This is a 4.0? 0

[BlowUpTheMoon]

22 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

By my calculations, about one-tenth of the front cover is missing. I would tend to agree with you...probably should have been Qualified. But there's no mention of that on the label...  

After careful consideration, I can see giving it a 1.8 or a 2.0 based on the amount of the cover that's missing. Anything higher than that does seem like a push...

I have a double cover book that is CGC 2.0/9.8.  About an 1/8th of the outer back cover is missing. 

[William-James88]

Speaking of books that look bad for the grade, I stumbled upon this one. Sure, I guess it's an 8.0, but it's the ugliest 8.0 I have ever seen.

 

[The Lions Den]

On 8/24/2020 at 10:00 PM, William-James88 said:

Speaking of books that look bad for the grade, I stumbled upon this one. Sure, I guess it's an 8.0, but it's the ugliest 8.0 I have ever seen.

 

Sometimes CGC is very lenient on Golden Age books with sun shadows. There are Mile High books that have shadows like this and were graded 9.6...

[The Lions Den]

On 8/24/2020 at 8:51 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

I have a double cover book that is CGC 2.0/9.8.  About an 1/8th of the outer back cover is missing. 

Very unusual to have a double cover book with that big of a grade swing...