Adam Shultz wrote:Sorry; from discussions with Pete I'll disagree with all three of those comments. All points already covered.Really? I just combed back through the end part of this thread and didnae find these discussed points. From your discussion with Pete you have concluded it is a special edition and not an unused copy? And he contradicts what he wrote IO in his quoted response earlier?
Sorry; from discussions with Pete I'll disagree with all three of those comments. All points already covered.
Adam Shultz wrote:I am just glad I already have the fully vested black cover version.....whatever damn printing it is.
Adam Shultz wrote:Damn. I was just thinking about offering my Black Foldered version in trade for your Dragon11 original.
Adam Shultz wrote:Ok. 2 things.First, you lost the woodgrain to who? Cause I was the damn second highest bidder in that original 11 auction.
Adam Shultz wrote:Second. Hows about this....black jacket PotVQ + Full sized 1st Dwarven Glory (missing 2 pages with staple but in otherwise EX+ appearance) = Your Dragon11 original ?
harami2000 wrote:Adam Shultz wrote:Really? I just combed back through the end part of this thread and didnae find these discussed points. From your discussion with Pete you have concluded it is a special edition and not an unused copy? And he contradicts what he wrote IO in his quoted response earlier?*g*. I didn't "conclude". I just asked Pete the right questions and (only a few hours before auction close) he replied with full details explaining why the inner pages were from the stated-1974 1st print. (Would have been slitting my throat to have posted that on the board, so apologies for not doing so!). Immediately after the auction closed, Pete checked with a friend who remembered the full history of this copy and sent me a profuse apology for having misled me.Like I said, am greatful to him (and his friend) for checking this out and copying me in before I parted with the money. Would still have preferred to have been able to make the "fair market offer" which was "all he requested" for the mod, but that's by-the-by, now.Because it was bagged as the "house copy" before the TSR distribution deal was sealed, it should be missing the copyright page as that was printed later.Ah... the response to IO (page 9, not 10). That's the "hybrid copy" story with the incorrect Feb 1975 date. I'm a bit unsure, but I think Frank (quite fairly to be honest) said that sounded more like the third print (Acaeum listing), perhaps given that he suspected the date Pete had provided was wrong (as turned out to be the case).That page of this thread is further confused by <tfm> giving a new definition of "3rd"
Adam Shultz wrote:Really? I just combed back through the end part of this thread and didnae find these discussed points. From your discussion with Pete you have concluded it is a special edition and not an unused copy? And he contradicts what he wrote IO in his quoted response earlier?
harami2000 wrote:(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).
harami2000 wrote:Am sure I should remember such details from 3-4 years ago, given we're hoping Pete will remember printing details from 29 years ago....
Adam Shultz wrote:Oh heck. I just pulled out my DG 1st print to check to see how incomplete it was. First I discovered that the copyright page says 1977 and not 1976 according to the Acaeum's info. And it might very well be complete but not in the same terms as the copy that has been described on the Wee Warriors DG page here.
Adam Shultz wrote:harami2000 wrote:(If someone wants to give me a really tough time they could wave a mid-grade Tamo or Inverness under my nose ^^).I only have a NM- Tamoachan to offer. It isn't really of the midgrade quality.
bbarsh wrote:My perspective is from a guy who does not collect wee warriors stuff at all. I don't, and will not, own a single product. Simply because I have no desire to own them.
bbarsh wrote:But what I see is a probable partial copy of an undetermined printing. If I were interested, I would have to ask myself how much do I really want a PVQ and am I stretching on this one to rationalize my desire to obtain it...I just see too many variables around this particular auction. The hype, percieved or otherwise, comes from who the seller is, not the actual item. If Joe Smith from Nebraska were selling it, I think the interest level would be lower (and the final price).
Adam Shultz wrote:Jeff understands Pete's Character Archaic to have been a "pre-pub". I missed this as well. There was nothing in the auction description to suggest this. I was the second highest bidder and would have gladly paid for it in its condition from the publisher on those merits alone.
Jeff understands Pete's Character Archaic to have been a "pre-pub".
a2jeff wrote:I'll be posting a separate thread on The Character Archaic and my findings on this particular copy, in addition to notarized comments from Pete soon. If anyone has a printing of CA, please chime in so we can do some comparisions when the time comes.
harami2000 wrote:Adam Shultz wrote:Oh heck. I just pulled out my DG 1st print to check to see how incomplete it was. First I discovered that the copyright page says 1977 and not 1976 according to the Acaeum's info. And it might very well be complete but not in the same terms as the copy that has been described on the Wee Warriors DG page here. It hasn't suddenly turned into booklet form, has it? [ Image ](Or have you been sitting on a variant printing all along, without realising that? )
Adam Shultz wrote:It is the full sized, yellow/red ink cover version and the copyright page at the end clearly states 1977. It really does appear complete and may very well have been sold with a single staple in the upper left hand corner as this copy is completely unused and in EX+ to NM- condition. It would seem to be an unknown copy.
Adam Shultz wrote:I also own a supposed 3rd print digest version with the gold ink on the cover. The copyright in it is 1976 This print run stuff makes my head spin to no end. Art is much easier for me to comprehend!
Adam Shultz wrote:etax2: poor grammer edit and staple location edit as I confuse my left with my right hand sometimes.
harami2000 wrote:Adam Shultz wrote:It is the full sized, yellow/red ink cover version and the copyright page at the end clearly states 1977. It really does appear complete and may very well have been sold with a single staple in the upper left hand corner as this copy is completely unused and in EX+ to NM- condition. It would seem to be an unknown copy.Neat! Does that mean the previous "OK. Hows about Black Folder PotVQ (NM) + 1st DG + Vanquished Foe = Dragon11 ?" offer has just vanished from the table? Where did you obtain that DG from? Hoping it can be dated far enough back to give it the thumbs up (and addition to the site's printing list).
harami2000 wrote:Adam Shultz wrote:I also own a supposed 3rd print digest version with the gold ink on the cover. The copyright in it is 1976 This print run stuff makes my head spin to no end. Art is much easier for me to comprehend!Gold? [ Image ]Excuse me, I'll come back in a few years to see whether anyone's made progress on the print runs! Actually "1976" might not be a problem. Like TSR, Wee Warriors sometimes- but not always- appear to have backdated their products to the original publication date. Thus, Character Archaic and Endless Dungeon both still have 1975 in the TSR distributed copies, despite being post-May 1976 in that format. However, this wasn't done for PotVQ, hence some major confusion.Similarly, TSR advanced their (c) date in Men & Magic to 1975 (for the 3rd & 4th OD&D sets), then reverted back to 1974.