bclarkie wrote:David what happened here :

Blood of The Vampire: Movie Memorabilia | eBay

I am assuming that you found out that the date was in fact 1975 and not 1974 as previously stated?

The date is actually 1976, not 1974 or 1975.

Pete apologised for the error and said he'd be happy with a "fair price" for the mod.
I emailed him a response with a few more questions. Waited, waited, waited some more, then received an eBay note (still open) stating that I'd mutually agreed to abandon the sale owing to an error and that I OK the note to refund the seller his fees. *shrugs*

aside: To all intents and purposes, for any copies of PotVQ seen thus far, the black folder is the "gold standard", as several of us had supposed.

Pete Kerestan wrote:...it was May of that year before I reached an agreement with them [TSR] and sent the first items up. When I ran out of the folder run the switch was made to this poly bagged version then over to the booklet when the printer took over.

Oh well. Guess I'm just sat here looking silly...

bclarkie wrote:Well, you are defintely much better this way then $1600 later and then finding out the truth. Besides I dont think you look silly anyhow.

Good to know that this has then all added up as we supposed.

Heh. Still not chuffed at having put my neck on the line to the tune of more than a month's salary only to get brushed off like that.

From what I'd derived from Pete's previous comments, all this single sided/double sided/etc. lark is as likely due to the problems they had during printing as anything else. It may be impossible to determine any printing sequences from these since those sheets were used throughout 1976; possibly somewhat indiscriminately.

The black folder pre-dates June 1976, but any copies sold before then would (obviously) have been missing the "distributed by TSR" sheet and thus are more likely to be considered "defective" than sold earlier!
I'd expect the copy Pete has up for sale to be missing that sheet, too, since he bagged it soon after the shop opened (Feb 1976, not Feb 1975; in line with my "Judges Guild" observation prior to auction-close).


If there are any stated-1974 PotVQ's still out there, I ain't got a clue how we're going to spot them if they're just missing the extra sheets (including Brad/Morno's 75/76 cover sheet).
aside: I didn't get a response to my general query as to whether there is a mix of 2-way and 4-way alignment in the mod, since that is interesting in a dating context (if present). Anyone??

tfm wrote:My Black Folder does not have the yellow cover sheet, which does match the second part of the chronology provided, if that's any help.

right as frank was mentioning some days back, the dates n stuff that pete came out with, just didnt ring right. what david is now saying, to me, sounds far more feasible to me.

any PotVQ's that are missing the yellow sheet, i suspect, pre-date 1976, but as that yellow sheet prints the date, i dunno how else you are gonna know what the date of print actually is. anyone any ideas?

i have the poly-bagged one, that ian got off the burnie bros.

the back of the yellow sheet (think i've said it before but will do no harm atm with the current set of events) says the following:

Dungeon masters Kit #1 - Plaace of the Vampire Queen
Produced by Pete & Judy Kerestan
Printing & Layout by Jerry Welfonder
Art Work by Brad Schenck
Cover by Judy Kerestan

1st printing june 1976
copyright 1976

distributed exclusively by TSR Hobbies Inc.

so there you have it.

i guess thats all the yellow sheet was? it was printed up after the TSR deal and entered into the mod at that time, whether it was a poly-bag version OR a black-folder version and then the remainder of the print runs that he had were sold that way. after they were sold, he then printed up more (the print sequences we have already logged)....

does that make any sense or am i just spouting shite again

Al

Adam Shultz wrote:Due to a medical condition, Pete cannot follow up as thoroughly on this stuff as some of us might like. It is probably a great idea to cut him a little slack or risk turning him off to helping out...

*nods*. Agreed.

Am very glad he checked up with another friend from back then and admitted he'd got the backstory wrong for that copy before it arrived here.

Still, I would rather he'd just said the deal was null-and-void, up front, instead of stating he'd be happy with a negotiated "fair price", that he'd answer my other questions later, then leave everything up in the air until I received that eBay sale cancellation request without further communication.
(One of the other forum members had received hints of this, but I wasn't going to push Pete for a response because of those other factors).

Yes, I do know he has much more important things to be concerned about, IRL.
Best wishes to him on those; and thanks for the assistance that has been forthcoming.
Is a long way to trawl back memory-wise...

tfm wrote:My Black Folder does not have the yellow cover sheet, which does match the second part of the chronology provided, if that's any help.

Do mean cover sheet, not the TSR distribution sheet?
Hrmm.... Thanks for that information. I only wish that helped definitively!

Alas, loose leaves of paper can be just as easily lost as not present in the first place.
And we already know of several copies with TSR replacement photocopied sheets (including Tadashi's copy) so there was obviously a collation problem to some degree. In addition to those auctioned copies that were missing other pages, without replacement...

The TSR distribution sheet would have been printed May/June 76.
The black folders were apparently printed some time between the opening of the shop (Feb 76) and the TSR submission date (May 76).
Would expect Brad/Morno's cover sheet to date earlier because a) it carries a 75/76 date (artwork or module? ) and b) it is present (in yellow form) on what is stated to have been the shop's display copy (presumably Feb 76). A complication might be that Pete states he sent a white copy of the cover sheet to TSR.
Given that sequence, a black folder might reasonably be expected to have a cover sheet; unless it was lost, not collated properly, they temporarily ran out of copies, or.... etc., etc.
Dunno...

Unfortunately the other possible mini print run indicators are probably going to be inconclusive owing to the fun-and-games Pete said he had with the machine.

(aside: I do hope that Pete's copy is missing the TSR distribution sheet, as it should be.... If it does have that, it's entirely possible that the cover sheet is also "later", despite having that 75/76 date).

If any of the other possible earlier or later "states" can be created by removing pages (or folder) from a Black Folder copy with the "full complement" of pages, I'll continue to stick with that as the "gold standard" (+ relatively forgery-proof).
(Any loose leaf copy with the TSR distribution sheet present was either sold later, according to Pete, or just lost the folder. Fwiw...).

As to anything earlier. At this point I'm tempted to ask EGG whether he might have put aside the stated-1974 print that was sent to TSR as part of Pete's negotiations to have them distribute the module, but that's very much clutching at straws...

aside: Matthias Bock's spiral-bound copy (per Page Not Found ) is now obviously "not the first". However, if it contains original pages there are a whole raft of options open. Even that TSR might've been toying with that as a distribution form when they ran out of folders (think "Classic Warfare")? On the back-burner, anyhow...

All comments still 02c/afaik, only.

What confirmation do you have of that?

I linked him directly to the image. He said they never did such a printing.  :o

Adam Shultz wrote:

What confirmation do you have of that?

I linked him directly to the image. He said they never did such a printing.

TSR could have... ^^
But yes, again that would have to be "later" (by definition) even if they were responsible. Now that we have the TSR distribution deal evidence and know that Pete was selling copies via his shop before that..

=
Aside, did you also ask Pete about the infamous "3rd print"?
Page Not Found

He hasn't mentioned those at all to me and I'm still not certain that TSR did that one off their own backs rather than Pete & co. (The "finds" locations are inconclusive on that matter, although they do give the impression of TSR distribution).
*
Hey, not that they'd print off another few hundred copies without mentioning those to Pete! (I didn't say that! Apologies! )

thx.

Adam Shultz wrote:TSR didn't print anything independently. All wee warriors items were printing by Wee Warriors only. In fact, he used his own money and shipped the goods to TSR......they in turn sold the items, pocketed the cash, and didn't pay Pete at all! Not because they didn't want to but they just had a tremendous amount of cash flow problems within the business at this point pre-Hardcover sales. This is exactly what terminated that business relationship between WW and TSR.

So it would actually have been "cheaper" for TSR to have gotten Pete to send the "3rd print" copies to them for distribution, than run them off themselves?

Hrmm... I knew Pete was getting badly cut by whatever deal was in place, but don't think I realised he received a grand total of zero.
Just seemed more obvious for TSR to print/photocopy and bag them themselves (the missing room grid seemed to hint at that, too) than bother to have to order them from Pete (and not pay).
And we do know they ran off at least some photocopied replacement sheets.

=
As to TSR's cashflow situation. Well, the current print sequence listing would have that TSR had 25,000 white boxes stacked on their shelves, at that time. (Not that I think that's correct, of course).
The turnover figures for 1975 & 1976 were incredibly low, for what was quite a large product line...

sounds like the bum deal that most prb got around that time eh?

i really feel for the likes of pete. without ppl like him, there wouldnt have been anything for the future.

so all the information that was gleaned from the 1st auction that david "won".....did we actually learn anything new to add to what we had before?

Al

ps. just asking cos i am getting kinda lost with all the info now and am trying to make sense of it all without going off on a tangent