Palace of the Vampire Queen print sequence • Page 14 • Collecting General • The Acaeum

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Palace of the Vampire Queen print sequence
	Page 14 of 21 • 1 2 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19 20 21

Author

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:39 pm

Adam Shultz wrote:
Sorry; from discussions with Pete I'll disagree with all three of those comments. All points already covered.

Really? I just combed back through the end part of this thread and didnae find these discussed points. From your discussion with Pete you have concluded it is a special edition and not an unused copy? And he contradicts what he wrote IO in his quoted response earlier?

*g*. I didn't "conclude". I just asked Pete the right questions and (only a few hours before auction close) he replied with full details explaining why the inner pages were from the stated-1974 1st print. (Would have been slitting my throat to have posted that on the board, so apologies for not doing so!).
Immediately after the auction closed, Pete checked with a friend who remembered the full history of this copy and sent me a profuse apology for having misled me.
Like I said, am greatful to him (and his friend) for checking this out and copying me in before I parted with the money. Would still have preferred to have been able to make the "fair market offer" which was "all he requested" for the mod, but that's by-the-by, now.

Because it was bagged as the "house copy" before the TSR distribution deal was sealed, it should be missing the copyright page as that was printed later.

Ah... the response to IO (page 9, not 10). That's the "hybrid copy" story with the incorrect Feb 1975 date. I'm a bit unsure, but I think Frank (quite fairly to be honest) said that sounded more like the third print (Acaeum listing), perhaps given that he suspected the date Pete had provided was wrong (as turned out to be the case).
That page of this thread is further confused by <tfm> giving a new definition of "3rd"

Adam Shultz wrote:I am just glad I already have the fully vested black cover version.....whatever damn printing it is.

No joke!!
*nods in agreement*. Perfectly happy with my black folder, too; and glad I held out for one, thankyouverymuch...

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:43 pm

Damn. I was just thinking about offering my Black Foldered version in trade for your Dragon11 original. :wink:

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:00 pm

Adam Shultz wrote:Damn. I was just thinking about offering my Black Foldered version in trade for your Dragon11 original.

*chuckles*. Thank you, Adam!

Well, that wouldn't have been a million miles off the mark. William pushed me to within cents of my limit for that black folder (sorry!) and there hasn't been another good copy, since.
(Given the current situation, unless you've got a spare copy of the folder, you'd probably be best sitting very tightly on that.
Think you might've mentioned something along that line, before...?).

On a purely commercial basis, I still probably should've swapped it for that NM 2nd woodgrain (the $611 01/2002 copy on Page Not Found , IIRC) where I was underbidder to the person I sniped on the Dragon artwork.

(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:08 pm

Ok. 2 things.

First, you lost the woodgrain to who? Cause I was the damn second highest bidder in that original 11 auction. :lol:

Second. Hows about this....

black jacket PotVQ + Full sized 1st Dwarven Glory (missing 2 pages with staple but in otherwise EX+ appearance) = Your Dragon11 original ?

eta: This is one of like 3 DGs 1st print that I have ever seen on auction.

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:33 pm

Adam Shultz wrote:Ok. 2 things.

First, you lost the woodgrain to who? Cause I was the damn second highest bidder in that original 11 auction.

Hmm... could've sworn it was the same bidder I'd missed out on that 2nd woodgrain to, since I was sure I was offered that on the basis they'd acquired an even better copy.
Am sure I should remember such details from 3-4 years ago, given we're hoping Pete will remember printing details from 29 years ago....

But now I check; early TSR art??

Must sate my curiosity as to who was offering that woodie...

Adam Shultz wrote:Second. Hows about this....

black jacket PotVQ + Full sized 1st Dwarven Glory (missing 2 pages with staple but in otherwise EX+ appearance) = Your Dragon11 original ?

Hrrr... serious trade goods, even if neither would now tick off any of the last few boxes on my "wish list".
Your black folder PotVQ is in fairly decent nick, isn't it?
But two pages missing on that 1st DG? *sigh*

Pity that's not the other way around...

=
p.s. Yeah you didn't really need to add that p.s. ^^
I know the number spotted probably hasn't made double figures; not even with Frank on full-time search....

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:43 pm

harami2000 wrote:
Adam Shultz wrote:
Really? I just combed back through the end part of this thread and didnae find these discussed points. From your discussion with Pete you have concluded it is a special edition and not an unused copy? And he contradicts what he wrote IO in his quoted response earlier?

*g*. I didn't "conclude". I just asked Pete the right questions and (only a few hours before auction close) he replied with full details explaining why the inner pages were from the stated-1974 1st print. (Would have been slitting my throat to have posted that on the board, so apologies for not doing so!).
Immediately after the auction closed, Pete checked with a friend who remembered the full history of this copy and sent me a profuse apology for having misled me.
Like I said, am greatful to him (and his friend) for checking this out and copying me in before I parted with the money. Would still have preferred to have been able to make the "fair market offer" which was "all he requested" for the mod, but that's by-the-by, now.

Because it was bagged as the "house copy" before the TSR distribution deal was sealed, it should be missing the copyright page as that was printed later.

Ah... the response to IO (page 9, not 10). That's the "hybrid copy" story with the incorrect Feb 1975 date. I'm a bit unsure, but I think Frank (quite fairly to be honest) said that sounded more like the third print (Acaeum listing), perhaps given that he suspected the date Pete had provided was wrong (as turned out to be the case).
That page of this thread is further confused by <tfm> giving a new definition of "3rd"

Back on topic a bit.. None of my queries to Pete were about this auction so I have very little than what is posted here to draw any conclusions. Didn't want to leave anyone wondering as much. But I understand now how Harami has come to his thoughts on this auction.

Back off topic..

harami2000 wrote:(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).

I only have a NM- Tamoachan to offer. It isn't really of the midgrade quality.

OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?
Lets talk tomorrow and see if we can hammer something out. :-D

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:51 pm

harami2000 wrote:Am sure I should remember such details from 3-4 years ago, given we're hoping Pete will remember printing details from 29 years ago....

I have nearly drowned out (with the drink!) details from a really bad business deal I had 3 years ago. After 30 years I wont even remember what line of work I was in at this pace. I don't blame Pete for wanting to move on after what happened in the late 70's. You would at least think TSR would try to make good on bad debts to the little guy after they started to rake in the cash :!:

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:56 am

Oh heck. I just pulled out my DG 1st print to check to see how incomplete it was. First I discovered that the copyright page says 1977 and not 1976 according to the Acaeum's info. :D And it might very well be complete but not in the same terms as the copy that has been described on the Wee Warriors DG page here.

bbarsh
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3865
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2023
Location: Milford, Michigan

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:24 am

My perspective is from a guy who does not collect wee warriors stuff at all. I don't, and will not, own a single product. Simply because I have no desire to own them.

But what I see is a probable partial copy of an undetermined printing. If I were interested, I would have to ask myself how much do I really want a PVQ and am I stretching on this one to rationalize my desire to obtain it...

I just see too many variables around this particular auction. The hype, percieved or otherwise, comes from who the seller is, not the actual item. If Joe Smith from Nebraska were selling it, I think the interest level would be lower (and the final price).

Again, just an observation from a mostly disinterested party.

Note: I'd like to have one, but I am not gonna spend the money necessary to have one - just to clarify my position.

And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:25 am

Adam Shultz wrote:Oh heck. I just pulled out my DG 1st print to check to see how incomplete it was. First I discovered that the copyright page says 1977 and not 1976 according to the Acaeum's info. And it might very well be complete but not in the same terms as the copy that has been described on the Wee Warriors DG page here.

It hasn't suddenly turned into booklet form, has it?

(Or have you been sitting on a variant printing all along, without realising that?

)

Adam Shultz wrote:
harami2000 wrote:(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).

I only have a NM- Tamoachan to offer. It isn't really of the midgrade quality.

*LOL*. *prepares to be taunted a second time*
Well, I do rate those two (and Tsoj to a lesser degree) higher on my "relative value" list since they've eluded me several times.

Don't worry: Burnie Bros. ain't come round and offered a stack of 2nd Chains (*g*).
Maybe Kenneth Rahman isn't on their artwork wishlist (although if it were the Divine Right box art rather than "just" Dragon #11, might have been a different matter).

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:38 am

bbarsh wrote:My perspective is from a guy who does not collect wee warriors stuff at all. I don't, and will not, own a single product. Simply because I have no desire to own them.

Getting to be a very expensive business for something that's off the mainstream, too.

bbarsh wrote:But what I see is a probable partial copy of an undetermined printing. If I were interested, I would have to ask myself how much do I really want a PVQ and am I stretching on this one to rationalize my desire to obtain it...

I just see too many variables around this particular auction. The hype, percieved or otherwise, comes from who the seller is, not the actual item. If Joe Smith from Nebraska were selling it, I think the interest level would be lower (and the final price).

Agreed.

And was a different kettle of fish when a stated-1974 print was on offer: would've been the only known copy and almost impossible to provenance any other that might've turned up randomly at a future date.
Additionally, it would've rewritten the history about PotVQ only being the first printed module rather than the first printed scenario, in a product distributed by TSR at some point (c/w "Temple of the Frog" in Blackmoor).

Having said all that, if the end-result second-time around (in a 1976 context) is much less than I'd've offered Pete, I'll still be a bit miffed...

a2jeff
Prolific Collector

Posts: 210
Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Last Visit: May 24, 2022
Location: Northeast

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:45 am

Adam Shultz wrote:
Jeff understands Pete's Character Archaic to have been a "pre-pub".

I missed this as well. There was nothing in the auction description to suggest this. I was the second highest bidder and would have gladly paid for it in its condition from the publisher on those merits alone.

I'll be posting a separate thread on The Character Archaic and my findings on this particular copy, in addition to notarized comments from Pete soon. If anyone has a printing of CA, please chime in so we can do some comparisions when the time comes.

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:07 am

a2jeff wrote:I'll be posting a separate thread on The Character Archaic and my findings on this particular copy, in addition to notarized comments from Pete soon. If anyone has a printing of CA, please chime in so we can do some comparisions when the time comes.

Oh, I thought you had one already, Jeff...

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:10 am

harami2000 wrote:
Adam Shultz wrote:Oh heck. I just pulled out my DG 1st print to check to see how incomplete it was. First I discovered that the copyright page says 1977 and not 1976 according to the Acaeum's info. And it might very well be complete but not in the same terms as the copy that has been described on the Wee Warriors DG page here.

It hasn't suddenly turned into booklet form, has it? [ Image ]
(Or have you been sitting on a variant printing all along, without realising that? )

It is the full sized, yellow/red ink cover version and the copyright page at the end clearly states 1977. It really does appear complete and may very well have been sold with a single staple in the upper left hand corner as this copy is completely unused and in EX+ to NM- condition. It would seem to be an unknown copy.

I also own a supposed 3rd print digest version with the gold ink on the cover. The copyright in it is 1976

This print run stuff makes my head spin to no end. Art is much easier for me to comprehend!

Hows about this.... 10th anniversery boxset in SW (rhea's copy not Aaron's) = Dragon 11 ?

etax2: poor grammer edit and staple location edit as I confuse my left with my right hand sometimes.

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:28 am

bbarsh wrote:My perspective is from a guy who does not collect wee warriors stuff at all. I don't, and will not, own a single product. Simply because I have no desire to own them.

I can understand not wanting to drop the dough needed these days to bring them home but I would just like to drop 2 thoughts.

First, the historical significance of these items are a huge plus. 1st adventures published and a series no less. Secondly, they are really excellent adventures in terms of concept and flavor. The adventures require you to fill in the blanks more than later adventures but this was the idea of the game during that period.

They really are worth it on a number of different levels when put into context of the value of other peripheral rarities. Pound for pound they might actually be a better value.

harami2000
Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:32 am

Adam Shultz wrote:It is the full sized, yellow/red ink cover version and the copyright page at the end clearly states 1977. It really does appear complete and may very well have been sold with a single staple in the upper left hand corner as this copy is completely unused and in EX+ to NM- condition. It would seem to be an unknown copy.

Neat!

Does that mean the previous "OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?" offer has just vanished from the table?

Where did you obtain that DG from? Hoping it can be dated far enough back to give it the thumbs up (and addition to the site's printing list).

Adam Shultz wrote:I also own a supposed 3rd print digest version with the gold ink on the cover. The copyright in it is 1976 This print run stuff makes my head spin to no end. Art is much easier for me to comprehend!

Gold?

Excuse me, I'll come back in a few years to see whether anyone's made progress on the print runs!

Actually "1976" might not be a problem. Like TSR, Wee Warriors sometimes- but not always- appear to have backdated their products to the original publication date. Thus, Character Archaic and Endless Dungeon both still have 1975 in the TSR distributed copies, despite being post-May 1976 in that format. However, this wasn't done for PotVQ, hence some major confusion.
Similarly, TSR advanced their (c) date in Men & Magic to 1975 (for the 3rd & 4th OD&D sets), then reverted back to 1974.

Adam Shultz wrote:etax2: poor grammer edit and staple location edit as I confuse my left with my right hand sometimes.

*g*. Join the club!

bombadil
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3807
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 10, 2023

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:37 am

Was going to post about the intro page on my foldered version, but went back in this thread and realized I had already done so. To recap, the intro page (on the left, below) has no scrollwork, and is white. The copyright page is also white, and is glued into the back of the folder.

scribe
Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:53 am

harami2000 wrote:
Adam Shultz wrote:It is the full sized, yellow/red ink cover version and the copyright page at the end clearly states 1977. It really does appear complete and may very well have been sold with a single staple in the upper left hand corner as this copy is completely unused and in EX+ to NM- condition. It would seem to be an unknown copy.

Neat!

Does that mean the previous "OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?" offer has just vanished from the table?

Where did you obtain that DG from? Hoping it can be dated far enough back to give it the thumbs up (and addition to the site's printing list).

I bought it off of ebay. It is represented in the auction history page as the $400 and change circa 2000.

I wouldn't say it is off of the table just yet. I would like to confirm a bit more before unloading. The condition of the PotVQ is simply too good to let go in this deal. The DG is in really terrific condition and extremely rare. I would normally keep it but I really really really hate this print run stuff and would rather let it go to someone who can appreciate it and enjoy the chase for knowledge.

I am someone who would really enjoy the original art. So lets try to make a deal!

harami2000 wrote:
Adam Shultz wrote:I also own a supposed 3rd print digest version with the gold ink on the cover. The copyright in it is 1976 This print run stuff makes my head spin to no end. Art is much easier for me to comprehend!

Gold? [ Image ]
Excuse me, I'll come back in a few years to see whether anyone's made progress on the print runs!

Actually "1976" might not be a problem. Like TSR, Wee Warriors sometimes- but not always- appear to have backdated their products to the original publication date. Thus, Character Archaic and Endless Dungeon both still have 1975 in the TSR distributed copies, despite being post-May 1976 in that format. However, this wasn't done for PotVQ, hence some major confusion.
Similarly, TSR advanced their (c) date in Men & Magic to 1975 (for the 3rd & 4th OD&D sets), then reverted back to 1974.

Yep, like a gold ink. It looks exactly like it looks on the Acaeum's third print.

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Page 14 of 21 • 1 2 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19 20 21