Ok, here are the two variations:

The first photo of the covers with the 4th Red that matches yours behind and the different 4th Red in front



Another photo of the covers with 4th Red with the one that matches yours on top



Title Pages, note the stitching looks different



Fly Leaf pages, note the stitching looks different



Hydra pages



Product Listing pages



Spines
[/img]

deimos3428 wrote:This is going to take more head-banging that I can afford at the moment

   

Let me know if you need any other photos or anything

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Let me preface what I'm about to post by acknowledging that I'm coming to this discussion late, so please let me know if I'm covering old ground or if I am misunderstanding the issues involved..

One of my Monster Manuals appears to be a red 4th, per this description:

1.  (as TheMilford asked) It does NOT have the yellow and red sewn binding as the other "4th Red"
2. States "Distributed to the book trade in the United States by Random House..." on the title page, as in your "4th White"
3. Hydra illustration is raised, as in your "4th White"
4. There are no prices shown and the spacing looks exactly the same between "Star Probe" and "Star Empires" as in your "4th White"
EDIT:
5. Also, there's an ISBN on the bottom of the title page


HOWEVER, I measured the distance between stitches and found that it is 5/8", not 1" as someone stated it should be, above. I'm not sure if this is noteworthy or not, but figured I might as well chime in. I can provide pictures if needed.

Ok, let's back up.  That is not an accurate description of the 4th.

I will be amending this post in a few minutes, please bear with me as I dig through the collection one more time...

...ok, and we're back.  Some points of order:

• Unless I've missed somethere there are no MM 4th printings whatsoever that have the red and yellow spine inlay.  (The 3rd+ printing does, as do all previous printings.)  NB:  To be a "4th", you must state 4th on the copyright page.  I strongly suspect those copies that claim to be 4ths with inlays are actually 3rd+, on further investigation.
  
• misterspock has discovered something previously unknown, at least to me.  There are in fact two different 4th reds (at least).  So we'll have to drop the "plus/minus" designation at this point and go into lettering.  I'm putting them into order based on what makes sense to me, and only noting distinguishing features.

3rd Plus (Red):  Has right-justified prices on page 112, like all previous printings.  Also states "send $2.00 for our catalog" in the last paragraph.  Only mentioning for reference; it is definitely not a 4th as it states "3rd Edition" on the copyright page.  This is misterspock's upper book.  I have one too.

4th Alpha (Red): Does not have right-justified prices on page 112, but does have "(booklet only $4.00)" after STAR PROBE description, and "(booklet only $5.50)" after STAR EMPIRES description.  Also states "send for our catalog." in the last paragraph.  I am assuming it came first because it still has some prices.  I have one of these.  

4th Beta (Red)*:  Does not have any prices on page 112, but is still the old catalog page.  This is misterspock's lower book.  Hydra is smaller/raised.  Has "Distributed to the book trade in the United States by Random House...".  Cover is like 5ths, with Random House super-saturation, but no "TM".  I believe this is the legendary "Red Flyleaf 5th".

4th Gamma (White)*: Other than the flyleaf, identical to the 4th Beta.  Hydra is smaller/raised.  Has "Distributed to the book trade in the United States by Random House...".  Cover is like 5ths, with Random House super-saturation, but no "TM".  This is simperingtoad's book.

*5th (White):  For reference.  Has "TM" on it.  Also has overhauled catalog page.

* Again, it's very much in question whether these are 4ths or 5ths at this point.  I am leaning towards 5ths as the evidence is pouring in that direction, with the current 5th quickly being made into the odd-man-out.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Okay, bearing with... Have the MM handy.

EDIT: Okay, so far I'm a 4th Beta, except that I measure the stiches at 5/8" apart, which contradicts this:

MMs:
1st - 5/8"
2nd - 3/8"
3rd/3rd plus - 5/8"
4th (red) - 1"
4th (white) - 1"
5th - 1 1/4"
6th - ??
7th - glued

Yes, I noticed that.  I have no explanation at this time, except that it's quite possible the beta precedes the Alpha.  The "4th red" on that list is the one I'm now calling Alpha.  If you're interested in discussing/comparing in realtime, go to http://deimos3428.acaeum.com/chat

The above is incorrect.  It cannot precede the 4th Alpha, as the 4th Alpha is pre-RH.

We have confirmed the 4th Beta is 5/8" spacing, 17 stitches.  Very odd in my opinion, but I'll update the chart.  It also makes my earlier "stitching boundary" argument hold no water at all.  

In light of this evidence, I move that the 4th Beta/Gamma be listed as 5th Alpha/Beta, with the original 5th now a 5th Gamma.  I see no other reasonable solution.

deimos3428 wrote:In light of this evidence, I move that the 4th Beta/Gamma be listed as 5th Alpha/Beta, with the original 5th now a 5th Gamma.  I see no other reasonable solution.

AHA! Vindication of my assertions!     J/K

But seriously, folks. As per the comment on the 1st print MM description, Random House had always been the printer/distributor (unless I'm reading that incorrectly).

The inclusion of the "Distributed by" line reads to me as something the legal staff had a hand in. As for the PHB and DMG from that time frame, was the "Distributed by" line included on both of those within a month or two of the MM? That would tell me the mandate was on for a new print, and what you have just described above would fit within that scenario.

Ugh! Interim prints to meet demand make for messy record keeping.

deimos3428 wrote:Now, going back full circle to page one of the thread:  Can the owners of this proposed new 5th Alpha/Beta tell us whether the "errata" is present/absent?  This may help confirm the ordering of the printings (or not).

In your post above, did you mean "4th Alpha/Beta"?

I went through all of the errata listed per the changes to the 4th printing
http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_mm.html
and the "4th Beta (Red)" (the one in my lower photo) does have each item corrected.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:My "4th Beta" (5th Alpha/Beta?) also incorporates all of the errata listed there, with the exception of this item:

"Giant: The sentence about giant strength found in the introduction should read, "All giants are very strong, with strengths ranging from 19 to 24 as compared to humans." emphasis mine

In contrast, my "4th Beta" (5th Alpha/Beta) reads:

"All giants are very strong, with strengths ranging from 19 to 25 as compared to humans." emphasis mine

BUT, I also checked my 5th (later 5th, that is) for this sentence, and it ALSO states "25" as opposed to "24". Therefore I'm guessing this is simply an error in the MM errata section of the Acaeum, rather than a piece of errata included in The Dragon #35.

Easy enough to check! Getting my TD #35 now......

Okay, the errata in TD #35 reads exactly as the Acaeum MM errata page ("19 to 24"), so this either means this particular piece of errata was never incorporated into an actual printing, or it was done after my 5th print. Can someone check that? The latest printing I have is 5th.

I saw that, too, but just chalked it up to a typo on the Acaeum site. My later prints also mention "19-25".  Maybe the errata needs to be errata'd?

deimos3428 wrote:What it states in Dragon 35 is correct; I do not know if it made it into the books or not.  Only Titans have 25 STR.

Of course. I suppose maybe EGG was toying with the idea of listing Titans in with the giants at one point (since they are, kinda), then changed his mind and neglected to amend that sentence. Pure speculation on my part, naturally.

I wouldn't be surprised if that erratum didn't make it into an actual printing. Some of the PHB and UA errata never did either, IIRC.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, in my 5th Alpha/Beta the Vampire entry speaks of "rounds" after immersion.