This could go either way... (1 Viewer)

[mjp]

I either just bought 1962's RUN WITH THE HUNTED for $60, or overpaid for a pile of commonly available titles. Heh.

I tried emailing the seller first, but while I was waiting for the reply I was thinking, "Shit, what if this is the '62 RUN WITH THE HUNTED? I'm going to hang myself if someone else takes it while I'm waiting for an email response..."

Problem is they listed it as being published in 1969, which is wrong. But it looks closer to 1962 than 1993, so I took a shot. I'll find out soon I suppose.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7026976678

 

[hoochmonkey9]

our prayers are with you...

 

[nymark]

I saw this auction and was wondering if it was worth the $60 gamble. I hope this works out for you. That would be one to tell the grandkids.

 

[mjp]

Yeah, it would have been one for the record books, but no such luck.

How the hell do you type "1969" as the date for a book that came out in the '90's? Ah well. When you gamble you have to be prepared to lose. ;)

 

[bospress.net]

HI,
Are you saying that it was the 1993 edition? Did he/she reply?

Was the copy of Post Office the softcover 1st? That would have made the buy worth it...


Bill

 

[mjp]

It was the 1993 edition. Not sure about the rest. Considering the HUNTED error, who knows. I'll find out.



---- -



All from the 90's, but she's actually canceling our transaction, so that was an unexpected pleasant surprise. I told her I'd take them, since I agreed to buy them, but she felt bad about the date mix up. So there you go.

 

[theeffects]

that's pretty DECENT she cancelled the auction...
would have been an INCREDIBLE deal to get RUN/HUNTED for that price...
assume she typed the original (or close to it) dates of those titles.
still good gamble on your part!

 

[mjp]

Yeah, nice of her to cancel/refund, but the tease was brutal! ;)