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.

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 no 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 would be more collectable than others.

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.

I was just upset at the heavy handed way someone involved in our hobby came down on a basically ignorant person. She admitted she did wrong; the way ebay is set up now, if you place the ISBN or name of an item a stock picture pops up (I use this method for my CD listings), so people get used to this sort of idea that "all items with the same name are alike". I myself note in the item description when a photo isa "stock" photo or the exact item unless it's very obvious or the items are identical. Some people are just basically clueless when it comes to books, thinking all the photos are the same. Truthfully, 15 years ago I didn't know the difference between almost all editions, and it wasn't until the Acaeum I really started paying attention.  A clueless house frau isn't going to know.  

It would have been nice had the person who contacted her had stated A the item didn't match the description; B There are big differences in the different editions for this item and C She needed to give credit where she "borrowed" the photo from.  That's it.  I notice she now has a picture of the correct item, why didn't she do this to begin with?  We can all agree that there was no deception here just ignorance.  A gentle reminder would have worked just as well.  

Unless we ever see the "angry" email sent to here I don't know that we'll ever know how much she was insulted, or if she even was insulted. Regardless, I just feel we need to cut these type of people some slack when they dabble in our hobby.....they are precisely the types who might have a box of goodies tucked away that once belonged to their son/husband/exfiancee/ that might contain treasures that should see the light of day.  WE shouldn't scare them off, quite the opposite!

Speaking of scaring off, here's a link to the infamous D&D episode of "Jesse", the long cancelled TV show featuring the oh so hot Christina Applegate in her prime. Pretty corny, the comedy is so-so, but there a few good lines at the D&D table.  And surely whatever you were doing today wasn't as important as watching the EXTREMELY physically talented Ms Applegate for a half hour... The episode is TheMischievious Elf"...


http://video.aol.com/video-category/jesse/1577

Mike B.

This seller has a whole crap load of interesting stuff up right now:



http://toys.search.ebay.com/_Games_W0QQ ... erQ2dwerks



Early 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.

bclarkie wrote: Sellers feedback has a lot to be desired though.

You can say that again:

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=p ... y&ref=home

Sounds good B,

Sooooo you won't be bidding on that R4 then  

Good thing I get paid on Monday!  And a good thing my wife didnt see that Garden Path I bought from Bombadil!  Well, to be honest, she saw the module, cause I haven't put it down for like a week now - but she thinks it was <$100  

Also a good thing I do the taxes and control the refund  

bclarkie wrote:This seller has a whole crap load of interesting stuff up right now:

http://toys.search.ebay.com/_Games_W0QQ ... erQ2dwerks

Early 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.

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.

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.

I agree.  I had been watching them for awhile and I was hoping to snag #6, #7, #13, and/or #14 for even a semi-reasonable price.  I need them to fill the final wholes of my Dragon Mag collection, but apparently I am going to have wait for the next time.  

Not extemely interesting, but this seller just put up several really nice looking 2nd edition Box Sets including some Planescape and some Greyhawk ones:



eBay listings



<edit> Oh yeah, there is a Kara-Tur set as well.  

Listed as a 1st print Greyhawk Folio:




** expired/removed eBay auction **




I suspect this is the one that someone posted about in the Collecting Appraisal section, but I am not 100& on that.  The trimmed scan certainly is not going to help it, but it still doesn't appear to be too bad.



Shrinked Wrath of Immortals sitting just at the edge of reasonableness:




** expired/removed eBay auction **




Guido just listed a Shrinked Silver Anniversary Set(2nd in as many days):




** expired/removed eBay auction **




$130 BIN.