PGM Vampi 1

[Fandango]

Thanks as always:

 

 

[Jayman]

8.0 The back cover is the main culprit.

[divad]

8.0 The back cover is the main culprit.

 

Very nice! (until the last edge . . . )

 

I agree 8.0

[marvelcollector]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

[Timulty]

The Grading Bastiche says.....7.5. That back cover is a shame.

[Fandango]

Thanks to all.

[october]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

[divad]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

[october]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

Normally I would agree with you, but there appear to be 2-4 small vertical tears on the bottom edge along with the creasing. Not to mention the 3" color breaking crease through the bottom two panels of art on the back cover. Actually, it might be closer to a technical 7.0 when you take the size of that crease into account.

[Ajax]

Solid 7.5

[Norrin_Radd]

Long time no see.

 

 

7.5

[Aces]

7.0 That crushing on the BC is in multi places...

[Jayman]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

OMG!

That's bizzare, I was going to post something very similar to that after seeing the 7.5s pop up! Too true that it's not all negatives. That front cover has some nice qualities that must be considered to equal the final grade. Mags are bigger of course and tend to have their defects appear larger too. I fully agree with an 8.0

[divad]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

Normally I would agree with you, but there appear to be 2-4 small vertical tears on the bottom edge along with the creasing. Not to mention the 3" color breaking crease through the bottom two panels of art on the back cover. Actually, it might be closer to a technical 7.0 when you take the size of that crease into account.

 

Andy,

You may be right . . . let me put it this way then: How many of you would hesitate to pay OS 7.0 guide for this copy?

[divad]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

OMG!

That's bizzare, I was going to post something very similar to that after seeing the 7.5s pop up! Too true that it's not all negatives. That front cover has some nice qualities that must be considered to equal the final grade. Mags are bigger of course and tend to have their defects appear larger too. I fully agree with an 8.0

 

Of course, it could just be us magazine freaks

[Jayman]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

OMG!

That's bizzare, I was going to post something very similar to that after seeing the 7.5s pop up! Too true that it's not all negatives. That front cover has some nice qualities that must be considered to equal the final grade. Mags are bigger of course and tend to have their defects appear larger too. I fully agree with an 8.0

 

Of course, it could just be us magazine freaks

 

Ya mean dem dere big funny books? Yep, I like 'em!

[october]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

Normally I would agree with you, but there appear to be 2-4 small vertical tears on the bottom edge along with the creasing. Not to mention the 3" color breaking crease through the bottom two panels of art on the back cover. Actually, it might be closer to a technical 7.0 when you take the size of that crease into account.

 

Andy,

You may be right . . . let me put it this way then: How many of you would hesitate to pay OS 7.0 guide for this copy?

 

Not for a second would I hesitate. I qualified my low 7.0 grade with the word "technical" for a reason. That's a SWEET copy with some unfortunate defects that are unobtrusive, but still IMHO enough to drop it into the low VFs. It's a 7.5 with the front cover eye appeal of an 9.0/9.2. Exactly the kind of book I love.

[divad]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

Normally I would agree with you, but there appear to be 2-4 small vertical tears on the bottom edge along with the creasing. Not to mention the 3" color breaking crease through the bottom two panels of art on the back cover. Actually, it might be closer to a technical 7.0 when you take the size of that crease into account.

 

Andy,

You may be right . . . let me put it this way then: How many of you would hesitate to pay OS 7.0 guide for this copy?

 

Not for a second would I hesitate. I qualified my low 7.0 grade with the word "technical" for a reason. That's a SWEET copy with some unfortunate defects that are unobtrusive, but still IMHO enough to drop it into the low VFs. It's a 7.5 with the front cover eye appeal of an 9.0/9.2. Exactly the kind of book I love.

 

That makes three of us (+fandango is 4)

[Fandango]

7.5

The BE of BC keeps from a straight VF IMO...

 

Ditto.

 

Actually I disagree, due to the tremendous number of positives. Grading is not all negative guys.

 

This is a magazine, and that's a relatively insignificant series of crescent creases along the bottom edge of the back cover, on a book that otherwise appears to be a 9.0 -- I think a full point deduction is sufficient . . .

 

 

Normally I would agree with you, but there appear to be 2-4 small vertical tears on the bottom edge along with the creasing. Not to mention the 3" color breaking crease through the bottom two panels of art on the back cover. Actually, it might be closer to a technical 7.0 when you take the size of that crease into account.

 

Andy,

You may be right . . . let me put it this way then: How many of you would hesitate to pay OS 7.0 guide for this copy?

 

Not for a second would I hesitate. I qualified my low 7.0 grade with the word "technical" for a reason. That's a SWEET copy with some unfortunate defects that are unobtrusive, but still IMHO enough to drop it into the low VFs. It's a 7.5 with the front cover eye appeal of an 9.0/9.2. Exactly the kind of book I love.

 

That makes three of us (+fandango is 4)

 

[-cryptkeeper-]

7.5