harami2000 wrote:Not sure about that full history "as given", esp. for the T1st Beta?
beyondthebreach wrote:So Paul, do you know of any T1st Alpha or Beta that escaped recall? Have any been verified to anyone's knowledge?
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...
harami2000 wrote:Good response, Paul.
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...
harami2000 wrote:p.s. Has it been confirmed that 40,000 copies were actually printed (each time), rather than 40,000 placed "on order"?
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".
stormber wrote: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.
stormber wrote: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.
FoulFoot wrote:But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.Foul
FoulFoot wrote:But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.
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
FoulFoot wrote: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: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?
harami2000 wrote:FoulFoot wrote:But Sutherland's "proof copy" had MM pages bound in -- I distinctly remember that from the auction listing.FoulI thought that wasn't the case, hence some disappointment, no?*re-checks*