muaddib5 wrote:Dungeons & Dragons Original Edition 1974! 3 Book Sethttp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 99753&rd=17 days with no reserve. Current bid is $10.50. White box (without the OCE starburst), BUT Men & Magic has the olderer warrior on horseback cover.
FoulFoot wrote:Hey Paul, did you ever see my message on this subject? I'm rather convinced that you have a First print set.
FoulFoot wrote:The biggest kicker with these "hybrid" early sets are: does it have a printing number on the inside cover of the booklet in question? The current eBay auction shows a white box. I'd bet 50 cents the booklets are Third print, and were simply leftovers tossed in the first batch of white boxes.
FoulFoot wrote:Your booklets do not have printing numbers on the inside. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned in the previous message, it's fairly clear that all three of your booklets are First prints, though your Book 3 may have been either first or last off the line (thus the different color interior cover). The presses would not have been started back up to print off a dozen extra copies of Book 3, at any time -- the cost would have been way too high.
FoulFoot wrote:Lastly, because I keep hearing Gygax and Mentzer listed as authorities on things like this: I have witnessed *many* instances where both individuals were flat-out wrong. The chief problem I have with them is that rather than say "gee, I'm not sure about that, it was a long time ago and I don't remember", they weigh in on every issue that crosses their path, and everyone accepts it as canon. Neither one wrote down anything as it occurred, and they're trying to recall events that happened 25-30 years ago. No offense, but few of us (me included) can remember such details even 5 years later. If someone on the street comes up to me and asks me to identify what printing their Basic Set is, I reference The Acaeum's listing -- because * I * can't remember all the printing nuances, and I'm the one who wrote it down initially!
FoulFoot wrote:And last time I checked, Frank Mentzer was not at TSR in the early to mid 1970's. Amazing how he remembers what paper stock was on the press at the time.
FoulFoot wrote:Apologies for my rant, though I think it's long overdue. A disservice is done to the collecting public when guesses and hypotheses are treated as fact -- they should be qualified as guesses and hypotheses, and proper respect should be paid to the realization that all of this was a very long time ago, no written records have survived whatsoever, and so our detective work must be very careful and meticulous indeed.
stormber wrote:Yes, thank you but I disagree with your assessment.You owe me 50 cents. The seller just emailed me - no print date on any of the books. The third booklet cover is buff/buff. Seems to support my research.
stormber wrote:Did you not read my post? I bought a woodgrain set with the buff/buff covered 3 volume from a gamestore owner locally, who distinctly remembers buying it new in early December of 1975. There are at least 5 examples of this same 2nd+ woodgrain set, plus this whitebox one that came up on eBay, plus the 3rd+ woodgrain set. Hybrids exist. Their print dates, release dates, box prints vary, and they came from TSR that way. Evidence and anectdotes points to this November-December 1975 time period as the point wher many of these hybrids were created.The information from Gygax, Sutherland, and Mentzer just happens to support this.
stormber wrote:Certainly they are not the end-all be-all authorities on this but you can't discredit their recollections, especially when it supports the empirical evidence toward hybrid-prints.
stormber wrote:Regardless, Mentzer has handled plenty of all of these sets (more than you or I for sure) as an auctioneer at GenCon. Do you dispute his qualifications in that regard?
stormber wrote:Oh, Scott I can't believe you, of all people would say that! When you put up anything on the Acaeum site it becomes gospel through some sort of e-magic. I have seen too few disqualifiers for "We just don't know." items. You have entered many TRUE First prints without qualification or definitive knowledge.
stormber wrote:People have thrown hundreds and thousands of dollars away on the whims of the Acaeum.
stormber wrote:Howdy,muaddib5 wrote:Dungeons & Dragons Original Edition 1974! 3 Book Sethttp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 99753&rd=17 days with no reserve. Current bid is $10.50. White box (without the OCE starburst), BUT Men & Magic has the olderer warrior on horseback cover.This is the same set of books (except in a woodgrain box) that I bought for way too much money a while back. According to my direct communication with Mentzer, Gygax, and Sutherland in fall/winter of 1975 several sets of these were cobbled together by the Blumes in order to move them out of stock. They were mixed, matched, and the volume 3 books reprinted when they were short. Gary stated that the printers had run out of the cover paper stock (new-leather exterior/white interior) when reprinting the third volume of the set and a substitution was made (I assume the buff/buff color you see in the above auction and from my $2,300 set). At best I'd call these sets a 2nd+ print - the two books may be a first print but the box might not be, possibly a 2nd or later woodgrain or even a 4th print white box, and volume 3 is definitely not. I also own two other 2nd+ woodgrains with the reprinted buff/buff covered volume 3 (one being confirmed as being purchased in early December of 1975 by the original owner), and another owned by Christopher Smagghe on this forum.According to the three worthies above, the Blumes used flawed and extra boxes left over from previous printings. This is where we get the hybrid sets such as the 3rd+ print I sold last year (listed on Acaeum), the 2nd+ print that I bought in April of this year for $2,300, and the one currently up on eBay. According to my research this mix-matching all occured in the fall/winter of 1975.Anyhow, you should all know that I explained this to the seller of the set, forwarded Gary and Frank's emails to the seller and attempted several times to get a return of the $2,300 for the 2nd+ late 1975 print woodgrain without success. He simply cited the Acaeum as his reference and refused to accept a return twice by email and again when I sent the item by registered mail.Futures Bright,Paul
FoulFoot wrote:"Frank said so" is a very weak argument, and so is "I just spent a lot of money on it, and so it better had be a First print".
stormber wrote:He wrote a book regarding this and had another in authorship.
stormber wrote:FoulFoot wrote:"Frank said so" is a very weak argument, and so is "I just spent a lot of money on it, and so it better had be a First print".Whoa, that is so uncool of you to characterize my whole argument that way.
Ralf Toth wrote:stormber wrote:He wrote a book regarding this and had another in authorship. Are you referring to the "1985-1986 Game Buyer's Price Guide" or yet another book? Is it any good? Could you please tell us a little about its contents (only pricing lists or background info, too?).
harami2000 wrote:Already have an enquiry in with the seller to try to figure out whether it's a 4th- (know someone who needs one) or an "interesting hybrid" (*points to the now familiar interesting difference in cardstock colors of the booklets*).
Deadlord36 wrote:Kind of amusing that it turns out the seller of the "first printing" booklets just threw them in a white box. This is the reason I don't bother with "hybrid" stuff. All this debate about how the thing came to be and it turns out it was just the seller prettying it up. Wonder how close we were to having a "3rd/4th +/- printing" added to the long list.