I've noticed quite a few discrepancies between this auction:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 99753&rd=1



and the relisted:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5914765089



Let's see:



A. The seller indicates in the second auction that the box is an incorrect one. He knew this in the first auction, having put the books in it by his own admission, yet never mentins it.



B. Where are the reference sheets that were originally included? Were those "added" in as well?



C. Quote: The white box itself (not the OCE) was mine from my first set - and my books are also on e-bay (see the neat "BE" on the covers). I just used to box for this set as it had none, and my original books are long gone.



Huh?? The books are long gone, yet they are up on eBay as we speak?



D. Where is Greyhawk? Obviously, since they were both cancelled, someone made an offer on that too, and I'm sure it was a hefty one.



E. The seller states that he sent it to the buyer, and then the Postman returned the package saying he couldn't post it.



Huh?? Since when did the Post Office accept packages, then bring them TO YOUR HOUSE and say "Oh, sorry, we can't handle this, it's international." The USPS can't ship an international package? That is just a baldfaced lie. Show us a scan of the shipping label, and/or a receipt.



So what happened is this: The seller asked the buyer to make an offer. He did. Seller accepted. Some asswipe on the Acaeum pulled his usual stunt and e-mailed the seller with the whining and bitching act, and the seller never sent the books, lamely claiming that they couldn't be shipped, because he wanted to post them back on eBay to get more money than what he had ACCEPTED from the original buyer.

This interference shit is really beginning to piss me off. Someone in here just cost a buyer a good deal (that the SELLER offered him), and caused the seller to commit mail fraud. I have a good idea who it is, but I will not point fingers until I am 100% sure, and that is being worked on. You bitch and whine about people like Game EmPoorium, and then use behind-the-scenes antics to get a different seller to commit the same crime. Grow up!

Well, it worked. I was hoping to draw you out and have you explain exactly what happened.

So, who are the people in the forum who alerted you to your error?

Sorry, but it's not my style to call anyone out by name, unless they do something unethical.



But...  most of them have indicated on the forum in one form or another that they either made an offer, paid, or were going to snipe.



The large number of questions - and the incredible response once the auction was pulled was the first clue...  the requests for imprint data on books 2 and 3, printing version requests - repeatedly to verify none on the book...



The blind "at least $500.00" offer - the $800.00 offer (repeated after relisted)....



There were a few clues...

N.B. I started typing this before the above two posts. Have only just spotted them now. Also checked with Bill whether OK to post this (for the majority of text, below, with relatively trivial adds mostly at the end, since).



====



Great, and I've got anonymous hatemail via email, now...



OK, I was wondering whether I was going to have to try to clear this up again; and there were already enough rumors flying around, yesterday.



Per the previous thread: • Collecting General •  The Acaeum , "I already had (ed: quite a few hours previously, btw) an enquiry in with the seller to try to figure out whether it's a 4th- (know someone who needs one) or an "interesting hybrid" (*points to the now familiar interesting difference in cardstock colors of the booklets*), etc."



My initial enquiry pointed out that the box was white not woodgrain, that the set (I presumed set) should've been from 1975 (reference to Paul's woodgrain hybrids stated late-1975 with the same book set, too), and that there might not be a printing line to indicate thus.

Was hoping that would get a few answers, but in the interim I noted that I would be putting in a bid and checked with Bill that he wasn't going to end early should the auction not have taken off (i.e. a warning to Bill not to worry if it was only $60 was a day to go, say, since there were going to be a few snipe bids).



Bill's response was to make him an offer, which I genuinely had not expected.

Since I was meant to be re-starting full time work today for the first time in 2 1/4 years, I thought what the heck; (yet) another "celebration present" to myself... my current white box is vandalised (undescribed on listing), I'm still trying to work back to my 3rd printing woodgrain which was stolen, and the "early cover" Men & Magic was a good start (all this again still presuming Paul's late-1975 theory to have a reasonable weight).



Working on the basis of a 3+/4- (having screwed the edition features, as admitted on the other thread) or somewhat uncertain later "remnant stock" from the same era in a rather nice white box, I guess-evaluated the condition as VGish (VG/VG/G/VG+ box; writing on outside of books, one cover colored, unknown amounts of writing inside) and using the Acaeum figure, put in an offer of $150. (If it has been a second printing and the value had been $500-$650, say, I'd've said I don't have that amount of money (trying really hard not to hit my credit cards just now...). So wherever that rumor about a $500 offer came from, it wasn't me).



Bill had been hoping for around $200 but agreed my offer was fair, and I paid up (I didn't know he'd actually reduced his expectation by $50 as a "present", either. Thanks ).



(aside: I paid $20-25 for that (very interesting curiosity) duplicated copy of "True First" Greyhawk, depending on how the monies are split).



Even now, knowing the printing details do actually match Paul's books (as far as can be told- which was long after they were in the post and "rejected", I presume), I have several reservations regarding the listing/assumptions/etc., most of which I've made known to Bill and no doubt Paul and others will chime in on (citing Gary Gygax, etc.).

*

(In addition, for example, no number of first/early edition supplements can serve to prove anything. I've got here a 5th white box which came with a 2nd printing Greyhawk and several other firsts. The copy of "Men & Magic" therein even has an "impossible" date of 8-14-75 penciled on it!).

*

However, I am certainly not looking to spoil the re-auction, despite having had the books "in the post" to me and being very disappointed as to how this has worked out, and the amount of hassle it has caused.

(aside: I pondered over whether to trans-ship via a friend in the US, or to ship directly to the UK; chose the latter and added a generous top-up to Bill to make it worth his time packing and form signing. If I'd've chosen the former, I'd've had the set, although once the true details were known (still presuming late-1975, but with a botch-up on my behalf about the 4- printing), I may have tried to top up what I paid once the monies were available; i.e. first pay packet).



I am no expert on such matters, anyhow....



==



(And having had missed the 3-4 hours sleep I was hoping for last night, I thought today couldn't have gotten much worse. It did; but I'll save that moan for later, if anyone's still awake!)



Take care y'all,

David.

harami2000 wrote:Thank you. More hatemail...



You wouldn't mind sending via PM instead of email, out of courtesy, so that I may respond?





EMAIL ADDRESS NOW REMOVED FROM MY PUBLIC PROFILE. Please take the hint...

You have got to be kidding?!?



Please direct any hate mail to me instead.  I completely endorse what harami2000 did and could do with a laugh.



Email available on my profile.



Now I really am going out for a beer.

harami2000 wrote:Even now, knowing the printing details do actually match Paul's books (as far as can be told- which was long after they were in the post and "rejected", I presume), I have several reservations regarding the listing/assumptions/etc., most of which I've made known to Bill and no doubt Paul and others will chime in on (citing Gary Gygax, etc.)

OK.

I've spotted the "On Aug-12-04 at 16:31:57 PDT, seller added the following information:" update which addresses many of those.

Thank you, Bill.



From a financial standpoint, I am still extremely dubious about the validity of the "A previous PRE-PUBLICATION / FIRST PRINTING set sold here on e-bay in April for $2282.00" line, without any link to the actual auction ( http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 3183893547 ) which of course contains the clincher "These booklets come in the original brown woodgrain box (RARE!)".



We all know that, for better or worse, that an extremely large fraction of the total value of the earliest editions is in the woodgrain box. And latest research would appear to indicate that this also has to have a vertical grain for second (and, presumably, first??) printings, as well as other distinguishing features.

Whether anyone who is unaware of the existence of the Acaeum's fora knows this is another matter, but I would still suggest that just putting in that auction reference line without further clarification is potentially severely misleading.

(That many of us also feel that the money paid in that auction was too high, is by-the-by).



The fourth printing box does not "aproximate completeness", save in that it is an Original D&D box. Albeit a very nice one in its own right.



Just my 02 cents, of course, albeit attempting to stick to the facts on a "responsible community" basis (which other people around here also appear to advocate).... Or has everyone just gone very quiet all of a sudden? *jk*



Regards,

David.





p.s. Thank you for ceasing that hatemail. Probably took me less time to hit <delete> than it took to type such thoughts, anyhow! ^^

I've wanted to stay away from posting individual-piece values, opting to stick with a very general "pieces are worth less than the set" statement.  Otherwise, a market develops for things like a woodgrain box without any contents.  And a First-print box being worth more than a Third-print box.  And someone coming forward who swears his box was purchased in Jan 1974, even though the grain is in the wrong direction (and who's to say his box wasn't printed that way...).

It gets even more ridiculous than the situation we have now.

Suffice to say, as with all collectibles, a complete set is worth much more than a set that is missing parts.  Ask an antiques dealer how much a drawer is worth on a 17th-century dresser, he'll probably respond "not much".  How much, who knows.  Depends on if there's a buyer who's missing a drawer, I suppose.

I myself have both Second and Third print booklets, but without a box for either.  I know they're not worthless, but neither occupies any particularly special place in my collection.  They are, in essence, "damaged goods".

Foul

Deadlord36 wrote:Whether or not his books were originally prepubs, they are 1st prints now.

Books without box = broad without box. Totally useless. At least from a collecting point.

But better than no broad at all.  Even if I'm denied the box, there is still a lot of fun to be had with what's left!  



Which is why I'm bidding.  And I still think this will fetch a reasonable price.  First prints don't come up that often.  With or without a box.

I thought the addition to the description would avoid contention.  



I've been checking around quite a bit - no one seems to have the off color book 3 except stormie and I - if they were printed in numbers, I would expect to have seen more - right?  Figure 1000 as a min print run from Graphic - there would be more out there.  



If there are only 2, then, why?  a short mechanical print run makes no sense $$ wise.  I think it much more likely that a very small number of books were "printed" not using an offset press to proof the books.



So a proof book theroy would run like:



1) exceptionaly small #'s

2) oddities in materials and print quality



These 2 odd book 3's conform to the exact same set of oddities - wrong size, wrong cover, wrong imprint size, bleeding (c) symbol.



We a proof sets were printed - what happened to the proof set books?  If these 2 odd book 3's were part of a noral rpint run, there would be more of them.



I think these sets are much more likely to be hybrid proof sets rather than hybrid 4th print as some have suggested.



Why no box? If we go back in time to the known proof sets, there would likely have been no box - or maybe it went away over time.  The auction, pretty clearly, indicates the box is a 4th print box.



I'm annoyed personaly that the deal was not made.  I've apologized to the agreived party and made him as whole as I can with the constraints placed on me by another.



I've come across some more copies of strategic review in the collection, a butt load of of all traveller, steve jackson, and metamorphisis alpha stuff.  I'll get it all to e-bay as time permits.