So I began to dig into one of the three subjects I've been avoiding -- this week, the Dungeon Masters Guide.  What a mess!  From what I can determine, the current print sequence on the site is mostly wrong.  Beyond that, I really can't make heads or tails of what the current agreement is.

Most recent thread: viewtopic.php?t=9029

Two older threads that were written BEFORE the current sequence on the website, so their print references are most likely out of date:  viewtopic.php?p=107144 and viewtopic.php?p=48632.  This second thread has some 2012 comments at the end.

First print: seems OK as is.

Second Alpha and Beta prints: seems OK as is.... I think?

Third prints: unpopular?  Nobody has one (Alpha, Beta, or Gamma) -- so the drawn-out investigation by Paul Stormberg was completely in error here?

Fourth print:  should be the third print?  Aside from white endpapers, is identical to Second Beta?

Fifth print:   Two distinguishing features: Has ISBN, does not state "revised" on the copyright page .  Version with white endpapers spotted (possibly), making it a variant?

Sixth print up is okay?

To further muddy the waters, here are some submissions from the archives:

__________________________________________

I have recently come into possession of an early print AD&D DMG that I can't quite identify from your descriptions.  Based on the white endpapers, address on spine, and lack of ISBN, it appears to most resemble a 4th printing, however it has a few anomalies:
1) There is a group of 32 sequential pages (97-128), that are clearly a different shade of white.
2) Many of the words on these 32 pages run deep into the gutter.
3) The book is bound upside down & backwards.  Open the front cover, turn the flyleaf, and you see page 232 upside down.

I don't know much about the book business, but I would guess that this book was rebound.

(FoulFoot note: just a printing error?  Or have other copies like this been spotted?)
__________________________________________

i think i am a little mixed up about the aging table on page 12.  you say it is not there on your website yet i am holding the book at pg 12 and there it is.  middle aged in mine starts subtract 1 point(or half exceptional rating) "  am i misunderstand something?    thanks.
__________________________________________

I was recently comparing two DMGs and I noticed a peculiar thing. One was quite thicker than the other. A closer examination revealed that, according to your pages, one is likely a seventh print and the other a sixth. However, the
seventh print is considerably thicker, showing much more artwork on the spine, as well as more on the rear as well (as the thicker spine draws the image back towards the spine, thus revealing more of the blue ship, for example). I think
perhaps when they went to the seventh print, they used heavier stock for the interior pages. I do not, however, have an 8th or later printing available for further comparison.
__________________________________________

From chromaticknight:  The 7th and 8th prints do seem to show a little more artwork (1/8 inch or less) on the back. I looked at the blue boat to compare. The 9th print reverts back to less artwork.
__________________________________________

So that's what I'm dealing with at the moment!  A nice debate would help me fix the DMG entry once and for all.  Ultimately, I'd like to do what I did on the Monster Manual page (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/monster.html), which is highlight in green the elements that changed from print to print.  I won't bother doing that until we've got something solid, though.

Foul

Hi Foul, I have a 1st, 2nd Alpha and 2nd Beta and those match the correct descriptions as given.  Would be happy to provide pics if needed.  I owned what was a 4th with white endpapers once and that matched the description given.  Never seen any or heard of anyone who had any of the 3rd printings in any variety.  I have seen 5th prints as currently described before but never owned one.  I have one 6th print and nothing of any later prints and don't know of the later print history except what is already stated on Acaeum descriptions.

It's on the to-do list.  But placed after "figure out this sequence".  The flowchart is a bit of a pain to update so I don't want to have to do it often.

Foul

I'm wondering if the 4th is an overrun of the 3rd. If there were a scored 4th, that would be a clincher. Though, as an overrun would be late to the party, I doubt they would have ever shipped, and so would never have needed to be recalled. How many 4ths have been spotted out there?

The 5th with white endpapers is probably just an overrun. Personally, I don't see the need to make a big deal of it (or any other print for that matter), giving it a 'beta' or other designation. It's the same print. A simple paragraph stating something to the effect of: 'Specimens with white endpapers have been spotted, and are likely overruns assembled from extra pages at hand.' Same goes for copies with non-perfed reference sheets and such. It's really making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO.

The 4th mentioned with different colored pages is weird. Clearly, two signatures were printed with a different paper. There should be a number of other copies with such pages. This would not be a singular event if it came this way from the press. The cover being bound wrong? Yeah, could be a singularity.

The new flowchart will take multiple convoluted paths, but all will end up at "Twelfth Print, don't bother eBaying".

Foul

FoulFoot wrote:The new flowchart will take multiple convoluted paths, but all will end up at "Twelfth Print, don't bother eBaying".

 

IIRC I have a 2nd beta, and definitely 4ths, will have to see if I had any 3rd or not, after I return from GaryCon.

I was under the impression all the 4th prints had been destroyed years ago...I may have missed a couple.

I have a few printings but I am in Tampa away from my collection for a while.



Mike

I've got a follow-up question.  Will the PHB seventh print description be revised to state that some copies have been found with the art on page 108 reversed?  I have a copy like that.  Possibly you could separate the PHB 7th printings into an alpha and a beta?

LB