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

Gutboy Barrelhouse is a dwarf who was last seen partially entangled in a Web spell.

I just stumbled upon this Forum, knew about Acaeum for years, even have credit on their basic set 'thank you's'.....was watching the auction w/ wife, we were amazed at the level of scrutiny such a sale goes through...and here I thought I was bad ass w/ my pristine 7th ed. 1979 Basic set!



btw anyone know what J. Eric Holmes is doing these days?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary

Interesting points zhowar1!  JEH wrote several short stories for The Dragon/Dragon, as well as a novel (The Maze of Peril) using the same characters, some ERB pastiches (one or two for Pellucidar IIRC), and wrote his wonderful "Confessions of a Dungeon Master" article too (a great read!).  



I haven't read his scientific writings.  Sounds like they may be worth digging up (unless the ERB content is really short??).

I googled John Eric Holmes and found this:



"SAD NEWS John Eric Holmes has suffered a stroke and will not be able to appear as Guest of Honour at this year's ECOF Convention in Sacramento"



This was in the ERBzine weekly online fanzine:



ERBzine Weekly Online Fanzine



This looks like it may have been in 2004.  :?