bclarkie wrote:Not exactly scorching. A small admonishment about the stolen picture, but not exactly tearing her new ass about the printing info and certainly not enough to be considered very angry.
Badmike wrote:You're right, I mispoke, I shouldn't have assumed it was someone from this site. I've had two of the most insulting, idiotic, pure stupid questions from buyers in the last week and neither of them were from this site, but they WERE gamers (at least the questions were about D&D items). BTW props to Flatlander for taking the time to EXPLAIN the difference to her like a mature adult. Hopefully that reflected well on our hobby at least, that someone would take the time to explain why her error was such a big deal. I know most people that run auctions on books use stock photos without much thought as to different editions...I'm not the healthiest guy in the world, those who know me well have the details of my physical problems that I really don't care to share with just everyone. I'm sorry, but all I got here was a mental picture of my wife (who knows nothng about gaming and is Ebay illiterate) trying to sell my collection online after my untimely demise, and getting hammered for an honest mistake by a smarmy holier than thou geek who thinks he is scoreboarding a crook. The hell with it, Kingofpain, just come over and pick up everything, take what you want, and sell the rest. I'd rather have you abused than her anyway At least YOU freaking deserve it....... Mike B.
aia wrote:what is strange is that on the top of the box there's no logo... and i'm pretty sure that in other auctions with the same item i recognized a logo on the cover... is it a pre-pub???
bclarkie wrote:I should probably clarify my above points as well. I do not nor would I ever expect a seller who has no clue what they are selling to know what printing of an item is. It took me a good 18 months just to figure out how to tell all the major differences in the White Box OD&D sets and I hang around here all the time. My issue(s) with the auction are two fold and neither has anything to do with the printing of the item. My first issue is the fact that the seller lifted the picture from the site and there is no acknowledgement of thanks or anything for its use. Foul has worked hard(and continues to do so) to put this site together with scans of all those items and collecting all the data on the printing information and item descriptions. When someone steals his hard work with nary a nod at his efforts, it rubs me the wrong way. Just like copyright infringement, plagiarism irritates me to know end. My second issue and most importantly is that the seller has an auction where she is using a "stock" photo and no where in the auction was there any indication as such. For me, I don't care if its fine china, an automobile, an old newspaper or a D&D book, if the picture that you are using in your auction is not of the actual item for sale, it is the sellers 100% obligation to indicate as such in the auction description. The stolen picture used in this auction was the cause of the confusion on the printing of the book, not the result. By not letting the potential bidders know that the item for sale is not the one in the picture used, then she is opening up a whole host of problems by doing so and as a result one of which happened to be that the picture being used in this auction was that of first printing of the item and thus the item for sale woulbe be more collectable than others.
bclarkie wrote: Sellers feedback has a lot to be desired though.
Kires1 wrote:B, do you own any of the R modules?Me want R4 bad. I have two copies of R3, one is shrink. I wish this seller would have put them up individually...
bclarkie wrote:This seller has a whole crap load of interesting stuff up right now:http://toys.search.ebay.com/_Games_W0QQ ... erQ2dwerksEarly Dragons 1-10, early Polyhedrons, 1-10, All 4 R modules, All 4 RPGA modules and some GEN CON Catalogs from 1983. Sellers feedback has a lot to be desired though.
NetRodent wrote:Paper-werks' items are sure tempting but with feedback like his I'm not going anywhere near those auctions. (Unless those R/RPGA modules seem like they'll for less than $50).
HermitFromPluto wrote:Wow. I can understand Dragons 1-5 going for $100. But Dragons #6,7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 now have bidding at $100!!!!! I recently got a #14 for about 10 Australian dollars.
Badmike wrote:That feedback is a trainwreck. I've never bid on someone with less than 98% feedback, that's my absolute cut off point no matter how cheap or cool the items are.Mike B.