misterspock wrote:Do you know if there's a way to tell from the covers or even the box?I'm sure everyone's response will be "that's for me to know and for you to find out"
misterspock wrote:edit: oh I see what you're saying from the Q&A now. Since no mention of a printing date on the first three books, it means it's a 1st...
ashmire13 wrote:The guy has added a 2nd edition Chainmail too now....
faro wrote:aside: Since I haven't received a reply yet, consider exercising due restraint and ask all appropriate questions when a seller has comments like "This is only a sample of what I see. I know nothing about the stuff, I purchased it at an auction and some one said it should sell." on their listing (carried forward from 2008, at least...)
ashmire13 wrote:Its just clicked over $1000 though.
misterspock wrote:Looks like our buddy the pipswich dropped the $1500 on it.
stratochamp wrote:our buddy the pipswich? well at least you didn't call him ol' lovable pip.
Laminated ring-bound book. N.B. We do not know whether this was published in this format of has beenbound later for wargaming use. Evidence would suggest that it was bound by hand at a later date. published in 1975 by Tactical Studies Rules Dimensions: 16cm x 21cm x 1cm34 pages with black & white illustrationsIn fair condition. Has seen action. Pages yellowed with age and a couple look a little 'chewed' at top edge. There is some discolouration/brown staining especially around rings. Covers slightly scratched and grubby.
ashmire13 wrote:faro wrote:aside: Since I haven't received a reply yet, consider exercising due restraint and ask all appropriate questions when a seller has comments like "This is only a sample of what I see. I know nothing about the stuff, I purchased it at an auction and some one said it should sell." on their listing (carried forward from 2008, at least...)Its just clicked over $1000 though.
misterspock wrote:I'm confused, which auction are you referring to?
faro wrote:It's not exactly hidden from sight...If you see that text, "consider exercising due restraint and ask all appropriate questions", as stated. Not that that shouldn't /always/ be the default.Worth reiterating in this particular case, though.