harami2000 wrote:

afoolandhis$ wrote:David, you're not saying you're out of it, are you?

Looks like it from those "predictions".



Am half tempted to throw in a better 2nd print U&WA to replace the one in that set, though.

(Picked up a few spare 2nd print booklets at $20/25 each, not that long ago).

Ouch!  Such casual brilliance.  

I always intended to "complete" the set by buying a 1st ed. 1st print book to replace U&WA, but tracking down a good condition single book like that was a daunting task. *sigh* Whoever wins the set will have a good excuse to tackle that quest with more conviction than I could muster!  :lol:

02cents/all comments afaik

invincibleoverlord wrote:BTW, I was under the impression that this variant cover was a 1st anyway

That's not what Paul said when he bought that $2,200 set.

invincibleoverlord wrote:...; just the cover is different to make up for a shorter cover run of the U&WA. I'm going to compare our 1st / 2nd like Peters to a 1st and true 2nd and compare the differences. From memory I know for sure that all the 1st including the variant are cut to the same size.

Would be interested to hear if that's the case with those you have access to! Things are even more complicated than I thought, if so.



The "variant" U&WA cover is 100% guaranteed to have been issued later because the cover matches the 2nd print.



In addition, I'm fairly certain the other two covers were reprinted as all sets with the "variant" U&WA also have the "lighter" M&M and M&T (most notable on the latter).

woodgrain sale • Collecting General •  The Acaeum

My early 1st print set is known to have been one of the first off the press; both it and the associated 1st Chainmail were used in the original Blackmoor campaign ("minty woodgrain" condition freaks beware of Blackmoor house rule annotations and extra "monsters" ).



As postulated, the covers on the books in the pre-pub box should clinch the matter... although, of course, I'm making the assumption that there were only two cover variants for each book.

I know of no other "dateable" set other than those EGG, DA and a few others might have. And I ain't seen those.



The "variant" U&WA is also more common than was previously stated. At least 7 or 8 copies, thus far, but I'd have to recheck the auctions and disposition of copies as I understand them.

IIRC, Paul had two sets of each. (?)



This all tallies with the standard trick of only printing as many covers, or indeed boxes, as were needed whereas the text sheets were presumably just bundled aside "for later use".

In book speak, the variant cover books (all three) are "1st print, later cover".



The text block in the second print has very minor, apparently consistent, differences. Will have to recheck those even more closely some time...

invincibleoverlord wrote:All the 2nd prints are about ¼" larger top to bottom. We're getting ready to display everything so I'll dig them out of the storage boxes a little early and try a shed some light on this.

Smaller, not larger, here; and consistently so.

The "variant" 1st U&WA conforms to that, too, in addition to the color offsets on the cover text.

invincibleoverlord wrote:One more quick thought, as far as the errata sheet being present, maybe these were just added in as sales carried through 74. Or they were just acquired by the original owners through the mail, conventions, or such over the early years. Anyone buying a true 1st would have been closely involved in gaming at the time and would have tried to acquire such sheets for games they purchased.

Speculative.

invincibleoverlord wrote:Any other thoughts on this gang?

Well aside from the above, my other question re. "missing" reference sheets. (Will be just as difficult to find those, too, since they have to be from a woodgrain set... but possibly not early 1st prints which makes for fun when trying to find a 1st print U&WA).



*waits for one of two other board members I know who can provide observations on all the above*



(Please let me know what you made of the sizes of the various prints, Mike).

bclarkie wrote:

harami2000 wrote:
*waits for one of two other board members I know who can provide observations on all the above*

Are you waiting on me David?

thx



D'you have an early 1st and 2nd for comparison with the later 1st, Brian?



Yeah, but measurements on the later 1st certainly wouldn't hurt; esp. the U&WA, and whether the guillotining is slight skewed or not on any of the volumes.



Actually, IIRC one of the two members I was thinking about doesn't have a second print (only pre-pub, (presumed later?) 1st and 3rd). And Stephen is "missing" one 1st M&M, although he has all the other prints (I remember well being underbidder (yet again) on <toymom>'s copies).

After further examination:



1st prints:



8 ½ "x 5 ½ "(standard paper size, mostly likely untrimmed)



1st print "variant":



8 7/16" x 5 ½ "(trimmed on top by aligning "Dungeons & Dragons" with other 1st's side by side)



IO wrote:

All the 2nd prints are about ¼" larger top to bottom

Whoops … strike that reverse it…



2nd prints:



8 7/16" x 5 5/16" (trimmed on top and side)



Notes:



I. By comparing 1st to "variant" 1st:

A. Obvious paper stock difference.

B. Staples align which most likely means they were run off on a binder together or close together in time. Staple binding machines are adjustable and sometimes move a little; especially on the older ones. But there is no real standard when setting the machine, so if I had to guess they were either run off together or some short amount of time before the machine was reset. I would need more copies to definitely verify this.



II. By comparing "variant" 1st to 2nd:

A. Again paper stock difference.

B. Staples do not align.

C. as noted above the height is the same, but "variant" has untrimmed side.



Thoughts?

I had another thought:



Do you think the variant 1st was printed to make up for the noted "lack of a 1000" needed to complete the 1st print run, or maybe there was a surplus of M&M's and M&T's; say 100 or so of each, and a few more U&WA were whipped up to further sales or carry over to the second prints?

Afoolandhis$ wrote:

The latter sounds more likely to me.

and



Peter wrote in his auction description:

The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)

Stephen,



So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?



A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.

B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.

C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.



All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.



BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?

02c thoughts to best of current understanding. ymmv.



Thanks, Mike.

invincibleoverlord wrote:Peter wrote in his auction description:

The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)

So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?

Have you asked Peter what source he's citing for his research?



Paul's previous observations ( • Collecting General •  The Acaeum , etc.) on the "hybrids" are basically correct, I think, although the actual printing date of the variant 1st U&WA covers should be earlier 1975 rather than close to December 1975 (when one such set noted on that link was stated to have been purchased) owing to the cover offset similarities to the 2nd print.

Re: OCE question

Aside from the fact that the plates should've been in TX...

invincibleoverlord wrote:Do you think the variant 1st was printed to make up for the noted "lack of a 1000" needed to complete the 1st print run, or maybe there was a surplus of M&M's and M&T's; say 100 or so of each, and a few more U&WA were whipped up to further sales or carry over to the second prints?

The "variant 1sts" were not actually "reprinted". The text block remains the same: it's just a "new" cover, as far as I can tell. (Still needing to recheck the copies closely and would encourage anyone with multiple 1sts and 2nds to do likewise, please )

Ditto for the other two volumes, where there appears to be a variation in the ink colors, with darker colors in the earlier print; especially noticeable on the M&T as stated. The variant 1st U&WA usually (would say always, but I'm only going by a few sets and auction scans which ain't gospel) goes along with the lighter green M&T.

Hence the presumption that the pages were just stashed aside until it was known to be worth printing covers on relatively expensive cardstock.



Mike; if you could dig out that non-variant set and check the M&Ts, please...



Why the variant U&WA should be so common (relatively) is difficult to explain if it was the "last usage" of surplus 1st print stock.

invincibleoverlord wrote:A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.

B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.

C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.



All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.



BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?

Ah, fun topic...



Was previously trying to trying to see whether these could be pinned down, but feedback was that there was a degree of variation/inconsistency in grain direction. Was first mentioned to me in the context of 1sts with vertical grain, then reinforced by that pre-pub with the same.

Don't recall seeing a 2nd with horizontal, though. Had a check through a few old auction scans, too.

*

Still on the research back-burner, but mix-and-match copies will probably cause as much grief with those as they might with the books.



Personally, am not trying to attribute presence/absence of the errata sheet (or ref sheets, indeed) to a specific stage of those "releases". Would expect either/both sheets to have been inserted into the assemblage when they were ready; and that's not likely to tie in neatly to a given stage.

(It is easier to "explain away" their absence on the earliest release(s), though).

A lot on my mind… so let's start here.



1. Where did woodgrain boxes come from? I'm guessing the same place Guidon got theirs after examining a Tractics box. These boxes must have been standard and ordered from an outside source in the early 70's. I'm almost sure Graphic Printing didn't make theses in house. The process of applying the paper to the cardboard is beyond any small to even mid-size print shop. Not to mention the die cutter needed to punch these out.



2. The Pre-publication is by Acaeum description only missing the box stickers. Sample boxes? That's my guess; these "stickers" don't appear to be stickers by the standard of peal and stick. They appear after closer examination to be part of the box making process. I'm not 100% sure so I'm going to swing by the print shop I worked at and run it by a few of the old printers.



Harami wrote:

Have you asked Peter what source he's citing for his research?

No, I did not; I should have mentioned this statement was also based on Paul's earlier posts, which you posted below this question. Thanks David.



So where did you acquire the Woody Peter?



Harami wrote:

The "variant 1sts" were not actually "reprinted". The text block remains the same: it's just a "new" cover, as far as I can tell.

After checking I agree, so along this line of thinking they "stashed" extra pages of text beyond the first 1000 printed, which the M&M's and M&T's where also printed beyond 1000, but had their covers (Normal printing practice to have "extras"). Then later after selling the first 1000, decided to make a few extra sets with the surplus 1st print M&M's and M&T's by making a new covers for the U&WA surplus stock text pages.



Agree, Disagree, Thoughts?

(Still needing to recheck the copies closely and would encourage anyone with multiple 1sts and 2nds to do likewise, please )

Agree also... Join in gang, with or without opinions appreciated.

for the other two volumes, where there appears to be a variation in the ink colors, with darker colors in the earlier print; especially noticeable on the M&T as stated. The variant 1st U&WA usually (would say always, but I'm only going by a few sets and auction scans which ain't gospel) goes along with the lighter green M&T.

See that, three 1st M&T's here, and yes one has a "darker green D&D", it also has a tinny height difference when all stood on end compared to the others.



Harami wrote:

Why the variant U&WA should be so common (relatively) is difficult to explain if it was the "last usage" of surplus 1st print stock.

That's a very good question. It definitely puts a twist on the whole thing.



Harami wrote:

Ah, fun topic...



Was previously trying to trying to see whether these could be pinned down, but feedback was that there was a degree of variation/inconsistency in grain direction. Was first mentioned to me in the context of 1sts with vertical grain, then reinforced by that pre-pub with the same.

Don't recall seeing a 2nd with horizontal, though. Had a check through a few old auction scans, too.

*

Still on the research back-burner, but mix-and-match copies will probably cause as much grief with those as they might with the books.



Personally, am not trying to attribute presence/absence of the errata sheet (or ref sheets, indeed) to a specific stage of those "releases". Would expect either/both sheets to have been inserted into the assemblage when they were ready; and that's not likely to tie in neatly to a given stage.

(It is easier to "explain away" their absence on the earliest release(s), though).

*giggles*



I see what you're saying David. And Lets be honest… the fledging company I'm sure was only interested in sales and getting the game out there to the public, so "mix-and match" I'm sure was common practice at a few points in their early days. So I'll speak for myself and say I'll take them like I can get them and have fun from there.



Mike