need you to eyeball grade these comics against CGC grading practices and recommend which to buy and why. They are the same issue, the numbers just seperate books.
Got it. Eyeballing both against CGC’s modern-age standards (corners, spine stress, color rub/handling, gloss, and general eye appeal), here’s the quick grade-and-buy call.
#29 (first photo)
– Spine: a couple tiny white flecks/micro-fray along the spine edge; lower-left spine corner shows the slightest rounding.
– Corners/edges: bottom-right looks a hair softer with minor lift; top-right has a whisper of blunting.
– Surface: very light handling in the teal field near lower left (likely non–color-breaking). Gloss otherwise pops.
– My take: **CGC ~9.6 (NM+)**. A press/clean might help but probably won’t move it to a sure 9.8.
#2 (second photo)
– Spine: cleaner line overall; micro-tooth from the cut is visible but fewer white specks than #29.
– Corners/edges: all four look a touch sharper than #29; bottom-left spine corner is the cleanest of the set.
– Surface: uniform color with minimal handling; best overall eye appeal.
– My take: **CGC 9.6/9.8 candidate (NM+ to NM/M)** depending on grader mood; strongest shot at 9.8.
## Recommendation
**Buy #2.** It has the sharper corners, cleaner spine, and better eye appeal—your best chance at a 9.8 slab. #29 is still a strong NM+ raw, but the tiny corner softening and spine flecks make it the runner-up.
If you’re bagging both:
– New mylar + full-back; store flat with low stack pressure.
– Skip press unless you see actual waviness/indentations; there isn’t obvious pressable damage here.
here is gemini assessment – find its flaws iif you can: Based on the images provided, here is an eyeball grade and recommendation.
Disclaimer: This is an informal “eyeball grade” based on front cover photos only. A professional CGC grade requires in-person evaluation of the entire book, including the back cover, spine, and interior pages.
Analysis
Comic #29 (frison.jpg):
Pros: This copy presents exceptionally well. The corners appear very sharp, particularly the top and bottom left. The surface gloss is high, and there are no visible creases, scuffs, or significant color breaks along the spine.
Potential Grade: This book is a strong candidate for NM+ 9.6 to NM/M 9.8.
Comic #2 (frisson2.jpg):
Pros: This is also a very high-grade copy.
Cons: The top-right corner appears to have a very minor amount of blunting or softness. While small, this is the type of minor defect that can differentiate high grades.
Potential Grade: This book appears to be in the NM 9.4 to NM+ 9.6 range.
Recommendation
Buy Comic #29.
Reasoning: In modern comic book grading, the difference between a 9.4, 9.6, and a 9.8 often comes down to minuscule defects. Based solely on these photos, Comic #29 appears to have sharper corners and a cleaner overall presentation than Comic #2. Assuming both are priced similarly and have no hidden defects on the back or interior, Comic #29 has the higher potential for achieving a top grade.
Short answer: Gemini picked the wrong winner and missed a few visible dings.
## What Gemini got wrong (and why)
1. **“No visible spine issues on #29.”**
Look again at #29: there are **tiny white spine flecks/micro-fray** and a **slightly soft lower-left spine corner**. Those are classic 9.6 limiters on a modern. Calling the spine “clean” is too generous.
2. **Corner sharpness flip-flopped.**
Gemini says #29 has the sharper corners. In the photos, **#2’s corners are crisper overall**, especially bottom-left at the spine. #29 shows **minor rounding at bottom-right** and a whisper of blunting at top-right.
3. **Surface handling ignored on #29.**
There’s **subtle, non–color-breaking handling/rub** in the teal field near the lower left on #29. Not a disaster, but enough to separate a 9.6 from a true 9.8 candidate.
4. **Over-penalizing #2.**
Gemini downgrades #2 to 9.4–9.6 for a “very minor” top-right softness. On moderns, a single ultra-minor corner touch (with a clean spine and strong gloss) is still a **9.6 / 9.8 candidate** depending on grader mood. 9.4 is too harsh for what we can see.
5. **Missed manufacturing tells.**
Neither assessment mentions **printer’s cut “tooth”** along the spine edge and **ink rub**—visible but normal. These don’t automatically kill a 9.8 if uniform and tiny; you judge severity. That nuance matters.
6. **Didn’t caveat lighting/perspective.**
The #29 shot has a tad more glare at lower left; #2 is more evenly lit. If you don’t note that, you can **under-see** handling on #29 and **over-see** imagined wear on #2.
7. **Recommendation logic inverted.**
If #29 truly had “no spine issues” and sharper corners, sure—pick it. But given the **actual** visible ticks/softness on #29 and the **cleaner spine + sharper corners** on #2, the expected CGC outcome tilts the other way.
## Corrected eyeball grades (front cover only)
– **#29:** NM+ **9.6** (press likely won’t move it reliably to 9.8 due to corner/spine micro-wear).
– **#2:** **9.6 / 9.8 candidate** (cleaner spine, crisper corners, best eye appeal).
## Buy call
**Buy #2.** It has the better shot at a **9.8**. Keep #29 if the price is right as a safe **9.6**.
## If you slab
– Mylar + full-back.
– Only press if you spot real indentations/waviness under raking light; I don’t see obvious pressable defects here.
– Note: back cover/inner cover could change everything—this is front-only.