misterspock wrote:Figure this one out...




** expired/removed eBay auction **


If it's a FIRST PRINTING!, then why would it be a "Revised Edition"?

It's a first printing of a revised edition!



Its a first printing....



...It's a revised edition



First printing...



.... Revised edition



Its Chinatown baby!

I don't think they'll get it.  The concept is too complicated.

How about:

"This book is from the first "edition" of AD&D.

It is not a first "print" of this particular book.

The word "revised" should tell you that because a first "print" cannot be "revised."  How can you "revise" something before you print it?

There is a huge difference in the price of a "print" and an "edition."

Here is a link that will help you sort out the printings:  <Acaeum Link>"

Pipswich wrote:The only problem is by making it potentially easier to understand it becomes incorrect.

Yes, but it's far, far better (hey, you asked for opinions ...).

Your original note is a dense wall of text, likely to have the recipient reaching for the delete key by the second sentence. It is full of minutiae that is of interest to almost no regular human being, and your examples are, frankly, confusing.

Far better to point the seller to the DMG page here, which uses many identifiers to help us all determine editions/printings.

Oh, and I read back a bit and saw a bit of further confusion.  This issue is particularly confusing for d&d collecting.  What TSR/Wotc have labeled as "editions" and here commonly called ODD, ADD or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th are in effect different books/games entirely.  There are are usually multiple "editions" of many of the d&d books within what TSR/WOTC confusingly marketed as a single edition.  So we have editions within editions using two different definitions of the word... one in traditional book terms and the other a marketing strategy to distinguish separate books and games under the umbrella idea of "Dungeons and Dragons".  

I am aware this is confusing and some of it is likely my writing, but most of it is because the issue is confusing to most people.  Also, because marketing teams and book makers seldom know the difference or give a hoot about what book collectors might want or need.  Frankly, almost every major book company started using standardized codes to identify printings before D&D was even conceived... the fact that we can't look at the title or copyright page and identify the printing easily is downright odd and it is no wonder that most traditional booksellers and semi-professional listing services are often wrong.

There is always a first printing of every revised edition.

Well, I said it was a pet peeve.  Sorry about that.  But, we do all collect in an area where printing priority is a significant interest.  

Maybe a FAQ with standard definitions of printing, edition and basic conservation issues with links to archival vendors and maybe the ABAA (Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America) would be useful to folks?

I presume we are all collecting for fun... but also here because we want to get it right?

I just thought it was funny that the seller doesn't realize that a "first" of anything, by definition, cannot be "revised." The terms are mutually exclusive. It looked to me like we riffing on that before things got all serious.

I now exit the thread, wishing I'd never seen the damn thing. Jesus wept.

I know I am geeking on this but his listing is amusing the hell out of me.  I can't see that he says anything wrong.  Which is almost as funny as the fact that in spite of that he does appear to be an idiot.  I just can't "know" that, because he could be deliberately crafting his words to drum up attention without saying anything actually wrong.  

The tone of the message suggests that as collectors we should give a damn about the printing and that is causing us pause.

He correctly notes that it is a revised edition.  He also correctly notes that it may be a first printing.  (by default of the revised edition).

We are implying from the listing tone that he thinks we should give a damn about the printing.  Then since we know that we likely only care significantly about a first printing of the first edition we are leaping to the conclusion that he is suggesting that his copy might be a very valuable first printing of the first edition.  (which would make him an idiot).  

So we have a circular argument where we are guessing what he means, when we already know that we don't really care about his revised edition... no matter the printing.  hehe.

If he is not an idiot... he is crafty as hell and to be avoided.  There are booksellers who intentionally mislead customers with descriptions like this and hence after over thirty years of involvement in the book trade, my frustration/pet peeve over the issue.  

For instance, how would you like to pay $125 for a "first printing" illustrated copy of alice and wonderland... and had no recourse... because a ten day old $10 book arrived with a few illustrations added to the edition.  It used to happen all the time and probably still does.

I don't need the 2e PHB or the 3e DMG, but the briefcase is rockin'!


** expired/removed eBay auction **




Think he can really ship a briefcase for $6 priority?