Palace of the Vampire Queen print sequence
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 13 of 19123 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 171819
Author


Prolific Collector

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

Post 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 :!:

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post 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. :?

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post 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/

 WWW  


Sage Collector

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

Post 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. :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. :?

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? :o)

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).

  


Sage Collector

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

Post 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... :?

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 210
Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 25, 2018
Location: Northeast

Post 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.

  


Sage Collector

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

Post 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... :(

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post 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. :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. :?

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? :o)


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.

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post 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.

  


Sage Collector

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

Post 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! :D

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

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

*g*. Join the club! :)

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3798
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 02, 2021

Post 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.

Image Image Image

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post 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! :D

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

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.

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:04 am 
 

Okay, please stop talking about all these rare items, it is making me crazy. 8O  Every item being discussed about being traded is on my now short wish list. :o  :lol:


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:07 am 
 

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.

I should have a copy of that auction somewhere on my HDD. Sounds like the one I thought was a high price at the time, phps!
(You could've mentioned it was that copy on the previous page ;)).

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? :P

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? :o

(I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! :D)

harami2000 wrote:Yep, like a gold ink. It looks exactly like it looks on the Acaeum's third print.

3rd? Do you mean "black and gold", then, as opposed to "gold, only" (monochromatic, like the current 2nd print)?
I've got a 3rd print kicking around here somewhere and I certainly don't remember it shining... :)

  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:12 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:Okay, please stop talking about all these rare items, it is making me crazy. 8O Every item being discussed about being traded is on my now short wish list. :o :lol:

Is that excluding the Dragon #11 cover art, Brian, since there's only one of those around? Image
*watches out for sneak-attack, just in case*

k... sry ^^

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:18 am 
 

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? :o

(I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! :D)



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.

  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:52 am 
 

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.

Heya, Mike.
I was kinda hoping that would be a bit of a breakthrough there (something that wouldn't have made sense until Pete's recent comments), but no luck.... well, nothing certain, anyhow :(
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.

OK. I went and risked a heart attack by digging my black folder out of it's original poly bag... All the sheets are still mint, thankfully: nothing crunched in the spine fold! :o

Image
Unfortunately, I have one of these and the yellow scrollwork cover sheet.

Given the double-checked chronology from Pete it would have been expected that this cover sheet dated back to the start of the print run (75/76 per the cover date and Pete's declaration that the shop copy was pulled and bagged in Feb 76).
Also, your copy already had one missing map page which was replaced by a tri-folded copy. (Was that a TSR photocopy or just "low on ink"? Please remind me!).
...
However, <tfm>'s copy is also missing that cover sheet; Palace of the Vampire Queen print sequence • Page 11 • Collecting General •  The Acaeum
(Awaiting confirmation that's the cover sheet being referred to, not the copyright/distribution sheet, given I was primarily talking about the latter in the previous post).

Three obvious options would be that the yellow scrollwork cover sheet was later (if so, why the 75/76 date or presence in a stated-bagged-Feb 76 copy) or else they just ran out of copies (temporarily, otherwise it wouldn't be seen in all(?) the later folderless copies?), or it was somehow "lost" at a later date (co-incidence given two copies like this now, if tfm confirms).
Any options I'm missing?

  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:54 am 
 

Adam Shultz wrote:
harami2000 wrote:Heh. So that was a "no", immediately followed by a "yes" in response to my question, Adam? :o
(I think my avvy would be biting his tail just now! :D)

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.

*tries to appear reassured* k, Adam... ^^

Past experience hasn't quite worked that way, here :)

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3798
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:07 am 
 

harami2000 wrote:Heya, Mike.
...
Also, your copy already had one missing map page which was replaced by a tri-folded copy. (Was that a TSR photocopy or just "low on ink"? Please remind me!).


David,
Are you confusing my copy with I/O's?  I believe my foldered PoVQ - which I won from Rick Bauer - is complete.

I tend to agree with the hypothesis that the yellow cover sheet was added later.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 27, 2006

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:21 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.


I have a copy of CA, please refer to the following for further details:
http://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35864#35864
I would be most interested in hearing about possible differences between your version and mine.

sleuth2000

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 13 of 19123 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 171819