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....
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.
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.
harami2000 wrote:(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).
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.
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).
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.
Jeff understands Pete's Character Archaic to have been a "pre-pub".
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.
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? )
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.
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!
Adam Shultz wrote:etax2: poor grammer edit and staple location edit as I confuse my left with my right hand sometimes.
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).
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.
Adam Shultz wrote:harami2000 wrote: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 $400 and change circa 2000.
harami2000 wrote:Where did you obtain that DG from? Hoping it can be dated far enough back to give it the thumbs up (and addition to the site's printing list).
Adam Shultz wrote:harami2000 wrote:Does that mean the previous "OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?" offer has just vanished from the table? I wouldn't say it is off of the table just yet. I would like to confirm a bit more before unloading. The condition of the PotVQ is simply too good to let go in this deal.
harami2000 wrote:Does that mean the previous "OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?" offer has just vanished from the table?
harami2000 wrote:Yep, like a gold ink. It looks exactly like it looks on the Acaeum's third print.
bclarkie wrote:Okay, please stop talking about all these rare items, it is making me crazy. Every item being discussed about being traded is on my now short wish list.
harami2000 wrote:Adam Shultz wrote:I wouldn't say it is off of the table just yet. I would like to confirm a bit more before unloading. The condition of the PotVQ is simply too good to let go in this deal.Heh. So that was a "no", immediately followed by a "yes" in response to my question, Adam? (I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! )
Adam Shultz wrote:I wouldn't say it is off of the table just yet. I would like to confirm a bit more before unloading. The condition of the PotVQ is simply too good to let go in this deal.
afoolandhis$ wrote: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.
afoolandhis$ wrote: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.
Adam Shultz wrote:harami2000 wrote:Heh. So that was a "no", immediately followed by a "yes" in response to my question, Adam? (I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! )You dealing with someone who is seasoned from trading with Mike Kuo for a couple of years. Lots of double talk and frustration culminating in a spectacular fit of aggression to the post office where you send and pick up what the gem that you are really glad you hung in there for.
harami2000 wrote:Heh. So that was a "no", immediately followed by a "yes" in response to my question, Adam? (I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! )