stormber wrote:T2nd Gamma DMG w/ Replacement Cover

Sounds too much like the "Gamma World" thread.    I'll get the questions back to you as soon as I finish work...I have two copies which aren't scarred but otherwise I'll have to sort out.

harami2000 wrote:Not sure about that full history "as given", esp. for the T1st Beta?

Touche...  

beyondthebreach wrote:So Paul, do you know of any T1st Alpha or Beta that escaped recall?  Have any been verified to anyone's knowledge?

*points above for anyone just joined the thread*
(supersedes current Acaeum descriptions/classifications for all save T1stAlpha...).

T1st Alphas were already accounted for, but I couldn't get anyone to sell me their copy for $50+

Will happily sell my (new-style) T1stBeta for $100 to any sucker willing to part with their cash.
*chuckles*. IMHO, I don't think they're going to be rare, now that the distinguishing marks have been confirmed.

Am still extremely curious about the T2nds, but am afraid I can't help out there...


(p.s. I did re-scan eBay and ask questions; but there aren't any more copies, at present.  
Paul could've been having an interesting time the last few months...).

Good response, Paul.
Can see how 10% of the damaged T2nds might've been left "wild", but would have expected 4,000 copies with MM fragments to have caused a bit more of a stir in the marketplace the last 25+ years...

stormber wrote:As soon as I hear from more people I'll post my whole new nomenclature and printing order. I think there is another TRUE 1st print out there...

*g*. Will be sure to keep my eyes open for those TT 1sts.


p.s. Has it been confirmed that 40,000 copies were actually printed (each time), rather than 40,000 placed "on order"?
*
(OK, admittedly it's far more likely than that extremely dubious "25,000" quote for the 4th print OD&D white box, but would still be a non-trivial print run for a single consignment).

Howdy David,


Well, here is my response to David's thanks in part, but this post is aimed primarily at laying out my argument for making the DMG version with the 2" "Advanced" the TRUE first print.

harami2000 wrote:Good response, Paul.

Thanks. Discovering what printing of the MM was bound into the DMG was one of the most exciting moments for me. It all came down to the vampire errata and a single word, "turns". Which means the DMG with the MM pages bound-in post dates the August 1979 printing of the MM!

Also, the little red and yellow striped fabric lining the spine last appears in the 4th print of the PH (May 1979) and the DMG with the 2" "Advanced" in the yellow banner. All other versions of the DMG, and all subsequent versions of the other hardcovers, lack the fabric lining. The first AD&D hardcover to appear without the fabric lining is the 4th print MM from August of 1979. Again, post dating the MM-pages-bound-in version of the DMG to the DMG with the 2" "Advanced".

The DMG with the 2" "Advanced" in the yellow banner is the only version of the DMG to have a 2" Advanced". All other versions of the DMG have a 1 3/4" "Advanced". The height of the stacked, 2" "Advanced" over "D&D" is 5/8". In all other versions of the DMG the stacked height is 9/16". What this really means is that the font size was reduced by 1 or 2 points.

Also, the wizard colophon and TSR address on the 2" "Advanced" version are but 3/16" from the bottom edge of the cover. All other copies have the logo and address raised to 1/2" from the bottom edge.

According to Dave Sutherland, the cover was made by creating a reflective plate with a reverse image of the DMG artwork and then "punching out" by hand the areas where text and images were to be placed. The text and images were then hand placed back into the "holes" and a new 4-color process film plate could be produced. Dave said this process was expensive for the amount of set up time, machines, processing, and labor, costing about $5,000 for the process. (Dave was very close to the whole printing process. He even remembered the brand name of the press they used, a Holdenburg, German press. Dave said, "Man that was a fast machine! Scary too! Very dangerous.")

Further, the stitching of the DMG w/ the 2" "Advanced" is 5/8", a standard stitch spacing for the PH and MM up until August of 1979. The DMG's with the MM bound-in and all later versions of the DMG, PH, and MM use 1" stitch spacing. Again, post dating the MM-pages-bound-in version of the DMG to the DMG with the 2" "Advanced".

From my research* of Dragon magazine and TSR catalogs, it is known that the DMG was first printed just in time for GenCon XII (August 16-19, 1979). Given this and the above characteristics, it is my opinion the DMG cover with the 2" "Advanced" is the TRUE 1st print.

My last two bits of evidence are from Dave Sutherland who claimed his proof-copy (sold in my recent Collector's Trove Celebrity Auction) was from the first print run and Steve Marsh who got 1st print contributor copies of all three AD&D hardcovers. Both had/have MM's and PH's that were TRUE 1st prints (ala. the Acaeum). The DMG's they had/have are of the 2" "Advanced" variety. Steve had his mailed to him directly from Gary with an inscription dated "August 1979".

Given these facts, I'd say the DMG with the MM pages bound-in and the scarred version printed two-weeks later are 2nd and 3rd prints respectively. The 2" "Advanced" version must be the TRUE 1st print.

This flies in the face of Harold Johnson in Collectable Toys and Values (Meyer 1994) and "The Story of TSR" in the Silver Anniversary Collector's Set (Mohan 1999). In both articles they refer to the MM bound-in DMG as being the first print run and the scarred cover version as the second print run.

harami2000 wrote:Can see how 10% of the damaged T2nds might've been left "wild", but would have expected 4,000 copies with MM fragments to have caused a bit more of a stir in the marketplace the last 25+ years...

But surely these copies were more likely to be trashed by their owners due to the imperfection. The DMG is a big book, finding 8 of 232 pages, sandwiched face to face in the very heart of the book seems unlikely. Most sellers wouldn't even look and if they did would they know that those MM pages don't belong. They do match pages numbers and are really not all that out of place to the unwitting.

As far as detecting the rebound version well I have already "helped" three of our own members to discover that they actually had one. So if we don't notice these things how can we expect eBay sellers to note them.

With regard to the scarred copies of the DMG, the trash factor is even more in play, most people wouldn't even think the book would sell with such damage. They certainly wouldn't identify it with fanfare and "SUPER RARE!" or "MINT!" And again, the rebound version of this suffers the same obscurity of the rebound MM-pages-removed version. The unscarred version of this, the "good books" that were shipped, don't have any identifying features at all!

harami2000 wrote:p.s. Has it been confirmed that 40,000 copies were actually printed (each time), rather than 40,000 placed "on order"?

Harold Johnson and Kim Mohan both maintain each print run was 40,000.

Keep emailing me and check all of your copies! You may have a rare copy of the DMG and you didn't even know it!

*See the next post for my DMG relative dating research.


Futures Bright,

Paul

I've been following this thread with interest, and I'd like to extend a hearty thanks to Paul for his hard work and research.  It certainly looks like you're onto something here.

All of it made perfect sense to me, right up to your next-to-last post -- where you totally lost me.  Uh, so the new printing sequence you list above (T1A, T1B, T2A, T2B, T2G) is false?  If I'm reading you right, you believe there was a printing of 40,000 books before that sequence, that have a 2" yellow banner as its defining characteristic?

stormber wrote:My last two bits of evidence are from Dave Sutherland who claimed his proof-copy (sold in my recent Collector's Trove Celebrity Auction) was from the first print run and Steve Marsh who got 1st print contributor copies of all three AD&D hardcovers. Both had/have MM's and PH's that were TRUE 1st prints (ala. the Acaeum). Both also had/have DMG's of the 2" "Advanced" variety. Steve had his mailed to him directly from Gary with an inscription dated "August 1979".

But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.  If his is a proof copy (and I wouldn't think there's any disagreement that this is indeed the case), then it's certainly representative of the "True 1st".  Right?

Foul

FoulFoot wrote:But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.Foul

I thought that wasn't the case, hence some disappointment, no?

*re-checks*

FoulFoot wrote:But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.

*sigh*.
Sorry. Can't find a post here, off-hand, and I didn't put in a bid (9/19/04 close date).

Will await someone telling me how lousy my memory is!

killjoy32 wrote:damn can't help with this one at all....i got 7 DM's guides and they are all revised dec 79 editions bah

*sigh* ne'mind

Hrmm... there are still a few goodies to be had with the revised editions, such as those yellow-flyleaf copies.
The Acaeum listing only mentions that one such copy has been seen, although Guido currently has a bashed copy up for sale (if I remember correctly from my browsing), and there's another at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5953419985

My own personal copy of the DMG was purchased new, and is also a revised edition... Put my cash gifts from Christmas to good use, there, next time I was down in Edinburgh.