Joined: 11 Sep 2004 Last Visit: 28 Jun 2013 Posts: 2977 Location: NYC
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject:
Interesting!
I am wondering what the evidence is for the item being of recent printing vs. possibly early 80's late 70's. If the print is of more recent origin, and I would qualify anything after 1985, it would suggest someone might have been making unauthorized copies for the purpose of feeding the collectible appetite for these items. Given the recent article regarding Dieties and Demigods that I posted, you can be assured that Zocchi was aware of, and interested in marketing to the collectible community in its infancy.
This makes me want to go through and start looking at all copies of anything that came out of Zocchi's distribution. _________________
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Last Visit: 22 Mar 2020 Posts: 4574 Location: In the House of the Cosmic Frog
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject:
The paper is as white as new paper out of a ream. I would guess that either Zocchi has been making some or someone else is making them and sticking his label on it. The grid lines for the rooms on the map pages are either light or missing.
I would be very, very concerned for any collector out there who has a Palace with blank rooms. _________________ "This is cool."
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 14 May 2024 Posts: 891 Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Palace of the Vampire Queen--WARNING!!!
tfm wrote:
It appears that POTVQ has been reproduced (probably by Zocchi) in the past ten years.
Do you think it is as recent as past 10 years? That puts it at 1998+ which in this collecting market is very recent (that's almost D20 era). Or is it more likely something like 1985+?
The reason I ask is that if it was created 1985ish then I would guess it was to appease a certain demand with a little bit of profit and the intent to fraud the industry may not have been there. If it is within the last 10 years then certainly the profit has shot up tremendously and I would think that the intent to deceive would be greater.
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Last Visit: 22 Mar 2020 Posts: 4574 Location: In the House of the Cosmic Frog
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject:
It looks much newer than any of the others I own. There is a clear edition delineation of Black Folder, Yellow cover, Castle cover, Burgandy/Tan digest, and Pink/Tan/Green digest. This copy does not fit in between any of them, and, in fact, looks like a composite of the 2nd edition Yellow cover with the 3rd edition pages. Many of the rooms are blank within, the grid lines missing.
It is possible that Zocchi released it again when the demand for it increased, but why cobble two different editions together? It makes me question whether Zocchi was printing their own copies of things once the original supply ran out. Little Soldiers is another candidate for that. If they have permission, then I guess one could argue that this is yet another printing, but just because they had permission to distribute it at one point in time does not mean they can distribute/manufacture it forever. _________________ "This is cool."
Joined: 11 Sep 2004 Last Visit: 28 Jun 2013 Posts: 2977 Location: NYC
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject:
might have to look around for examples of the zocchi sticker on items that they distributed to get a better idea of when those items were in circulation.
I'd one up Mark on this, and suggest that anything pre-82'ish as a reasonable time period for the production of these items as 'another printing' for gaming sales...... if they had permission to do as much. I say this because OD&D items were very much at the very end of distributable use because of the prevalence of both AD&D and the newer releases of D&D materials. Any printings after that would relate directly to the collectible market. PotVQ at that time, was known as the first printed adventure for Dungeons and Dragons, and I believe, was billed as a collectible at gaming auctions.
We have no way to know what the case is regarding Zocchi's relationship with Wee Warriors without asking Pete Kerestan. Maybe he is more approachable these days. He wasn't so much a few years back because of an eye condition that kept him away from the computer. _________________
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 20 Dec 2014 Posts: 331 Location: Mad City, Wi
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject:
Well that is not his phone number now..and he's moved from that address though still lives in Mississippi.
In 1989 the Revised Tegel Manor has a 1512 30th Ave, Gulfport MS address.
ShaneG. _________________ I reject your reality and substitute one of my own!
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 14 May 2024 Posts: 891 Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: Re: Palace of the Vampire Queen--WARNING!!!
A possibility is that Pete Kerestan struck a deal with Zocchi and printed up a number of copies then passed them along. I think the important things to find out are if it was copied with permission and also who made the copies (Wee Warriors or Zocchi).
Valuationwise, does this really make a difference? I would think the Wee Warriors collectors would still want it and it still does seem rare.
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 14 May 2024 Posts: 891 Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject:
I'll post another thought from my overworked mind:
Due to demand for the item, Pete Kerestan printed up some more copies and sold them to Zocchi to distribute. This came to mind after remembering a thread on the Acaeum a couple of years ago that Pete K. was recasting and selling miniatures on Ebay:
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 Last Visit: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 102
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject:
Mars wrote:
I'll post another thought from my overworked mind:
Due to demand for the item, Pete Kerestan printed up some more copies and sold them to Zocchi to distribute.
Kynan's already admitted that Zocchi had permission to distribute at one point. The new assertion is that this was done within the past 10 years as opposed to during the original distribution to the UK.
Personally, comments such as "this copy does not fit in between any of them, and, in fact, looks like a composite of the 2nd edition Yellow cover with the 3rd edition pages" mean very little (to me) without further hard-facts backstory (which we don't have) given the somewhat chaotic production history for WW.
As it stands, this WARNING!!! reads more like Paul(tct)'s initial explosion at having been ripped off on that 1st print woodgrain, 'cept $2k less.
Anyhow, Kynan; money's still where my mouth is, even though I pushed the bidding just a tad there.
At the very least, let me know where I can find those staples which rust so well in just a few years in order to make authentic looking vintage items.
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Last Visit: 22 Mar 2020 Posts: 4574 Location: In the House of the Cosmic Frog
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject:
If you had it in hand and could see just how new the paper looks, I think you might feel differently. I'm not interested in delusion nor heresay. The physical facts indicate that this POTVQ was produced far after the 2nd digest booklet. I want to know who made it. It looks like an attempt to copy the second edition, which is worth more money than those that came after. That fact alone deserves the serious attention of the community whether you feel it is significant or not, hence the warning.
If it is legitimate, then that legitimacy needs to be established. Your post contributes nothing in that direction. The Tome is not a stage, David. I think you'll find that the Acaeum much more capable in that department. _________________ "This is cool."
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 Last Visit: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 102
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:
tfm wrote:
Your post contributes nothing in that direction.
Not even the link to the Zocchi distribution deal in the UK? Do you have a head count of PotVQs actually purchased over here back in the day or a stated-history of where the seller acquired that copy from?
As to physical facts, I have black foldered copies with almost new looking paper which *are* genuine. And a totally rusted staple and heavy apparent use creasing are at least possible counter-indications to the product being almost brand new.
> The Tome is not a stage, David. I think you'll find that the Acaeum much more capable in that department.
No; it is not a stage, it's a place for "hard facts" research, I understood. Or, where the hard facts are not known, for the degree of caution/uncertainty to be carefully bounded.
Stating as fact that that's a reproduction within the past 10 years and telling people not to buy any similar is a bit of a push in that context. (As was unilaterally insisting on a totally new and rare printing of D&DG, just because of an upside-down text block binding problem).
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 14 May 2024 Posts: 891 Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:
I sent an email off to Pete through Ebay and here is the response:
Quote:
Hi, Lou and I knew each other in the mid 70's. I really don't remember much from back then as to who we did what with. But the early yellow covers where printed by my wifes cousin at his print shop and different shades of paper may have been from the several runs I had done. As to the order of selling the product, I had a deal with TSR but Lou most likely got some of our first release while I was working out a deal with them. We would be at the coventions and a lot of us traded things and made little "see if you can sell this" deals back then. Not like the big bussiness of today with paperwork and lawyers. Sorry can't be of much more help but things from 40 years ago are really fadeing away in the old mind. Pete
- weewarriors
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Last Visit: 22 Mar 2020 Posts: 4574 Location: In the House of the Cosmic Frog
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject:
Quote:
(As was unilaterally insisting on a totally new and rare printing of D&DG, just because of an upside-down text block binding problem).
No, the direction of the cover means nothing. But the printer marks on the pages do mean something. Every 1st print copy of the D&DG that I have has the printer marks on the pages described. The recognized 2nd print with the Chaosium appears the same, but it does not have the marks. The reverse-bound copy does have both the printer marks and the Chaosium, which puts it in between the two.
Additionally:
I added that item to the forum on May 13, 2008. Mars pointed out to me the problem with the language, and so I updated it on the 16th. It has been sitting in the forum for a while now and not one member of the community has said boo about it. It is there, subject to challenge, scrutiny, and debate, and the community has had nothing to say. Don't attack the messenger just because you don't like the message. It's The Dwarven Glory w/the room key all over again. I'm going to tell the community that an item exists because it means that people will know exactly what to look for. Everyone with a 144 page Chaosium D&DG should look for those marks on those pages. _________________ "This is cool."
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 10 Nov 2024 Posts: 231 Location: Wichita, KS
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:22 am Post subject:
FWIW, I distinctly recall hearing rumors of shrinkwrapped copies of B3 being printed up and sold at GenCon in the 1990s (for $250-$300 at the time!), and that they were being produced by distributors/publishers/industry professionals. _________________ grodog
---
Allan Grohe
grodog@gmail.com http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/greyhawk.html
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Last Visit: 10 Nov 2024 Posts: 231 Location: Wichita, KS
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:31 am Post subject:
tfm wrote:
Additionally:
I added that item to the forum on May 13, 2008. Mars pointed out to me the problem with the language, and so I updated it on the 16th. It has been sitting in the forum for a while now and not one member of the community has said boo about it. It is there, subject to challenge, scrutiny, and debate, and the community has had nothing to say.
Without delving into the meat of the PotVQ debate here (I can't, not having a one much less several to compare with/against ), Kynan's comment above does raise a point worth further discussion: specifically, given the myriad of posts and research items on the Tome, how do we flag items that not only should be actively commented upon, but items that absolutely require further discussion/research/debate? Without some way to flag content that needs active input, it's very likely that items will sit without comment, and that, as time accumulates, these less-than-verified research items may appear to be "the final word" (so to speak). (Which isn't to say that the May PotVQ update should be characterized as such, that's not the point I'm trying to get at, which is how do we increase the visibility and active engagement of the community on topics that require additional and active scrutiny?). _________________ grodog
---
Allan Grohe
grodog@gmail.com http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/greyhawk.html
Joined: 05 Nov 2008 Last Visit: 05 Nov 2008 Posts: 3
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:21 am Post subject:
hi everyone,
this is my first post here, hope it is in the right area. i have followed this forum for a few months after discovering it recently. i have collected dnd stuff for a while (mostly played since 1981 or so) and have found this to be a VERY valuable resource. many thanks for the organization of research and discussions of rpg collectibles!
i have recently purchased a Palace of the Vampire Queen and would really appreciate help with it. i saw one sell on ebay 6 years ago and always wanted one since, and i just found one i could afford.
it is a first print with black folder, as the research area describes, and would like to verify it completely here. i looked at the detail of the grey grid and the dots are sharp and present under magnification. there is no photocopy marks along any of the pages accept level 4 room chart. that page is off center (at an angle) with slight copy darkening on the side but it is very light. the water damage, stains, and age are present on all pages so i think they were that way from the begining. is this consistent with other copies?
it appears authentic from all measurements (23.9cm D to 6) and descriptions i have found here. it has 23 pages single sided total yet the seller said there was supposed to be 24 pages and the copyright page was missing. he got this information from the acaeum and used it on his listing on ebay. when i received it, it had both the copyright page where it says distributed by TSR (with glue residue matching an area on the folder) and the dungeon master's kit - number one page where i took the measurement. so if i have both of these, and the research forum says there should only be 23 pages, what am i missing?
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Last Visit: 22 Mar 2020 Posts: 4574 Location: In the House of the Cosmic Frog
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject:
Welcome! Counting all of the pieces of paper, there should be 24 single-sided sheets if the yellow cover is present. Some have the yellow sheet and some don't. No one knows for sure if all black folder POTVQs were issued with the yellow sheet, but the number without them over the years is uncomfortable enough to hold that door open. The information contained on the yellow sheet is repeated exactly on the key sheet and the background sheet.
Here's are the page titles (w/ yellow present):
1. Yellow sheet
2. Key sheet
3. Background sheet
4. Level One map blank
5. Level Two map blank
6. Level Three map blank
7. Level Four map blank
8. Level Five map blank
9. Level One map numbered
10. Level Two map numbered
11. Level Three map numbered
12. Level Four map numbered
13. Level Five map numbered
14. Level One Key
15. Level One Key part 2
16. Level Two Key
17. Level Two Key part 2
18. Level Three Key
19. Level Three Key part 2
20. Level Four Key
21. Level Four Key part 2
22. Level Five Key
23. Level Five Key part 2
24. Copyright sheet
Re: the level 4 room chart
None of the samples I have are at an angle. The mark indicated here, at an angle from the word 'one' that looks like a constellation:
appears on all the photocopied pages in the third sample black folder.
There several black folders out there with photocopied sheets in them. To find one with all original sheets isn't easy. The paper is really the marker. The stock WW used is very different from the rest under magnification.
Please remember that an odd-angle sheet is possible in the normal printing process. Also, no one knows for sure what was going on in the early days of Wee Warriors/TSR/Zocchi. _________________ "This is cool."
Joined: 05 Nov 2008 Last Visit: 05 Nov 2008 Posts: 3
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject:
thank you tfm for the quick reply and the help! you rock
looks like i am missing the yellow cover page, which may or may not have been included originally.
also, there are no copy marks on the page you posted in my example. all pages look pure white with no additional markings (aside from stains and being well "loved"). the page #20 level 4 key is the one which is off angle and has a light photocopy area (or copy error when originally made, i hope ) from the angled page/chart. i have taken pictures, but cant seem to copy them here. i can send them or if you could enlighten me on how, post them for your expert opinions.
what would be your recommendations for restoration of a well played version? i had purchased it at a discount ($265) and could see putting money into it if i can bring it back to NM condition. how would the collectors market respond to this?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Home
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
