Agent Cooper wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Someday ---- some glorious day ---- one of these posts is going to reveal that my virtually worthless 9th print DMG is actually a super rare 9.3 Gamma-Delta Print, one of only a handful of known copies personally bound and sewn by Gary Gygax during the little known Wisconsin printing press strike of 1986, and is now worth thousands of dollars!
Mister Yuk wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Some people will believe anything they read online
sauromatian wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Mister Yuk wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Some people will believe anything they read onlineWords have magical powers, so writing them causes what's written to become true. It's basically science. You believe in science, don't you?
Skullhammer wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:sauromatian wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Words have magical powers, so writing them causes what's written to become true. It's basically science. You believe in science, don't you?Haha! That was fantastic.
sauromatian wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Words have magical powers, so writing them causes what's written to become true. It's basically science. You believe in science, don't you?
Mister Yuk wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Yeah, I'm looking at one also that's ending soon. It just, a few minutes ago, got a bid on it. Is it someone looking for a cheap DMG or is it someone who had read your post ? It's has been personalized which is something I like in these. I know from a Collecting viewpoint, you want it to be as "original condition" as possible but with this stuff I think there is some merit to having that unique-ness that shows how unique each person was that played this game. Maybe that's just me...I think that's going to be something with these. If they are more cheaply made, they are going to typically be more worn. But also as in the case of the one you bought, sellers that don't know are going to take that rough cover as an imperfection, and those that know better will have an advantage - like us!I remember reading on here that what is called a printing is not always so, specifically. If the book or module says it's a "x" printing - it is called that printing. If it does not specifically state a printing - it's more of just a guideline of which was probably before or after the others of it's name. That point was made in this post - FoulFoot wrote in How do you tell a 2nd print S1 from a 7th?:Most likely there were dozens of actual printings, but so far, we've only be able to differentiate seven. :) Many prints may have been identical, since nothing needed to be changed.If the sole difference in two prints is the placement of the ISBN, I'm likely to simply designate it as two versions of the Second print. They were of course two separate printings, but it often gets to be ridiculous in shifting the whole sequence for such minor details (i.e., do you also designate a new printing if the size changes by a tenth of an inch? I've been down that road, and it isn't pretty). So, we'll have to see.FoulPersonally I'd like to see stated printings called the various printings and if not stated, just be called groups or something like that (I can't think of a good word for it right this second). Either way, it's going to be confusing to someone. A lot of this is already confusing, like when TSR was mixing & matching Basic box sets together to clear out pieces or didn't have everything in the set that should have been.
FoulFoot wrote in How do you tell a 2nd print S1 from a 7th?:Most likely there were dozens of actual printings, but so far, we've only be able to differentiate seven. :) Many prints may have been identical, since nothing needed to be changed.If the sole difference in two prints is the placement of the ISBN, I'm likely to simply designate it as two versions of the Second print. They were of course two separate printings, but it often gets to be ridiculous in shifting the whole sequence for such minor details (i.e., do you also designate a new printing if the size changes by a tenth of an inch? I've been down that road, and it isn't pretty). So, we'll have to see.Foul
MadCatUSA wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:PaulyDragon wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:A bit more info:The pages are even thinner than the rough-paper stock common to all the later printings (to cut down on production costs), but these thinner pages are SMOOTH! I just noticed that as I made this admittedly rambling and unscripted 8:17 video about this book, which is compared primarily with a regular Sixth Alpha Print, but also a First Print and a Second Beta Print to hopefully make clear the lighter-weight rough-covered 6th Print I have is possibly an anomaly with a logical backstory that has to be out there somewhere. (The parts when I say "Second Alpha Print" are actually "Second Beta Print" . . . sorry about that!)youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=uCIUX ... CIUXEsMyW0Further speculation:Could this be a UK or Aussie printing? Is there any way to tell for certain if it was printed in either country?
PaulyDragon wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:A bit more info:The pages are even thinner than the rough-paper stock common to all the later printings (to cut down on production costs), but these thinner pages are SMOOTH! I just noticed that as I made this admittedly rambling and unscripted 8:17 video about this book, which is compared primarily with a regular Sixth Alpha Print, but also a First Print and a Second Beta Print to hopefully make clear the lighter-weight rough-covered 6th Print I have is possibly an anomaly with a logical backstory that has to be out there somewhere. (The parts when I say "Second Alpha Print" are actually "Second Beta Print" . . . sorry about that!)youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=uCIUX ... CIUXEsMyW0
PaulyDragon wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:Does anybody else believe that, based on the evidence of what is surely a common yet distinct (and previously undescribed) version of 6th Print DMG, that this ought to have its own Greek letter designation-variant in the established Dungeon Masters Guide page?
SimperingToad wrote in Lighter-weight, flexible but rough-covered 6th Print DMG?:I'd certainly say no to a second printer. That would require two sets of negatives, two sets of plates, and most likely two sets of spreads unless the negatives were made from the same sheets, in which case the type should be identical. There would certainly be many more of these things floating around if this were the case. As TSR was getting cheap on the printing by this point, I doubt they'd go spend the cash to have two printers running copies simultaneously.I can't see from the photos any shift in type size, though definitely a shift on the pages. From what I can see, I'd have to lean towards a fan-made copy. Maybe taking the cover from an earlier print, and using photocopies of a later interior?How does the description match interior vs. exterior characteristics with what is available here? Correct appendices/pages/photos etc.?
