bclarkie wrote:Wow, I am surprised this went this cheap: ** expired/removed eBay auction **I saw Stephen's bid on it and just tossed in a small bid overtop to subtly let him know that I knew what he was bidding on. After I got outbid, I figured it was probably common knowledge what was included within this auction, which apparently I was wrong.
Beyondthebreach wrote:Everytime I see one of those box sets in my searches, I check to see if there is a Jade Hare with it. As I recall, that is the 4th set in the last few years that has had a Jade Hare . . . sure, the owners may have added them in, but I can't help being curious if TSR just shoved some extra Jade Hares into a few of these sets (same time era, some "no cover" module format).
bclarkie wrote:No, the reason that they keep popping up with those sets(I just found another one this last week, not this one though ) is because within this game there was a loose offer sheet inside the set that were meant to be mailed back into to the TSR Hobby Shop to get the free complimentary "Jade Hare" module. I figure that because the original offer was included within that set and the fact that it was supposed to be used a supplemental for that set, that they are frequently just dropped in those boxes by the owners when the recieved them by mail. Additionally, apparently the TSR Hobby Shop at some point(if not from the very begining) had a long delay in mailing them out as I will soon have 2 Jade Hares with an apology letter, apologizing for the delay of the free module. Someone else(not from here I don't believe) actually sold a Jade Hare a few months ago on Ebay that also included this same apology letter.[/u]
The Collector's Trove wrote:Howdy All,Well, I am going to report this but you should all probably sit down. This won't be easy.You remember this: ** expired/removed eBay auction **Yeah, well, we blew it. The guy listed it as "2e" because the Acaeum listed a pre-pub (presumably "1e" as far as the seller was concerned). I have confirmed it with the buyer - it is - steady - a 1st print with all three original booklets and - urk - a dated, personal note from Gary Gygax just 9 months after the release of the D&D game. It sold for less than $900. A diamond right before our eyes and mislabled at our own hand. Here is the reply (of doom):"I have determined that it meets all the criteria below and is, in fact, a January 1974 first edition. There was one other earlier version, the Pre-Publication set produced in 1973. The only difference between that one and this one is that the brown boxes were plain with no artwork or stickers. Hope this helps." (he then goes on to quote the Acaeum entry)Now that has to be THE one that got away for the year! Three cheers to the fellow who won it in plain sight!Futures bright,Paul
faro wrote:And it ain't a variant (=late) U&WA, either.
bombadil wrote:Based on the color of the card-stock? Please explain
red_bus wrote:Didn't Frank mentzer also warn against broad assumptions based around paper tone differences and tiny size variations?
red_bus wrote:There might be many such variations in a complex print run and we should perhaps be wary of drawing broad conclusions - like that there were several different and distinct print runs of the 1st ed. (or indeed around the existence of the pre-pub ).
red_bus wrote:[edited to add, yes. 2nd ed. would be a lot less painful ]
faro wrote:The ISoldIt seller should have sent this to the winner ten days ago. Are you sure he's not trying to wind up the losers? Or else, just clueless by quoting the Acaeum pre-pub?
faro wrote:There is no connection between the note and the box: no reference to "here's a freebie for you", or anything like that.
faro wrote:Remember this, Paul? Does anyone have a genuine non-variant 1st print otherwise? Would love to know, if so...
AdderMcOne wrote:'Hybrid' - original set - as books 2+3 cardstock match, whereas book 1 differs.
faro wrote:Yep. No broad assumptions: just basing off several dozen "original" woodies and incorporating any extra data as that might become available. (Having forum members actively encourage each other to hybridise sets doesn't exactly help in that; and I'm sure that various hybrids have been sold on from lack of knowledge as to what grief that causes when trying to work things out, later. )