ERDNASE

[greg manwaring]

I could imagine that the photos might have been too dark, or 'busy', or too light, for Andrews to conclude that he should have them converted to line drawings. This would keep all focus on the hands.

[Joe Pecore]

If you are saying
1. Erdnase had a photographer who knew cards as well as did Erdnase, and gave a near-perfect set of prints to Smith who did an incredible job of transferring them to line drawings, OR
2. Erdnase took his own perfect photos, and handed them off to Smith, OR
3. Erdnase provided mediocre photos to Smith, but worked closely with him to get good drawings, OR
4. Erdnase and Smith met together and worked out the drawings together, without photos.

What about? 5. Erdnase provided mediocre photos to Smith, worked closely with him to get some good drawings. Erdnase saw how Smith traced the photos. Erdnase went back home and did the rest of them himself.

[David Alexander]

One must remember that to the best of our knowledge Erdnase was an amateur book publisher and may have approached his book as a one-off project. His original intention may have been to do one run of a few hundred books, sell them through whatever sources hed developed (we know he had pupils) and then be done with it.

So, lets take Mullins points. The process of developing the material and writing the book almost certainly took Erdnase years. He may have taken pictures along the way which would possibly produce photographs of varying quality. Taking them himself would have been easy enough with a remote shutter release a bulb under his foot. As Bill has shown, photography was easy and cheap enough for Erdnase to have taken a series of pictures and had them developed. He did not need an expert photographer.

As I said earlier, newspapers reproduced photographs at 85 lines per inch because of the cheapness of newsprint. What they produced was sufficient for something that would be read and then thrown away. That a more expensive process was available is clearly evidenced by The Modern Conjuror produced contemporaneously, but that is a book printed on different quality paper with different presses with a far more expensive process in making the pictures. The two are comparable if only as evidence that Erdnase could have produced something similar had he the knowledge, willingness, and financial resources to do so.

It is possible that the quality of the photographs was not sufficient for reproduction or that McKinney (and McKinney alone, dont bring in Drake as he wasnt a part of this) did not have the equipment to either make the necessary halftones or the presses to run them. Again, comparing a small run, special-interest book that was self-published and printed by a small printer to a large newspaper or a large book publisher is not logical.

The illustrating artist does not need any special knowledge to produce quality drawings. My wife has no magic knowledge and yet she was able to do all of the illustrations for Randis book a few years back. How those came about supports Smiths experience. Randi dawdled for a year in producing the material for the book and never got around to producing the reference photography. We showed up at his hotel in Hollywood with the manuscript and pushed him to pose for the reference photos. A pillow on the bed was draped with the coat from his Armani suit to provide a dark background and the reference photos were taken. From them my wife produced the illustrations. The photos were not remotely sufficient to reproduce in the book.

How much card knowledge did Donna Allen have when she produced her beautiful drawings for Expert Card Technique?

The drawings in Erdnase are good? Not compared to Donna Allens fine work as far as Im concerned. Smiths work is sufficient for the task.

Your various scenarios are not complete. Smith could have been brought in when Erdnase was told that the photos were not sufficient for reproduction and/or too expensive for his budget to reproduce in higher quality (assuming McKinney had the equipment to make the halftones and the presses to run them and that Erdnase was willing to pay for the more expensive process and more expensive paper)or, Erdnase could have been planning all along that the photos could have been converted to cuts and the photographs were simply sufficient to the task as was our experience with the Randi project.

Number 4 is not the simplest and you draw a conclusion that Smith spent more time with Erdnase because he produced more drawings than he remembered. Again, one meeting is all it would have taken. Smith did a few quick sketches to prove his skill to Erdnase, the photos were handed over, the tracings were done at Smiths studio and later delivered to either Erdnase or McKinney. Smith got a check and that was the end of it. The meeting with Erdnase was memorable to Smith but the art work he produced was so minimal that he didnt bother to get a copy of the book for his portfolio because it wasnt representative of his work. Commercial artists normally keep a representative record of their work for selling future work. Why didnt Smith bother to obtain a copy of the book as reference?

For some reason as yet unexplained you seem to find details in illoes #17-18; 52-54; 77-78; 90; and likely other places are inconsistent with tracing from photos. Sorry Bill, to me that makes no sense. I would suggest, just as an exercise, holding the position of Fig 78 steady for ten minutes so an artist can sketch it up. Far more efficient for Erdnase to have all the poses already done, in photographic reference as the other way he would have to have the poses in his head, or suggested in notes, and it would have been a job of many hours involving prolonged interaction with Smith, something Smith did not remember.

[Jeff Pierce Magic]

Not sure if this means anything or it could mean the un copyrighted images were traced but wnat I did was take image 11 which is copyrighted and superimposed it over image #9, which is not. With minor variations the two hands look to be the same.
Here's the link to the image.

Jeff
superimposed image

[Bill Mullins]

If you are saying
1. Erdnase had a photographer who knew cards as well as did Erdnase, and gave a near-perfect set of prints to Smith who did an incredible job of transferring them to line drawings, OR
2. Erdnase took his own perfect photos, and handed them off to Smith, OR
3. Erdnase provided mediocre photos to Smith, but worked closely with him to get good drawings, OR
4. Erdnase and Smith met together and worked out the drawings together, without photos.

What about? 5. Erdnase provided mediocre photos to Smith, worked closely with him to get some good drawings. Erdnase saw how Smith traced the photos. Erdnase went back home and did the rest of them himself.

1. The book itself says that Smith did over 100 drawings from life. For your scenario to be true, this would be 3 misstatements: a. Smith did not do 100 drawings, b. the drawings were not from life, c. Erdnase did some of them. This fails the Occam's Razor test -- too complicated compared to the facts as we know them.

2. Also, this would mean that Erdnase (who we have no reason to believe is a trained artist) can match the style of Smith so well that there is no obvious stylistic differences. I don't buy that either.

[Bill Mullins]

I appreciate David taking the time to engage my points. I realize that we disagree, and probably neither of us will convince the other, but the discussion continues to be fun (and I hope that you, David, think so too). Please don't take my enthusiasm for my position as contentiousness -- I certainly don't mean it that way.

Someday, I think a really good panel at one of magic historical meetings would be for two people to take opposite sides of a position on some facet of Erdnase and debate it.

So, lets take Mullins points. The process of developing the material and writing the book almost certainly took Erdnase years. He may have taken pictures along the way which would possibly produce photographs of varying quality. Taking them himself would have been easy enough with a remote shutter release a bulb under his foot. As Bill has shown, photography was easy and cheap enough for Erdnase to have taken a series of pictures and had them developed. He did not need an expert photographer.

I mean "expert" in the sense of knowing how to get the pose into the image. The only way I can get a "good" photograph of my son is to take 50, and throw away 49. Top fashion photographers take many more pictures than they use. In fact, I daresay that any professional photographer who is trying to get a particular image will take multiple exposures to get the one he wants. I don't see any way in which Erdnase could do differently to get the 100 photos necessary for reference for the sketches.

Most of the illustrations are from the point of view of the spectator, and the camera would be pointing at you to get the corresponding view. It is very difficult to imagine what the photo will look like before it is taken under those circumstances.

Your various scenarios are not complete. Smith could have been brought in when Erdnase was told that the photos were not sufficient for reproduction and/or too expensive for his budget to reproduce in higher quality (assuming McKinney had the equipment to make the halftones and the presses to run them and that Erdnase was willing to pay for the more expensive process and more expensive paper)or, Erdnase could have been planning all along that the photos could have been converted to cuts and the photographs were simply sufficient to the task as was our experience with the Randi project.

Number 4 is not the simplest and you draw a conclusion that Smith spent more time with Erdnase because he produced more drawings than he remembered. Again, one meeting is all it would have taken. Smith did a few quick sketches to prove his skill to Erdnase, the photos were handed over, the tracings were done at Smiths studio and later delivered to either Erdnase or McKinney. Smith got a check and that was the end of it.

I just don't buy this scenario. Obviously (as you seem to agree), Erdnase spent years on the material and text. This is his life work. I just don't see him getting the artwork done with such a minimal level of feedback and involvement. Poor illustrations would ruin the book. I think he was more involved in the drawing process than Smith remembered, and the quality of the drawings shows that.

For some reason as yet unexplained you seem to find details in illoes #17-18; 52-54; 77-78; 90; and likely other places are inconsistent with tracing from photos.

I gave explanations for each of these sets of photos in my post HERE. The only way that figs 17 and 18 are traced is that Erdnase took the photo for 17, took off his jacket, put on another jacket in which the right sleeve is significantly larger, reposed his hands, and took the next photo. In fig 22, his thumb is half as wide as the deck, but not in fig 26. In fig 16, the deck's length is less than the width of his hand; in fig 58, the deck's width is about the same as the width of his hand. In fig 61, the deck is about same length as the distance from the crotch of his right thumb to the end of his thumb nail; in fig 26, the deck is about twice as long as this distance. In fig 64, the rear card is shorter than the front one.

If the photos were traced, the geometry of the hands, clothing and cards and their relative sizes would remain consistent from illustration to illustration. It doesn't. You can't maintain that these are traced from photos without explaining these inconsistencies.

[Roger M.]

I believe Erdnase could have taken the photographs required to illustrate his writings over the period of time he was actually writing the book, and taken those photographs himself.

As he completed writing each section, he could have taken the appropriate photographs needed to illustrate that section.
A remote bulb release was commonplace, and simple camera operation and film development were hardly difficult to come by in any large American city of the era.

Sitting by a sunny window would have shed plenty of light on the photographs.
It would seem unquestionable then, that interior photographs of passable quality were within the realm of the amateur photographer in 1900-1902.

Perhaps Erdnase had intended to use the photographs he had taken in the actual book, or perhaps he had intended to have them rendered as drawings all along.
If he had intended to use them as guides for drawings, then no further comment required, as that's exactly what he did.

If he had intended to use the photos in the book, perhaps the printer had informed him that photos using a Brownie size negative, and/or with the books planned paper/screen combination wouldn't reproduce in the book as well as the author required.

At that point Erdnase (a man of quick thought as we see throughout the book) would have decided to have his photos turned into drawings (by M.D. Smith, whom he auditioned in the cold hotel room) and continued towards publication undaunted.

If "from life" only implies that the drawings weren't done "from memory", then it's use is still accurate if M.D. Smith made the drawings from photos given to him by Erdnase.

[Geno Munari]

David,
What is the source that Erdnase had pupils?

[Bill Mullins]

For people interested in the state of the art in printing technology ca. 1900, browse through THIS -- it is a bound volume of The Inland and American Printer and Lithographer, a professional journal for the printing trade which was published in Chicago (and coincidentally, it gives a report of a dinner for members of the Chicago printer's association, and James McKinney attended it).

[Bill Mullins]

As an aside to Mr. Kaufman, please tell me this thread is backed up or in ten years people will be selling bound copies of this thread on EBay, or whatever has taken the place of Ebay. There is so much information here that it would be a shame to lose it.

This thread was actually the reason I started looking into how to restore the anonymous posts to their rightful owners. We're not quite there yet but it's quite a bit better than it was.

On the first couple of pages of this thread there are some posts credited to Charlie Chang which are obviously by R. Paul Wilson. Is this on purpose, or a mistake of some sort?

[Richard Kaufman]

Must be a mistake!

And, yes, the whole Forum is backed up on a regular basis.

[David Alexander]

David,
What is the source that Erdnase had pupils?

Erdnase himself. Who else?

Apparently he had more than one.

[David Alexander]

Not sure if this means anything or it could mean the un copyrighted images were traced but wnat I did was take image 11 which is copyrighted and superimposed it over image #9, which is not. With minor variations the two hands look to be the same.
Here's the link to the image.

Jeff
superimposed image

This is an interesting observation. Thanks, Jeff.

Not to be overly picky, but as I understand the copyright act, the entire book was copyrighted. Putting individual copyright notifications on the various illustrations was unnecessary.

[Richard Hatch]

David,
What is the source that Erdnase had pupils?

Geno, p. 73 of the standard editions:
"The highest tribute that can be paid to the method is the fact that certain players whom we have instructed, can execute the stock with the greatest facility and yet confess they cannot tell why the particular action produces the result..."

[David Alexander]

Yes, that's it. Doubtless you can see the superior attitude that Erdnase takes with those he sees as beneath him because they don't understand the math.

[David Alexander]

Bill wrote:
"I mean "expert" in the sense of knowing how to get the pose into the image. The only way I can get a "good" photograph of my son is to take 50, and throw away 49. Top fashion photographers take many more pictures than they use. In fact, I daresay that any professional photographer who is trying to get a particular image will take multiple exposures to get the one he wants. I don't see any way in which Erdnase could do differently to get the 100 photos necessary for reference for the sketches."

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted. Since the book was self-published he had no one demanding the finished manuscript and illustrations. I fail to see how this is pertinent.

Bill wrote:
Most of the illustrations are from the point of view of the spectator, and the camera would be pointing at you to get the corresponding view. It is very difficult to imagine what the photo will look like before it is taken under those circumstances.

You can position a mirror beside the camera and work from that.

Bill wrote:
The only way that figs 17 and 18 are traced is that Erdnase took the photo for 17, took off his jacket, put on another jacket in which the right sleeve is significantly larger, reposed his hands, and took the next photo. In fig 22, his thumb is half as wide as the deck, but not in fig 26.

OK-figure 17 is a slightly closer view than figure 18.Fig 22 has a different POV than Fig 26I could go on, but the principle should be obvious. They were to my wife who instantly saw that the POV was different, causing foreshortening in Fig 22.

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

You also have to understand the POV of Figures 17 and 18 to see that a camera was far more practical to capture the pose.

[Jim Maloney]

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted.

...

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

If we accept your suggestion above that the photos were taken individually over a period of several years, rather than in one or more sittings within a short period of time, couldn't any inconsistencies in the shirt/coat sleeve be attributed to the fact that he was wearing different clothes at different times over the course of those years?

-Jim

[David Alexander]

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted.

...

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

If we accept your suggestion above that the photos were taken individually over a period of several years, rather than in one or more sittings within a short period of time, couldn't any inconsistencies in the shirt/coat sleeve be attributed to the fact that he was wearing different clothes at different times over the course of those years?

-Jim

Sure. Good point.

[Disparity1]

Hang on a minute. Is the suggestion now that Erdnase shot photographs for the book over a long period of time, all with the long range plan of using them, some number of years later, as the foundation for illustrating the text?

Here's the thing: David's written books, I've written books -- hell, half the people in this thread have written books or something of substance, and I don't think a single one of us would propose that the most sensible way to go about it is to write a little, shoot a little, write a little, shoot a little. We generally either write all the text and shoot photos (or make drawings) to accompany it or we shoot a crapload of photos and write the text from those. But, far apart from Occams' Razor, the notion that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is generally the best one, we're asked to believe that either Erdnase left this equipment set up for a period of years or set it up repeatedly, mirrors and everything, whenever a shot was needed, despite the fact that the book says the drawings were made from life, despite the fact that Marshall Smith remembered drawing the pictures from life, and despite the fact that it's the worst way to do it. Erdnase was obviously very insightful when it came to engineering and efficiency, but I'm asked to consider the idea that when it came to putting a book together, he suddenly "didn't have a thorough understanding of what he was trying to achieve?"

With all due respect, I'm not buying it.


On another note was this:

Yes, that's it. Doubtless you can see the superior attitude that Erdnase takes with those he sees as beneath him because they don't understand the math.

It's not doubtless to me, because I perceive no superior attitude in that simple statement, nor do I see a belief that anyone else was beneath him. What I see is the likelihood that there were several people to whom Erdnase showed the system but didn't immediately explain the principle, and without the immediate analysis, it may very well have been difficult to perceive. That's not to say they wouldn't have been able to given a few minutes to think about it. All he's saying here, as far as I can tell, is that the method isn't readily apparent, which is as it should be.

[Bill Mullins]

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted. Since the book was self-published he had no one demanding the finished manuscript and illustrations. I fail to see how this is pertinent.

It's pertinent in that any theory about who the author is should be self-consistent. Did he have ample financial resources (as did W. E. Sanders)? Then why did he have the book printed so cheaply? Did he spend time (several years) putting it together? Then why did he essentially "remainder" it so soon after publication?

Bill wrote:
Most of the illustrations are from the point of view of the spectator, and the camera would be pointing at you to get the corresponding view. It is very difficult to imagine what the photo will look like before it is taken under those circumstances.

You can position a mirror beside the camera and work from that.

True, you can, but it's very difficult to get the "right" image.

Bill wrote:
The only way that figs 17 and 18 are traced is that Erdnase took the photo for 17, took off his jacket, put on another jacket in which the right sleeve is significantly larger, reposed his hands, and took the next photo. In fig 22, his thumb is half as wide as the deck, but not in fig 26.

OK-figure 17 is a slightly closer view than figure 18.

No it isn't, because if it were, the deck in 17 would be bigger than it is in 18 -- and it isn't.

Fig 22 has a different POV than Fig 26

Not so much that you get a factor of 2 to 1 in the width of the thumb

I could go on, but the principle should be obvious. They were to my wife who instantly saw that the POV was different, causing foreshortening in Fig 22.

Foreshortening comes into play when an object recedes in the field of view of the image. I specifically looked for details which went across the FOV to make this point -- the corners of the deck which define its width are more or less at the same distance from the point of view of the "camera" or artist, likewise the sides of the thumbnail which define its width. These dimensions don't foreshorten. If I had compared the length of the thumbs, or the lengths of the deck, your criticism would be valid.

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

This is true -- the details of the sleeve aren't important to the information that must be conveyed in the illustration. But to me, this is more supportive of the idea that Smith drew from life -- he and Erdnase focussed on the critical features when they were together, and Smith did the sleeves at a later point in time. If Erdnase gave him a stack of photos to trace, it would have been just as easy to trace sleeves accurately as it would have been to freehand them.

You also have to understand the POV of Figures 17 and 18 to see that a camera was far more practical to capture the pose.

Practical? Was Erdnase holding the camera in his teeth? The POV of the camera for these shots would be somewhere behind Erdnase's shoulder blades. (If he had taken a picture from in front of his chest, he would have had to use a very short focal length lens, so much so that "fisheye" distortion would occur, and the picture would look distorted).

[Bill Mullins]

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted.

...

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

If we accept your suggestion above that the photos were taken individually over a period of several years, rather than in one or more sittings within a short period of time, couldn't any inconsistencies in the shirt/coat sleeve be attributed to the fact that he was wearing different clothes at different times over the course of those years?

-Jim

Not in this case, because figs 17 and 18 are two elements of the same sleight, 18 being a fraction of a second after 17. It doesn't make sense to photograph them separately.

[Bill Mullins]

p. 73 of the standard editions:
"The highest tribute that can be paid to the method is the fact that certain players whom we have instructed, can execute the stock with the greatest facility and yet confess they cannot tell why the particular action produces the result..."

Yes, that's it. Doubtless you can see the superior attitude that Erdnase takes with those he sees as beneath him because they don't understand the math.

I don't see any "attitude" here. Erdnase is proud of the fact that, while he has given the theoretical basis for the stack, his instructions are clear enough that it works at a "cookbook" level -- follow these instructions and the stack works automatically.

[Jonathan Townsend]

As Bill pointed out - not everyone can make a lightbulb but many have learned to change a bulb.

[Jim Maloney]

And so what? This was a work of years. He had all the time he needed to get the pictures he wanted.

...

That, and Smith could have traced the hands and then added the stylized French cuffs and jacket sleeve later. They do vary and this could be easily explained by Smith doing them later, freehand, which would account for the variations in size.

If we accept your suggestion above that the photos were taken individually over a period of several years, rather than in one or more sittings within a short period of time, couldn't any inconsistencies in the shirt/coat sleeve be attributed to the fact that he was wearing different clothes at different times over the course of those years?

-Jim

Not in this case, because figs 17 and 18 are two elements of the same sleight, 18 being a fraction of a second after 17. It doesn't make sense to photograph them separately.

Considering he wouldn't have gotten the instant feedback on the photos like we do today, isn't it possible that he got the photos back from the developer and realized that only one of those two photos was good and that he would need to reshoot?

-Jim

[Bill Mullins]

When Martin Gardner was doing the original research on Milton Franklin Andrews, one of his leads that petered out was trying to find out what happened to MFA's daughter, Rosella. I believe in "The Annotated Erdnase" by Darwin Ortiz, it says that relatives of MFA told him (or Jay Marshall -- the text is at home and I'm at work, going off memory) that Rosella ended up in Los Angeles, somehow associated with the police department.

At Ancestry.com, I found a passport application for Rosella, and records of a trip to England she took in 1923. These included her birthdate (21 Aug 1896) and a photograph. If you go to the Social Security Death Index, the only Rosella that they have with that birthdate is Rosell Puthoff, who died in Cuyahoga Falls, OH in Feb 1979.

Is anyone in the LA area inclined to check city directories from 1930's-1940's to see if Rosella Andrews or Puthoff can be located, and if so, associated with the police dept?

Anyone in OH williing to look up obits in the local papers to see if this is 1. the right Rosealla, and 2. does she have any living descendants?

[Jim Maloney]

Regarding obits, you should be able to contact the local library and request a copy. Shouldn't be too difficult since you know the exact date of her death. Most likely you'll just need to send a SASE. I've done this with several of the Leipziger and Chapman relatives in various cities.

-Jim

[Jim Maloney]

Also, Rosella Puthoff seems to be listed on some family trees over at Ancestry. Might be worth contacting those people to get more info.

-Jim

[Bill Mullins]

I don't know the exact date of her death, only the month (but I have written to the Akron library to see if they can help).

My account with Ancestry.com doesn't include the forums and community, so I can't get in contact with the other people researching Rosella Puthoff. If you are able to, please email me off-line.

Bill

[Jim Maloney]

Sorry, but I don't have access either.

I read over your post too quickly and thought that the SSDI gave the exact date -- I see now that they only have the month/year. Still, it may be helpful. Also, if you're willing to shell out a bit of cash (I believe it's about $30 or so), you should be able to obtain a copy of her social security application, which may provide some additional info.

Is there anything in the 1930 census?

-Jim

[Jim Maloney]

Also, the SSDI lists several woman born on that date with the name "Rose" -- it's possible that one of them is the woman in question as well. One was even in California (albeit, Sacramento).

-Jim

[Bill Mullins]

I heard back from the Akron library. Rosella Puthoff was born in Chillicothe, not Holyoke, so she isn't MFA's daughter.

[JeffS]

This is a bit off the current topic but Allan Holtz, who runs a comic strip history blog called Strippers Guide, was kind enough to provide some info on the death of Louis Dalrymple in answer to a question that I asked him. If you click the link below and scroll down to the entry for 8/31/09 there are two articles about his illness and his NY Times obituary. I think that the connection between Erdnase and Dalrymple is one that deserves further attention so that is what I am working on now.

www.strippersguide.blogspot.com

Jeff

[Richard Hatch]

Jeff, I agree that the Dalrymple angle is one that could well bear fruit. My understanding is that his death was likely due to syphilis (as mentioned in the link) and perhaps that had something to do with the unusual terms of his divorce (not allowing him to remarry in New York State... for health reasons perhaps?). I have been unable to pinpoint the time when he would have been active working for the Chicago Tribune as noted in one of the articles in your link and elsewhere. If it was circa 1901 and he left abruptly to return east, that would be exceedingly interesting, given his purported "relation" to Erdnase. The fact that his name came up in conversation with Smith and was recalled by Smith 40 years later seems telling. My pet theory (admittedly rather far fetched in the absence of any evidence!) is that Dalrymple provided the initial sketches for the book, then abandoned the project when he left town, forcing Erdnase to contract Smith to complete it. That could explain the stylistic discrepencies, the erratic copyright notices, the conversational reference to Dalrymple, and the fact that Smith was surprised to learn the book had 101 illustrations when he didn't recall making nearly that many. It would, however, not explain why the title page attributes all the illustrations to Smith, though if the author were concerned about concealing his identity (and I am not convinced he was to any great extent) and was related to Dalrymple, putting the latter's name on the title page would likely have jeopardized his anonymity more than putting Smith's name there (though putting a fictitious artist's name would have provided even greater protection, which is why I have trouble accepting the theories that the author wanted absolute anonymity. If so, putting Smith's name on the title page was potentially a big risk, in my opinion).
The two big Dalrymple questions I would like answered are: 1)When did he work for the Chicago Tribune? and 2)Who were his maternal grandparents (his paternal genealogy is quite complete, but I know only approximately where and when his mother was born - Niagara County, New York, circa 1839 - and not the names or details of her parents. I also don't know when or where she died - she is not buried with Dalrymple's father - and that information might lead to her parents' names via a death certificate. From Dalrymple's obituaries, it seems she did not survive him, as she is not mentioned in them as surviving him...). Any help answering either of those questions would be greatly appreciated!

[David Alexander]

Dick,

Some time back I had someone on one the Internet genealogy boards send me an email claiming Dalrymple was related to the Edgerton family. That may provide a convenient connection to my candidate and I'm happy to see this examined.

The idea that Dalrymple did the original art is, well, fanciful is a word that comes to mind.

And putting Smiths name on the cover, as Ive mentioned to you before, would not have lead to Erdnases real identity because, almost certainly, Smith would have known him as Mr. Andrews. I suspect this was true for the printer as well and why the reversing of the name was easily accepted by them, or at the least, unquestioned.

Both the printer and the illustrator were doing a straightforward job for money. The book wasnt illegal, wasnt controversial and wasn't porn, so they simply did what they were hired to do and got on with it. The author paid, the checks cleared and there was no curiosity about yet another author-published book since everything was paid for in advance, that being the nature of self-published books.

[Richard Hatch]

Both the printer and the illustrator were doing a straightforward job for money.

And exactly how do we know this?

McKinney, the printer, not only allowed the author to submit the copyright application in care of his address (indeed, may well have submitted the copyright application for the author) but was selling copies of the book after publication, hardly a common practice for a disinterested party, in my opinion. McKinney's partner, Galloway, had a first edition copy of Erdnase in his library years later. Again, not usual practice for a disinterested party.

Certainly these facts do not imply that the printer knew the author's identity nor that it was not a simple "job for money." But I think it worth considering "why this printer, why this city, why this time, why this artist, etc." in an effort to gain a better understanding of the work's history. To assume that it was a simple job for hire risks ignoring information of possible interest.

And even if neither McKinney nor Smith knew the artist's real name, surely anyone tracking them down in 1902 (once the book was published, McKinney's name and Smith's name were attached to it for anyone looking into... Unfortunately, no one thought to look until Gardner took up the chase 40 years later...) could surely have gotten a great deal of useful information in tracking the author down: the hotel and time frame of the meetings, a fresh physical description, the exact name he used, the bank he wrote the check on, the exact nature of his claimed relationship to Dalrymple, etc. McKinney and later Drake are presumed to have had dealings with the author after publication (Drake as late as 1905) and those would have yielded useful clues. In your scenario, as I understand it, Drake had to deal with Erdnase's attorney's, at the very least. Just knowing the law firm would be an interesting detail, now lost to us...

[David Alexander]

****************************
And exactly how do we know this?
****************************

Primarily because this was a self-published book, as announced on the fly title. McKinney, as I understand his business, was not a publisher so he would not have bankrolled the book. He was paid for his services in advance.


***********************************
McKinney, the printer, not only allowed the author to submit the copyright application in care of his address (indeed, may well have submitted the copyright application for the author) but was selling copies of the book after publication, hardly a common practice for a disinterested party, in my opinion. McKinney's partner, Galloway, had a first edition copy of Erdnase in his library years later. Again, not usual practice for a disinterested party.
***********************************

You make the assumption that McKinney allowed the author to submit the copyright application in care of his address when it was possibly part of the service McKinney offered the self-publishing author in order to get his business. Everything in one place would have appealed to someone interesting in privacy and it removed the necessity of Erdnase using his own address on the copyright form.

Theres no way to know at this remove.

When I was running my niche publishing business I produced over 40 books. Even though I have excellent credit and was known to my book manufacturer and a successful small publisher, full payment was required before the books were shipped to me. Indeed, even after using the same book manufacturer for years I still had to send a 50% deposit with the order.

Erdnase was not a publisher. He was an author doing a vanity book of limited interest to a narrow market. Any printer would have required payment in advance. Theres no evidence that Im aware of that McKinney did any marketing of the book. He did, apparently, provide storage and shipping of the book. Again, a service for payment. It is still done today by some printers.

Further, it depends on how you define disinterested. McKinney was interested in selling his services, so, in that definition, he was not disinterested in keeping a customer happy and spending money.

As Ive said before, Erdnase could have easily cut a deal with McKinney to handle storage and distribution for him while he was on the road. Or McKinney, to get the business, could have offered the service for a small additional fee, hence, the checking account which allowed Erdnase to work by mail. Erdnase simply sent a check to McKinney with instructions where to send books.

When I was producing wall art my printer kept one or two copies of everything he printed for me. He used them as examples of the quality of his work. Galloway could have done that. Most printers do that to one degree or another.

**************************************
Certainly these facts do not imply that the printer knew the author's identity nor that it was not a simple "job for money." But I think it worth considering "why this printer, why this city, why this time, why this artist, etc." in an effort to gain a better understanding of the work's history. To assume that it was a simple job for hire risks ignoring information of possible interest.
*****************************************

Youre asking questions that cannot be answered since those answers were in the minds of people long dead who left no paper trail that we have yet discovered. Unless there is an unknown cache of letters or an undiscovered diary that comes on the scene, I cant think of a way to determine those answers short of a sance.

************************************************
And even if neither McKinney nor Smith knew the artist's real name, surely anyone tracking them down in 1902 (once the book was published, McKinney's name and Smith's name were attached to it for anyone looking into... Unfortunately, no one thought to look until Gardner took up the chase 40 years later...) could surely have gotten a great deal of useful information in tracking the author down: the hotel and time frame of the meetings, a fresh physical description, the exact name he used, the bank he wrote the check on, the exact nature of his claimed relationship to Dalrymple, etc. McKinney and later Drake are presumed to have had dealings with the author after publication (Drake as late as 1905) and those would have yielded useful clues. In your scenario, as I understand it, Drake had to deal with Erdnase's attorney's, at the very least. Just knowing the law firm would be an interesting detail, now lost to us...
******************************************************

The book did not impinge on the general magic communitys conscience until the ad in, what, November? The amateur magic community of that time was quite small and the evidence suggests no one really cared about who Erdnase was. How many copies of the books were sold to amateur magicians? No one knows.

Had Martin Gardner been an experienced interviewer then we might have had more information, a better and more detailed description for example, but we dont.

Knowing Erdnases attorney would have yielded no information, given the attorney/client privilege. An attorney would not have even acknowledged Erdnase as a client. As Ive mentioned before, the bank, for similar reasons, would be a dead end as well.

Then theres Dai Vernon, the books Number One disciple and proponent who, apparently, made little effort to track down Erdnase. Drake was the logical place to start. Vernon, who was more than willing to drop a paying silhouette gig and drive hours to hunt down a gambler who might have some insight into a sleight (the Kennedy Center Deal being an example) apparently made little to no effort to find The Master.

In 1933 Vernon was cutting at the Chicago Century of Progress. He had plenty of opportunity to drop by Drakes offices in a search for Erdnase. As best we can determine, he never did. Why was that?

The discrepancies, if there are any that are real, are easily explained by a tired artist and the end of a long day being a bit sloppy on a job that wasnt that important since the author/publisher couldnt afford to pay him to actually draw from life.

And while a good deal of time, discussion and conjecture have been spent on the illustrations not a bit of it brings us any closer to Erdnases identity.

As I said earlier, I did receive an email from someone who claims that the Dalrymples were related to the Edgertons which may provide a connection to my candidate. Its worth checking out.

[Bill Mullins]

This link shows a Dalrymple cartoon from the Chicago Trib dated 11/26/1902.

I found others in the Trib at 9/12/1902 (from Philly Inquirer), 9/23/1902 (from Philly Inquirer), 10/21/1902 (labelled "Chicago" -- his first for the Trib?), 10/22/1902 (Chi), 10/23/1902(Chi), 10/24/1902(Chi), 10/25/1902 (starting with this one, there is no city below sig), 10/26/1902, 10/27/1902,10/28/1902/ 10/29/1902, 10/30/1902, 10/31/1902, etc . . . They seem to continue until 01/17/1903, after which I can't find any by Dalrymple.

Interestingly, the cartoon for 10/26/1902 shows a right hand and arm (whose sleeve is labelled "Chicago Democracy") holding a hand of five cards: 3 C, A C, J C, 8 C, and K D; with portraits of Peter Kiolbassa, Louis Altpeter, Tom Barrett, C. W. Rohe, and E. M Lahiff, respectively. The title is "Only a "Four Flush" ". There are no stylistic similarities to speak of between this illustration, and the illoes in EatCT.

Dalrymple's mother was Adelia Dalrymple (born Delia m. Seeley), born ca. 1838-1840. In 1900, she was still alive, living with her daughter and son-in-law Kate and James Byron, in Deming, NM. She married William S. Dalrymple 11/15/1856 in Henry County, IL. I found a Cordelia Seeley living with a family of Herringtons in Niagara County, NY in the 1850 census. The names of minor children are not listed in the 1840 census.

[David Alexander]

Dalrymple did not have an easy life, as this article shows:

Washington Post 11/26/1905
Louis Dalrymple, the cartoonist, whose wife is a Baltimore woman, was removed from his home at 138 East 29th Street this afternoon, to a Long Island sanitarium. He is said to be violently insane, and small hope is given for his recovery. His condition had given much anxiety to his friends for several weeks. He brooded, they say, over the troubles caused by his divorce from his first wife, formerly Miss Letitia Carpenter, of Brooklyn. He became violent to-day, and was found wandering in the street near his home.

Dalrymple was married to Miss Carpenter about fifteen years ago, at the time when his work was making him well known to the public. Shortly after the marriage Mrs. Dalrymple obtained a divorce. The court denied Dalrymple the right to marry again in this state and awarded $75 a week alimony to his wife.

Seven years later Dalrymple married Miss Ann Good of Baltimore. The wedding took place in New Jersey. He moved to Greenwich Connecticut. In the years that followed he worked at different times for papers in Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Then he drifted back to New York. He had become a prey to all kinds of hallucinations, and was so changed that his friends hardly knew him. [Dalrymple was one of the best artists working for Puck and Life in the 1890s-ed.]

[Richard Hatch]

This link shows a Dalrymple cartoon from the Chicago Trib dated 11/26/1902.

I found others in the Trib at 9/12/1902 (from Philly Inquirer), 9/23/1902 (from Philly Inquirer), 10/21/1902 (labelled "Chicago" -- his first for the Trib?), 10/22/1902 (Chi), 10/23/1902(Chi), 10/24/1902(Chi), 10/25/1902 (starting with this one, there is no city below sig), 10/26/1902, 10/27/1902,10/28/1902/ 10/29/1902, 10/30/1902, 10/31/1902, etc . . . They seem to continue until 01/17/1903, after which I can't find any by Dalrymple.

Interestingly, the cartoon for 10/26/1902 shows a right hand and arm (whose sleeve is labelled "Chicago Democracy") holding a hand of five cards: 3 C, A C, J C, 8 C, and K D; with portraits of Peter Kiolbassa, Louis Altpeter, Tom Barrett, C. W. Rohe, and E. M Lahiff, respectively. The title is "Only a "Four Flush" ". There are no stylistic similarities to speak of between this illustration, and the illoes in EatCT.

Dalrymple's mother was Adelia Dalrymple (born Delia m. Seeley), born ca. 1838-1840. In 1900, she was still alive, living with her daughter and son-in-law Kate and James Byron, in Deming, NM. She married William S. Dalrymple 11/15/1856 in Henry County, IL. I found a Cordelia Seeley living with a family of Herringtons in Niagara County, NY in the 1850 census. The names of minor children are not listed in the 1840 census.

Bill, great stuff, thanks. The Chicago dates for Dalrymple were news to me and would seem to make it even more unlikely that he had anything to do with illustrating the book, given it was coming off the presses in March 1902. Adelia Seeley in the 1900 Census in New Mexico was also welcome news and may lead to some genealogical progress on that front, thanks!
As a caveat, however, on looking at Dalrymple's illustrations and not seeing any stylistic similarity to the illustrations in EATCT, I have 5 other books illustrated by Marshall D. Smith circa 1902-1905 and none of those illustrations bear any stylistic similarity to the technical drawings in EATCT either. Of course, Smith himself did not recognize the illustrations in EATCT, leading some (including Vernon) to question whether he even did them...

[Geno Munari]

His candidate has (and always has had) the one thing no other candidate has--a deck of cards in his hand. Despite the differences between Marshall Smith's recollection of what Erdnase looked like (and he couldn't even remember having illustrated the book at first)

Richard has a very good point here.

With all due respects I find great interest in the research many have provided. Some of you guys really are interesting and I hope sometime to meet you in person.

But Richard's quote hits home. Not one other candidate, besides Andrews, can be connected to a deck of cards. And after looking at the evidence available to me it is a very compelling argument that MFA was indeed Erdnase.

For instance: Andrews's family having knowledge of his magic books and tricks.

2. Testimony from Harte (Harto)
3. Testimony from Dunham.
4. Testimony from Pratt.
5. MFA's use of a form of anagram on many instances.
6. The police finding books on magic in his belongings. Why would MFA carry books like that around if he was just a card cheat?
7. Nothing more has been heard of the author EATCT, since MLF's death.
8. No one has claimed authorship, nor is there any hint of the author ever signing a copy. Surely, if the person writing the book had lived a normal life someone would have claimed authorship. The author was dead and probably never signed a copy. No other claimes were made by anyone else especially from those who were associated with MFA, such as Pratt et al.
9. It was never reported in the tome TMWWE about the private cipher code book MFA had in his belongings and reported in the newspaper. This topic has not even thoroughly discussed or researched.
10. The comments that Walter Gibson made about Erdnase pointing to MFA.
11. Even Smith's commets about Erdnase were no totally clear in his own mind.
12. MFA like to watch magic acts. (see below about Del Adelphia)
Also Whaley writes of loose ends such as:
1.The Andrews and Walsh families. Connie Barrett says Ed Minkley is unwilling to be interveiwed.
2. Info on George Taylor
3. The allegation about Hilliar's pirated books that he brought to Drake.
4. What were August Roterberg's activities in Chicago around 1901-1902. The Card in Hank effect in Expert was in Roterberg's book, New Era Card Tricks, called Penetration of Matter, and uses the same value and black color card, a 5, in the drawing.
5. Edwin Hood who claimed to be a long time friend of Erdnase.
6. The letters of Harte (Harto) that disappeared and never found. Some letters were bought possibly by Waldo Logan and J. Elder Blackledge.
7. Info on Nulda Petrie/Eva Howard. Why is the name Nulda unique to only her. It does not seem to be used any other person.
8. Julia Darby and why did MFA carry press clippings about her missing trunk.
9. Did Charles Ellis leave the US?
10. Del Adelphia and Hugh Johnston's claime they met Erdnase when they were playing the Empire Theater in Denver. We know MFA caught ever magic act possible. MFA was in Colorado then.

And there are more.....Respectfully. GM