Apparently included in the 2nd-4th printings of the brown box.
No picture given on the OD&D page here.

Does it come up separately?
If so, rough value?

^ he lives...!

Is this the one you mean, Frank?:  http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpage ... rrata.html

If so, my 3rd/3rd/2nd hybrid OD&D set definitely includes it, as a separate sheet of paper (Corrections on side 1, blank on side 2).

> Now... has anyone seen OD&D errata on a separate sheet, not on page 1 of the usual Ref sheets?

Late 1st prints through 3rds, inclusive. *nods*

on a related topic, i would like to point out that i have never claimed that tim kask's brown box that i own is a pre-publication version. tim has said often that he bought it at gencon in 1974. when i was checking my brown boxes just now, and looked inside Tim's, i came across a 4-page flyer advertising gencon 1974. that really should probably put this topic to rest. foul, please change the heading from brown box, pre-publication to brown box, 1st tsr employee....

I bought the brown box with first print books and no paste on labels that was on Ebay last fall with the confusing listing.  It had the off color first print book three and reference sheets.  More interesting than the ex libris Edward C. Beck stamped inside, (a name which I do not recognize... were the math scribbles and the signature of George Seymour (sp?) on the underside of the box cover.  A buddy found George Seymour listed as the author of an early game related article, but I don't remember which one, etc.

I thought the theory was that the off color first print books were "in between" first and second print.  Why bother putting labels on boxes for employees, friends or contributors that aren't being sold?  Some of them probably just grabbed a box to throw the books in and didn't give a hoot.  Could be Tractics boxes too though.  I was mainly interested in the first print books.  

Is there a way to tell first from second print boxes, or is it just wishful thinking that a set has a "first print" box.... unless there is solid provenance?

> I thought the theory was that the off color first print books were "in between" first and second print.

That's only a clearly visible change on U&WA, both for the cardstock and alignment of the cover elements: the other differences in 1st print books are still debatable/questionable since those (apparent) slight changes in book height and red/green colors could be trends within a given print run.
Small print runs would, however, make sense given the proximity of the printer to TSR HQ and the manner in which incomplete sets /were/ sold more so early on, but the recollections from BITD from various individuals is contradictory and unhelpful with regards to confirming such matters definitively.

> Why bother putting labels on boxes for employees, friends or contributors that aren't being sold?

A sensible point, agreed.
The assertion was that there were (only) two mass box assembly runs but I can't see how anyone could possibly ensure the correct number of well printed labels, non-faulty boxes & books, etc., so "left overs" /should/ have been inevitable even if that were the case.

> Is there a way to tell first from second print boxes, or is it just wishful thinking that a set has a "first print" box.... unless there is solid provenance?

The transition from horizontal to vertical grain from the various 1sts through to 2nd print is perhaps not definitive but still appears to be indicative (see also the woodgrain Tractics, for example).
There's probably a degree of mix-and-match both from later dates at TSR (even if the examples seen don't seem to bear that out to quite the same degree as noted by ex-staffers) and/or owners post-TSR.

02c anyhow, as before.

stratochamp wrote:since you asked david, i checked: tim's copy and my b-i-law copy both have 1st print book 3's and not variant 1st prints (as per your 2005 post). you don't really want me to check the other ones do you?

*lol*. It was your brother-in-law's copy that was "good to have confirmed" and that tallies AOK for released copies (i.e. "early 1st" = no errata sheet as a general trend), thanks. Tim could, unfortunately(!?), have picked up an errata sheet at any time so his wouldn't help for confirmation one way or another.

Yeah, that was 5+ years ago and we're still covering more-or-less the same ground; although research never really ends, does it?