red_bus wrote:Thanks no, mine is just fine    

To my shame, I was just bidding to be greedy and have 1 and a bit  

Hmm... what was the 'bit', Steven? *tries to recall*

No need to be ashamed: the bidders on that list already have 15-20 1st prints between them, although I'm not sure how many are early copies.

red_bus wrote:I found her emails fast and pleasant (plus pics) - I think she was nice cos I warned her of the potential value rather than trying to armtwist a buy-it-now.
The box really is split, and there is a fair amount of staple rust,

Yep, same here, but presumably I was swamped out.
Pity she changed her mind late on; I'd've appreciated a response even if that would have left me in a dilemma as to the bid.

So... the box is split at the top, then, judging by the picture cropping?
Don't see anything 'bout staple rust there, and those 1st prints are /not/ prone to that. *shrugs*

red_bus wrote:but the good news is that some of the ref. sheets are present     So, if you count a set of ref. sheets as a single 'part' and they are all there, then it is really a 0.75 set (not counting the box as a part) and an 0.8 set (counting the box).  Deja vu anyone?

Yeah, F/VF set, minus one book, that I was underbidder to at $600ish, a couple of years back. (heh...)

*g*. Ref sheets are good news, though.
And if the cover colors don't match, interesting in a research context: good, I was hoping for something to get my teeth into.
*
(Still don't know for certain whether the earliest copies had ref/correction sheets or not: depends on whether Dave Arneson and co. got their's 'hot off the press' as a separate batch, unless the previous owner of mine just lost those sheets in passing and forgot about that).

red_bus wrote:All in all not bad at all.  Really hard to know what to bid on something like this though...

The answer is usually 'too much', don't you think?


======

red_bus wrote:I think I might be an addict  

(back to that AA thread for you! )

bclarkie wrote:Me too.

Did you realize that is your 3000th post here in about 1.5 years?  

I am NOT going over 3,000. I'll have to start a shill posting account.

Check the Creature Feature, Al!

*Ears perk up*

Monty?  

Monty Cook?

Is that you, Zhowar?

Mark  

heh i knew david would win that one

so did y'all ever get to the bottom of what print it was?

Al

zhowar wrote:

bclarkie wrote:Me too.

Did you realize that is your 3000th post here in about 1.5 years?  

Yes I see that.  What can I say, I talk alot.  That being said, I am not even the top poster here, there are two folks who have out posted me. <see below>

killjoy32 wrote:

zhowar wrote:

bclarkie wrote:Me too.

Did you realize that is your 3000th post here in about 1.5 years?  

yeah youd think he had nothing better to do      

Hmm, *looks at Al's post count* blinks *looks at Al's join date*.

bclarkie wrote:
Yes I see that.  What can I say, I talk alot.  That being said, I am not even the top poster here, there are two folks who have out posted me. <see below>

Hmm, *looks at Al's post count* blinks *looks at Al's join date*.

I just found it funny that you admitted to be an addict in exactly your 3000th post.  

But I may have had it wrong as I forgot that post total # changes in all of your posts when a new post is made.

Al's blessed with a gift for gab.  

zhowar wrote:I just found it funny that you admitted to be an addict in exactly your 3000th post.  

Al's blessed with a gift for gab.  

i'm not an addict. not really anyway....not like some of you guys thats for sure!

tho i do have some things where i tend to go off the rails with

Al