sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Dec 26, 2008 22:19:48 GMT -6
This thread might be more appropriate in the general board, but since the first item that set me off a bit was discovered in volume 1, I'm posting this here.
So, I received not one but two boxed OCE OD&D's for Christmas. My better half secured a few auctions, not the least of which was one particularly nice white box from eBay.
My natural "holy crap this is too good to be true" nature took over when I opened one of the boxes. All three volumes are crisp, and lok to be fresh from the printer. The staples are rusty, and there is some slight yellowing/aging on the edges, but the COVERS!
The covers are pristine...to the point that I am concerned that these might be counterfeits. When I say pristine, I mean that the covers are rigid, the inking is still glossy, the booklets themselves are still rigid and the grain of the covers is like no other OD&D volume or supplement I have ever seen.
The red flag was the page 6 illo titled "Sprites". This is not in my PDF nor in my other clearly beat-up OCE copy that was also wrapped under the tree.
Help?
I've either got an awesome pristine OCE 6th (it has the box starburst) or a very, very good counterfeit copy.
The books have an ever so slight musty smell, and (as I mentioned earlier) rusty staples, but the pages and covers are as mint as mint can be.
I've investigated the box itself (thinking that this might be the most likely place to find a flaw) and it looks, other than less yellowing, exactly like my other OCE.
My concern is the page 6 Sprites, I suppose. Hopefully I've received a near perfect copy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2008 22:33:33 GMT -6
This thread might be more appropriate in the general board, but since the first item that set me off a bit was discovered in volume 1, I'm posting this here. So, I received not one but two boxed OCE OD&D's for Christmas. My better half secured a few auctions, not the least of which was one particularly nice white box from eBay. My natural "holy crap this is too good to be true" nature took over when I opened one of the boxes. All three volumes are crisp, and lok to be fresh from the printer. The staples are rusty, and there is some slight yellowing/aging on the edges, but the COVERS! The covers are pristine...to the point that I am concerned that these might be counterfeits. When I say pristine, I mean that the covers are rigid, the inking is still glossy, the booklets themselves are still rigid and the grain of the covers is like no other OD&D volume or supplement I have ever seen. The red flag was the page 6 illo titled "Sprites". This is not in my PDF nor in my other clearly beat-up OCE copy that was also wrapped under the tree. Help? I've either got an awesome pristine OCE 6th (it has the box starburst) or a very, very good counterfeit copy. The books have an ever so slight musty smell, and (as I mentioned earlier) rusty staples, but the pages and covers are as mint as mint can be. I've investigated the box itself (thinking that this might be the most likely place to find a flaw) and it looks, other than less yellowing, exactly like my other OCE. My concern is the page 6 Sprites, I suppose. Hopefully I've received a near perfect copy. Hmm. I just a purchased a white box from eBay. I haven't received it yet but I've had similar concerns about the set I bought. Judging by the pictures, the books look like they are in near mint condition. Might I ask who you bought them from? Feel free to PM if you don't want to make the seller's name public. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 26, 2008 22:39:57 GMT -6
'grats, sham.
*g*. Sprites are fine and there have been a few very good OCEs going (reasonably) cheap recently.
You'll probably notice the cover cardstock is different, too, since there are various printings divided into 6ths (priced stocklist at back, up to 1979) and 7ths (unpriced stocklist at back, notionally 11/79 onwards).
Could you post a pic of that page on your non-sprite version (presuming 7th), please?
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Dec 26, 2008 23:50:28 GMT -6
Sounds like you've got a 5th print like mine (or earlier):  Could you post a pic of that page on your non-sprite version (presuming 7th), please? Never having seen an OCE copy, I'm curious too. Did they replace the sprites with another pic, or has it simply been removed? |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 27, 2008 0:02:55 GMT -6
Mine doesn't say which printing it is, but does say that it is the Original Collector's Edition in the starburst on the box.
I, too, have the Sprites illo on p. 6 of volume 1. I've never thought about it.
I bought my set sometime in the mid-80's. I had already bought the Best of the Dragon v. 1, and was confused by a lot of the references therein, so I finally broke down and bought the copy my hobby store had. (We didn't have a dedicated game store in my area.)
I've never heard of a 7th printing, but mine does indeed have an unpriced stocklist at the back so I guess that's what I have.
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 27, 2008 2:00:00 GMT -6
Mine doesn't say which printing it is, but does say that it is the Original Collector's Edition in the starburst on the box. I, too, have the Sprites illo on p. 6 of volume 1. I've never thought about it. Neither was that an illo that I'd checked in depth despite one .pdf missing the label. Had presumed that to be a careless compilation error rather than anything else. I bought my set sometime in the mid-80's. I had already bought the Best of the Dragon v. 1, and was confused by a lot of the references therein, so I finally broke down and bought the copy my hobby store had. (We didn't have a dedicated game store in my area.) I've never heard of a 7th printing, but mine does indeed have an unpriced stocklist at the back so I guess that's what I have. Cool; thanks for the confirmation on mid-80s, too. A scan of the cover texture would be of use if someone was trying to put together an approximate chronology of these. As to "7th", well that should be on the Acaeum listing as there are clear textual differences between the "6th"s and "7th"s aside from the stocklist: e.g. presence/absence of "ENCUMBERANCE" on page 15 of M&M, "Ents" and "Balrogs" on page 18 & 19 of U&WA (yes, I'm still talking about OCEs  ), etc. Scott is free to publish whatever he wishes and by-and-large his site is accurate and useful but the original rules pages still require a considerable pinch of salt. Never having seen an OCE copy, I'm curious too. Did they replace the sprites with another pic, or has it simply been removed? More than slightly curious here, especially with that confirmed sprite sighting in the mid-80s well towards the end of its general availability (presuming the hobby shop hadn't had that sitting around on the shelf for years, of course *g*). Regards, David. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 27, 2008 8:14:14 GMT -6
My 4th printing has the "sprites" illustration, as does my (unknown print) OCE set. I was unaware that some versions don't have this.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Dec 27, 2008 10:49:38 GMT -6
OK - thanks harami and all, I feel much more confident that this is the real thing now.
It must be a matter of an alternate printing company. The cardstock is either of higher quality, or I have just never seen some of the OD&D booklets that were apparently never even opened before. The grain on the cardstock is different, and it appears to be either slightly darker, or simply unfaded whatsoever.
Greyharp posted the illo, yes that's the one.
Like new M&M:
Sprites on p. 6.
The TSR products stocklist in the back of volume 1 is priced.
The "ENCUMBERANCE" heading is left off of p. 15.
No other differences except that the ink itself seems to be slightly lighter, almost dark brown, in places.
The other M&M, with the more common cardstock type:
No illo at all on p. 6.
The TSR products stocklist in the back of volume 1 is priced.
The "ENCUMBERANCE" heading is present on p. 15.
Neither set has Ents and Balrogs in volume 3.
Both boxes have the OCE starburst.
Interestingly, the PDF I have has no illo on p. 6, and no ENCUMBERANCE heading on p. 15. So it appears that all three printings I have are different in these regards.
Dubeers - my Wife saved all of the shipping boxes, but I'm not sure of the ebay name. I'll PM you the seller's name, but I'm fairly convinced that it's legit (rusty staples, slight yellowing on page edges) and the box is certainly authentic.
|
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 27, 2008 13:22:56 GMT -6
OK - thanks harami and all, I feel much more confident that this is the real thing now. . So since you have two... ;D When is one going up for sale? |
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Dec 27, 2008 14:29:02 GMT -6
While I'm not becoming a D&D collector, there is a long list of old 70's stuff I've never owned (until now). Now that I have two, I'll keep one set to admire and preserve, and one set for actual use (a beater copy, so to speak). I had already started putting together a beater set by purchasing the single volumes, which I have found to be much less expensive if you don't mind not having the box. I'm an M&M short of such a set now. The only problem there is that, much to my surprise, the presumed 6th edition Monsters & Treasure I picked up for $15.00 (including shipping) turned out to have Ents and Balrogs in it! It was a great find. As the two OCE boxes in question were gifts I doubt I will part with them anytime soon. If you like you can make me an offer on my PDFs, though. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 27, 2008 21:35:38 GMT -6
I checked the things mentioned above.
I do have the illo on p. 6 as noted.
I do NOT have the title Encumbrance on p.15.
But I do have references to Ents and Balrogs in v. III.
So now I'm confused as to which printing I do have.
But regardless, I'm still happy to have it!
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 27, 2008 22:19:59 GMT -6
I feel much more confident that this is the real thing now. Glad to hear that! I still haven't seen copies/forgeries with cardstock covers or a box and will be very happy if it stays that way. It should only be one printing company throughout for those, for lack of evidence to the contrary thus far, and those also outlasted the supplements - therefore no genuine "white cover" versions to worry about. The other M&M, with the more common cardstock type: No illo at all on p. 6. The TSR products stocklist in the back of volume 1 is priced. The "ENCUMBERANCE" heading is present on p. 15. Neither set has Ents and Balrogs in volume 3. Interesting... that's more awkward to explain if a 6th rather than "losing" that illo right at the end of the 7ths due to damage. Quick check (and no reason to presume otherwise) that you still have hobbits on line 11 of the same page? Also, on the last line of page 28 that the second "e" in possess is "broken" at the right where the "ss" has been added? Interestingly, the PDF I have has no illo on p. 6, and no ENCUMBERANCE heading on p. 15. So it appears that all three printings I have are different in these regards. The .pdfs are constructed rather than direct scans. The one available on scribd, for example, is missing the label for the sprite illo but I've no reason to believe (yet) that that's representative of an actual physical printing as opposed to a scanning/processing error. Although after this latest addition... ...I'm fairly convinced that it's legit (rusty staples, slight yellowing on page edges) and the box is certainly authentic. Creating a passable fake box is no easy matter and with one possible exception is probably not "worth it" to mess around with OCEs. The potential for Frankensteining woodgrains is another matter altogether... As the two OCE boxes in question were gifts I doubt I will part with them anytime soon. If you like you can make me an offer on my PDFs, though. *g* Pity about that but understandable. I wouldn't mind a good look through rather than hassling you with questions. Will probably give a miss on the .pdfs, though. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 27, 2008 22:28:47 GMT -6
I checked the things mentioned above. I do have the illo on p. 6 as noted. I do NOT have the title Encumbrance on p.15. But I do have references to Ents and Balrogs in v. III. So now I'm confused as to which printing I do have. But regardless, I'm still happy to have it! So much easier to flick through than a .pdf, IMHO.  Should still be a "7th", as above. No need to worry too much about that Balrog. Every OCE has a free one of those hiding behind the potion of Fire Resistance in M&T. And I'm still trying to figure out what a "weresolve" is... (The working theory after getting thrown horribly by that initially is that the Balrogs and Ents in U&WA were actually added back in "by accident" for the "7th"s. Almost everything else points to those being "later" than the "6th"s but I haven't really had a good look through to check for the past 3 1/2 - 4 years). |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Dec 28, 2008 23:09:55 GMT -6
Regarding the glossy ink on the covers, I purchased a copy of Tractics through Nobleknight.com, and the printing on those looked really fresh too. Maybe some of these things just did not get exposed to much sunlight. That would explain the musty odor and rust. BY the way, I save packs of desicant and put them in my storage boxes. It helps reduce the moisture, and odors. I'm not a fanatic collector, I just like keeping my mildew down. You can get the packs out of most boxed goods. If you are worrieda bout stains, or something else slip it into a muslin tea bag.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Dec 30, 2008 1:30:48 GMT -6
Harami
I'm pasting your questions here now that I have a moment to grab that box from my closet and look:
"Interesting... that's more awkward to explain if a 6th rather than "losing" that illo right at the end of the 7ths due to damage.
Quick check (and no reason to presume otherwise) that you still have hobbits on line 11 of the same page? Also, on the last line of page 28 that the second "e" in possess is "broken" at the right where the "ss" has been added?"
Line 11 of the same page meaning p. 6? Yes, under Fighting-Men, it still lists "hobbits".
On p. 28, under close scrutiny, the word "possess" is seamless and does not appear to altered or edited whatsoever. The word "inanimate" on the same line appears to be altered or maybe simply blurry, and the 3" on line 2 of p. 29 appears to altered.
Given these observations it seems that the accepted "OCE 6th" print has many variations. I have two in my limited collection now. It would be useful if we had more insight on the white box OCE prints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 5:04:53 GMT -6
Just a short follow up to my post above. I received my White Box edition from my eBay seller and it was on the level. I've been lucky, I've done maybe 10 transactions on eBay over the past 3 years or so and have never had an unpleasant experience.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 5, 2009 1:25:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 5, 2009 5:35:41 GMT -6
Harami I'm pasting your questions here now that I have a moment to grab that box from my closet and look: "Interesting... that's more awkward to explain if a 6th rather than "losing" that illo right at the end of the 7ths due to damage.
Quick check (and no reason to presume otherwise) that you still have hobbits on line 11 of the same page? Also, on the last line of page 28 that the second "e" in possess is "broken" at the right where the "ss" has been added?"Line 11 of the same page meaning p. 6? Yes, under Fighting-Men, it still lists "hobbits". On p. 28, under close scrutiny, the word "possess" is seamless and does not appear to altered or edited whatsoever. The word "inanimate" on the same line appears to be altered or maybe simply blurry, and the 3" on line 2 of p. 29 appears to altered. Given these observations it seems that the accepted "OCE 6th" print has many variations. I have two in my limited collection now. It would be useful if we had more insight on the white box OCE prints. This is exactly the case with mine as well, right down to the "e" being perfect, but "inanimate" is blurry and the 3 also appears squeezed too close to the ". So... "7th"? But the balrog and ent references are still present in my U&WA. I'm very confused. Of course, mine didn't come with a box, so there's no telling if they had been together that way or not. They are, however all in the very same near perfect condition, just as sham's are. Stiff, seemingly unopened covers (and pages). No staple rust at all though. |
|
), etc. Scott is free to publish whatever he wishes and by-and-large his site is accurate and useful but the original rules pages still require a considerable pinch of salt.
