Hi,

I’ve just received a white box set of D&D (believed to be 5th edition) but I’m comparing the books with the 4th edition I already own and have noticed some differences that I can’t see accounted for in The Acaeum’s very helpful guide. (Which has me slightly worried.)

For example, I’ll compare the supposed 5th edition (left) of the Underworld book with the 4th edition (right) below. (Excuse the poor colours of the photos.)

The two obvious things that have me worried are a) the texture of the cover and b) the size. All examples that I have and can find online, the cover texture for all books has a marbling effect (stray, errant indented lines) whilst my 5th edition copy has fine horizontal lines (no indentations) and no texture.

The supposed 5th edition is approximately 215mm high, as opposed to 210mm high for the 4th. The pages of the former is also printed on thicker paper (thin card stock really) and is in worryingly good condition (almost no rust to staples, clean white pages).

Is this 5th edition legit? The inside cover matches the parchment colour of the outside cover (Acaeum does mention that a couple of sets have been found with matching colouring).

I did wonder if they could be retro / reprints, but my Men & Magic book does mention Hobbits & Ents, whilst the white box itself is without starburst, but reassuringly worn and similar to my 4th edition.

Any advice or opinion would be gratefully received. Many thanks for reading!

I really really want somebody to document or disprove that 5mm height difference.
In 45 years of auctioning I do not recall height variances among the LBBs.

Ouch... that is a worrying news! I feel always negative since today there are too many ppl looking for easy money... i cannot help you at the moment as i am not at home and cannot compare my 5th editions vs 4th ones...
However here there will be many fellows who can perform this check!
The texture of the cover is really suspicious though...
This piece of news is a coincidence: yesterday i discovered that you can buy online a pair of jordan's travis scott for 50 bucks... (and from the pics i cannot spot any kind of forgery!)

Hi,

Many thanks everyone for your quick and helpful replies, it’s genuinely much appreciated.

In terms of size, I have been comparing my supposed 5th edition books with the Supplements I, II, III  & IV I already own (ranging from 2nd to 4th editions) and oddly they are of a similar ‘larger’ size – ranging from 216 - 218mm long. However, they are all printed on marbled covers and none have pages quite as thick.

Many thanks for the link Tszii and yes, my set is the same. Nice find!  

Those books look to have the same horizontal printing patternation to the covers. My books look identical, save for their pristine condition (though oddly my white box is fairly worn as per your link).

The original 3 books would be an odd thing to fake, but if someone did wish to reprint them in some form, I suspect acquiring the marbled card stock to print on would be the hardest thing.

The books were sold with the box and the box is legitimate in my opinion (identical to my 4th edition with similar signs of wear and manufacture). It’s just odd that the contents look like they were printed yesterday in comparison…


The set I recently acquired was eBay item no.  275983696217. (Click on ‘completed’ to find.)

The inside of the Men & Magic in the listing is the same color on both sides. The 5th print covers are white on the inside.

I did check my sets. I didnt have any with the same cover pattern as yours. They are all slightly marbled. There was a slight difference in the size of the printings. My photos arent great. Even I am looking at them thinking they dont demonstrate anything. I would need to get the books on a table with a measuring tape, but it looks like there is maybe a 1/16th of an inch of difference. It could just be a manufacturing variance really.

The size difference in your photos is noticeable. All this together...I am not sure it demonstrates anything. Your set could still be legit.

For a next step, you might want to consider getting a 20x magnifier. You can darn near count the fibers on these covers. The ink directly on the paper, without rosettes. Its just ink soaked into the fibers. If the lines are too perfect and you cant see rough fibers, its an issue.

This is from the men and magic book. Yes, the photo is bad, its the best of 10. Its hard to take a picture with a phone through a magnifier.

Yep. I am not an expert but I think it would be a stupid amount of work to get something with actual ink printing anymore.

Edit: Can anyone confirm or am I an idiot? Dont answer that, but you get the question.

This is what was used in the 70s and 80s. I actually had a class in 1991 that used this method for the college newspaper; linotype.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5slfQizimtg

No modern printer would look like this right? Laser, dot matrix, thermal...etc if there is anything else? Ink running, attached to fibers, if what we would expect to see?