Pictures on Erdnase

Discuss the historical aspects of magic, including memories, or favorite stories.

Postby Guest » 11/13/06 11:42 PM

I am interesting on pictures of Erdnase.
On sequence 52-54 the middle picture 53 on 10% smaller than another. If I understand well font with "Copyright" smaller too. So, this is not engrave but just only copy.
The question. Is this only on modern books or on first print too?

Also interesting about dust (dirt) on pictures. Is it was same on first book or from edition to edition pictures became worse and worse?
I want clearing pictures, but for this I need as first as pussible.
Guest
 

Postby Jason England » 11/15/06 10:38 PM

Figures 52 - 54 in a first edition are all virtually identical in size.

They are also very clear (for a 100+ year old book). As the illustrations were copied over the years in subsequent editions, the quality went downhill.

Jason
Jason England
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 02:21 AM

Which printing of this book do you have, Oleg? The comb bound GBC edition does not have the copyright notices under the pictures. The Powner edition has the copyright notices under some of the pictures. So does the version Mickey MacDougal published in his Card Mastery book, and so does the version in Revelations, which was actually completely reset.

There are dozens of versions of the book out.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Bill Palmer:
The comb bound GBC edition does not have the copyright notices under the pictures. The Powner edition has the copyright notices under some of the pictures. So does the version Mickey MacDougal published in his Card Mastery book, and so does the version in Revelations, which was actually completely reset.
The first edition only has the copyright notices under half of the figures, one of the strange features of the work (why do any of the illustrations have that notice, since it added no extra protection to the book? Why do some have it and some not?) The Powner, MacDougall and Revelations editions follow the first edition in that regard.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 11:15 AM

This may have been due to a misconception of the author, who may have believed that he needed to add copyright protection to the drawings. It is very strange that he would do this on some drawings and not on others.

There may be a story here.

Or not.

BTW, another feature of the GBC edition is that they reset the numbers of the figures in copperplate type.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 12:13 PM

Since the book was originally self-published by the author, not a real publisher, in my opinion the added "protection" of trying to copyright each individual illustration was an amateur's mistake. A typically over-cautious amateur.

An experienced publisher would have known that such an action was unnecessary and that copyrighting the book was more than sufficient protection.

Perhaps he learned this halfway through the set up of the book - there was a plate for each page - and simply told the printer not to bother for the rest of the illustrations. As he didn't want to spend the money necessary to go back and remove the earlier copyright notifications, they stayed.

Or, perhaps, he didn't stay for the entire set-up procedure...an experienced typesetter could do 10 - 15 pages a day with the machines of the time - and left before it was done. The typesetter or printer, knowing the law, may have chosen to ignore the client's instructions.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 12:31 PM

I'm convinced there is more to the copyright statements under the illustrations, but am at a loss for a good explanation. It doesn't seem to follow a discernable pattern: Figures 1-7 have it, 8-10 don't, 11-17 have it, 18-20 don't, etc... On some pages with two illustrations, one will have it, the other won't, sometimes both will have it, sometimes neither. Sometimes there is plenty of available space for it, sometimes not. I like to think it is a clue to the author's identity, "hidden in plain sight." The unusual and correctly formatted triple copyright statement (USA, Britain and Canada) would imply that the author/publisher was well versed with copyright potection. No separate copyright protection for the illustrations was applied for, though the American copyright was properly registered (not the case, apparently for the British and Canadian copyrights, for which no applications have been found).
My current best guess (and it is no more than that), is that the erratic copyright statements favor the "two artist" theory, with the "copyrighted" illustrations predating those without the statement, which may have been added at the last minute, most likely by Marshall D. Smith.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 01:37 PM

We may be reading far too much into the inclusion or lack of copyright statements beyond an over-zealous amateur writer/publisher and a sloppy printer/typesetter. The pages would be typeset in order and spaces left for the insertion of the cuts to be added later.

There is no need to insert the cuts in page order, other than putting them in the right places....that is, a certain page could have had its illustrations put in a week apart from a facing page, etc.

Wasn't there something someplace about McKinney having trouble with alcohol? Seems to me I read that. The absence of copyright may have been the result of sloppy work and nothing else. We do not know if the work was done by an experienced professional all the way through the typesetting of the book or by someone with less experience.

We do not know if the amateur author/publisher saw or required a proof before the book was printed. Given the other errors in the book, it may be safe to assume he didn't. If the author wanted to make corrections, a new plate would have to be made since inserting a word was time consuming and expensive. Since the errors were not corrected either the author didn't see them, didn't care to spend the money to correct them or just plain didn't care.

Interesting to note that when the plates were in the possession of Drake, he didn't bother to correct the errors over the many years he published the book.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 07:14 PM

Ops. Apologize. Two days I wait answers, but it was not. And I stop watch.

I have more than one book. Powner 1975 and GBC Reprint with Hoffmann comments. Also I can get pictures from Annotated Erdnase and Revelations.

I am so apologize. I can be wrong. May be I made my decision about Figs. 52-54 because size of sleeve what visually lessen hand.

My search begin when I realize that on different books there are different quality of pictures. For example on Powner 1975 Fig. 52 better than on GBC, but on Fig. 7 situation reverse. I understand it can be only because quantity of ink and on same editions from book to book quality can be differ, but I have only one target - I need best what I can get.

If I understand I am not first who search best pictures. I watch Annotated Erdnase. There some of pictures cleaned. Some made by vectors (like Fig. 2, but tracing was made not correct). But another still not perfected.

I have friend who want repaint all. He is good. But this is not Erdnase.

Apologize. I do not know, may be this is not interesting, but to clear my work I made little html with different pictures. If somebody still interesting (what I am not sure) please, wisit http://stepanov.lk.net/magic/art/art.html
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 09:58 PM

If you can find a copy of Revelations, that's the one that has the best presentation of the material. The type is clean and clear throughout and the illustrations are cleaned up without losing the spirit of the original artist.

Your efforts to clean up the drawings are very good.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/16/06 10:23 PM

Thanks. I will try. But, did you see Fig. 51 on Revelations? May be not everything clean up?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/17/06 01:55 AM

That's cleaner than the one in the Powner edition. They didn't try to make the pictures anything that they originally weren't. They just did a general cleanup on them.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/18/06 02:44 AM

Thanks Mr. Bill Palmer.

I get pictures from Revelations. Not much better. I put on my page http://stepanov.lk.net/magic/art/art.html two more images. Possible compare my attempt clean up Fig. 2. with Revelations.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/18/06 12:13 PM

I did. You have to be careful not to overdo it.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/18/06 01:23 PM

This is why I need pictures as better as possible. My work is too hard. More than one day for picture. I will do publishing my translation on magazine and during this period clean up pictures.
Guest
 


Return to Magic History and Anecdotes