It should be easy enough to open the staples and remove them without damaging the packaging. I would be interested to know if the staples are curled (ie inserted with a stapling machine) or uncurled with no indentations indicating prior curling (ie inserted by hand and folded flat). This is something you learn about staples if you scan as many documents as I do.

Secondly, the possibility of this being a pre-pub is pretty ludicrous, but hey, given the choice, let's say it's the original first ever printing; the pre-pub that started the whole damn genre. That way, the big elephant doesn't need to hang around in the corner anymore.

As to the '4th printing' idea, this is just a very polite politically astute way of avoiding the issue. That's why it's a '4th printing'. Like Gamelord's '2nd printing' of Compleat Tavern and Monte Haul, both of which have value and sell just as well as the '1st printing' on eBay, and neither of which are recognised generally as counterfeit, and both of which are remarkably rare in comparison to their more common '1st printing' siblings. Indeed, they may well actually be the first pre-pubs, before they decided to commit money and resources to print. That would explain the incredibly low numbers.

. wrote:Secondly, the possibility of this being a pre-pub is pretty ludicrous,

Yeah, we already got into that toward the bottom of the 1st page on this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1869&start=0&postdays=0&postorder

Ummm..... who owns it now?  

[quote="faro"]
Apologies for the page bump. Thanks; this got a smile!
Where are those fakes to make them the majority or even remotely close to that? Let's start this same thread the next time a Tsojconth, Fazzle or Domesday Book is listed and see what happens. Should be fun.

it's perverse, but the real, verifiable value of such items (invern/tamo/fazzle/pvq) imo is in the folder. i would in fact be very wary of domesday's without  provenance (which existed in the recent #2, hence my large, but ultimately losing, bid). i DO believe that "most" of the yellow top-sheeted versions are legitimate (produced by an "appropriate" party during the 1970's). but since several (maybe many depending on your perspective) of them are not AND that to me it is an inferior (no-folder) follow-up product (if it was "printed" as opposed to photocopied it was done poorly...), they just don't seem to me to have great value. hence my disinterest in non-1st,5th,6th printings.       btw i've mentioned this before somewhere, but i'm sure that the black foldered version is the 1st printing & i doubt that they were sold in ziploc bags (from the publisher). some may have been "added" at the retail level, or along the way by their owners, but not initially. several very rare items that my collection is blessed with came from my "keep it in it's original condition" brother-in-law who collected one of everything bitd, and bought them as soon as he would see them. he kept his original judges guild subscription mailing envelopes as an example. anecdotal evidence i realize, but he was VERY comprehensive with his collecting. anyway my $.02

I believe the PoVQ 'history' on Acaeum was changed to reflect that the blsck folder was first (over the former 'folderless' first). I also don't see the ziploc being used for the foldered version. I do recall posted information attributed to Pete Kerestan mentioning the ziploc bags, but I took that to mean the sale of the 'folderless first' overstack was placed in ziplocs and sold.

. wrote:afoolandhis$/bombadil will be able to tell you that.

Just above your post over here, Ian; viewtopic.php?p=133352#133352

Ironically the black folder used to sell for more-or-less the same ~$500 price tag a few years back. Trying to get listings changed takes time, though.

@Jeff: Yes; Lou was more than just "authorised", he was the official distributor after TSR pulled out (as indicated by Games Workshop, the removal from the OD&D catalog and addition to the back of the later digest copies all within the same approximate timeframe) and was most likely doing so even when TSR were involved. Nothing at all "shady" in that.
Nor is it "shady" that there was simply a longer time-gap between when the black folders ran out and the digest copies were printed than between the loose-leaf Dwarven Glory and the same; it's just a fact that has to be filled by stock from somewhere.
Things only get more awkward after the digest copies also run out, but the evidence is that the "3rd" was at least first produced before those came into print and that the "2nd"s are over-run and near-relatives to the black-foldered "1st"s.

02c as ever, anyhow, but that's still the "best fit" to the evidence available and as far as I know the only two "exceptions" are one-offs (the toymom/Bella copy and the likely post-digest Edinburgh "2nd" which is still as far as can be discerned "official Zocchi").

faro wrote:I know the only two "exceptions" are one-offs (the toymom/Bella copy and the likely post-digest Edinburgh "2nd" which is still as far as can be discerned "official Zocchi").

So as far as we know, the evidence seems to be that Zocchi was photocopying 3rd print PoVQs well into the 80's?

faro wrote:(OT) Ah... it was you as underbidder, Bill.
I had my suspicions but if anyone had asked me beforehand I'd've expected the winning bid to have been no more than one third to a quarter of what it was given how much "good stuff" it's possible to get for that sort of money in "unique" items.

                                                                just to be clear i was NOT the second high bidder. i was substantially outbid by  the winner & (at least) one more.

There is a belief that the 'Edinburgh' PoVQ was produced by Zocchi AFTER the two digest editions ran out, and TFM seems to indicate that it is some 10 years YOUNGER that it should be. Further more, from looking at the ToT PoVQ thread where TFM does his comparative study of the PoVQs in his possession, if you look at the images of the Lou Zocchi label, you'll see that the 'Post Digest Edinburgh' PoVQ has a punched Lou Zocchi sticker (ie it was pressed out of a sheet of adhesive paper - re radiused corners), whereas the older Lou Zocchi stickers are cut from sheets (sharp corners), gummed on (ie not adhesive) and have a more bold print typeface. The 'older' Zocchi stickers are the same on both the PoVQ examples on the ToT thread, and the Endless Dungeons examples given above.

Ergo, Lou Zocchi was still photocopying PoVQs well into the 80's if we are to believe the evidence is genuine. I very much doubt WW gave LZ carte blanche to photocopy and sell their product imperpetuity. Something is wrong with this picture.