TSR NuTSR Sells Rebound 1E Core Rulebooks For $650 Each

Despite being embroiled in ongoing legal disputes with WotC regarding use of the TSR trademark (amongst other things), NuTSR has posted images of leather-bound compilations of AD&D 1E books they say are rebindings of old material, complete with the disputed logo. They're selling these books for $650 each.

The Deities & Demigods book (middle top in the image) has a typo on the front cover.

TSR - The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Because the Saga of TSR3 has been ongoing for a while, with many landmarks, I thought I'd do a quick timeline for those who haven't had the time (or, frankly, inclination) to keep up with the whole palaver. As multiple entities refer to themselves as TSR, I will use the nomenclature (1), (2)...

www.enworld.org

About these books, NuTSR says "Look what just came in. Sorry, we didn't have these in for TSR CON. (in the beginning, WotC said similar to what people below are saying. We said they are rebound of old material. Long story short, WotC said ok no problem, we have it in writing)"

As rebindings, these would be existing books simply being resold. However, the covers with the disputed logo are new.

In early March WotC launched a lawsuit -- (PDF attachment of filing) -- naming TSR, TSR CEO Justin LaNasa personally, and the Dungeon Hobby Shop museum. WotC seeks a judgement that TSR hand over all domains, take down all websites, pay treble damages and costs, hand over all stock and proceeds related to the trademarks, and more.

 

[DLIMedia]

It's confusing... the DMG+MM1+MM2 collection is well over 500 pages, but the D&DG book is 1/4th the size of that. The grouping makes no sense.

Assuming it's a "rebinding" and they didn't just print out a PDF (which I wouldn't put past them), is it even possible to take three books and cram them together into one binding?

And the D&DG is 1st Edition, which includes the redacted Lovecraft and Moorcock content (the latter of which is still alive and has a copyright claim), which is really hard to find and ain't cheap. And if I had an original 1st Edition D&DG, why would I do THIS to it and devalue it?

 

[Jer]

It's confusing... the DMG+MM1+MM2 collection is well over 500 pages, but the D&DG book is 1/4th the size of that. The grouping makes no sense.

The Deities and Demigods book is a legit collectible - if they had a copy with a damaged cover rebinding it might make it more valuable than the damaged cover version depending on the collector in question and the extent of the damage. Especially if the pages were loose anyway. ( I would have chosen to rebind it with the actual cover repaired if possible, but if the cover was truly trashed but they had intact pages it would be better than nothing). It's still not worth $650 - you can find an intact D&DG in nice condition for $300 or so.

The other books are not really very expensive to get your hands on copies of. Binding multiple books together might be the only way to convince someone that it's worth the price tag (it isn't - you can literally get those books for $100-$150 bucks if you want - but at least there's a narrative there).

Assuming it's a "rebinding" and they didn't just print out a PDF (which I wouldn't put past them), is it even possible to take three books and cram them together into one binding?

Yeah that's not a problem. If you remove the covers it basically can be rebound a a single book. Even those three books together isn't going to be as big as a Bible or a complete works of Shakespeare. A good bookbinder can make it work.

And the D&DG is 1st Edition, which includes the redacted Lovecraft and Moorcock content (the latter of which is still alive and has a copyright claim), which is really hard to find and ain't cheap. And if I had an original 1st Edition D&DG, why would I do THIS to it and devalue it?

That's why I suspect they had a damaged version. The copy in my personal library is water damaged and while I'd prefer to keep it as intact as possible, I could see someone else trying to "restore" it by putting a new cover on it. (That is, of course, if they haven't just snagged the PDF that is floating around out there and printed it out and had it bound, which is a possibility for that particular volume since it is "rare").

 

[Jimmy Dick]

Overpriced was the first thing that leaped to mind. P.T. Barnum's saying, "A sucker is born every minute," came up next.

 

[Fifth Element]

The apostrophe should go after the s: players'.

That's still possessive, just plural possessive. Without the apostrophe it's just adjectival. The distinction is generally trivial, but it exists, and means that Players Handbook can be grammatically "correct."

 

[Grendel_Khan]

That's still possessive, just plural possessive. Without the apostrophe it's just adjectival. The distinction is generally trivial, but it exists, and means that Players Handbook can be grammatically "correct."

There is no use-case in English where what you're describing would be considered grammatically correct.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's still possessive, just plural possessive.

Which is what it is, a handbook for players.

Without the apostrophe it's just adjectival.

Players is not an adjective.

 

[Mournblade94]

This guy must just think people are stupid. I can't fathom the logic behind this. He is truly a scam artist and I wish Ernie Gygax would separate from him.

 

[Fifth Element]

Players is not an adjective.

Beatles (as in the band) is a noun, not an adjective. But if you say you're a Beatles fan, Beatles is an adjective modifying 'fan.' You're not a fan that belongs to the Beatles, you're a fan of the Beatles. So no apostrophe required.

So it's not a book that belongs to the players, it's a book of the players. As I said, in a situation like this that's a trivial distinction, but it's still a distinction, and is therefore technically "correct" to not use an apostrophe. It would also be "correct" to use one, with the ever-so-slight difference in meaning. I put "correct" in scare quotes because rules of orthography like this tend to be arbitrary nonsense.

 

[CleverNickName]

Beatles (as in the band) is a noun, not an adjective. But if you say you're a Beatles fan, Beatles is an adjective modifying 'fan.' You're not a fan that belongs to the Beatles, you're a fan of the Beatles. So no apostrophe required.

So it's not a book that belongs to the players, it's a book of the players. As I said, in a situation like this that's a trivial distinction, but it's still a distinction, and is therefore technically "correct" to not use an apostrophe. It would also be "correct" to use one, with the ever-so-slight difference in meaning. I put "correct" in scare quotes because rules of orthography like this tend to be arbitrary nonsense.

Shout-out to Ms. Freeman, my 4th grade English teacher, who taught me how to diagram sentences.

 

[Azzy]

I'm guessing part of the reason for the $650 price is that they don't actually want any takers. But, hey - they offered product, right?

Someone would have to be really gullible (to be charitible) to buy a set of these rebound books at that price. So , I guess.