ERDNASE

[Guest]

I think Dai has many today who would agree with his assessment that Milton Franklin Andrews and Erdnase were two different people.

From the pen of Andrews:
"When I was a little boy in knee pants I read dime novels the same as most crazy little boys do with the result that I committed a few thefts to raise money to go west and be a cowboy and hunt buffaloes"

From the pen of Erdnase:
"We betray no confidences in the publishing of this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know. Our tuition was recieved in the cold school of experience. We've started in with the trusting nature of a fledgling and a calm assurance born of overweening faith in our own potency"


The known writings of Andrews are almost to a word simplistic examples of mundane thoughts.
The known writings of Erdnase aren't.

[Guest]

Originally posted by silverking:
...The known writings of Andrews are almost to a word simplistic examples of mundane thoughts.
The known writings of Erdnase aren't.

Interesting assessment. Would you offer a quote or citation from the known "Andrews"?

[Guest]

A question to David Alexander: You published an very interesting article a number of years ago on a new candidate for Erdnase -- W. E. Sanders. But I haven't heard anything more about him since. Do you still believe he is the most viable candidate? Have you or anyone else uncovered any more evidence in his favor?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:

Originally posted by silverking:
[b] ...The known writings of Andrews are almost to a word simplistic examples of mundane thoughts.
The known writings of Erdnase aren't.

Interesting assessment. Would you offer a quote or citation from the known "Andrews"? [/b]

The nonsensical "The Man Who Was Erdnase" by Busby has about 5,000 words of Milton Franklyn Andrews's writing. Absent Dick Hatch's research which thoroughly discounts MFA as Erdnase, anyone familiar with writing and/or editing has only to read Andrews's prose to understand he did not write Erdnase.

The entire case that Andrews was Erdnase rests on the word of a supposed retired gambler, Pratt. Nothing else. The argument is circular.

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
The entire case that Andrews was Erdnase rests on the word of a supposed retired gambler, Pratt. Nothing else. The argument is circular.

Exactly. Although the book is interesting and informative regarding MFA and his supposed crimes, the link to Erdnase is very weak, and completely non-existent with the removal of Pratt's questionable statements.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bob Coyne:
A question to David Alexander: You published an very interesting article a number of years ago on a new candidate for Erdnase -- W. E. Sanders. But I haven't heard anything more about him since. Do you still believe he is the most viable candidate? Have you or anyone else uncovered any more evidence in his favor?

I believe that my profile, done as an excercise in deductive logic and using the book and observations of Smith the illustrator, still stands as a reasonable description of the person who was Erdnase. Most importantly, the person who wrote the book was an educated person and an experienced writer who had a practiced writing "voice."

The task was to find a candidate that fit the profile without changing the profile. That I believe I did.

The intelligence behind the writer's words belie the idea that a simple reversal of his name would shield his identity, so I do not accept the proposition that Erdnase is someone named "Andrews," although I believe that since my candidate played with anagrams when he was a child, it is well-within the realm of possibility that he used "Andrews" and a way of concealing his identity when dealing with the printer and those who bought the book, a way of protecting his prominent Montana family. Using "Andrews" on checks and the reversal of the name on the book would have been readily accepted by the printer and Smith and would have stopped anyone cold from finding out who he really was should inquiries have been made.

In the interim, I have developed other circumstantial evidence that supports my candidate - why no one in the magic community ever heard of him, etc. I even located his step-grandson and learned the two reasons why he was not doing card tricks for anyone.

And one other tidbit...my candidate's family was related to Louis Dalrymple the famous cartoonist, part of the conversation that Marshall Smith recalled having with Erdnase on that cold winter day in December, 1901.

The problem with historical research is that those unfamiliar with the work demand a "smoking gun," when, often, all that is in hand or ever will be in hand, is a most-likely scenario, a persuasive circumstantial case that goes beyond a number of interesting coincidences.

Due to demands on my time I have not finished my research and probably won't for a few more years but, to date, I have as yet to see any other candidate that I find more likely or persuasive than mine, although I am more than willing to be persuaded by evidence.

[Guest]

David, where and when was the article under discussion published in which you discuss your candidate?
I don't have it and after reading your last post, I want it!

Jon, as David pointed out, the quote I used was from the Busby and crew book TMWWE.

[Guest]

Originally posted by silverking:
David, where and when was the article under discussion published in which you discuss your candidate?
I don't have it and after reading your last post, I want it!

Cover story of the January 2000 GENII (volume 63, issue 1). An excellent and thought provoking article!

[Richard Kaufman]

Call the Genii office: six bucks.

[Guest]

The article grew out of a presentation I made at the 1999 Los Angeles Conference on Magic History. Richard asked for it, so I expanded it with the information I had at the time. I think it came in somewhere between 7,500 and 8,000 words.

I did not dwell on Milton Franklin Andrews as Erdnase because I think Dick Hatch's research has thoroughly demolished that idea, notwithstanding that there was NO evidence other than Pratt's claim that MFA was Erdnase. From what I recall, Dick learned that it was unlikely that Pratt was what he claimed he was, so we're left with a case of an old man "pumping up his resume," so to speak.

What I never understood was the inability of the writers of The Man Who Was Erdnase to recognize the circularity of their argument, which seems painfully obvious.

[Guest]

How about the idea that Andrews itself was the false name used by the writer and he just played off the false name and his real name is nothing simular to either Andrews or Erdnase?
Steve V

[Guest]

Originally posted by Steve V':
How about the idea that Andrews itself was the false name used by the writer and he just played off the false name and his real name is nothing simular to either Andrews or Erdnase?
Steve V

If I understand your post, Steve, that was my point. While "S.W. Erdnase" is "E.S. Andrews" backwards, it is also an anagram of "W.E. Sanders," my candidate.

Erdnase clearly wanted his identity hidden, so he used a false name, but if he wanted to remain anonymous, he would have used the pen name, by "A Refored Gambler," or some such. He didn't.

Using the name "Andrews" on his checks, after pointing out the reversal of his name on the book to the printer, allowed him to work at a distance with the printer or anyone else, paying by check. Since it was around the Holidays, it seems unlikely he would have stayed in Chicago for the full typsetting of the book since that would take too long as it was set on a Monotype or Linotype machine.

If I recall correctly, the book wasn't copyrighted until February of the next year, a process that required two copies of the finished, bound book. Certainly not a project that was done in a hurry.

Of course, his real identity could not be penetrated because those people only knew him as "Andrews."

I don't believe anyone connected with the book's production knew who Erdnase really was, nor would they probably have cared since it was just another job, a guy paying to have a book printed, a vanity production.

It was probably not the first time something like that had happened at McKinney's shop. It still happens today. Most printers don't pay that much attention and just do the job and cash the check.

[Guest]

The Wikipedia entry on Erdnase has the following line, which was news to me:
"Research for an upcoming documentary has uncovered correspondence between noted physicists and authors Stanley Wesley Stratton and Robert Andrews Millikan on the subject of conjuring and crooked gambling. In 1896 Stratton suggested a textbook on the subject. Further evidence suggests that Millikan and Stratton hired Professor Hoffman to write the book based (partly) on notes they provided."

Sounds extremely farfetched and a likely hoax to me, but does anyone know anything more regarding this claim?

[Guest]

The great problem with the Wikipedia is that anyone can post anything to it and not give citations. All entries should be viewed with a careful eye.

First off, where is the evidence that either, or both, were amateur magicians?

Second, what is the evidence to support this claim? It isn't footnoted or cited, supposedly discovered by unnamed people for an upcoming "documentary" that has no reference.

If those two world-famous men (Stratton became president of M.I.T.) did this, who was their source for the material? And who was the guy paying McKinney and Smith for their work? Prof Hoffmann in disguise, all the way from England to hire a small-time printer to print a book under a false name? Please!

This is nonsense on it's face.

[Guest]

David Alexander writes: In the interim, I have developed other circumstantial evidence that supports my candidate - why no one in the magic community ever heard of him, etc. I even located his step-grandson and learned the two reasons why he was not doing card tricks for anyone.

That sounds very intriguing. Any chance you'll be revealing any of that new evidence any time soon? :-)

I don't have your article in front of me now, but I think you mentioned that there was more to go through in his diaries. Have you found any passages which sound like Erdnase? i.e. similarities in writing style and "voice" between Sanders and Erdnase?

[Guest]

Bob,

I hate to be coy about this, but I'm not in a position to reveal much detail just yet. I want to nail down a few things before I publish again.

The great problem is that old records, especially social records, simply don't exist. My candidate was at Columbia School of Mines and belonged to a fraternity. There doesn't seem to be any record of their social activities extant, although I haven't gone through every edition of the Columbia school newspaper, if it still exists. It would be fantastic if there was a line in a campus newspaper about how everyone enjoyed "Willie's card tricks," which would nail it down for me.

German was a required course for mining engineers. Thomas Sawyer pointed out in his notes on Erdnase that "Erde-nase" means "Earth Nose" in German. Earth nose...mining engineer? It would be a major find to learn if there was an informal group of guys who called themselves the "Erde-nases."

Examining the papers of his fellow graduates from that year might reveal some vital information, but I do not have the time at the moment to follow that research thread.

When my biographical subject, Gene Roddenberry, was a student at Los Angeles City College in the late 1930s, he was president of a small service club, The Archons. That name would reappear decades in the future in a Star Trek story, The Return of the Archons. I only learned about it by accident when I found a single piece of paper that indicated Gene was a member and that the club existed at all. So, strange things can happen in a man's life.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Hatch:
The Wikipedia entry on Erdnase has the following line, which was news to me:
"Research for an upcoming documentary has uncovered correspondence between noted physicists and authors Stanley Wesley Stratton and Robert Andrews Millikan on the subject of conjuring and crooked gambling. In 1896 Stratton suggested a textbook on the subject. Further evidence suggests that Millikan and Stratton hired Professor Hoffman to write the book based (partly) on notes they provided."

Sounds extremely farfetched and a likely hoax to me, but does anyone know anything more regarding this claim?

First of all, his name is Samuel Wesley Stratton.

Millikan's papers are at the Caltech Archives in Pasadena. There is a published, online finding aid HERE . Stratton only appears once, in a folder of messages congratulating him on being awarded the Nobel Prize in physics.

Stratton's papers are at MIT, but there doesn't seem to be a finding aid available.

I can't find a reference to either of them having an interest in magic, card tricks, or gambling.

[Guest]

Thanks, Bill. Certainly sounds like a hoax posting to me. I'm guessing someone did a title search on "Wesley Andrews" (since "wES ANDREWS" reverses to "S. W. ERDNASEw) and found the physics textbook they co-authored in 1898 while both were at the University of Chicago and came up with this. Certainly the purported Hoffmann involvement is easily dismissed based on his own later published commentary on the book and the numerous stylistic differences between Erdnase and the many Hoffmann books, especially when the same sleights are discussed. But IF there is contemporary correspondence between the two physicists on such a topic, then the fact that both were in Chicago during the period just prior to the book's publication there in 1902(Stratton appears to have left shortly after 1900, Millikan remained there for many years), would make them "persons of interest" on this topic.

[Guest]

Sometimes, it is better to not find out how a trick was done. An absolute mystery is better remembered than finding out it was just a thread stetched across the stage. In this respect it may be better that the mystery of Erdnase never be solved. This whole thread shows how hard many of you have worked to solve this puzzle. If his true identiy were known, it would be relegated to a subject of less interest. There used to be an old radio show named "I Love a Mystery." No one loves a mystery better than magicians.

[Guest]

How much effort was expended to seek out the author back around 1920?

Wondering as this would be when the book was getting popular and the author was likely still alive to appreciate any such attention.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
How much effort was expended to seek out the author back around 1920?

Wondering as this would be when the book was getting popular and the author was likely still alive to appreciate any such attention.

I'm digging through some of the magazines now, Jon. I'll let you know what I find. I did come across this in The Magic Wand for January 1911:

"To the Editor of THE MAGIC WAND.

DEAR SIR,-Professor Hoffmanns articles, "Some Useful Card Sleights," which deal with Mr. S. W. Erdnases book, "The Expert at the Card Table" are very interesting. I have studied the book at some length, and I quite agree with the Professor, that Mr. Erdnases knowledge of card manipulation must be extensive and peculiar. Cannot Mr. Erdnase be prevailed upon to write another book on the subject? I am sure it would be greatly appreciated by the ever growing multitude of wielders of the
wand.

Yours, etc.,
R. H. TOWNSEND.
Peshawar, India."

Have any relatives in India, Jon? ;)

In other news, the English magician Graham Adams seems to have spent a lot of time studying the book, even releasing a limited amount (six copies) of his own notes entitled "Erdnase -- His Book" around 1930 or so. It doesn't seem as if he spent much time tracking down the author, though.

The November 1928 Sphinx notes the reversal of the name, and the February 1929 issues includes this note in "The Books of Yesterday" by Leo Rullman:

"The most mysterious figure in the realm of magical literature, whose one contribution to the subject is still, after twenty five years, one of the classics, is S. W. Erdnase, author of "The Expert at the Card Table." No other work, in my opinion, packs so much concrete information, of use to the manipulator of cards, as this little volume. Who was S. W. Erdnase? Very little practical information concerning him is available. The magicians do not know him. The publishers of the hook have not been in touch with him for many years, as the copyright was purchased outright, and no royalties figured in the transaction. It has been said that his real name was E. S. Andrews, which in reverse order produces the pen-name under which he wrote. Whether he was an American is not known. However, it may be noted that while he coyprighted the book in England and Canada, the holder of the American copyright is the firm of Frederick J. Drake & Company, of Chicago. The following quotation from the preface of his book merely serves to emphasize the mystery surrounding the man whose identity has been so closely guarded: ..."

-Jim

[Guest]

There are also some of Stratton's papers (correspondence, a file regarding his appointment as a professor) in archives of the Univ. of Chicago (in the collection of William Rainey Harper). There are also some letters from Millikan in the same collection.

[Guest]

[The November 1928 Sphinx notes the reversal of the name, and the February 1929 issues includes this note in "The Books of Yesterday" by Leo Rullman:

"The most mysterious figure in the realm of magical literature, whose one contribution to the subject is still, after twenty five years, one of the classics, is S. W. Erdnase, author of "The Expert at the Card Table." No other work, in my opinion, packs so much concrete information, of use to the manipulator of cards, as this little volume. Who was S. W. Erdnase? Very little practical information concerning him is available. The magicians do not know him. The publishers of the hook have not been in touch with him for many years, as the copyright was purchased outright, and no royalties figured in the transaction. It has been said that his real name was E. S. Andrews, which in reverse order produces the pen-name under which he wrote. Whether he was an American is not known. However, it may be noted that while he coyprighted the book in England and Canada, the holder of the American copyright is the firm of Frederick J. Drake & Company, of Chicago. The following quotation from the preface of his book merely serves to emphasize the mystery surrounding the man whose identity has been so closely guarded: ..."[/QB]

This is a good example of bad or no research being used to sound authoratative. Rullman claims the copyright was purchased outright by Drake "with no royalties involved," but gives no citation or source for this supposed fact. If Drake told him this, he was lying.

In any event, this is not correct. While Drake published the book, he did NOT own the copyright. How can I be so sure? Because when the copyright came up for renewal in 1930, Drake did not renew it.

Drake apparently tried once, early on, to copyright the book under a different name - "Robert Erdnase" - and had to back off that for some undetermined reason. Perhaps he got a letter from the real Erdnase or his lawyer suggesting that stealing a copyright wasn't such a good idea.

In any event, Drake's actions indicate that he did not own the copyright so when 1930 turned to 1931, the New Year saw Erdnase's work pass into the public domain....although Drake was probably not anxious to advertise this fact.

Interesting to note that Drake waited seven years before selling the plates to the next publisher, the plates being the only thing Drake had to sell.

And on the two physicists and their book, this is wrong in so many ways, but before I would spend 90 seconds on this nonsense someone would have to show me that they were amateur magicians in the first place. Again, no source for the claim is cited, which makes me suspicious in the first place.

[Guest]

Originally posted by silverking:

From what I can see, this only leaves the Drake hardcovers in Green (with the hands), the Plum cloth cover, and the Blue cloth cover that the heart could possibly be seen in.

I have the Drake plum cover and the Drake blue cover, and the heart is in neither of them. It's in the Dover edition though (!?)

[Guest]

Originally posted by willmorton:

Originally posted by silverking:
[b]
From what I can see, this only leaves the Drake hardcovers in Green (with the hands), the Plum cloth cover, and the Blue cloth cover that the heart could possibly be seen in.

I have the Drake plum cover and the Drake blue cover, and the heart is in neither of them. It's in the Dover edition though (!?) [/b]

I have the Powner edition dated 1944 - the heart is clearly visible

In my KC Card Company version (undated) the heart has disappeared

Bob

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bob Walder:
I have the Powner edition dated 1944 - the heart is clearly visible
Bob
[/QB]

That's interesting Bob, your 1944 version would be only two years after Powner got their hands on the plates.
My 1975 Powner edition (the last Powner) has no heart.

I've got a few more Powner editions from varying years coming my way from recent purchases, I'll be interested in seeing exactly when Powner took the heart out.

It could be quite a chore determining where the heart shows up and where it's been removed.

As an aside, after much searching I finally got my hands on an edition of "The Gardner-Smith Correspondence".
It's my opinion that when all of the letters are read in context, and combined with thoughts about the phone conversations, this book actually strengthens the thought that Milton Franklin Andrews certainly wasn't Erdnase.

It's obvious when reading the letters that Gardner really wants Smith to make a match, and that Smith (who appears to be quite an amicable fellow) would dearly like to oblige Gardner, but simply can't bring himself to.
His memories DON"T read like those of an old man trying desperately to please his interviewer, but those of somebody who is quite sharp, and is simply remembering someting from decades ago.

The single biggest surprise in reading this book of letters and thoughts (and one that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere that I've seen) is that M.D. Smith appears not to have been beyond demonstrating his ability to sling an unsolicited racial slur, it was surprising to read.

I must admit that seeing for the first time the actual line in the facsimile of Smiths letter to Gardner where he says for the first time that he in fact did do the illustrations for "The Expert at the Card" Table caused me to read it a few times with a smile on my face.......I can only imagine how Gardner felt when he first read it.

It took me over a year of constant searching to find a copy of "The Gardner-Smith Correspondence", and it was certainly worth while making the effort.
In an edition of 250 the struggle seemed just to find somebody who had one, let alone one for sale!

[Richard Kaufman]

Okay, I've just finished cleaning up this thread.
DEREK, please don't post here again.

[Guest]

OK Richard this your show and I am outta here.

[Guest]

Thank you, Richard.

[Guest]

I'm an ignoramous in these matters, but it does seem to me that if the author really was W.E Saunders, he would be much more likely to pick the plausible anagram E.S. Andrews as his pen name than the weird looking S.W. Erdnase. You'd need to find quite compelling evidence of the use of the use of "Earth nose" to make that theory compelling. IMO.

[Guest]

Originally posted by DomT:
I'm an ignoramous in these matters, but it does seem to me that if the author really was W.E Saunders, he would be much more likely to pick the plausible anagram E.S. Andrews as his pen name than the weird looking S.W. Erdnase. You'd need to find quite compelling evidence of the use of the use of "Earth nose" to make that theory compelling. IMO.

I've often thought that too. The simple reversal of letters is only obvious when it's pointed out, and it fits so well that it seems more plausible than the idea of a partial anagram of W.E. Saunders (the "u" would have been easy enough to fit in - Erdnause would have been no more bizarre than Erdnase).

The "Erde + Nase" = "Earth Nose" idea also seems far-fetched to me. I've never come across the term in German, though maybe we'd need to ask a native speaker who knows the mining industry.

[Guest]

David's candidate is a W. E. Sanders (not Saunders), so the anagram is exact (no "u" to drop). He explains the psychological profile behind the preference for Erdnase over Andrews on the title page in his excellent GENII cover story.

[Guest]

Sorry, the misspelling is my fault - clearly such an ignoramous that I can't copy a name over without making a mistake.

[Guest]

Having finally got my hands on David Alexanders Genii article on his hunt for Erdnase only a few days after getting both the Gardner/Smith letters and (finally) a copy of "S.W. Erdnase-Another View" I'm pleasently drowning in all things Erdnase.

David's article threw me for a loop, it reads like a novel you can't put down.
I can only imagine seeing both David and Dick at the Magic History Conference where this was first presented. Apparently the room was absolutely entranced, and the two presentations were so powerful that there wasn't anything with enough "oomph" to actually follow them, the day ending after their breathtaking presentations. According to the report in Genii of those presentations, they were the strongest of the conference....and that was the year they did "The Mascot Moth"!

Between Dick's Magic Magazine article, and "Erdnase-Another View"....and then reading the Gardner-Smith letters for myself, that done after comparing the Milton Franklin writings in "The Man Who Was Erdnase" with those of the the man we DO know to be Erdnase in EATCT, I'm now firmly in the camp that rejects Milton Franklin as even a potential candidate.

What I find amazing is how the circumstantial evidence surrounding both David and Dick's two (different) candidates can be so strong as to potentially steer an Erdnase hunter happily down the road of either candidate.

As I looked at the two pictures of W.E. Sanders in Davids Genii article, one taken at a young age, and one quite a bit older, I must admit that I wondered if I was finally looking into the eyes of the master himself.

[Richard Kaufman]

None of the supporters of any candidate can put a deck of cards into his hands. Until that's done, I'm not convinced of ANY of the candidates brought forth so far.

[Guest]

Our Mr. Erdnase might have made it extremely difficult to place a deck of cards in his hands.
Following his own advice, he may not have demonstrated even the slightest skill with a deck of cards in front of another person.

But I completely agree that this IS a story first and foremost about playing cards, demanding the protagonist actually be shown to be holding them in his hands, preferably demonstrating capabilities of a sort that would be worthy of comment from somebody present at the time.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
None of the supporters of any candidate can put a deck of cards into his hands. Until that's done, I'm not convinced of ANY of the candidates brought forth so far.

It is very easy to put a deck of cards in the hands of Milton Franklin Andrews. The fact that he was a known card cheat with the last name Andrews living at the time the book was published and deceased shortly thereafter (explaining why he never revealed himself publicly as the author) are the primary strengths of his candidacy. I still consider him viable, myself, though he is far from my favorite, for reasons outlined earlier in this thread and elsewehere.

[Richard Kaufman]

Obviously my statement excluded Milton Franklin Andrews since he was a known card cheat. I was referring to the parade of new possibilities.

[Guest]

I am so apologize. May be this is not interesting or somebody know before. Time to time I read how peoples interesting when first time appeared information about Erdnase. I find "Bibliographies of works on playing cards and gaming" 1905 and on number 488 we can find Erdnase. May be this is first bibliography.

[Guest]

A clarification - I don't believe that the German play on words, "erde-nase" (earth nose) is a mining term. It could have been an in-joke amongst the mining students at the School of Mines when my candidate was attending Columbia in the 1880s.

Second, I don't understand why Dick still consideres MFA viable, given his telling demonstration at the 1999 LA Magic History Conference where he had two people stand...one the size that Marshall Smith remembered and the other the size that MFA was. The disparity in size was striking. As Dick pointed out at the time, it would be hard to make that sort of mistake.