bbarsh wrote:TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 WHITE BOX Complete | eBayI'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.
deimos3428 wrote:bbarsh wrote: D&D Miniatures Complete | eBayI'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.
bbarsh wrote: D&D Miniatures Complete | eBayI'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bbarsh wrote:What the f....TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 Greyhawk and Chainmail | eBayExact same item description as white box above but different seller:http://cgi.ebay.com/TSR-D-D-Orignal-Rul ... plete_W0QQ itemZ5221756822QQcategoryZ44112QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
bbarsh wrote:What the f....TSR D D Orignal Rules 1974 Greyhawk and Chainmail | eBay
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...