper like mine was. But I would always opt to attempt to have the tape removed, because as we all know, tape is corrosive and will only worsen with time. Better to get it removed, but that just my humble opinion.

 

@Boboloo: What? You hating on Marvel Chipping Actually, the second one looks spot on for a nice 3.0. What I'd really love to know is why that first AF 15 in 3.0 isn't MUCH higher in grade???

Yeah, I have a major problem with it. Especially since the one that looks higher is mine. I realized my post was a little out of context with the general conversation, but I am gearing up to bring my AF #15 to the CGC desk at the NYCC to raise a stink about the grade it received.

Based on the graders notes and how I've seen so many 3.0 & 3.5's that look much worse than my old slab 3.0 now reslabbed as a 3.5,

I think my book stands a chance at the full point upgrade it probably should have received in the first place.

 

But then again, that's only my humble opinion

 

To be honest, if I was only basing a grade on the front cover, I'd have pegged this about 1.5 - 2.0 points higher. Obviously, I'm not seeing the interior and back cover, but this is NO way presents like a 3.0. The first one? Yes. Yours? 5.0 easy.

[Boba]

Thanks for the high praise, but I'm not that optimistic. I'd be happy with a 4.0

The interior has no major issues, and take a look, the back cover is pretty nice as well.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled programming

[mysterio]

This is the fun of "subjective" grading and being an art and not a science and all that. That brutal Marvel chipping is surely what brought that one copy down to a 3.0, as otherwise that book is quite clean. The non-chipped copy has some pretty significant creasing, including the upper right corner and about a 6" light crease in the lower right corner that may not show up on some monitors. It also looks a bit scuffed and isn't as bright as the chipped copy in terms of cover colors and gloss (this may be a difference in scans too). I do think that a 3.0 is grading it a bit harshly, but I likely wouldn't go any higher than a 3.5 based on the creasing. Granted, creases are among my most hated defects, so that may be personal bias, but I can't see 6" creases in a straight VG unless the copy is otherwise pretty tight. That is my 2 cents anyway...

 

I would still buy that non-chipped 3.0 any day if I didn't already have a copy. CGC is especially hard on Marvel chipping in otherwise higher graded books, and can be quite random in how chipping is graded, so you just never know. I have a few books in my collection (like my Amazing Spidey #2) that are nice but chipped and I am leery to submit them for that reason.

[etanick]

I was just about to write about the one 6" and the 4" color breaking creases....and I agree that the book could be higher...a 3.5? yes...higher than 3.5...I don't know.

 

I have owned a AF 15 6.5 book with a similar 6" diagonal crease like but it has less flaws on the spine and corners.

[Mac Man]

Well, all AF 15s are golden in my book so

 

(You should have seen some of the beaters I looked at before buying my baby--ask PointFive or Piper! )

[Peter Loves Gwen]

Thanks for the high praise, but I'm not that optimistic. I'd be happy with a 4.0

The interior has no major issues, and take a look, the back cover is pretty nice as well.

...

 

What exactly did the grader's notes say about the book? Usually that kind of odd grading turns out to have unseen issues, like staining.

[Boba]

All good and true points made above. I agree with most, if not all of them.

And yes, it has the creases noted.

 

If my recollection serves me the graders notes had nothing particularly

damning (outside the creases noted), 2 of the 3 graders gave it a 3.5 to 4,

the 3rd grader gave it a 3.5 and the final grader gave it a 3.5.

[mysterio]

You mean a 3.0 or a 3.5? Seems to me that if 3 graders gave a 3.5 then the book should be a 3.5 instead of a 3.0...

[Boba]

You mean a 3.0 or a 3.5? Seems to me that if 3 graders gave a 3.5 then the book should be a 3.5 instead of a 3.0...

 

Sorry I wasn't clear - the 3.0 was resubmitted and received a 3.5.

[mysterio]

Ok, so the old label 3.0 you showed us the pic of has since been resubmitted and gotten a 3.5? That would seem to be in line with what we said a bit ago.

 

(1 minute later) Just rechecked one of your earlier posts and saw you said that you resubmitted and got a 3.5. My mistake!

[Boba]

it's ok, it's Friday (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

[oakman29]

All good and true points made above. I agree with most, if not all of them.

And yes, it has the creases noted.

 

If my recollection serves me the graders notes had nothing particularly

damning (outside the creases noted), 2 of the 3 graders gave it a 3.5 to 4,

the 3rd grader gave it a 3.5 and the final grader gave it a 3.5.

Then why did'nt they grade it a 3.5? Your book looks like a 4.0/4.5 to me.

[Boba]

All good and true points made above. I agree with most, if not all of them.

And yes, it has the creases noted.

 

If my recollection serves me the graders notes had nothing particularly

damning (outside the creases noted), 2 of the 3 graders gave it a 3.5 to 4,

the 3rd grader gave it a 3.5 and the final grader gave it a 3.5.

Then why did'nt they grade it a 3.5? Your book looks like a 4.0/4.5 to me.

 

They did give it a 3.5. My fault, I confused everyone by posting the old slab before I resubbed and got the 3.5. Sorry 'bout that

[SAGAT]

The randomness of grading sometimes amazes me

I mean how the heck can these 2 books be the same numerical grade?

 

 

This is old news but the first looks like a cgc 4.0 and the second looks like a cgc 1.8. This is a joke- somebody should get over to cgc and file a complaint. This is what happens when cgc graders are having a great day and another scenario where they all got drunk and were seeing double. Thats why you buy the label and book and avoid just buying the label. Nice looking 3.0's deserve a 300% premium in this case.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Bob has always been conservative in pricing.....always has always will. Hail to Bob !

 

 

Yeah he's better than James Beckett for Sportscards. At least Bob makes comics go up to sell the book, yet James Beckett kills his own sportcard hobby by making everything go down and all Collectors,Stores and show promoters to go with it.

 

I'll take an AF15 over a Mantle rookie anyday of week.

I picked up the Beckett price guide and what a disappointment it is compared to the Overstreet, We have been spoiled all these years with Overstreet after checking out the Beckett and a few other priceguides for other hobbies.

[peewee22]

The randomness of grading sometimes amazes me

I mean how the heck can these 2 books be the same numerical grade?

 

 

This is old news but the first looks like a cgc 4.0 and the second looks like a cgc 1.8. This is a joke- somebody should get over to cgc and file a complaint. This is what happens when cgc graders are having a great day and another scenario where they all got drunk and were seeing double. Thats why you buy the label and book and avoid just buying the label. Nice looking 3.0's deserve a 300% premium in this case.

 

I think the grader(s) of the latter 3.0 starred in "One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest"...you know, Billy, Chief, etc.

 

 

[SAGAT]

The randomness of grading sometimes amazes me

I mean how the heck can these 2 books be the same numerical grade?

 

 

This is old news but the first looks like a cgc 4.0 and the second looks like a cgc 1.8. This is a joke- somebody should get over to cgc and file a complaint. This is what happens when cgc graders are having a great day and another scenario where they all got drunk and were seeing double. Thats why you buy the label and book and avoid just buying the label. Nice looking 3.0's deserve a 300% premium in this case.

 

I think the grader(s) of the latter 3.0 starred in "One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest"...you know, Billy, Chief, etc.

 

 

Jack Nicholson could grade better! That latter issue is a joke and you'd have to get someone really drunk to sell them that book even at half GPA.