I didn't realize it was a first print.  How can one tell from those pics, besides e-mailing the seller for more information?  
Congrats to Paul, it looks to be in fantastic shape.

Wow.. That is amazing... Paul You Da man!

The more amazing thing is Burnie wasn't even in the game!  What happened there Mr. B!?

And newcomer Tclayton needs a little 'respect' for getting into the four digit bidding range.

Who was rjdickerson and why did he show up in the last 5 secons and cost my man stormber almost 700 bucks with his weak-ass snipe?  I mean, if you're going to snipe like that, you better WIN.

Too bad Ebay doesn't have a 'spectator mode' so we could all watch these things unfold as they happen.

Still.. 2800 bucks... woof... That's like a house payment!

I got the same kind of response. No matter, though. I had a limit of around $1,500 in mind -- wow, was I out of the loop!  Let's not hammer the guy who sniped (albeit low). I was planning the same sort of bid - just not clear enough email on description for scaredy-cat me. I get a little nervous when we are talking these kind of dollars.

Great auction

It was a Tractics. Different product.
What with it being a first print and all, why does it have errata sheets? Did first prints come with them?

Deadlord36 wrote:It was a Tractics. Different product.
What with it being a first print and all, why does it have errata sheets? Did first prints come with them?

Ah, now I see, Tractics.  That makes sense now.  

And an excellent point about the inclusion of errata sheets, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the pictures as well.  I believe Paul's recent auction of a first print woodgrain had no errata sheet.  Hmm... we'll just have to see when Paul gets the set.

My 1st printing came with errata sheets as well, which doesn't make much sense.  Perhaps
there are different states of the 1st printing?  My 1st errata sheets are pretty random,
with the first few pages being blank.

Vol 3 in the picture shows no printing # on the cover sheet - looks like a 1st to me.

Do other editions of the woodgrain box come with a side label?

A 1st printing of Tractics for $30 is a good deal.  You get the same woodgrain box, too.

Why would a first print have errata? Never seen that before. The idea is to sell the product, THEN put in errata on the next run.
So, we need to have the $$ guy tell us more about this boxed set when he gets it. Man, I can't get over $2,280. I'd hesitate to pay that for C1 and 2, and those had less than 1/2 the copies.

Deadlord36 wrote:Man, I can't get over $2,280. I'd hesitate to pay that for C1 and 2, and those had less than 1/2 the copies.

True, but they were also five/six years later, and prominently stated "Collector's Editions" in the top corner (in case anyone missed the fact that they were rare).  As such, many more copies of C1/2 have survived than First print sets.  In 1974, few people had a reason to keep a D&D boxed set in nice condition -- what the hell is this game anyway?

Foul

Howdy Folks,


A fool and his money...

I got the D&D woodgrain and sadly it is not wholly a 1st print. The 3rd volume as some of you had noted - post auction - is a later reprint. The rest are all 1st print materials. I am currently in the process of enacting a return but the fellow is balking at my claims that the third volume is not part of the set.

Thus I come to you folks to aid me (especially those that bid on the item). An examination of the booklet in the auction pics shows that it's color does not match the others. In one picture, it shows vol. 3 open and the interior has a buff cast to it. In fact the interior of the booklet is the same buff cardstock as the exterior and is thus a later print. The other booklets of the first print are all new-leather colored on the outside and white on this inside. Further the booklet is slightly shorter than the others in the set - this can be seen by the closeness of the cover printing to the bottom edge of the book in the auction pictures. A subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.

The text, however, is verbatim to the 1st print. Thus the seller's pause to refund. I am trying to make it clear that the third book is a later reprint only by virtue of the completely different buff colored (inside and out) cardstock. Further, it should have been apparent to the person handling the set that the books were different in this way. In person, and with the other books to compare it to it is clear the book cover is different. In hindsight (the post auction discussion here aroused my suspicion), the book pictured in the auction is clearly not the same as the other two and has a buff interior. At the time I ascribed it to age but having the set now in my hands it is obvious that the auction picture did not lie. I le the assurance of the individual email, and the bidding fervor, cloud my judgement.

At the time of bidding I think many of us were suspicious of the printing. However, the fellow's email to all bidders indicated this was a 1st printing (double underscored in the email) and that he had a third party evaluate it (Troy D. is given thanks for his help in the email).

The listing can be found here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... gory=44114

I would like all here who feel qualified to speak (especially the bidders invloved) to please contact Carl (and Cc or Bcc [email protected] and my PayPal account rep. [email protected] in on the email). The fellow's email address is:
[email protected]

Please email him with your observations of the 3rd volume pictured in the auction and it's later print status, my credibility, and long standing membership in this community of collectors. Perhaps pointing him to the relevant section of the Acaeum too.

I don't want this guy to feel attacked ( be nice Frank ), he is just trying to understand why the third volume was not as advertised. He felt his research was very thorough. I don't think he was trying to trick anyone.

Thanks to all who aid me in this. You help is much appreciated.


Futures Bright,

Paul