dbartman wrote in Strategic Review #3 - reprints?:Strategic Review #3 was printed on the traditional "flat" paper, similar to the other Strategic Reviews, and a more glossy paper. I wouldn't go as far to say there were two separate printings, but it could have been the same printing, with a mixed batch of paper during the print run.
This I think is likely right. I recently commented in the C&S (non-TSR) thread something similar... In the bookselling world, variations within printings are dealt with by using terms like states and issues, e.g. if a printer notices a typo or poor layout while doing a print run and makes a correction (or, I guess, changes paper stock slightly) then that is referred to as a different state within the 1st print. The important point is that it makes no difference to the date of the printing. In many cases, two different states will be bundled together when delivered by the printer, so it might be impossible to tell for certain if one was at the start, middle or end of a printing. I would be unsurprised if cheap 1970s printing also made some changes to paper within a print run - it may even have been offered as a discount to use up stock.
To be sure, in the rare book world, collectors anguish over these details too. So I am not saying it makes no difference. But it may be impossible to say which came (ever so) slightly earlier. Or even if that distinction is important. We might even adjust the way in which we think about some early D&D sets/books accordingly
