afoolandhis$ wrote:David, you're not saying you're out of it, are you?
harami2000 wrote:afoolandhis$ wrote:David, you're not saying you're out of it, are you?Looks like it from those "predictions". Am half tempted to throw in a better 2nd print U&WA to replace the one in that set, though.(Picked up a few spare 2nd print booklets at $20/25 each, not that long ago).
I always intended to "complete" the set by buying a 1st ed. 1st print book to replace U&WA, but tracking down a good condition single book like that was a daunting task. *sigh* Whoever wins the set will have a good excuse to tackle that quest with more conviction than I could muster!
invincibleoverlord wrote:BTW, I was under the impression that this variant cover was a 1st anyway
invincibleoverlord wrote:...; just the cover is different to make up for a shorter cover run of the U&WA. I'm going to compare our 1st / 2nd like Peters to a 1st and true 2nd and compare the differences. From memory I know for sure that all the 1st including the variant are cut to the same size.
invincibleoverlord wrote:All the 2nd prints are about ¼" larger top to bottom. We're getting ready to display everything so I'll dig them out of the storage boxes a little early and try a shed some light on this.
invincibleoverlord wrote:One more quick thought, as far as the errata sheet being present, maybe these were just added in as sales carried through 74. Or they were just acquired by the original owners through the mail, conventions, or such over the early years. Anyone buying a true 1st would have been closely involved in gaming at the time and would have tried to acquire such sheets for games they purchased.
invincibleoverlord wrote:Any other thoughts on this gang?
harami2000 wrote:*waits for one of two other board members I know who can provide observations on all the above*
bclarkie wrote:harami2000 wrote:*waits for one of two other board members I know who can provide observations on all the above*Are you waiting on me David?
All the 2nd prints are about ¼" larger top to bottom
EGG @ Manga wrote:The next run of 3,300 was sold in white wrapped pre-printed boxes, but hand assembly was also done, that in the basement of the house I lived in. In fact, I personally toted all the cartons of booklets, 9,000 in all, from the truck tailgate down into the basement storeroom. It was a hot June day in 1975 that I remember well today
invincibleoverlord wrote:I had another thought:Do you think the variant 1st was printed to make up for the noted "lack of 1000" needed to complete the 1st print run, or may be there was a surplus of M&M's and M&T's; say 100 or so of each, and a few more U&WA were whipped up to further sales or carry over to the second prints?
The latter sounds more likely to me.
The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)
invincibleoverlord wrote: Stephen,So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?
invincibleoverlord wrote:Peter wrote in his auction description:The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?
invincibleoverlord wrote:Do you think the variant 1st was printed to make up for the noted "lack of a 1000" needed to complete the 1st print run, or maybe there was a surplus of M&M's and M&T's; say 100 or so of each, and a few more U&WA were whipped up to further sales or carry over to the second prints?
invincibleoverlord wrote:A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?
afoolandhis$ wrote:It sounds reasonable. Of course, there's the "true first" as well, apparently distinguished from your "A" above by the box only (?).
Have you asked Peter what source he's citing for his research?
The "variant 1sts" were not actually "reprinted". The text block remains the same: it's just a "new" cover, as far as I can tell.
(Still needing to recheck the copies closely and would encourage anyone with multiple 1sts and 2nds to do likewise, please )
for the other two volumes, where there appears to be a variation in the ink colors, with darker colors in the earlier print; especially noticeable on the M&T as stated. The variant 1st U&WA usually (would say always, but I'm only going by a few sets and auction scans which ain't gospel) goes along with the lighter green M&T.
Why the variant U&WA should be so common (relatively) is difficult to explain if it was the "last usage" of surplus 1st print stock.
Ah, fun topic... Was previously trying to trying to see whether these could be pinned down, but feedback was that there was a degree of variation/inconsistency in grain direction. Was first mentioned to me in the context of 1sts with vertical grain, then reinforced by that pre-pub with the same. Don't recall seeing a 2nd with horizontal, though. Had a check through a few old auction scans, too. * Still on the research back-burner, but mix-and-match copies will probably cause as much grief with those as they might with the books. Personally, am not trying to attribute presence/absence of the errata sheet (or ref sheets, indeed) to a specific stage of those "releases". Would expect either/both sheets to have been inserted into the assemblage when they were ready; and that's not likely to tie in neatly to a given stage. (It is easier to "explain away" their absence on the earliest release(s), though).