ERDNASE

[lybrary]

If I understand your statistics, Chris, the estimated chances for an adult male in the USA in 1902 owning a copy of EATCT are no greater than 1/2000 (and probably much smaller). It follows (I think) that the odds of an adult male in the USA in 1902 owning 2 copies are (1/2000)x(1/2000)=1/4,000,000. If we apply those odds to the population of Cook County (2 million) we get an expectation of only half a person in Chicago in 1902 owning 2 copies of the book. Ed Vernello owned at least 2 copies in 1902, since he took the trouble to advertise it in the The Sphinx in November 1902, unlikely to be something he would have done had he only had one copy. In fact, he likely a dozen or more copies, to justify his effort in advertising it. What are the odds of that? Do I think Vernello was the author? No. A person of interest, who may have known the author? Sure!

Richard, maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my analysis. I am not primarily calculating the statistically expected chance to find somebody like Gallaway. I am calculating the statistically expected chance to find Erdnase. In order for your case of two copies of EATCT to work you would have to tell us why Erdnase had to had two copies and not only one. My analysis basically is for anybody with one or more EATCT, because the chance to owning two copies, as you correctly calculated, is much smaller and thus we can basically ignore it. You can of course include it, but it would only change the third decimal somewhere so it does not matter.

The problem with your earlier E.S. Andrews analysis was a similar one. We can't assume that Erdnase had that name. There is really no evidence for it. However, all the evidence I am using must also apply for Erdnase. He certainly ordered his book printed at McKinney and he most likely had one or more first editions. Perhaps the only questionable bit is the 'W' in the name, but both Andrews and Gallaway have that so it cancels in the direct comparison.

[lybrary]

Okay, Chris, I'll be the first to admit my ignorance: I find the methodology and analysis incomprehensible.

Clay, if you ask specific questions maybe I can clarify.

[Jack Shalom]

Now compare 10,000 people who we expect to match the E.S. Andrews profile and 0.3 people (or 7.7 people in the worst case) who we expect to match the Edward Gallaway profile. Both profiles match Erdnase. There are 3-4 orders of magnitude difference

Chris, your methodological fallacy here is that you have constructed a profile based only on criteria which are biased towards your candidate. Had you picked other criteria, such as the likelihood of someone's name being a complete anagram of S.W. Erdnase, the results would have ended up very differently.

[DChung]

I love following this Erdnase discussion, and in particular how heated people get about their own candidates. Always a lively discussion. However, as a mathematician, this is the first time I think I have something important to add to the debate. So here we go.

Chris,
Richard's calculations are NOT correct, as the events of owning a copy of Erdnase are NOT independent. That's a dangerous assumption. Unfortunately it's one that many people make. At least one person has been imprisoned due to this type of mathematical misunderstanding.

The probability of somebody who owns a copy of Erdnase owning a second copy could be likely quite higher than the probability of a random American owning just one copy. At any rate, assuming that they're the same is probably not a good idea.

Let's go a little further. The odds of a magician or somebody interested in gambling (or somebody working at the printing company) owning a copy of Erdnase is of course higher than the odds of just some random person owning one, these numbers being conjured are far less meaningful than one might think. Richard's example of Drake brings up a similar point.

In particular, it's probably not a good idea to cherry-pick what you want to test AFTER you've decided on your answer. This is like rationalizing after the fat.

Chris, this is not to say if you have the right guy or not. I really don't know. But what Richard said was right. This type of post-hoc probabilistic analysis is at best unconvincing and at worst (as Jack points outs) can be very misleading and close one's eyes to data that points in another direction.

Hope this helps,
Derrick

[Richard Hatch]

Derrick, thanks for the clarification, much appreciated! It is, of course, obvious (once it has been pointed out!) that the odds of someone owning a second copy (given they already have a first copy) are greater than the odds of a random individual owning a copy. I would also argue that the odds of owning a copy are much higher in the Chicago area than randomly nationwide. After all, it was published (we think!) in Chicago and the early distributors (Vernello, H. C. Evans, Atlas, Roterberg, et alia) were all based there. Although all did a mail order business, I'd guess point of purchase sales of such a title were greater initially, so we'd expect to see a higher probability of first edition copies centered around Chicago.

I do think that Chris' reasoning, applied to Drake, makes him a better candidate than Gallaway if you ignore Smith's recollection that the name had a "w" in it. But we also have to ignore Smith's prompted (but enthusiastic and unwaivering) endorsement of the name Andrews and his belief that the author had been honest with him. Smith also did not believe that the author, whom he met in a cheap hotel room, was from Chicago, which would eliminate Gallaway and several others (arguably including E. S. Andrews, the train agent, though he had only just moved back to Chicago after several years absence, which would explain the payment by check on a newly opened account, as recalled by Smith).

[lybrary]

Smith also did not believe that the author, whom he met in a cheap hotel room, was from Chicago, which would eliminate Gallaway and several others ...

Gallaway grew up in Delphos, OH. He was there at least until 14, but from the information Bill Mullins found he may have been there for longer and only came to Chicago later. It seems Gallaway initially worked at the Delphos Herald. Exactly for how long I don't know. But I think that would make him accent wise not somebody from Chicago.

Regarding Drake, do we have proof that he owned a first edition? He had the plates and he reprinted it, but I don't remember we have a proof that he owned one, which would then confirm my analysis.

Chris, your methodological fallacy here is that you have constructed a profile based only on criteria which are biased towards your candidate. Had you picked other criteria, such as the likelihood of someone's name being a complete anagram of S.W. Erdnase, the results would have ended up very differently.

Not true. I thought about that. But we have no information if Erdnase came up with his name through an anagram, through backward spelling, from a German nickname or ethnic slur, or in some other way that we cannot anymore understand. Given that Gallaway was an honor student in his German class and the fact that he grew up in Delphos which was founded by Germans I think the explanation that Erdnase came from a German nickname given to him is as valid and as likely as an anagram.

[lybrary]

Derrick, thanks for the clarification, much appreciated! It is, of course, obvious (once it has been pointed out!) that the odds of someone owning a second copy (given they already have a first copy) are greater than the odds of a random individual owning a copy.

It still does not change my analysis. My numbers are valid for anybody owning one or more first editions. The numbers would not change.

I would also argue that the odds of owning a copy are much higher in the Chicago area than randomly nationwide. After all, it was published (we think!) in Chicago and the early distributors (Vernello, H. C. Evans, Atlas, Roterberg, et alia) were all based there. Although all did a mail order business, I'd guess point of purchase sales of such a title were greater initially, so we'd expect to see a higher probability of first edition copies centered around Chicago.

That is actually a valid critique. So let's run the numbers. We know nationwide we have 20 million male adults. In the Chicago area we have 500k male adults. So a better guess is something in that range. So let's take 2 million male adults rather than 20 million as our group of possible buyers. This makes the ratio 1/200. It increases the likely scenario to 0.4 people rather than 0.3. As you can see it doesn't change the conclusion a whole lot.

Factoring in that magicians and gamblers are more likely to purchase the book makes no sense unless you want to argue that the people using McKinney as printer were mostly magicians and gamblers, which they were not.

[Richard Hatch]

Smith also did not believe that the author, whom he met in a cheap hotel room, was from Chicago, which would eliminate Gallaway and several others ...

Gallaway grew up in Delphos, OH. He was there at least until 14, but from the information Bill Mullins found he may have been there for longer and only came to Chicago later. It seems Gallaway initially worked at the Delphos Herald. Exactly for how long I don't know. But I think that would make him accent wise not somebody from Chicago.

Regarding Drake, do we have proof that he owned a first edition? He had the plates and he reprinted it, but I don't remember we have a proof that he owned one, which would then confirm my analysis.

Smith believed the author was not from Chicago and thought he was likely from the East Coast, possibly New York. We are not told why he thought this. I do not assume it was from his accent. It could just as easily (and to me more likely) have been from something related in conversation. The fact that they met in a cheap hotel room where the author was apparently staying probably also led Smith to believe he had not been in town long, which was corroborated by the newly opened checking account from which Smith was paid.

Drake owned multiple first edition copies, since he began advertising them sometime in 1903 (presumably after April 1903, since he did not include them in his ads of "Books for Magicians" in Mahatma's April issue) and continued to advertise first edition copies until he issued his own reprint in 1905. I'm guessing he had several hundred copies, otherwise it likely would not have been worth his while to handle them. Keep in mind that Drake had McKinney print 6,000 copies of a book on photography, so he was used to selling books in large numbers.

Keeping in mind that I don't think Drake was Erdnase (though I suspect he knew who was), and just playing devil's advocate, if Drake were Erdnase, it would explain using McKinney as the printer (since Drake was using McKinney at that time), it would explain why he had first edition copies to sell, it would explain how he obtained the printing plates (he'd already paid for them!), it would explain why he didn't need to have the copyright transferred (since he already owned it). It can be argued that Drake had an interest in magic, without being a part of the magic community (which fits my profile of the author), since he published books by Roterberg, Downs, Hilliar, Robert-Houdin (a book on card cheating, no less!), and others as part of his line, which seems unlikely for someone with no interest in magic, since it is such a niche market (and his advertising in trade publications such as Sphinx and Mahatma supports this). He might have chosen not to have his imprint on the first edition due to the Comstock laws and might not have wanted his name on a book written by someone with obvious experience in gambling... This might also explain his family's reluctance to give out information about the author. His possible connection to Marshall Smith (via the Jack Henderson book he sold) helps his candidacy, too (what other candidate is a known publisher of the book, who dealt with McKinney, was familiar with Roterberg and Selbit's works, and was familiar with Smith's work?).

Chris, when you run your statistics on Drake (using the information outlined above), where does he stand in comparison to Gallaway?

[Bill Mullins]

I do think that Chris' reasoning, applied to Drake, makes him a better candidate than Gallaway if you ignore Smith's recollection that the name had a "w" in it.

Perhaps Drake was rhotacistic. He would have pronounced his name "Fwedewick Dwake", which could account for the W.

But we also have to ignore Smith's prompted (but enthusiastic and unwaivering) endorsement of the name Andrews

As well as the statements of Sprong and Rullman, and possibly someone at Drake that Vernon spoke to. Note the people making these statements were contemporaries of Erdnase; Sprong even lived in the same city and would have been motivated to find the author.

[lybrary]

But we also have to ignore Smith's prompted (but enthusiastic and unwaivering) endorsement of the name Andrews

As well as the statements of Sprong and Rullman, and possibly someone at Drake that Vernon spoke to. Note the people making these statements were contemporaries of Erdnase; Sprong even lived in the same city and would have been motivated to find the author.

70+ years of searching for an Andrews has not yielded any really good candidate. All the evidence for an 'Andrews' is very questionable, hearsay, or tainted. It is my believe that this focus on an Andrews has done much harm in finding the true Erdnase.

[lybrary]

Smith believed the author was not from Chicago and thought he was likely from the East Coast, possibly New York. We are not told why he thought this. I do not assume it was from his accent. It could just as easily (and to me more likely) have been from something related in conversation. The fact that they met in a cheap hotel room where the author was apparently staying probably also led Smith to believe he had not been in town long, which was corroborated by the newly opened checking account from which Smith was paid.

A fair critique and something I have been contemplating for a while. You could add that Gallaway was 33 in winter of 1901 and therefore perhaps somewhat too young to match Smith's recollection. While I don't think these things would rule out Edward Gallaway, an explanation for these discrepancies could be Edward's brother Alexander August. I think it is possible that Edward is the writer and Alexander the demonstrator who met with Smith. Alexander is 7 years older than Edward and would therefore fit the age description of Smith perfectly. Alexander never lived in Chicago and would therefore fit the 'not from Chicago' requirements. Alexander moves around quite a bit and his occupation is listed as contractor and paint salesman in the census. To me this matches the profile of an active gambler much better than somebody living in the same area for a long time. It could also explain the 'we' in parts of EATCT. Having a bigger brother myself I know that I was introduced to a lot of things via my brother. So I think it is plausible that Alexander was the real advantage card player who showed his little brother the moves, which he practiced but maybe never used under fire. Together they decided to write the book. Edward, being a printer and the intellectual of the family, wrote and produced it. Alexander, being the card shark, demonstrated the moves to Smith. A team also explains the need for a pseudonym. They were embedded in a German culture which explains Earth-Nose (Erdnase). S. W. are the initials of the first names of their parents Sarah and William. (Perhaps 'earth' and 'nose' refers to each one - their individual nicknames.)

Drake owned multiple first edition copies, since he began advertising them sometime in 1903 (presumably after April 1903, since he did not include them in his ads of "Books for Magicians" in Mahatma's April issue) and continued to advertise first edition copies until he issued his own reprint in 1905. I'm guessing he had several hundred copies, otherwise it likely would not have been worth his while to handle them. Keep in mind that Drake had McKinney print 6,000 copies of a book on photography, so he was used to selling books in large numbers.

Keeping in mind that I don't think Drake was Erdnase (though I suspect he knew who was), and just playing devil's advocate, if Drake were Erdnase, it would explain using McKinney as the printer (since Drake was using McKinney at that time), it would explain why he had first edition copies to sell, it would explain how he obtained the printing plates (he'd already paid for them!), it would explain why he didn't need to have the copyright transferred (since he already owned it). It can be argued that Drake had an interest in magic, without being a part of the magic community (which fits my profile of the author), since he published books by Roterberg, Downs, Hilliar, Robert-Houdin (a book on card cheating, no less!), and others as part of his line, which seems unlikely for someone with no interest in magic, since it is such a niche market (and his advertising in trade publications such as Sphinx and Mahatma supports this). He might have chosen not to have his imprint on the first edition due to the Comstock laws and might not have wanted his name on a book written by someone with obvious experience in gambling... This might also explain his family's reluctance to give out information about the author. His possible connection to Marshall Smith (via the Jack Henderson book he sold) helps his candidacy, too (what other candidate is a known publisher of the book, who dealt with McKinney, was familiar with Roterberg and Selbit's works, and was familiar with Smith's work?).

Chris, when you run your statistics on Drake (using the information outlined above), where does he stand in comparison to Gallaway?

Of course, Drake the publishing company owned first editions, because they acquired them. However the question is if Drake the author had one on his shelf. And for that we have no proof. Do we even know if Drake wrote any boooks? The same argument could be made for one of the McKinney's (James or Patrick). They obviously had business contact with themselves, and since they printed it, they 'owned' a copy. But that is a fallacy. We are looking for an author not a corporation. You would therefore have to show evidence that any of these personally owned a first edition. Neither has a 'W' in their name. And thus you can't make the same case you can make for Gallaway. Don't forget that there are other strong factors for Gallaway. The 'sounds like' evidence hasn't been factored in. We have a very plausible explanation for S.W. Erdnase via the German nickname or ethnic slur theory. None of this is true for Drake or McKinney. Therefore the case for Gallaway is not only sound from a probabilistic point of view, it also explains the major pieces we know apply to Erdnase. The only two points which I cannot yet proof is a connection to Dalrymple (no candidate can do this) and a connection to card play or gambling. Everything else matches and there is nothing that is an obvious mismatch like we have with MFA.

[JHostler]

It still does not change my analysis. My numbers are valid for anybody owning one or more first editions. The numbers would not change...

In my field, we employ rough quants like this to score people - essentially to narrow the field for a deeper dive into qualitative information. The same type of analysis could also put my favorite candidate, Bat Masterson (yes - mostly joking... but just mostly), on the short list. However, it is safe to say that only a "smoking gun" or OVERWHELMING circumstantial evidence can resolve the Erdnase case with any certainty. So unless these stats can be used to isolate a very small, name-specific, high-probability pool of candidates to the exclusion of all others (as opposed to asserting that just one "may be the guy"), they really don't lead anywhere.

[Zenner]

I don't believe that 'Erdnase' was a gambler. He was a magician who had studied books which explained the methods of card cheats

These moves are used by magicians if they want to show how a gambler cheats -- but was that a mode of performance back then?

"“Mr. Harry S. Thompson, whose picture occupies our first page this month, is a commercial traveler living in Chicago, when at home. He is interested in magic more from the ethical and literary standpoint than from the operative side, as he does not give entertainments of any kind, although he often mystifies his brother ‘knights of the grip’ with his skill in pure sleight of hand. Mr. Thompson has one of the largest and most practical collections of books, newspaper and magazine articles on magic extant, as there are no remotely related subjects included for the sake of having a big collection. It was largely due to the aid and advice of Mr. Thompson (afforded M. Inez & Co.) that the Sphinx was kept alive after its desertion by W. J. Hilliar, and it was Mr. Thompson that induced Dr. Wilson to take up the editorial work, which finally resulted in removing the paper to Kansas City. Mr. Thompson joined the Society of American Magicians early in its organization and was soon appointed the western representative of the society and entrusted with the power and authority of conferring the secret work upon those in his territory who could not get to New York to receive it. Very few men not in the profession enjoy as large an acquaintance among the leading professional magicians as does Mr. Thompson, and they all speak highly of him as a friend and of his hospitality as a host.” (Dr A.M. Wilson, Sphinx, December, 1905)

I doubt he wanted to use the Erdnase Shift One Hand (p 99) in Card Tricks. It is impractical, and the only tricks I know of in which it is used were designed specifically to accommodate this sleight (or to show off to other magicians the mastery of the sleight by the creator).

I repeat - "He does not give entertainments of any kind, although he often mystifies his brother “knights of the grip” with his skill in pure sleight of hand"

Peter Zenner

[Zenner]

Keeping in mind that I don't think Drake was Erdnase (though I suspect he knew who was)

It was interesting to note a couple of addresses in the McKinney Bankruptcy Files. Frederick J. Drake's business was at 356 Dearborn Street and Harry S. Thompson was based at Philip Ruxton Inks of 357 Dearborn Street.

I also suspect that Drake knew Erdnase

Peter Zenner

[Jack Shalom]

Chris, your methodological fallacy here is that you have constructed a profile based only on criteria which are biased towards your candidate. Had you picked other criteria, such as the likelihood of someone's name being a complete anagram of S.W. Erdnase, the results would have ended up very differently.

Not true. I thought about that. But we have no information if Erdnase came up with his name through an anagram, through backward spelling, from a German nickname or ethnic slur, or in some other way that we cannot anymore understand. Given that Gallaway was an honor student in his German class and the fact that he grew up in Delphos which was founded by Germans I think the explanation that Erdnase came from a German nickname given to him is as valid and as likely as an anagram.

Chris, it doesn't matter the specific criteria that are chosen. The point remains--by making a selection this way, after the fact, and excluding certain outcomes, you are excluding the probability of those outcomes, and thus biasing the overall result.

For example, let's say I have randomly chosen an object to put in my pocket, and I ask you to guess what it is. It is small and red. You do an analysis of small and red objects in the population and decide, ah, it must be a red rubber ball, because seventy percent of small red objects are red rubber balls. But your analysis is incomplete if you discover that there is also a 75% chance to believe that the object is worth over $1000. Then there is a much likelier chance that the object is, say, a ruby ring.

In the same way, even if there is only a 50% chance that Erdnase is an anagram, if you throw out that possibility, you are biasing the results.

When it comes to questions of probability and statistics it really is important to have expert mathematical advice. It is an area of mathematics where frustratingly the intuitive answer and approach is not always the correct one, and can be full of pitfalls.

[lybrary]

Chris, it doesn't the matter the specific criteria that are chosen. The point remains--by making a selection this way, after the fact, and excluding certain outcomes, you are excluding the probability of those outcomes, and thus biasing the overall result.

For example, let's say I have randomly chosen an object to put in my pocket, and I ask you to guess what it is. It is small and red. You do an analysis of small and red objects in the population and decide, ah, it must be a red rubber ball, because eighty percent of small red objects are red rubber balls. But your analysis is incomplete if you discover that there is also a 50% chance to believe that the object is worth over $1000. Then there is a much likelier chance that the object is a ruby ring.

In the same way, even if there is only a 50% chance that Erdnase is an anagram, if you throw out that possibility, you are biasing the results.

When it comes to questions of probability and statistics it really is important to have expert mathematical advice. It is an area of mathematics where frustratingly the intuitive answer and approach is not always the correct one, and can be full of pitfalls.

Jack, then please add the evidence you want to add to your candidate and make a similar analysis for whoever you favor. I would love to see this. That is the reason I posted a concrete analysis. Rather than give us generalities take a candidate, take the evidence, and then reason quantitatively about it.

Just to take your example of the name theories, and demonstrate that it doesn't allow any narrowing down. I will collapse the name theories a bit, because a reverse spelling is a special form of an anagram:

- anagram (ex: E.S. Andrews, W.E. Sanders)
- German nickname (ex: Edward Gallaway)
- unknown logic not yet discovered

Do we have any information that makes one or the other more likely? Not really, at least no hard evidence that would allow us to exclude any of these theories or make strong cases for anyone with the exclusion of others. In favor of the E.S. Andrews reverse spelling one could name the shaky 'Andrews' indications we have. In favor of the German nickname theory we can say that this nickname is in use in Germany and the word has been used since the 19th century. It also sounds very German. In favor of 'some other' logic is common sense. There may be all kinds of other reasonable derivations of the name which we are unaware to this date. If we have no better guess then let's say they are equally likely with 1/3. How does this now make say W.E. Sanders more likely than Gallaway? It doesn't.

I am not here to pound on my chest, but if you are only marginally familiar with my background you will understand that I am more than capable to make such an analysis.

[Jack Shalom]

Chris, again, I am talking about methodology, not content.

But even agreeing that the case for an anagram is 33% (which personally, I think is a wild underestimate--I think it's at least 50%, probably more, but no matter), it already lowers the probability you've stated for Galloway. And that's just one omitted fact.

I don't pretend to know which facts are most distinguishing; I have no expertise in Erdnase. What I am saying is, though, is that there are other distinguishing features which have a non-negligible probability of identifying Erdnase. Without a consensus of Erdnase scholars assigning probability values to those qualifiers, and taking them into account, your analysis will be necessarily flawed.

BTW, I edited the post that you quoted. As quoted, my figures do not make a ruby more likely than a red rubber ball--but it does lower the chance of it being a red rubber ball. The corrected hypotheses make a ruby ring more likely.

[Jonathan Townsend]

How difficult was it to obtain a copy of the book in 1902 in Chicago?

[lybrary]

But even agreeing that the case for an anagram is 33% (which personally, I think is a wild underestimate--I think it's at least 50%, probably more, but no matter), it already lowers the probability you've stated for Galloway. And that's just one omitted fact.

How so? Can you explain this? If 1/3 probability is assigned to the anagram case and 1/3 to the nickname theory and 1/3 to 'we don't know', why does this make Gallaway less likely than Sanders? Please explain.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... even if there is only a 50% chance that Erdnase is an anagram,...

What percent of pseudonyms used at the time were anagrams? Have a look here: http://www.trussel.com/books/aka.htm

[Tom Gilbert]

A few pages back there was some talk about Erdnase and whether he wanted to be unknown for a period or forever. He has seemingly done a great job so far. I guess for me I wonder what story he used to keep his secrecy. Not sure I buy the people could be after me take. It appears from other posts, his identity was somewhat known, but even after his death, whenever that was, it wasn't for conversation. I would suspect that some people that knew him outlived him and kept his secret. Pete McCabe thought probably Vernon knew, and possibly Persi knows. Surely someone to this day has the passed down info, but still considers it "top secret."

It seems his talk about being a card handler is accepted, but he also writes well on performing some of the magic in the book. Could there have been 3 people involved? A magician, a gambler, and a writer to give them one voice? It would seem a magic writer could do a good job with both. If you look at some of the magicians over the last bunch of decades many have "claimed" to have been mechanics previously, but no gamblers have claimed to be magicians.

I have no horses in the race. I do think a lot of the arguments for particular candidates come from really stretched conjecture.

By the way, I did a US search for the name Erdnase. It appears S. W. Erdnase is alive and living in Sarasota, FL.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... It appears from other posts, his identity was somewhat known...

Where is this established? Our history of that time (Billy Robinson passing himself as Chinese, Houdini about Robert-Houdin, folks badgering Hofzinser's wife - the Keller levitation...) is not so great about accurate provenance.

SWE
RDN
ASE

just letters?

[Tom Sawyer]

Hi All,

At the moment, based on this morning's posts, it appears to me that there are at least four specific things of interest going on in this thread:

1. The Wasshuber-Hostler-Shalom discussion, which I realize is just a subset of the larger discussion of the approach suggested by Chris.

2. Peter Zenner's posts.

3. Jonathan Townsend's posts.

4. Tom Gilbert's post.

At least for now, the only thing I want to say anything about here is Peter's comments about Ruxton and Drake having similar addresses.

The address one frequently sees for Drake during this period is 352-356 Dearborn. This was in the Morton Building, just north of Harrison.

The 357 Dearborn address would place Ruxton in the Ellsworth Building, directly across the street from Drake. That's interesting, but even more interesting is the fact that the Ellsworth Building faced on both Dearborn and Plymouth Place.

That's not directly across the street from McKinney, but it is diagonally across the street. In other words, the two buildings are almost on top of each other. (This is what I consider a "fun fact," with little, if any, significance.)

Caveat: The streets and addresses of Chicago during that era are often hard to figure out for various reasons. I am "quite certain" of the foregoing, but there is a chance that I may have something wrong.

--Tom Sawyer

[Tom Gilbert]

Jonathan, my comment was based on previous posts. In a couple it was thought that he was known by the editors of Sphinx magazine. There was also a post pages back stating that he might have been known by a number of the well posted magi of the time.

One thing I didn't get across in my post...is Erdnase hiding in plain sight?
(Sorry, working many hours in a hospital, makes a day off seem like a hangover.)

[Bill Mullins]

That Drake and Ruxton were close neighbors in Chicago shouldn't be in the least bit surprising. The printing industry was concentrated in the area. Many of McKinney's creditors were close by, on Dearborn, Plymouth, Harrison, etc.

[lybrary]

This section of the city was called printer's row. Nothing unusual for them to be that close together.

[Tom Sawyer]

Hi All,

Well, of course it is reasonable that McKinney would patronize people in his neighborhood, and I did not mean to imply that I was surprised by that. But Drake and Ruxton were extraordinarily close, especially Ruxton.

As I said, I don't think it means much (if anything) in the case of Ruxton. As to Drake, the proximity may have more significance.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted (on my Erdnase blog) part of a bird's-eye view of that area, showing the relative locations of Drake and McKinney. The post was called, "The locations of James McKinney & Co., Frederick J. Drake & Co., and the Bartl Hotel (later the State Hotel)." I don't know how many of you have seen that, but if you have not, you might want to look at it.

--Tom Sawyer

[Bill Mullins]

And while we are exploring German connections, James McKinney was married to Emma Metzinger. Both of her parents were born in Germany.

[Bill Mullins]

Peter Z -- you've said that Thompson fiddled with gambling sleights so he could use them in card tricks. I said that the sleights he claims in the book aren't relevant to card tricks, and you respond (twice!) that he didn't do card tricks in public.

I guess I'm getting confused. If he didn't perform, why do you say he inserted gambling sleights into tricks? Are you saying that there was no need for the gambling sleights he invented to use in card tricks to be actually USEFUL since he didn't perform?

And as far as not performing, don't you think the insights he offers about performing magic tricks in the Legerdemain and Card Tricks section show that he had great experience performing in front of people (either as a gambler at a card table, or a magician in front of an audience -- pick one)?

And you said he "studied books which explained the methods of card cheats". Which books? Whose explanation of the Bottom Deal did he study? Who else before him suggested that the bottom deal and the second deal should come from the same grip? Where in the literature before 1902 is there a Euchre Stock?

[Brad Jeffers]

1 - anagram (ex: E.S. Andrews, W.E. Sanders)
2 - German nickname (ex: Edward Gallaway)
3 - unknown logic not yet discovered
... let's say they are equally likely with 1/3. How does this now make say W.E. Sanders more likely than Gallaway? It doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Set 1 contains all people in the U.S. whose name is an anagram of S.W. Erdnase. I cannot know exactly what this number is, but intuitively, I will state that it is very small.

Set 2 contains all people in the U.S. who are Germans, or of German decent, or who can be shown to have had a friend, relative or neighbor who was German or of German decent. Not to mention people who studied German in school or people who knew people who studied German in School.

You get the drift.

I cannot know exactly what this number is, but intuitively, I will state that it is (in comparison to the number in set 1) very large.

Set 3 contains all people in the U.S.
I cannot know exactly what this number is, but intuitively, I will state that is 76,212,168.

So summing up ...

Set 1 contains but a handful of people, set 2 contains tens of thousands of people and set 3 contains everyone.

So if we say that each set is equally likely, then 1/3rd of the time, a candidate from set 1 will be Erdnase, 1/3rd of the time a candidate from set 2 will be Erdnase, and 1/3rd of the time a candidate from set 3 will be Erdnase.

Since each set is assigned an equal value, then if your candidate is in the set that contains the fewest number of people, he will have the higher probability of being Erdnase.

That would be set 1, the anagram set.

[Jonathan Townsend]

the set of all (make up a good one here) would be even smaller. but so what?

It would help to link the printer to the writer to the binder to the folks in the neighborhood who would have learned the material.

[Jack Shalom]

But even agreeing that the case for an anagram is 33% (which personally, I think is a wild underestimate--I think it's at least 50%, probably more, but no matter), it already lowers the probability you've stated for Galloway. And that's just one omitted fact.

How so? Can you explain this? If 1/3 probability is assigned to the anagram case and 1/3 to the nickname theory and 1/3 to 'we don't know', why does this make Gallaway less likely than Sanders? Please explain.

I didn't say it makes it less likely than Sanders; it makes Galloway less likely than it did before including that qualifier.

But again, your assignment of 1/3 probability for all three theories is just that--your assignment. Some knowledgeable others (not me, but perhaps in this thread) might have quite a different assignment, say 50%, 30%, 20%. And again this is just on this issue. There's all the Smith testimony and so on. For example, some (not I) might weigh the "W" remembrance more for Sanders than Galloway, and so on. Each of these qualifiers has an effect.

[mam]

Hi All,

Well, of course it is reasonable that McKinney would patronize people in his neighborhood, and I did not mean to imply that I was surprised by that. But Drake and Ruxton were extraordinarily close, especially Ruxton.

As I said, I don't think it means much (if anything) in the case of Ruxton. As to Drake, the proximity may have more significance.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted (on my Erdnase blog) part of a bird's-eye view of that area, showing the relative locations of Drake and McKinney. The post was called, "The locations of James McKinney & Co., Frederick J. Drake & Co., and the Bartl Hotel (later the State Hotel)." I don't know how many of you have seen that, but if you have not, you might want to look at it.

--Tom Sawyer

Here's a top down version of your map with Edward Gallaway's and Philip Ruxton's locations added:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/307 ... inters.jpg

It uses a 1901 Rand McNally map. We know Gallaway's location because we know his address in 1927, a street and number that have not change to the present day. But that is only because it's after the 1909/1911 major renumbering of Chicago streets. Translating old and new street numbers can be done through this document.

(Here are the same locations over a present day Google map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit? ... C-ZIV1Z_JQ)

As have already been pointed out, all of them were very close to each other, as were most printers in Chicago at the time. Today there is even a park in Gallaway's old block named Printers' Row Park.

Tom, how did you place McKinney at the white arrows in your map? What I could find in the bankruptcy files is the address 73-75 South Plymouth Court (presently 511 South Plymouth Court) but only for sure in 1903, so they may have moved at some point.

It's still in the same block anyway, and all of the people we're looking at are literally in the next block from each other.

[Jack Shalom]

the set of all (make up a good one here) would be even smaller. but so what?

What Brad said.

If the set that made up that "good one" were a set that, like an anagram, a goodly number of Erdnase scholars thought was relevant, then being very small it would be a very useful identifier.

For example, if say, we knew that Erdnase was 7 feet tall, and there was only one 7 foot man living in Chicago at the time, it would be pretty much a slam dunk.

Now let's say we are only 50% sure of the 7 foot statement. Then we would only be 50% sure of our 7 foot man, but we would be much much less sure about any one particular individual shorter than that.

[Tom Sawyer]

Concerning mam's recent post and question:

The Rand McNally map linked-to shows McKinney as a little south of Van Buren, but I place him a little south of an imaginary horizontal line extending west from the south edge of Congress Street as it runs almost from the coast. The Morton Building (of Drake) and the Ellsworth Building (of Ruxton) are each just one-building (or so) north of Harrison, while that map shows them around mid-block.

As I recall, I originally figured out McKinney’s location fairly well by an arduous process of correlating his address with the corresponding addresses of one or two known buildings on the other side of the street. This was sort of a major topic on an earlier blog I ran, called “S.W. Erdnase: 20 Years Later.”

Still, there were various uncertainties, as I recall.

Bill Mullins later (actually quite soon) very kindly provided me with an image of a Sanborn fire-insurance map from a slightly later period (when the street was known as Plymouth Court). That map shows with great clarity that the 73-75 Plymouth address was a little south of Congress (that is, south of where Congress would have been if it had continued straight west from the coastal area). At the time, Congress did not cross Plymouth.

Today, Congress Parkway is much wider than the old Congress Street, and it crosses Plymouth Court.

--Tom Sawyer

[mam]

The Rand McNally map linked-to shows McKinney as a little south of Van Buren, but I place him a little south of an imaginary horizontal line extending west from the south edge of Congress Street as it runs almost from the coast. The Morton Building (of Drake) and the Ellsworth Building (of Ruxton) are each just one-building (or so) north of Harrison, while that map shows them around mid-block.

Yes, both buildings are second to southernmost towards Harrison, but how were Drake placed in Morton and Ruxton in Ellsworth to begin with? Their addresses do not seem to match the locations of those buildings. I figure you are infinitely better informed on this, but I'm just curious.

As I recall, I originally figured out McKinney’s location fairly well by an arduous process of correlating his address with the corresponding addresses of one or two known buildings on the other side of the street. This was sort of a major topic on an earlier blog I ran, called “S.W. Erdnase: 20 Years Later.”

Still, there were various uncertainties, as I recall.

Bill Mullins later (actually quite soon) very kindly provided me with an image of a Sanborn fire-insurance map from a slightly later period (when the street was known as Plymouth Court). That map shows with great clarity that the 73-75 Plymouth address was a little south of Congress (that is, south of where Congress would have been if it had continued straight west from the coastal area). At the time, Congress did not cross Plymouth.

Would love to read some of this, have you saved the contents in any form?

[Tom Sawyer]

Hi mam,

The bankruptcy file shows 357 Dearborn St. for Philip Ruxton (shown "Phillip"), and on Google Books it is simple to find that address in connection with Philip Ruxton, Inc., or the like.

As for that address being that of the Ellsworth Building:

Western Electrician

Regarding Drake, it is well established that during that period (starting in or around February 1902), they were located at 352-356 Dearborn. See the following:

The Publishers' Weekly

This link shows that the 356 Dearborn St. address was an address of the Morton Building:

The Railroad Telegrapher

Thanks for your interest in the related material I had on an earlier blog. I don't know whether I will ever post that material again on the internet (though I have access to all of it). But I think a lot of it will probably be appearing in my forthcoming book on the S.W. Erdnase authorship controversy. But I have tried to leave out a lot of the detail. I might post a little extract on my current blog. (P.S. I went ahead and did that.)

--Tom Sawyer

[mam]

Tom, thank you so much for these additional resources and links, and especially for reposting some of your old material. Really appreciate it

[mam]

Here's another angle, by the way:

What work has been done in trying to track Erdnase through known casinos, poker joints, saloons etc.? Could one assume that he frequented such places? Somewhere the gambling skills must have been practiced a lot, did that all happen in private settings?

Came to think of this when reading bits and pieces of Rand, McNally & Co.'s Bird's-Eye Views and Guide to Chicago, basically a travel guide at 300+ pages that lists a lot of entertainment venues and similar. The word casino caught my eye at page 83 but this long ago the word seems to have been connected not to gambling foremost, but rather minstrel shows, music hall, "wax-work" etc.

So, what poker places did Erdnase frequent? Or is this question already investigated at depth and I simply don't know about it?

[lybrary]

Here's another angle, by the way:

What work has been done in trying to track Erdnase through known casinos, poker joints, saloons etc.? Could one assume that he frequented such places? Somewhere the gambling skills must have been practiced a lot, did that all happen in private settings?

Came to think of this when reading bits and pieces of Rand, McNally & Co.'s Bird's-Eye Views and Guide to Chicago, basically a travel guide at 300+ pages that lists a lot of entertainment venues and similar. The word casino caught my eye at page 83 but this long ago the word seems to have been connected not to gambling foremost, but rather minstrel shows, music hall, "wax-work" etc.

So, what poker places did Erdnase frequent? Or is this question already investigated at depth and I simply don't know about it?

Thanks for the link to this wonderful book on Chicago. I think a lot of card play and gambling took place in Clubs. There is an entire section describing clubs in this book and it mentions "card-rooms". For one club it says: "This is strictly a family club, and its regulations in regard to gambling and drinking are unusually stringent." Which means that gambling was the norm for other clubs.