Interesting Items Formerly on eBay
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 90 of 100123 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 ... 9899100
Author

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor
Valuation Board

Posts: 1092
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:25 am 
 

War of Wizards way OOP TSR product
Wizard of War: Games | eBay

6 days left with an opening bid of $0.01.



 WWW  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2718
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:57 pm 
 

speaking of Dragon magazines...

large-ish collection for sale.

Dragon Magazine 1 | eBay


sadly, probably quite expensive to ship this lot to the UK :(
...

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:30 pm 
 

TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 WHITE BOX Complete | eBay

I've got nothing against this seller, but I am getting a little tired of the "1974" popping up on these sets. She is informed and knows her product...so ignorance isn't gonna fly.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:19 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 WHITE BOX Complete | eBay

I've got nothing against this seller, but I am getting a little tired of the "1974" popping up on these sets. She is informed and knows her product...so ignorance isn't gonna fly.

Hey, I know what you mean.  The copyright date of 1974 is annoying when it appears on these sets.  In her defense, this is correct information, though.  Printing date != copyright date.  And the printing date isn't listed on the 5ths at all.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6207
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:26 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
bbarsh wrote: D&D Miniatures Complete | eBay

I've got nothing against this seller, but I am getting a little tired of the "1974" popping up on these sets. She is informed and knows her product...so ignorance isn't gonna fly.

Hey, I know what you mean. The copyright date of 1974 is annoying when it appears on these sets. In her defense, this is correct information, though. Printing date != copyright date. And the printing date isn't listed on the 5ths at all.

I think the gripe is the use of '1974' to draw bidders, particularily in the title. If she'd said '5th Printing' instead, she knows she wouldn't get anyone looking. She knows exactly what she's doing and is being specifically missleading in the title to encourage hits.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:39 pm 
 

I have to disagree here. The 1974 is a perfectly valid date to have in the title - it's the copyright date. It's also a very common thing to put in the title when selling the old boxed sets. "5th printing" isn't.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:41 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:
deimos3428 wrote:Hey, I know what you mean. The copyright date of 1974 is annoying when it appears on these sets. In her defense, this is correct information, though. Printing date != copyright date. And the printing date isn't listed on the 5ths at all.

I think the gripe is the use of '1974' to draw bidders, particularily in the title. If she'd said '5th Printing' instead, she knows she wouldn't get anyone looking. She knows exactly what she's doing and is being specifically missleading in the title to encourage hits.

Yeah, I get that.  Sure, she's doing it for marketing purposes -- but at least it's true.

If you're lookin' for something (woodgrain?) based solely on '1974' -- you're kiddin' yourself, anyway. ;)  I'm running eight separate and overlapping searches with a multitude of positive and negative terms, and I still miss stuff.

 YIM  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:56 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:I have to disagree here. The 1974 is a perfectly valid date to have in the title - it's the copyright date. It's also a very common thing to put in the title when selling the old boxed sets. "5th printing" isn't.

Yup, some other auctions have 1974 and also state "first printing" all over their auction.
It might have been nice to see "5th printing" rather than just "earlier priniting" given that many people immediately associate white box = 1974 = first print (with "HOBBITS, ENTS & BALROGS still present" reinforcing that, perhaps), but 1974 => "copyright 1974" is probably fair game. :?

A pity for 3rd/4th print sellers where M&M is actually copyrighted 1975 and technically the 5th and 6th printing should also have retained that 1975 date (or later) since they did not revert to the original text and content.
Blame TSR for that confusion, then... :roll:

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:36 pm 
 

I think it is completely misleading. Flat out. We cannot go on the assumption that all buyers check out the Acaeum for their print information. I am not trying to single out this seller. There are plenty of others who do the same thing. But she is trying to pawn that set off as a 1974 print; especially when she hits that point about ents, hobbits, etc.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:26 pm 
 

What the f....

D and D Exhaust | eBay

Exact same item description as white box above but different seller:

http://cgi.ebay.com/TSR-D-D-Orignal-Rul ... plete_W0QQ itemZ5221756822QQcategoryZ44112QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 181
Joined: Apr 02, 2004
Last Visit: May 26, 2014
Location: Sierra Foothills, CA

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:17 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:I think it is completely misleading. Flat out. We cannot go on the assumption that all buyers check out the Acaeum for their print information. I am not trying to single out this seller. There are plenty of others who do the same thing. But she is trying to pawn that set off as a 1974 print; especially when she hits that point about ents, hobbits, etc.


All right now, I've gotta come on here and defend our listing procedures....no-one's trying to pawn this off as a true 1974 print. We all know that these items are nearly ALWAYS refered to with the "1974" date...this is what most buyers look for, in addition to the "white box". Should I try to have my listing missed by a potential buyer by not putting in the 1974 parameter? Of course not. In addition, most buyers dont care if it's a 4th or 5th..some don't even know the difference in the 6th print. Many of them do know about the balrogs, ents, and hobbits however....so again, there's nothing wrong in bringing this to their attention...especially if this is what they're looking for! At least this way, they don't waste money on an OCE, only to find out they get (blank), treants, and halflings! When I list these boxes, I only use two formats...one for the 4th/5th prints and one for the OCE prints...I don't even differentiate between a 4th or 5th print...I just note that it has the B/E/H references...or that it's an OCE. By your thinking, then only Woodgrains should bear the 1974 date in the description. Ridiculous. I'd like to check with other resellers...I'm pretty sure most of them use the 1974 parameter even if it's not a woodgrain.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 181
Joined: Apr 02, 2004
Last Visit: May 26, 2014
Location: Sierra Foothills, CA

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:30 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:What the f....

TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 Greyhawk and Chainmail | eBay

Exact same item description as white box above but different seller:

http://cgi.ebay.com/TSR-D-D-Orignal-Rul ... plete_W0QQ itemZ5221756822QQcategoryZ44112QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Now this is a another problem entirely! This has been happening to me more and more lately. I've been busting more people who not only steal my item description formats, not only steal my photos, but actually steal my description of the condition of the item word for word...for a totally different item! These are the type of crappy sellers whom should draw our ire...

:evil:  :evil:

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:45 am 
 

seeyouinescrow wrote:All right now, I've gotta come on here and defend our listing procedures....no-one's trying to pawn this off as a true 1974 print. We all know that these items are nearly ALWAYS refered to with the "1974" date...this is what most buyers look for, in addition to the "white box". Should I try to have my listing missed by a potential buyer by not putting in the 1974 parameter? Of course not. In addition, most buyers dont care if it's a 4th or 5th..some don't even know the difference in the 6th print. Many of them do know about the balrogs, ents, and hobbits however....so again, there's nothing wrong in bringing this to their attention...especially if this is what they're looking for! At least this way, they don't waste money on an OCE, only to find out they get (blank), treants, and halflings! When I list these boxes, I only use two formats...one for the 4th/5th prints and one for the OCE prints...I don't even differentiate between a 4th or 5th print...I just note that it has the B/E/H references...or that it's an OCE.

<snip>

This post has made me very sad.   :(  I can't stand the thought that there are bidders out there that would be disappointed on discovering they had an earlier printing.  :(  Or those that don't differentiate between printings.  Or those that haven't taken the time to learn that they didn't all magically appear in 1974.  To them, I present the following rant:

"This is a collectable, not a toy.  If you can't give the early printings the love and respect they deserve, maybe you aren't old enough to care for them yet.  Now go to your room, and think really hard about whether you have the time to handle an OD&D set."  (Think parents discussing pet ownership with child.)

Seriously though, I think you probably should mention it's a 4th/5th/6th, if only because inevitably someone will ask...why not put all the info you have into your listing? ;)

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:18 am 
 

seeyouinescrow wrote:
bbarsh wrote:I think it is completely misleading. Flat out. We cannot go on the assumption that all buyers check out the Acaeum for their print information. I am not trying to single out this seller. There are plenty of others who do the same thing. But she is trying to pawn that set off as a 1974 print; especially when she hits that point about ents, hobbits, etc.


All right now, I've gotta come on here and defend our listing procedures....no-one's trying to pawn this off as a true 1974 print. We all know that these items are nearly ALWAYS refered to with the "1974" date...this is what most buyers look for, in addition to the "white box". Should I try to have my listing missed by a potential buyer by not putting in the 1974 parameter? Of course not. In addition, most buyers dont care if it's a 4th or 5th..some don't even know the difference in the 6th print. Many of them do know about the balrogs, ents, and hobbits however....so again, there's nothing wrong in bringing this to their attention...especially if this is what they're looking for! At least this way, they don't waste money on an OCE, only to find out they get (blank), treants, and halflings! When I list these boxes, I only use two formats...one for the 4th/5th prints and one for the OCE prints...I don't even differentiate between a 4th or 5th print...I just note that it has the B/E/H references...or that it's an OCE. By your thinking, then only Woodgrains should bear the 1974 date in the description. Ridiculous. I'd like to check with other resellers...I'm pretty sure most of them use the 1974 parameter even if it's not a woodgrain. I'll tell you what is misleading however...is when someone bids on, and wins one of your items, but then just doesn't pay for it, and goes away for a while, and then comes back, still never bothers to even apologize for not paying, and then tries to criticize that seller's listing style.

:roll:



Seeyou or Julia -

1.    How about you check your facts. I posted this a while back for everyone to see.

bbarsh wrote:Wow...A guy takes a short leave and the next thing you know he's had a heart attack or is dead???

Anyway, thanks for the concern and back up from all those who were concerned.

I indeed fell off the "internet" planet many months back. Now I am back, but extremely busy with work so I can only check in on this site from time to time. I just came across this string a few minutes ago.

It looks like some people had issues with my last auction (december '04??). If it was not resolved, let me know and I will correct the problem.

Well, I am back and I will try to become a regular - if that is possible - contributor to this site again.


2. I don't list my OCEs as 1974, although I am sure some resellers do and some don't:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %3AIT&rd=1

3. You want to air dirty laundry, fine. Take the low road. I got neg'd for it and that is fair. I didn't come back and try to weasel out of it. But I made a legit post with a legit arguement, and you started out with your point of view and sunk to the personal attack card. I made a point of not attacking the seller in my post.

4. And like I said in my both my posts on this topic, I am not, or still not, attacking you as a seller, just the methodology.  Hell, I even found some guy that is copying your exact item descriptions - which only furthers my point about "misleading" descriptions regarding these particular boxed sets.

5.  I use my same username on this site as on ebay. Many others do not, I don't have a clue as to who people are when different user names are in play. So I have no agenda. Like I said in my original post, I wasn't attacking the seller, but the item description. Commonplace or not. And since you obviously know who I am, you could have contacted me at anytime...

6. I have been visiting the Acaeum site for long time. I sent scans of my tourney mods way back before there was a forum. I think this site is awesome. It has always been my impression that it is an "educational" site designed to inform the AD&D/D&D enthusiast. We all know how cloudy some of this printing info can be, and many members work hard to resolve them. I'd like to think that we as forum members strive to spread the word. I think this site is a great resource - and I am appreciative of that. I try to use that resource to help inform my buyers, it is that simple.

7. Water under the bridge, now. If we can't agree on the subject f the post, we'll that is cool. It is what these posts are all about, afterall. Again and finally, I have no problem with you or other sellers that use dates to your advantage - business is business. I just think we could have left it at that.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5625
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 23, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:27 pm 
 

This thread should be moved, it really has little to do with interesting items.
Is anyone keeping track of the weekly whitey count? I'm curious as to how many are up. It would be fun to see a graph chart of weekly listings, since they appear ten times more frequently than things like RPGA modules.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:45 pm 
 

OCE discussion is over.

But there is a lot of interest in these sets, as noted by the number available on any day. The set I have up has at least 20 watchers!!! I never see that high a number.

just checked:  24!!!


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:21 pm 
 

Heh, an interesting factoid - i've got a split-up OCE up right now (missing a few of the reference pages), and the box has 9 watchers. All the other pieces have 1 or 2.

Very strange :P

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:40 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:This thread should be moved, it really has little to do with interesting items.
Is anyone keeping track of the weekly whitey count? I'm curious as to how many are up. It would be fun to see a graph chart of weekly listings, since they appear ten times more frequently than things like RPGA modules.

My current count is four, including Grayson's and Bbarsh's, all 6ths.  Last week topped out at ten concurrent white box auctions, of which one was a 4th, and two to three were 5ths, if I remember correctly...

 YIM  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:25 pm 
 


Chain reaction's getting silly... :( :(

$291 and 5 days to go (high bidder can be pushed further since they're got two bids showing).

If I were reselling any of mine, I'd be starting to get embarrassed by $191, far less that current price. :?

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:32 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:My current count is four, including Grayson's and Bbarsh's, all 6ths. Last week topped out at ten concurrent white box auctions, of which one was a 4th, and two to three were 5ths, if I remember correctly...

Higher ratio of 4ths and 5ths (especially) than usual, I think.
The current sales pitch on 5ths probably helped smoke out that latest copy.

The 4th print is still a rarity "4" in my book, despite the apparent over-reaction against it's previous near-mythical status.
(*wonders whether that somewhat dodgy "25,000 copies of this set were printed" quote is to blame, as queried before*)

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 90 of 100123 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 ... 9899100