bclarkie wrote:Without even considering that there is no way to possibly account for what may have happened over the 30+ years to each of these products by their owners, no one even has the slightest clue as to what the actual print run of either of these products are, so you can't even make a somewhat educated guess as to how many of each should be showing up at this point.  Who knows maybe just more people threw away their DGs as opposed to their PotVQs.

Also, just because Wee Warriors may have chosen to do a print run like the current 3rd/4th print PotVQ as it stands now, it does not necessarily mean that they would have automatically chosen to do the same for DG.  It's entirely possible(if not probable) that PotVQ was more popular, resulting in higher sales and which resulted in the need for Wee Warriors to take quick action to meet demand versus DG.  That's trying to use the absence of evidence as evidence.  That's not how it works.

In other words, without knowing original print runs of both and having at the the very minimum a decent idea as to what the sales figures were at the time, you are taking a really big stretch assuming this particular print run as its known is just some unauthorized fakes.

I was trying to explain why I had reason to believe that the cartoon cover PoVQ was in all likelyhood a fake/photocopy, and explain why I did not believe that 1st print DGs were fake.

but not by all members of the community. i wouldn't pay more than $20.00 for a 3rd or 4th print potvq. i also have never quite understood the idea that an ancient ziploc bag gives any legitimacy to an item. i have lots of ancient ziploc bags from items in the 1970's & 1980's. someone could easily throw an item (like a potvq) into such a bag & claim -voila!- provenance.

mbassoc2003 wrote:The point is there is no evidence, and we have heard nothing to refute the possibility that Ronald McDonald was given the right to photocopy WW products.

I believe it is good to question the authenticity of some such items because they don't seem to fit in.  I understand that you want to consider them fakes until proven legit but why not consider them legit until you prove them fakes.  So far, I have seen more evidence for them to be considered legit but most probably printed later (rather than fakes).

One question is, do you believe that the Zocchi sticker on the packaging is legit or did someone fake them to give the items some legitimacy?  

If you think that the label is legit, then it shouldn't be a big stretch to say they originally came from Zocchi.

If you believe this so far then by calling them fakes, you are implying that Zocchi created them illegally and without permission.  Without enough evidence either way, the fake/legit argument breaks down to reputation of the person believed to have created/sold them.   While I wouldn't put it past Zocchi to be involved of profiteering such as artificially inflating the value of some items (Kara Tur, Deities & Demigods) etc, I would want some proof before saying he went as far as illegally creating copies to sell.

Mars wrote:I believe it is good to question the authenticity of some such items because they don't seem to fit in.  I understand that you want to consider them fakes until proven legit but why not consider them legit until you prove them fakes.

agree + doubly if have to prove faked 30 years ago for stated 3rd print

Mars wrote:If you think that the label is legit, then it shouldn't be a big stretch to say they originally came from Zocchi.

If you believe this so far then by calling them fakes, you are implying that Zocchi created them illegally and without permission.

agree again. lou does not seem to be profiting greatly here + is known to have deal with ww which was printed in digest version + implied on labels + stated in print by games workshop after tsr stopped
if knew was valuable why no new sales at high $$$ from lou himself late 80s + early 90s or beyond??
edinburgh stated 2nd print had at least some age as was held together old rusty staple so know at least is unlikely 2000+ even if one did not ask where seller originally bought

if reject 3rd need to perhaps reject 2nd also + reprove both
or invest in hot foil printing to make more black folders

Zenfinite wrote:Don't know if that helps any bud, but at least you got one guy posting with his experience.

+thx for posting zen was going to contact to ask after check of auctions but omnipresent it seems
tfm stated 3rd not from bella top of http://tomeoftreasures.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=730 also looks good from distance + printing points + questions

Mars - Of all the 3rd prints we've seen, the Zocchi print is the closest we can come to saying that it may be a 20yo photocopy with legitimate permission. Zocchi has a history of reproducing other's works under negotiation. But, and this is the issue, there are just as many, if not more, 3rd and 4th print photocopies outh there with no Zocchi label. So are they also legitimate by virtue of the fact that Zocchi had permission to photocopy his? And are they legitimate regardless of whether they are xeroxed or laser photocopied? Regardless of which colour yellow the cover sheet is? Regardless of how bas the reproduction is? Or whether or not it comes in a dirty ziplock bag? The Zocchi label can only at best lend credibility to the fact that Zocchi had permission, and from what I see on ToT, there is even a difference in the Zocchi labels. So for how many years were these 'Zocchi' prints produced? 10? 20? Or, as you postulate, could the Zocchi labels be fake? Are they gummed on, or are they stickers?

Sadly I have no 3rd print PoVQ, and it's not something I'd be willing to throw more than maybe $20-30 at. I do consider them to be fakes. Photocopies of real products. As to whether they are legitimate or illegal, I'd suggest the likely hood is that they are not. The Zocchi sticker may sway that in a particular case, but even then that sticker may be an addition. And the absence of the sticker opens the photocopying of the product up to practically everyone except Zocchi. I don't imagine WW made the product open source.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Mars - Of all the 3rd prints we've seen, the Zocchi print is the closest we can come to saying that it may be a 20yo photocopy with legitimate permission.

making sound like market flood instead of <10 in last 10 years ^^
only edinburgh copy so far was what you termed bastard 2nd not 3rd. good luck on hunt there interesting to see what find

mbassoc2003 wrote:But if you buy a photocopy of something, it's not the sort of think you keep a hold or or attribute value to.

or if bought late 70s + just filed like bella copy
value to that degree only seen by example such as ebay. people might think photocopies worth 50 cents + digest book maybe $2 if do not know otherwise. is big leap to $$$
seeing large price can smoke out other copies as happened with st1 many times. but not for stated 3rd potvq
evidence for stated 3rd is that it has some age + is rare. does not guarantee authentic but helps point not recent mass market flood. most dubious apparent copy of any loose leaf potvq is still edinburgh 2nd + even that had zocchi label

mbassoc2003 wrote:Similar to newsletters, 'zines etc. in that respect. The numbers (or lack thereof) should not add credence to their authenticity in any way.

agree but if dig in untouched 70s/80s strata + find zine or newsletter can presume that if fake it is old fake

mbassoc2003 wrote:The reason the black folder version crops up in greater numbers is unlikely to be due to the printrun quantities. More likely that people kept them by virtue of the presentation in the black folder which protects the product, and adds a greater feeling of value to it from the get go. Imagine buying one of those mint back in the day!

print run might be factor as was expensive first investment to market + trying to make impact. when $$ income not good easy to do away with folder + cannot say if more or less after

but sales tend to be best on first release too but not always pattern. potvq fell through gaps. dg more so. misty almost invisible. less prints for each. does not indicate increasing sales in that anyhow. anecdote also indicates digest potvq rare

nothing concrete but 2nd - stated 3rd does fit taper with digests

mbassoc2003 wrote:Aside... Didn't someone (a reseller) get slagged something rotten on here or over on DF for placing ad's in local papers offering to buy peoples D&D collections? That's what I'm thinking of doing in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Hope not! - I regularly advertise in the local paper, with frankly very limited success.
However now would be a good time - it's the beginning of the car boot season and people are preparing to sell off their cleared-out crap, so an ad in the local press could be timely.

(Good luck - I've had 3 hits in 3 weeks but nothing in the previous 3 months, though I only drop an ad in every 2 weeks or so)

(I think you are thinking of Coug BTW - It seems he advertises somewhere trying to pick up ST1s (IIRC) but in such a way as to not name it, so it doesn't come up on many google searches)