Do they both have the same number of staples, both along the outside of the spine and in the interior fold?

Given the abuse done to the minotaurless copy (highlights in blue highlighter and writing in both pencil and black felt tip pen), plus the severe damage done to the front cover due to the original owner using more tape on the spine, and the staple rust, it's a wonder this book survived at all. I had gotten it for nothing from a friend of mine almost 25 years ago that didn't take care of his books....

The minotaurless copy has had its staples removed and replaced at one point. There is tape reinforcing the holes in the center of the book, and the center staple was driven through all pages of the book. There is evidence, in the form of staple rust on the leaf containing pages 12 and 44 that shows the center staple was originally driven only through the leaves containing pages 13 to 44 of the book. In addition, more tape was applied to the leaf containing pages 12 and 44. The only purpose of this tape was to reinforce the page at that point, since it appears the staple rust ate through the paper.

To summarize, the original stapling scheme for the minotaurless copy was three staples, of which two were driven through the entire book, while the third was only driven through the sheets that made up pages 13 to 44. The stapling scheme for the copy with the minotaur illo is identical, but offset from the minotaurless copy by one centimeter.

The catalog in the back for both books is identical, in that the catalog only notes prices for shipping and handling, and Dragon Magazine:

$1.00 s/h
$2 - single issue of Dragon
$24 - thirteen issues of Dragon
$40 - overseas rates.

I'd stick my neck out for 9b & 9c, at present, but would have to dig out 9a (priced stock list) and 9d (white copy) to confirm that series.
No surprise for additional prints given the number of OCE covers for both the 6th & 7th running concurrently but I'm generally light on those later prints and hadn't spotted the censors at work.

Good one, Traveller.

Ya know, I've probably had a half dozen or more EWs pass through my hands over the years, and I don't recall one without the minotaur.

DISBELIEVE THE ILLUSION! It's There!!! Really!!!

Could be same print actually, with a brief delay in between.

I get the impression they began printing them and someone noticed the pic fell off the flats before they shot the negs. Then, they added the pic, shot a new neg, and resumed the print run. I'm sure it held things up for a bit, but it would not surprise me if they had this back up and ready within a half-hour or so.

I'd be inclined to go with printing error rather than a new print.

Traveller wrote:I can disassemble the minotaurless copy if you like, but this isn't a frankenstein for the following reasons.

First, the staple holes line up precisely.
Second, the amount of staple rust stains on the middle page surrounding the holes is consistent with the amount of staple rust staining on the sheet containing pages 12 and 44 as well as the inside cover.
Third, the pages are all consistent in the amount of tanning and foxing present.
Lastly, I've had the book since 1986, so it's almost 25 years that I've owned this book. For books that have value, people would in fact go so far as to frankenstein a hardcover by giving it a dust jacket from a different printing. This is in fact something that still happens today. Back in 1986 there was no RPG collecting hobby, at least as we know it today. OD&D books simply didn't command such values as they do today, simply because there was no demand at the time. AD&D was still going strong, and Mentzer D&D was just finished with Immortals. Thus, no reason to frankenstein this book.

Ok, to clarify:  I meant frankenstein in the sense of "composed of more than one printing", and not (necessarily) "reassembled post-production from two separate books".  No need to take anything apart on this one.  The fact the staples were removed at some point turns out to be irrelevant, but thankfully, it pointed us this direction:  In short, we caught a fish!

Though I lack enough EW printings to verify conclusively, based on the answers you just provided part of your printing is not a 9th printing at all.  Pg. 34 should have no text in the 9th printing at all, just the Type V demon illo!

(Even if you don't personally own a 9th, this is easily verifiable by anyone that can type "eldritch wizardry pdf" in Google.  The free PDF that was distributed for a time and still readily downloadable is a 9th.)

However, it's clear that the copyright page and catalog page are from the 9th.  So it looks to me like you've got a printing where the middle bit (pg. 13-45) is non-9th, (presumably 8th but I can't verify that), and the outside bit (pg 1-12 & 46-64) are 9th.

Both copies of the book carry the same text in the same positions.

Well, that's interesting given the info I just posted.  Putting the non-minotaur book aside, we apparently have a distinction between your 9th and that which spawned the PDF.  (I'd assume the non-text pg. 34 copy was later, as the reason there's no text is that some Balrog references were removed on pg. 33.)

I've exhausted what I can research third-hand, though.  We need additional people with 9ths (and other printings after the 2nd, for that matter) to weigh in so we can sort out a proper chronology.

The pg. 33 question itself was regarding whether the last word was "sleep" or "deep" -- at one point this was a typo as well.  We have much work left to do.

Sorry to drop in on this, as I can't offer any info directly as I don't have an EW anymore, but I am starting to find these print discrepancy threads fascinating purely on a minute detail level.

It would never occur to me check wording, paper thickness, staple spacing etc and fair play to you guys for getting such accuracy on the printings.  

Traveller wrote:The OCR likely flubbed sleep, rendering it as deep, and the last part of the paragraph that should be on page 34 is missing completely, which it shouldn't be since that text on page 34 refers to the Type VI demon's ability to gate, amongst other things.

Oh, no.  I wouldn't do that.  The deep/sleep part I got from real live people discussing the text.  I've already asked for more info.

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?bo ... hread=2134

(Ok, ok, I probably would do that.  But I didn't this time.)

deimos3428 wrote:Well, that's interesting given the info I just posted.  Putting the non-minotaur book aside, we apparently have a distinction between your 9th and that which spawned the PDF.  (I'd assume the non-text pg. 34 copy was later, as the reason there's no text is that some Balrog references were removed on pg. 33.)

Ah, good try but bashing the wrong balrog, Tyson?
.pdfs unfortunately don't have staples and are prone to deviation - resulting from imperfect invocation of eldritch wizardry, or otherwise - from the original, as I believe has been mentioned before with one of the other supplements (Greyhawk, perhaps?) in that format, and thus an abjuration is required.

(Or, put rather more simply, the text loss on page 34 in the .pdf version is more likely accidental... looking at another 9th print here)

bombadil wrote:And miles to go before we sleep.

Still a loooong way to go, even if some printings are more Alpha Tauri than others?

=
[edit: OK, you guys go and add to the conversation behind my back whilst I'm distracted by dinner before finally hitting send. I'll leave this as-is, anyhow, since it took long enough to fix up. :p]