I recently came across evidence of a 1983 edition of the OD&D Supplements that contained revised text and illustrations. This included only the first three supplements.

It seems these were produced, but that is really all I know about them. They might have been part of a 10th Anniversary reissue.

Does anyone have any information about these?

Zenopus wrote in 1983 OD&D Supplements w/ revissions?:May I ask where you heard this? It would be surprising news to me after following the Acaeum for about 20 ( ) years now.

September 9, 1983 four publications were registered at the U.S. Copyright Office—which means they were applied for at the same time. The four were:

Dungeons & Dragons fantasy adventure game basic set.

Dungeons & Dragons : suppl. I, Greyhawk.

Dungeons & Dragons : suppl. III, Eldritch wizardry.

Dungeons & Dragons : suppl. II, Blackmoor.

The first one is Mentzer Basic, the other three are clearly the Supplement to OD&D. Now the Supplements were all registered years earlier and this is not a renewal, all three applications also say, "new text and ill." and unlike the original registrations say "TSR Games, employer for hire." (staff artists)  to cover the illustrations.

My first thought was that these never saw production, so I called the Copyright Office. I was told these were cataloged from application due to more volume that the office would handle, that means the person who reviewed the application and created the registration did so without the actual printed sample (the deposited copy) on hand. But, I was assured a copy was sent and deposited as the applications would never have been registered without the deposited material. I asked if the deposited material still exists, but was informed they are past the retention period and were destroyed. Same for apparent correspondence between the Copyright Office and TSR that had existed. So according to US Copyright registrations TX 1-314-908, TX 1-314-909 and TX 1-314-910 and the person I spoke to, these did exist.

Since they were registered with Mentzer Basic, I PM'd Mr. Mentzer here. He said there was a flurry of activity to create 10th-anniversary memorabilia for 1984 and that this included the 10A slipcase set, various other items, and a reprint of the 3 LBB. But that he did not work on it. I also emailed Larry Elmore via his site, figuring he was the most likely from that period to do line art for such a project, but have not heard back.

Still unsure what these actually were, I posted here to see if anyone knew.

After looking further, I did find them, but they appear to be attached to the original filings, so I'm not entirely sure this means this were filings for a new copyright for a new book.  :

WebVoyage Titles

And:

WebVoyage Titles

And:

WebVoyage Titles

Malchor77 wrote in 1983 OD&D Supplements w/ revissions?:
The revision is attached to the original, as the length of copyright does not restart with a revision. WotC could do a revision today and it too would be attached to the original as the last day of copyright protection does not move.

It is a new registration for a revision of already copyrighted material, not a new copyright, and not a renewal.

It's not that simple, though.

Any new published material added to the new publication would be protected by the new(or perhaps better described as amended) copyright filing, thus the need to file for it in the first place.

WotC released all the little booklets again a few years ago. With new cover artwork, but basically just a reprint of the originals. They have no new filings for it though, which makes sense, as they are effectively just another printing of the same material(with nothing "new" included from 1983 either).  

It appears to be vaporware.

bclarkie wrote in 1983 OD&D Supplements w/ revissions?:Any new published material added to the new publication would be protected by the new(or perhaps better described as amended) copyright filing, thus the need to file for it in the first place. .

That is incorrect. The original sets the date, as the revision is a derivative of it, not a new work.

Malchor77 wrote in 1983 OD&D Supplements w/ revissions?:
That is incorrect. The original sets the date, as the revision is a derivative of it, not a new work.

Which is why I added the aside of "amended". My point remains the same and is entirely correct.  Any new material added to the original is protected from the amendment date, not the original work date.

Zenopus wrote in 1983 OD&D Supplements w/ revissions?:May I ask where you heard this? It would be surprising news to me after following the Acaeum for about 20 ( ) years now.

There was a late (last until the reprints?) version of at least some supplements that was essentially a photocopy. When I ordered a copy of Blackmoor from the Hobby Shop in the late '80s, this was the version I received. The cover is white paper like the rest of the booklet. These are mentioned on the page for the Supplements:



There were no changes to the layout or artwork of these, though.

This looks like a Greyhawk photocopy/edition, perhaps?:  


** expired/removed eBay auction **


Allan.