dbartman wrote:First, I'm afraid you have blown this out of proportion.

A $200 difference, mental or real, is worth discussing/debating.
Please don't tell me I'm blowing anything out of proportion in that context.
And at the least you're giving me a very bad taste to go with this win...

A lot of this also impacts on future confidence in collecting, which I'm rather shaky on in the context of this radical overhaul.

Hey, but presume silence to mean everyone else is happy, no?

dbartman wrote:

FYI, Tadashi's copy was graded as fine. Unlike what was mentioned in the description.

The records that I am currently maintaining are not reflected in what is on The Acaeum.

You never said that was your personal opinion.

"FYI, Tadashi's copy was graded as fine" looks very "official" to me.

dbartman wrote:Also, the grading conventions that I'm using are not published on The Acaeum. They were developed by the Valuation Board members. Please see the following information for more details on what is transpiring:

The Acaeum Valuation Board

I hope this provides some enlightenment.

Please don't appear to treat me as stupid or use that "form letter"/talking-down tone of voice.
Do you really think I could possibly have missed that thread?


Keeping the full grading criteria hidden from the list is NOT acceptable, IMHO.
The one's we've currently got to use are wishy-washy at best; almost overlapping in some cases and depending on glasses/x-ray vision for others.
Page Not Found
...

dbartman wrote:Why do you dispute this? You bought the PoVQ based on the facts that were available to you. There was no guarantee that the item was NM as indicated. In your case, perhaps condition was the ultimate factor, but not necessarily to everyone else.

The extreme price/grade variations on the new-look Acaeum valuation listings are clearly wrong in that case, since all it takes are a few people to go for the rares which might turn up in poorer condition to blow the mechanically computed values straight out of the water.
As will happen, of course.

But the extra sensitivity which has just been introduced for the higher grades has just made things even more awkward than they already were given that people DO base their bids on the information available here.

(And no, neither did I think it was "NM as indicated". ).

mbassoc2003 wrote:So does anyone know what grading Burnies copy was given?

Presumably the same grade as the one I won, once I'm finished with the hairdrier. (Thanks again to Mike <invincible> for the tip).



===

WDs #12 upwards. OKish copies in a short US auction, so might well be worthwhile for interested parties given current UK prices!
eBay listings
$2.99 each, with 2 3/4 days to go.

(No legal pdfs yet available )

mbassoc2003 wrote:You really get pissed at that sort of thing, don't you?

Just a tad.
Getting "Could it be in VF condition? Perhaps, but probably not based on the visible damage to the folder" forced upon me by someone using the "one strike and you're out" approach and ignoring the condition of contents is kinda jarring...

<clipped PM>

This method of taking any fault as indicated on a lower grade to knock an item down, rather than the cumulation of faults is also very bad news since it permits people to play power-grading issues, especially if they have vested interests (if they don't yet have the module or have fluked the purchase of a truly "mint" rarity).

If instead of taking any fault from a grade to knock an item down, you look at the absence of faults, you can see why I might take offense to casually having VG-F slapped on this. (Remember, an item can have ALL these faults and still squeak the grading, so long as it has no faults associated with a lower grading. This, of course, is pure nonsense, since it plays to a hypothetic continuum!!).

Playing the same trick of grading from the picture, with a few of the descriptive hints as back-up.

> VERY GOOD: This is the typical "average wear" grade.

Not a chance. This one's never been used in its life.

> Spines show stress and may be slightly "frayed" or have minor tears.

No "stress" marks, no fraying, no tears, no edge wear, etc.

> Module covers can have "splits" as long as 2" (5cm).

Heaven forbid!

> Corners are often rounded, creased or frayed and edges may show similar wear.

No corner rounding, fraying "or similar wear".

Just those creases from one-off damage and no sign that anyone has tried to "fix" them inexpertly.

> Other common flaws are "color fading", small stains, small tears,

No color fading, no small stains, no small tears, to cover or contents.

> and writing on interior pages (perhaps even some highlighting).

You gotta be kidding!

> A slight warping and/or faint "musty odor" (usually from storage in a basement) may also be allowed.

No warping or dampness.

So, a single hit from that entire list....

How then can the module possibly be suggested to be within a light-year of "VG"?

IMHO, an enhanced/modified version of the old banknote grading standards ( see foot of Grading Coins ) would serve our needs far better than an attempt to group us in with slabbed comics and all the evils that entails.
The two areas of "collectables" bear very little resemblance either in market profile or physical artifact.

The likes of this current grading/valuation schema "mess" is only damaging to confidence amongst serious "collectors", aficionados and those who use the books solely for roleplaying purposes(!); and I place a higher value on that than mere cash, alone.

I see improv's point on the black folder. I had similar opinions regarding time and expence back on the mid-late '70s. Very expensive cover.

I don't agree with his take on double-sided printing. The cost of the print process is not reduced. Printing is done on one side, and the sheets are stacked and reprinted the other side some time later. The printing time takes longer as you can't have multiple presses running different sheets simultaniously. With double-sided printing you also need to take care with paper weight and thickness.

I can see there being a reduction in postal cost with double-sided printing, but I would suggest that TSR were experimenting with various printing suppliers and techniques in those early days.

The double-sided press printed run in the black folder seems the most polished presentation of the module. The double-sided run without the folder IMO seems to be a quick release either pre- or post- black folder (either to get it out in time for something, or to keep up with unexpected demand).

The single sided printing anomoly (is there evidence of there being more than one?) may just be that. A sample run? A master copy?

The one you've just bought does not look like it has enough pages to be printed single-sided. I would say that the double-sided black folder edition was TSR's intended presentation of the module.

Tadashi's is the only single-sided copy I was aware of. All the others I've heard of are double-sided. Mine is double-sided. Are you aware of any other single-sided copies, with or without folders.

The yellow coversheet is quite distinctive in itself. It's not a regular yellow paper, and certainly would have been hard to get ahold of in the '70s. The photos all amke it out to be a regular yellow paper, but mine is a very bright, almost neon fleurescent yellow. I'd be interested to find out whether there is variation in the colouring of the yellow front sheets.

Maybe I should buy a few more for comparison.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Tadashi's is the only single-sided copy I was aware of. All the others I've heard of are double-sided. Mine is double-sided. Are you aware of any other single-sided copies, with or without folders.

Add Matthias Bock's contentious copy to any list...
http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/users/af ... others_lz/
http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/users/af ... ww_vq1.gif

(looks more like a proof/working copy to me, rather than a released version, so nothing to worry about, IMHO, in terms of "1st" vs. "2nd" vs. whatever printings...).

I see no reason why 'estimated values' should appear on the site. They are subjective based on the opinions of the estimator.

At 34 pages with a spiral binding, MB's copy looks like a proof copy at best. If it could be authenticated it would be useful.

En Garde! Frank....


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5166006537

You're bidding on a photocopy, btw...

Is obvious that excessive carousing ain't good for the eyes. *chuckles*. Sorry!
(Know full well I've fallen for the same trick, myself- at far greater cost, too, thanks to my unforgiving "friend" in Japan).


*woot*. The seller's got a genuine copy of Overstreet Guide #2, though. From the days before craziness took hold (IMHO)...

mbassoc2003 wrote:

harami2000 wrote:En Garde! Frank....You're bidding on a photocopy, btw...

And the seller's from Pennsylvania...

Great.....