Full-sized Dwarven Glory
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 21, 2
Author


Prolific Collector

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

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

Hey guys. So as to not clutter up the PotVQ thread anymore I decided to start this up for the sake of taking a look at this item. I bought the full sized DG about 5 years ago on ebay and had always assumed it was incomplete. After talking trade with Harami in the PotVQ thread I pulled out the copy to try to figure out just how incomplete it was. I have since become curious about how different it is to the one represented on this site and wonder if others have copies for comparison.

Wee Warriors page here..... http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/dmk.html

My copy comes with these pages in this order stapled on the upper left (which may or may not be original condition)

pg1 - Full size yellow paper cover page with red ink. Artwork says 1977 and matches all other known prints.
pg2 - Plain hex paper printed on one side.
pg3-6 - Map pages printed on both sides.
pg 7 - Creature encounter table on one side. Character stat reference table on reverse side. Both tables unused and blank ready for DM to fill in.
pg 8 (last page) - Use of Kit instructions (see scan below). Presentation of product with scenerio background on reverse side.



Note on the scan. Copyright mentions 1977 which is different than the item represented as DG1st on teh Acaeum. Could this be a late print after the digest?

Image

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3795
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 15, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:15 am 
 

Adam Shultz wrote:pg2 - Plain hex paper printed on one side.
pg3-6 - Map pages printed on both sides.


Hi Adam,
Would very much like to see pics of one of those map pages, and a page of hex paper if possible.  Could you post them in this thread?

-Stephen

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:22 am 
 

The hex page is blank w/o the morno design draping the outer edges.

The maps are identical to the map pullout sheets in the digest sized DGs but unlike them they are printed on both sides for half of the total number of map sheets. Do you still need to see scans?

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3795
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 15, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:25 am 
 

Adam Shultz wrote:Do you still need to see scans?


Sure, I'd like to get a good look at an example of one of the maps.

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:43 am 
 

Damn. I will try a bit later. Between getting slow server responses here and a printer with a corrupted chip..I am just twisting in the wind.  :x

  


Active Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:07 pm 
 

I'm afraid my copy is a 3rd printing, so I won't be able to give you more sound info than you already have, just personal thoughts.

It sounds a bit strange that room contents should be missing from this version. True, there are those "blank tables" which I had not heard of before. However, the presence of a blank map in both booklet and looseleaf versions clearly shows that the caves were meant to be expanded upon by the DM.

As for copyright dates, it looks quite messy. PotVQ was 1976 on the looseleaf version, and 1977 in my digest-size booklet (last printing). tDG would be 1977 on the looseleaf version and 1976 in the booklet ?

BTW, the digest-size booklet lacks the scenario background. Would mind posting a picture of the other side of the page you scanned ?

Regards,

sleuth2000

  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:21 pm 
 

sleuth2000 wrote:As for copyright dates, it looks quite messy. PotVQ was 1976 on the looseleaf version, and 1977 in my digest-size booklet (last printing). tDG would be 1977 on the looseleaf version and 1976 in the booklet ?

*copies across my post from the PotVQ thread, fwiw*

viewtopic.php?p=36040&lighter=#36040
<clip>
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.
</clip>

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:09 pm 
 

sleuth2000 wrote:It sounds a bit strange that room contents should be missing from this version. True, there are those "blank tables" which I had not heard of before. However, the presence of a blank map in both booklet and looseleaf versions clearly shows that the caves were meant to be expanded upon by the DM.

As for copyright dates, it looks quite messy. PotVQ was 1976 on the looseleaf version, and 1977 in my digest-size booklet (last printing). tDG would be 1977 on the looseleaf version and 1976 in the booklet ?

BTW, the digest-size booklet lacks the scenario background. Would mind posting a picture of the other side of the page you scanned ?

Regards,

sleuth2000


I am no reason to believe it came with the room contents according to the Use of Kit instructions I posted. Most dungeons at that period and time put the burden of fleshing out the dungeon on the DM. But this remains a bit sparten as far as all of that goes so I could very well be wrong. Further, the pages aren't numbered so I cant rely on that for clues.

The copyright dates clearly show in each of the books. I am inclined to believe the DG digest to be an error considering the date of the artwork. But this will require a bit more deduction as well.

:lol: If I scan 2 more picts that will mean I will have reproduced nearly 50% of the book here. I am afraid the copyright police around here will declare fatwa on me.  :lol: If there are no severe objections I will scan them tonight and alter them to a certain degree.

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3795
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 15, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:14 pm 
 

Adam,
No need to scan an entire map page.  A 1/4 page scan should do.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 186
Joined: Apr 13, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 06, 2006
Location: At the Door of the Colorado National Monument

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:14 pm 
 

My full-size Dwarven Glory corresponds to yours exactly, except mine has the following pamphlet along with it:

Image

The pamphlet, which is copyrighted 1976 (cover artwork 1977), contains nothing but a room key for rooms 1-23.

I'm guessing that the first print Dwarven Glory was issued in two parts.

Happy Halloween!

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:40 pm 
 

Oh hell, that is great.  :lol: Around every turn there is some dramatically new.

I am betting that is a sort of errata sheet. I would bet they decided to flesh the dungeon out a bit more than I suggested earlier. Or perhaps they just forgot to include a few sheets with the original shipment and had to send the second booklet?

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:50 pm 
 

Here is the scan of the lower map.

Image

Here is the background for the adventure.

Image

  


Active Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:54 am 
 

Adam Shultz wrote:Here is the background for the adventure.

Thanks for the pic !

sleuth2000

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6246
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:27 am 
 

Is the orange booklet 'digest' size?
Does it have a title/contents/copyright page?


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Sage Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:59 am 
 

Laying aside the dating "evidence" issues which appear to permeate all Wee Warriors items, from a design evolution perspective, the following might appear to make sense for DG.

1. All pages loose-leaf, full-sized (per PotVQ) loose-leaf format. 13 pages as noted on http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/ModPages/DMK.html
- Currently "1st print" on The Acaeum.

2. Cover, maps, blank encounter table, etc. full-sized loose leaf (8 pages) plus stapled (hand-stapled?) keyed digest-size pamphlet.
(Nice one, tfm ;) I presume the contents of the pamphlet are not duplicated elsewhere on the loose leaf pages??)
This format would certainly be more "convenient" for the judge/DM to use...
- Currently not listed on The Acaeum.

3. Everything in a single digest sized stapled (machine-stapled?) volume.
No more problems with missing pages! :P
- Currently listed as 2nd & 3rd prints, but with no mention of a monochromatic gold cover version (:D).
note aside: Some copies may exist unstapled, per that coverless PotVQ Brian recently picked up (eBay 8710487662, may have been purchased directly from Pete?).

What do y'all think?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6246
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:50 am 
 

harami2000 wrote:2. Cover, maps, blank encounter table, etc. full-sized loose leaf (8 pages) plus stapled (hand-stapled?) keyed digest-size pamphlet.
(Nice one, tfm ;) I presume the contents of the pamphlet are not duplicated elsewhere on the loose leaf pages??)
This format would certainly be more "convenient" for the judge/DM to use...
- Currently not listed on The Acaeum.

So that would be a 2nd Alpha? It seems a logical transition from loose leaf to staples digest.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:05 am 
 

harami2000 wrote:
2. Cover, maps, blank encounter table, etc. full-sized loose leaf (8 pages) plus stapled (hand-stapled?) keyed digest-size pamphlet.
(Nice one, tfm ;) I presume the contents of the pamphlet are not duplicated elsewhere on the loose leaf pages??)
This format would certainly be more "convenient" for the judge/DM to use...
- Currently not listed on The Acaeum.


I would wait to hear from someone who has the item mentioned on the DG pages at this site before giving it the first print status. It is probably better to just mass these two sightings together as the logical first printing until further notice (like maybe Pete showing up to shed some light). You really have to have solid evidence before bestowing a printing on something other than light circumstantial evidence.

I wouldn't say the additional handbook to be more convenient at all since the contents of the rest of the book would be privy to the DM as well. Plus, two booklets/one adventure is completely unheard of at this juncture in the game, no?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6246
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:20 am 
 

Adam Shultz wrote:I would wait to hear from someone who has the item mentioned on the DG pages at this site before giving it the first print status. It is probably better to just mass these two sightings together as the logical first printing until further notice (like maybe Pete showing up to shed some light). You really have to have solid evidence before bestowing a printing on something other than light circumstantial evidence.

I wouldn't say the additional handbook to be more convenient at all since the contents of the rest of the book would be privy to the DM as well. Plus, two booklets/one adventure is completely unheard of at this juncture in the game, no?

The arbitory labelling of printings based on circumstantial evidence has a long history on this site. Hense the belief that the black foldered PoVQ is the first printing and the ziplocked loose leaf is the second. This seems to be cotradicted by what Pete recalls from his publishing days, but then who knows. There seems to be little or no imperical evidence either way, for either DG or PoVQ.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:42 am 
 

harami2000 wrote:3. Everything in a single digest sized stapled (machine-stapled?) volume.
No more problems with missing pages! :P
- Currently listed as 2nd & 3rd prints, but with no mention of a monochromatic gold cover version (:D).
note aside: Some copies may exist unstapled, per that coverless PotVQ Brian recently picked up (eBay 8710487662, may have been purchased directly from Pete?).

What do y'all think?


Hey David, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the PotVQ that I have now was in fact stapled at one point.  It appears the previous owner removed the cover and just lost it somewhere along the way.  :(


"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

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:47 am 
 

There really isn't so much wrong with a good educated guess on which was first and I would be the first to give the site an A+ for effort. It just isn't a good idea to write it in stone on that basis though but rather keep it open for discussion as more evidence comes to light (eg more copies in teh hands of collectors). Representing similar items as first/second based on circumstantial evidence isn't so bad to do this until it starts to heavily effect the value of the item like this true-first-print hardbound stuff.

There is a significant difference in the PotVQ first editions which have warrented a good look. It turns out the one person who bestowed the print run on them pretty much had it right according to all discussion and evidence to date. But it has taken a good hard look through lots of copies with Pete weighing in as the cherry on the top.

I for one am a big fan of calling blocks of nearly identical items 'editions' rather than specific printings when there are no clear print markings or hard empirical evidence for delineation.

There is nothing significant about the 1st print DG copy represented previously on this site that would suggest it is first outside of the '76 copyright claim which gets thrown out the window again because it has '77 art. Both copies have merits that could suggest its print run but nothing conclusive. Why not just lump them together as the first print editions?

  
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 21, 2