Reprints
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Author


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2766
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:56 am 
 

Hi all!  :)

So I know that this has been discussed previously and the general view is that reprints don't affect collectibles because much of the point of a rare game book in your collection is that you are holding (gasp!) the actual thing from the past, the early days, the very dinosaur ages of D&D. Moreover if these are rare (as they sometimes are), you have had to wait, to hunt them down, to watch, to pay, to bid on ebay or discover them in a second hand store or market etc.. As a result, they have value for you. Collectors of any stripe understand this, whether they collect old books, toys, records, or clothes etc...

Reprints mean that everyone can read and see books and modules which were out of print. And I think that is good too.

But what of reprints that are the same? For example, the recent L3 and swords and spells reprints have barcodes (I think) and different bindings. For example:

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **

But could this pdf could be made into an exact replica with minimal work?

OD&D Supplement II: Blackmoor (0e) - Wizards of the Coast | D&D, Original Edition | Dungeon Masters Guild

Or, is this Runequest 1st printing indistinguishable from the original 1978 printing?

RuneQuest - 1st Edition - Softcover - POD - Chaosium Inc.

I think we are some distance off reprints of box sets etc.. But are there now (or soon) reprints that make some of the early game books and modules in our collections redundant? Or will we always be able to mark a clear distinction?


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6494
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:05 am 
 

I would expect that a determined and suitably competent person would be able to create a copy that could be passed off as an original, although I wouldn't imagine the time needed to do so would be worth the financial return.

But an competent person with access to more than one copy, and any community with the interest to do so, would be able to weed out and combat such things. The papers available 30 years ago are not the same as the papers available today, and the method in which ink was laid down on paper 30 years ago is very different to the methods used to deposit ink on paper today. Those are cursory things that can be viewed through a loupe, before you start looking at comparing weights of books, accuracy in sizing, measuring distances between top line and bottom line of books of sheets of text, and delving into chemical compositions of inks.

On top of that, the PDF itself will not be dimensionally accurate. In the majority of scanners the light on the short axis is bent and pulled into the centre of the sensor and the sensor rolls across the page pulling in the image from the sides. As a result the width of the image is interpolated in software, as is its length, so you find that the width to height ratio is not a true representation of the scanned document but a close representation of one. So Mr. Wood B Crook would be minded to compensate for such things in his reimaging of document for printing if he were using a PDF as his source.

Now, I'm sure there are variations in weights of these books from one printing to the next, or one batch to the next from a single print run, and I imagine that could be tied directly to the final guillotining of the books. But a site where there are many copies in many hands for comparison should have little problem dealing with the prospect of forgeries in the future and labelling them as 'good modern copies', or whatever politically expedient phrase suits at the time.

Just my 2c, you understand.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . gummy bears.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3517
Joined: May 30, 2007
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: USA Georgia

Post Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:57 am 
 

red_bus wrote in Reprints: But are there now (or soon) reprints that make some of the early game books and modules in our collections redundant? Or will we always be able to mark a clear distinction?


In a way, our hobby was full of "re-prints" even before DriveThruRPG.  There are three different printings of the original woodgrain box set.  There are multiple printings of the Players Handbook and Monster Manual and so on.  And this community has done an outstanding job of differentiating between them all, and will continue to do so.  I understand there's a difference between different printings and reprints, but from a content perspective, one could easily argue there's not a lot of difference.  Some people are interested in "the real thing" and others are just interested in the content.  There are people who want things in shrink, and those who want to read what's inside, and those who want both.  I personally like the reprints because I am more in the content camp.   8)


Truth is worth finding and life is too short to work for money.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6494
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:38 pm 
 

If we are going to split out the print-on-demand subculture, almost every print-on-demand copy will be different. Almost all of them are one off print jobs. They will be differently aligned according to which PoD supplier does the actual printing, centred, bound and cut according to the individual who set up the machine for that print job, and influenced by whoever processed the files for printing, be that professionals outside of the PoD company who process the PDFs themselves, or the PoD supplier who processes the PDFs at their end.

Given the free availability of virtually everything ever natively published in PDF form, and maybe 70-80% of everything pre-PDF era having been scanned and distributed, I think we are entering an era where the actual quality of the product, there is little of collectable value in the PoD market, and a whole lot of 'noise' which on one hand is pulling money away from the collectables market (great if you are a buyer, no so much if you are a seller).

The market ahead, beyond the stuff that Acaeum members traditionally collect, is one of weeding out the real Kickstarter printings from all the aftermarket crap and copyright infringement bullshit, I think.

benjoshua wrote in Reprints:I personally like the reprints because I am more in the content camp.   8)

Me too, and that is why I buy PDFs. They are things you can read, but I don't imagine you can game with them.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . gummy bears.

 WWW  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 87
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:39 pm 
 

red_bus wrote in Reprints:Hi all!  :)

So I know that this has been discussed previously and the general view is that reprints don't affect collectibles because much of the point of a rare game book in your collection is that you are holding (gasp!) the actual thing from the past, the early days, the very dinosaur ages of D&D. Moreover if these are rare (as they sometimes are), you have had to wait, to hunt them down, to watch, to pay, to bid on ebay or discover them in a second hand store or market etc.. As a result, they have value for you. Collectors of any stripe understand this, whether they collect old books, toys, records, or clothes etc...

Or, is this Runequest 1st printing indistinguishable from the original 1978 printing?

RuneQuest - 1st Edition - Softcover - POD - Chaosium Inc.

I think we are some distance off reprints of box sets etc.. But are there now (or soon) reprints that make some of the early game books and modules in our collections redundant? Or will we always be able to mark a clear distinction?


The original RuneQuest 1st edition (only one printing) printed in 1978 is easily distinguishable from the POD book we are offering. First off, the original was saddle stitched (stapled on the spine) and the POD version is perfect bound. On the reprinted version's back cover you will find a barcode, the current Chaosium Inc. logo, trademark info for Moon Design Publications, as well as the url for the chaosium website. While someone might mistake it for the original at a glance, mainly out of ignorance for what the original looks like, anyone spending any time looking at at will know it's a reprint. We did it that way on purpose. All the RQ Classic books are like that. They resemble the originals a fair bit, but they do have differences if you spend a little time looking at them.

As for boxed sets, the Call of Cthulhu Classic project specifically has the reprints in boxed sets, and the boxes look very similar to the originals at a glance. That said, the reprint boxes are much sturdier, have barcodes, etc.


Regards,

Rick Meints
President - Chaosium Inc.

 WWW  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1