Hey all, I wanted to get this moved down out of the interesting items on EBay thread so I am starting this thread here in Collecting Appraisal. :wink:
==============================================

harami2000 wrote: On a rarity basis, if anything, the "4th" listed appears to be the hybrid; i.e. possibly 4th- contents with a 5th cover.

I actually would agree to this. As a matter of fact it seems if look at all the data listed on the site, it seems to me that 4th minus actually is true fourth print and 4th print as it listed now, would be the hybrid(if it actually exists :wink: ). When you look at the printing data from all the printings on the site, there is a pretty clear cut case of them consistantly putting the left over boxes/books(whichever was leftover) from previous print run together with the new product, when they distributed the next print run. Looking at the first deviation from a normal consistant printing run,the 3rd+, it seems pretty obvious to me that they actually had some left over woody boxes, and rather than trash them, they filled them with the newly printed 4th print(listed 4th- print currently on the site) booklets. It appears that this pattern continues with the next print run as well. The 4th printing(as it appears on the site) is actually leftover booklets from the true 4th(listed as 4th- on the site) with the newly made 5th print box sets. I think that would explain all the reported deviations in a pretty clear cut and concise manner. To make it more clear, I am proposing that there are no +/- print runs at all, that the sets currently listed on the site as +/- were just leftovers put together with the new sets, upon the new sets release to the public. Thoughts anyone. :D

harami2000 wrote:Oh; a separate thread.
Not sure whether I should post here or on the OCE thread-"as was" ( New print(s) of the OCE set? ) where I'm going to respond to <deimos> as well as address those 1st/1stV/2nd/3rd print issues (rolling on to the 4th- and beyond, of course).

Sorry :oops: , I just thought it would be better in a new thread since we are going to be looking at all sets.

harami2000 wrote:But is not just boxes: also the covers in a few cases, I think...
That's almost certainly the case for the 1st print and may be for the tail-end 4th- (= near-mythical 4th, with 5th cover).
*
Makes some sense to have kept the pages stacked and bind later, as required, depending on what their printing press set-up was like.

Would certainly make sense. Seems to be a pattern that was common at the onset of printing early RPG's, i.e. the same thing seems to have happend with the PotVQ in the 1st print(foldered/unfoldered). I would have to assume this was done because keeping costs to an absolute minimum would be an absolute neccesity, especially for a small company or a group just putting these things together on their own free time and money.