That is exactly what happened, clarkie. I went thru this in a thread last year (or maybe 2 years ago). The 2nd printing is actually the unfoldered version with the yellow cover sheet, and the booklets are third and fourth respectively. The bagged "1st printings" were leftovers.
I spoke with a gentleman long ago who distinctly remembers wanting to buy PoVQ when it came out, and not having the $$. When he had saved up enough and went back to the same store he always went to, the foldered version was gone, and he got a bagged copy. He recalled it well, according to him, because he thought the folder was neat, and the store owner told him they didn't have any more folder versions, they had bagged, and that they couldn't get foldered ones anymore. He said they had multiples copies there (2 I think, but I am not positive), and he bought one. I did see pictures of his copy, and he had no reason to lie, I did not even bring up the subject of 1st/2nd prints. I just mentioned to him that I had a PoVQ. He asked if it had a folder, I said yes, and that was when he told me.
Soooooooooooooooo.......... that is why I am 100% sure of the chronology.
The amusing thing is, the 2nd print (the REAL 2nd print) with the yellow cover sheet is insanely rare compared to the foldered version. I have seen 1, the one that sold last year. Were I still collecting multiple printings, I would have gladly slung $700 at it. Even the booklets do not come up very often.

Deadlord36 wrote:That is exactly what happened, clarkie. I went thru this in a thread last year (or maybe 2 years ago). The 2nd printing is actually the unfoldered version with the yellow cover sheet, and the booklets are third and fourth respectively. The bagged "1st printings" were leftovers.
I spoke with a gentleman long ago who distinctly remembers wanting to buy PoVQ when it came out, and not having the $$. When he had saved up enough and went back to the same store he always went to, the foldered version was gone, and he got a bagged copy. He recalled it well, according to him, because he thought the folder was neat, and the store owner told him they didn't have any more folder versions, they had bagged, and that they couldn't get foldered ones anymore. He said they had multiples copies there (2 I think, but I am not positive), and he bought one. I did see pictures of his copy, and he had no reason to lie, I did not even bring up the subject of 1st/2nd prints. I just mentioned to him that I had a PoVQ. He asked if it had a folder, I said yes, and that was when he told me.
Soooooooooooooooo.......... that is why I am 100% sure of the chronology.

Then the real question is the why are we still sticking to the "other" chronology? It seems to me that there is a heck of a lot more evidence supporting the black folder/first distribution, plastic bag/second distribution theory and considering that total lack of evidence that I have seen for the "other" chronology, why the resistance to change

mbassoc2003 wrote:If you label them first distribution, second distribution etc. you devalue anything that you have not labelled 'first distribution'. You are assigning preference and priority to an indivitual print run.

If you label them 'first edition with cover' and 'first edition without cover' and you do not assign a chronology to it, then you do not devalue the items.

Not necessarily, I think the Rarity factor would then figure into total value as well. With that in mind though, the largest problem that the plastic bag version brings, has already been stated here "why don't I just throw away the cardboard cover and say its a plastic bag version?". There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence either way to support exactly when each version was released(be it at the same time or not), so in the end it may be best to simply list both as 1st prints with/without cover.

get one of both and then you have the best of both worlds, no matter what anyone decides?

thing is, lets be honest, if EITHER of them were up for grabs, everyone and then some would still go for them anyways, wouldnt they?

in the end, unless you have cold, hard fact. ie someone who has clear knowledge of "HOW" the print runs happened (as there is no written evidence of print or order), whatever gets "decided" is simply conjecture surely?

anyway, not trying to stir anything up.....promise!  :?

mbassoc2003 wrote:If the 'first' and 'second' prints of PoVQ were printed at the same time, surely they are both first edition prints?

We don't say Jade Hare first print and Jade Hare second print.

Surely what we have here is 'first edition with folder' and 'first edition without folder'?

Why is there an arguement here about the order in which these were printed. I'm sure my Jade Hare came off the presses before some of those owned by some of the collectors here, and I'm sure it came off the press after some of those. But we're talking about a single print run here.

Why the need for a priority of one over another? Why a need to value one over another?

They should both be considered first edition copies, with and without folder.

Myself, I would not want a "bagged" version. It is, to me, no different than a coverless Jade Hare. Worth a bit, but not too much.
My chronology does and always has started with the black folder. NO proof whatsoever has been put forth to sustain the baged version being first, and I have personally been given proof to my satisfaction that the foldered was first. That to me makes a bagged version next to useless.

mbassoc2003 wrote:How does one then explain the double sided printing vs. single sided printing issues. Maybe the double sided copies are genuine, and single sided copies were copies that hobby shops ran off themselves at local copy shops?

Ouch...
Say "thank you" for that suggestion, Frank. (ditto, Mike <invincible>).

No, they're sounding genuine enough (Tadashi having a copy to sell reassured me of that to quite a degree) but understanding the reasons for that difference seems to be as difficult as pinning values on any version, even if it's in NM condition.
*
A bagged version might also be "next to useless" for some people, but I know many others who would pounce at the opportunity.

And that the ziploc version might have been sold slightly cheaper locally or at cons makes almost as much sense as the folders running out (or both reasons, even).

mbassoc2003 wrote:There are too many unknowns here to make blanket statements as to chronology and value, as the same unknowns could be said to surround genuine copy versus counterfeit copy.

*nods*. The folder is a "nice to have" in terms of being more difficult to counterfeit (or if it had been, many more copies might have been seen), but beyond that is a pretty large gray area all-round.

I don't have a black folder copy of PoVQ, but I'd be interested to see what would happen....

Suppose you put PoVQ up on eBay as near mint first print without the cover, and you put the black folder up as a single item at the same time.

I wonder if you'd net a bigger return than selling it on it's own?

Haw about putting your's up, David? I'll bid on the folder.

Deadlord36 wrote:I know of another person who has a single-sided copy. Perhaps we should tally up the totals of the single and double. Perhaps they ran off single-sided ones first, and thought that they didn't fit as well in the folder as doubles. There are a million theories, but the only thing I have ever found hard evidence to support is the folder being a 1st print.

*nods*. The folder fit one sounded good as a possible... or else to save time at the end of the run rather than manual duplexing... etc., etc.
Yeah, myriad reasons and speculations.

Are there any single sided copies known for certain to have been purchased first-hand in ziploc?

Deadlord36 wrote:Regardless of what opinions are, there should certainly be no distinction printwise between the two. It would be like saying the coverless Jade Hare was a 1st print, and the covered one a 2nd.

I'll buy that first sentence.
The second is kinda superfluous, if the cover was never officially released/distributed to the public. (Although even if that makes it outwith the official scope of The Acaeum, I don't think anyone's going to delete the listing...).

mbassoc2003 wrote:

harami2000 wrote:(Especially when you've got your own wounds to lick...)

You mean my overspend on the Burnie's PoVQ? Or something else?

Ain't that enough? Even allowing for the other good purchases you've made elsewhere.

Yeah, PotVQ was the topic, I thought.