ERDNASE

[Bill Mullins]

I hadn't realized these interviews were so old. But it does explain why some of the people were more youthful looking than I know them to be. (and FWIW, footage of me from 2015 wouldn't need to be as much of a wide shot as it would now, either . . . )

Give David Ben's comments about rights and the possibility of the film being removed from youtube, and without trying to encourage even more illicit copying, I simply point out the existence of sites like https://publer.io/tools/youtube-video-downloader. Further deponent sayeth not.

[Tarotist]

That site may possibly be useful to me. There are several videos out there of me at work but I was not the person who recorded the footage.
If I were to reproduce them on my own channel I wonder what the copyright situation is. Even if I got permission from the original creator would You Tube flag it because it is a duplicate?

[Jim Davey]

Well Jack, I don’t normally respond to such open questions because I could write a thousand words on why it is such a terrible piece of filmmaking. Judging from your response to Dustin’s post, however, your question seems asked in earnest so I will give a truncated reply.

First, those interviewed were excellent. All of the responses. It is rare that you see such informed, articulate and thoughtful responses across the board. That is what kept me watching the film, and in the hands of even an average editor and director, could have made a more engaging film.

As far as storytelling is concerned, it was extraordinarily repetitive, with many subjects just reiterating the point made by the previous subject, or two, or three.

There are many sequences where the subject looked washed out because the footage was not colour corrected. It appeared that some were, and others were not.

Same with the tags that identified the speakers. There was no rhyme or reason to them. And, if I am not mistaken, I believe I was not identified once by name or job description even though I appeared throughout the film, and was referenced by others such as Mike Caveney. This is amateur hour on steroids, not for me personally because I could care less, but for the storyline and the viewer, who will not be able to make simple connections. The director or editor just never bothered to note who they were speaking with when they shot the original footage, or have the editor ask “who is this guy” when putting the footage together.

Also, my bet is that most if not all of the ancillary footage was stolen. I doubt very strongly that the Ricky Jay Estate gave clearance to use the footage of Ricky. Same with whomever owns the rights to Vernon footage shot by Hans Zahn, and later owned by L & L.

They also certainly lifted from Daniel Zuckerbrot’s film Dai Vernon - The Spirit of Magic, which I served as Associate Producer and Magic Consultant, and which must be one of the most pirated films in the history of magic. You see this in not only the second or third generation quality of the images they stole, including unique images which reside only in my collection or those of friends of mine, but also in the video footage of Vernon. Contrast this with the efforts of the director of the forthcoming film Lost the Shuffle who is a thorough professional who reached out to licence what he wanted and could afford. The same is true of R Paul Wilson who is doing the film on Tamariz, and raising funding to pay the rights holders for footage and acquire broadcast grade footage to complete his picture. Paul is a professional through and through,

This Erdnase film will never see the light of day anywhere other than on YouTube. There are so many violations in it that it would be easy to take down, even from YouTube. One only has so much energy and as Mark Lewis, might say, I’ve pretty well expended mine here and now. (Actually, Mark might say, “And I’m not feeling so well myself right now.)

I could write more. All of it, however, would simply reflect my initial comment: A terrible piece of filmmaking that is still worth watching. (But with Dustin’s qualifier- once.)

I'm disappointed to read that David has found so much at fault with the documentary and felt compelled to express his hyperbolic assessment of what amounts to, I'll admit, a glorified Youtube video.

I agree that the interviews are excellent and felt that they deserved to be seen by a wider, interested audience in some capacity. After numerous stops and starts with various editing programs over the last few years I was finally able to teach myself and use Davinci Resolve to sync and sift through the hours of interviews to cull out and form some kind of narrative with the footage I had, in my spare time.

While I might be stretching the limits of fair use in some cases, I consider the clips used to be perfectly acceptable for nonprofit, educational purposes on Youtube. If an interested party should feel that they have been slighted or their copyright is being violated they are welcome to submit a claim to have the material taken down or removed.

I am not making a profit from this and was not motivated by money.

The crowdfunding campaign I ran to support the project was unsuccessful so, despite David's presumptions, I didn't put the hours of work that I did into this project to appease the backers or to "comply with crowdfunding so that the producers need not return the initial funding."

The producer, editor and director are all the same person: me.

I felt that the interview footage had merit and deserved to be seen so I used my, granted, rudimentary editing skills to do something with it. Simple as that.

That it does not meet David's standards is unfortunate but this is zero budget filmmaking and I did the best with what I had at my disposal.

I'm glad to see that others in this thread were able to enjoy it in some capacity, including Richard Hatch who was kind enough to participate.

When I met and interviewed David in 2015, he told me not to expect any support from the magic community. With the level of gatekeeping, ego and skepticism present, it's easy to see now why an experienced filmmaker, much less a first time one such as myself, would avoid venturing into this territory.

Even a "terrible piece of filmmaking that is still worth watching" takes hours of hard work and effort to complete. I'd think someone with a production background like David would understand that but I suppose it's much easier to just vent in a forum on the internet.

[David Ben]

Jim

On page 23 of The Expert at the Card Table, Erdnase wrote, “Excessive vanity proves the undoing of many experts.”

And on page 10, he wrote, “The professional rarely “squeals” when he gets the worst of it; the man who has other means of livelihood is the hardest loser.”

So I suppose that my response to Jack’s question on this forum of what issues I had with your film were predicated on my belief - or trust - at the time of the initial filming that you had expertise and were a professional.

My apologies.

[Tarotist]

Oh, I thought it was quite good nevertheless.

[Roger M.]

I watched the film on YouTube, and found that each and every comment or statement David Ben made was 100% accurate.
I don't consider the filmmakers "yea but" comments to be particularly damning, nor do I find they offer any sort of credible excuse for the amateur quality of the film.

Generally speaking, if you're releasing films publicly, you're presenting yourself to the public as a "filmmaker", and viewers of that film have an absolute right to offer negative or positive critique the film, or the filmmaker.

[Dave Le Fevre]

Generally speaking, if you're releasing films publicly, you're presenting yourself to the public as a "filmmaker", and viewers of that film have an absolute right to offer negative or positive critique the film, or the filmmaker.

If someone likes it or dislikes it, then they're entitled to voice their opinion should they so wish.

However, I would observe that, to me, there's a significant difference between a film (which is produced in order to make money, and is shown in cinemas and/or on TV), and a home-made documentary which is produced for the interest of a relatively small group of enthusiasts (card conjurors). The home-made documentary should not be held to the same production standards.

(I don't intend home-made to sound patronising, in any way. It's merely an observation.)

[Tarotist]

The way I see it is that he put a lot of work and time on this not to mention money. He must have spent hours and hours on this. In fact I bet he didn't make a dime from it and may even have lost money. He let us watch it for free. And it wasn't as bad as has been made out. In fact some of it was quite good. I think the least we can all do is say "thank you"

[Bob Coyne]

As David Ben said, it's a matter of expectations. If you're expecting a theatrical release quality film, then it's legitimate to criticize the production values. On the other hand, for a youtube video, it was a worthy effort.

I really enjoyed it. In particular it was great hearing Mike Caveney (in a segment tagged on at the very end) discussing the meeting between Del Adelphia, Erdnase and Hugh Johnston in Denver. And then seeing Adelphia's signed first edition copy of EATCT. This is of particular interest because Adelphia resided and performed in Montana, the home state of WE Sanders. Marty Demarest discusses this in his Erdnase/Sanders articles. The possible Del Adelphia connection is one of MANY points in favor of Sanders' candidacy.

[Diego]

I agree with Mark, a video I and others enjoyed which was done at the financial/time expense of the creator/producer. If anything (?) that was supposed to be protected was used, that is definitely an issue. But this is not a hostile takeover of CBS/Paramount, it's a video on a magic FB page.

[Brad Jeffers]

If I am not mistaken, I believe I was not identified once by name or job description even though I appeared throughout the film

I certainly share the complaint that there was a lack of identification of the various commenters. A few I did recognise but there were certainly a few I had never seen before. I would have liked to have known who they were.

Everyone who appeared in the film was clearly identified at least once, including ... "David Ben ~ Magician, Author, Lecturer".

I just finished watching this.

I enjoyed it very much.

[Tarotist]

I expected the name to be shown in letters underneath the interviewee. I didn't know who half of them were.

[Richard Evans]

I just noticed there's a new edition of TEATCT published by Hey Presto Publishing. It's a paperback edition with a very nice cover featuring the early Drake design of the silhouetted hands and cards. In another throwback to the Drake editions, the back of the book has adverts for other Hey Presto publications. It looks like it was published last November, but I haven't seen a mention of it here.

[Bill Mullins]

Thanks, Richard. I hadn't been aware of this. It is available on Amazon for less than $9.

[Bob Coyne]

While I enjoyed the recent Erdnase video and was glad it spent significant time on WE Sanders, the video focused only on the raw hypothesis that the author's name might be an anagram vs a backwards spelling. None of the actual evidence for Sanders was presented, including the crucial fact that he had played with anagrams on his name in his notebooks as a kid!

For those interested, here's an overview of the extensive evidence for Sanders (see link below for the details):

• The author's name
  • S.W. Erdnase is an anagram of W.E. Sanders.
  • Sanders played with anagrams of his name in his notebooks as a child. His interest in letter combinations (and other wordplay) on names continued into later life.
  • Sanders had a strong motive for hiding his identity with a pseudonym (his father was a U.S. Senator). The obvious backwards spelling (E.S. Andrews) was an effective throw-off.
  • "Erdnase" in German means "earth nose", apropos for a prospector and mining engineer. Sanders knew German.
  • The book's subtitle suggests that the author's backwards name Andrews is itself a ruse ("artifice RUSE AND subterfuge..." => "And Ruse" => "Andrews"). Sanders performed similar phonetic transposition on the name of a classmate in one of his poems.
• Gambling and magic
  • Sanders purchased six decks of playing cards for a camping trip. Erdnase tells us why: "For superior work the cards should be new, thin, flexible and of best quality... Cards that have been handled two or three hours become more or less sticky, and the slightest friction is a detriment to perfect manipulation."
  • Sanders frequented gambling houses. His letters allude to gambling debts. He refers to his "other life."
  • Sanders' published writing refers to various gambling games (faro, poker, the shell game, etc) and jargon ("played on the square").
  • Sanders included details about the card trick Mutus Nomen Dedit Cocis in his notebooks. He wrote in his diaries about seeing through the tricks of an illusionist.
  • The one person known to be a friend of Erdnase was the magician Del Adelphia, who like Sanders was a Montana resident. The meeting with Del Adelphia occurred in Denver, in easy proximity to Sanders who traveled extensively throughout the West.
• Biographical matches
  • The patter for one of the most prominent tricks ("The Divining Rod") in EATCT centers around prospecting for gold and archaeological preservation -- both professions of Sanders! Another prominent trick ("Congenial Coterie") echoes Sanders' background in private salons and clubs. These are the first two tricks in the Legerdemain section.
  • Sanders was experienced with publishing. He probably had knowledge of copyright law (via clerking on his father's Senate committee).
  • Sanders was working on a book in 1900. Mine Timbering wasn't published until 1907 and only contained two articles by Sanders, one of which had already been published. Was this book EATCT?
  • Sanders was near Chicago at the right time: December 1901 and the hotel meeting with Marshall Smith.
  • Sanders was a good match with MD Smith's recollections. Similar physical attributes (age, size, demeanor); name had a "W"; Dalrymple family connection.
  • Erdnase refers to himself in his youth as a "self-satisfied unlicked cub with a fairly fat bank roll." This is an apt description of Sanders who came from a prosperous family and attended prep school in New England and college in New York.
  • Sanders grew up on the Frontier in Montana, and we find in EATCT a significant number of images and phrases (e.g., "flush the quarry" and "trap shooter") that evoke country life.
• Shared linguistic traits
  • Sanders was an experienced writer. And like Erdnase, he writes in a very incisive and self-assured manner.
  • We find unmistakable similarities in word choice, lexical-syntactic constructions, thematic emphasis, metaphors, rhetorical devices, and other forms of stylization (scare quotes, parenthetical punctuation, dialectical speech, alliteration, foreign terms, and puns). In addition, various spelling anomalies are consistent with common authorship. Over 250 examples are presented and analyzed in the link below.
• Shared personality traits (as revealed in their writing)
  • A strong aesthetic sense ("very pretty, "the beauty of", "grace"") and a reverence for excellence ("to attain the highest degree of excellence" vs "to maintain a high standard of excellence"). They insist on the importance of both study (curriculum, take a post-graduate course) and "practical observation/experience."
  • An emphasis on the importance of details and rigor (consistent with Sanders' scientific training), using terms and phrases like "axiom" and "facts and conditions". When describing a sleight, Erdnase says "the IMPETUS and DIRECTION given to each card must be nicely CALCULATED" much as a physics student would describe the trajectory of body in motion after a force has been applied to it.
  • A delight in mocking hypocrisy and vanity (including their own), using the same terms, metaphors, and alliteration.
  • An attraction to risk-taking behavior: Erdnase's thrill of "making the hazard" and "bucking the tiger"; and Sanders' "wild delights and exhilarating influences of the mining profession".
  • Concern for the etymology and the derivation of terms as well as the origin of methods. This includes calling out common misnomers.
  • Care and pride in the condition of hands.
  • Inventive and organized. Devised general SYSTEMS to cover a variety of particular cases. The Erdnase System of Palming, Culling, Shuffling. And Sanders' Reference Scheme for Mine-Workings ("a system ... capable of being extended to cover all possible exigencies and conditions").

The writeup, in the link below, includes a summary of the primary evidence for Sanders first uncovered by David Alexander and then greatly expanded by Marty Demarest. It then presents over 250 linguistic, thematic, and biographic correspondences extracted from Sanders' writings and EATCT. Seeing the many corresponding textual excerpts side-by-side makes it easy to hear the voice of a common author. The document also includes an appendix with relevant auxiliary data (e.g. a list of authors and others who used anagrammatic pseudonyms -- collected largely by Bill Mullins).

https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdn ... guage.html

[Christopher1979]

Very interesting. There is no denying the presence of a certain rhythm, flow, and wordplay that appears similar. They exhibit similarities in their linguistic style and composition.

It's crucial to determine whether this writing style is typical of the era or the distinct work of an individual.

Does Marty Demarest and David Alexander actually own Sanders' diaries? It appears that David passed in 2010.

[Bob Coyne]

Does Marty Demarest and David Alexander actually own Sanders' diaries? It appears that David passed in 2010.

AFAIK, All the Sanders diaries and other personal papers are at the Montana Historical Society.
https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/a ... 44/xv57460

[Richard Hatch]

This talk by Marty Demarest was posted online 9 years ago in September 2014, but only brought to my attention recently. It includes references to Erdnase and a performance of 3 Card Monte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdHGUcw2xtc

[Christopher1979]

Does Marty Demarest and David Alexander actually own Sanders' diaries? It appears that David passed in 2010.

AFAIK, All the Sanders diaries and other personal papers are at the Montana Historical Society.
https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/a ... 44/xv57460

Thank you, Bob.

[Christopher1979]

This talk by Marty Demarest was posted online 9 years ago in September 2014, but only brought to my attention recently. It includes references to Erdnase and a performance of 3 Card Monte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdHGUcw2xtc

Interesting, Richard. Just transcribed it.

[Bill Mullins]

Has anyone heard from Marty in the last few years? My last couple of emails to him didn't get any response.

[Richard Hatch]

Back in July 2015 Bill Mullins mentioned in this thread the use of the pseudonym Sirronje for E. J. Norris. The current issue (January 2024, #199) of Magicol has a well researched and written article by Gary Hunt on Sirronje, a female escape artists whose husband's name (Edmond J. Norris) spelled in reverse provided her stage name. It looks like her use of the name dated from 1906 (they apparently married in 1905), so post-Erdnase.

[Bob Coyne]

One other thing about the recent Erdnase video... At the end, Mike Caveney talks about the account from Hugh Johnston where the magician Del Adelphia introduced Erdnase as his friend backstage in Denver in the early 1900s. And then we are shown Adelphia's own first edition copy of EATCT. The book, being signed by Adelphia, helps substantiate the meeting and that the friendship was genuine, despite the apparent incongruity of Adelphia being a stage magician. What's not mentioned is that Adelphia apparently had proficiency in card handling as described in this report (below) from the Chicago Magician's club in the Sphinx 1913. And is raises the question if these "oldtime card shuffles" are exactly the type Erdnase specialized in and describes.

"Mr. Del J. Adelphia followed with a very interesting and amusing talk relating to his thirty years' experience as a "Cowboy Magician." Mr. Adelphia claims the honor of being the first magician to cross the Arctic circle. While in Alaska he performed before Chief Isaacs of an Indian Tribe. His story of how he had all the Indians cutting open potatoes in the hope of finding half-dollars was very amusing. Mr. Adelphia took us back to the time of Herrmann the Great by presenting some of the old time card shuffles which he performs very cleverly."

[Bob Coyne]

I ran across something that needs to be explained. In The Man Who Was Erdnase (p 152) some additional detail is given about what Hugh Johnston told Jay Marshall.

"I think it was 1905," he later recalled. "I was working at the Empress Theatre in Denver. It was one of my first jobs and I was pretty stuck up about it. One night a magician named Del Adelphia brought this guy around and introduced him to me as Erdnase." Johnston observed that Erdnase was tall, thin, with large soft hands.

This, conveniently for the Whaley/Busby/Gardner book, fits with the MFA candidacy. But it certainly doesn't match Smith's recollections or Sanders or some other candidates. The source in the endnotes is given as "Letter, Marshall to Gardner, 20 Dec 1955, based on Marshall's recent interview with Johnston."

The first part of the account seems to be a direct quote, but then the part about the tall/thin stature is just a summary. It would be good to know exactly what Marshall wrote.

[Bill Mullins]

Hugh Johnston was 12 years old in 1905. The story as related by Marshall may not be accurate in all respects.

[Richard Hatch]

I think the Hugh Johnston/Del Adelphia/Erdnase meeting is worth exploring and it has been sporatically discussed in this forum thread in the past, mostly as a vote against Milton Franklin Andrews (MFA) if it happened as Johnston recalled it to Jay Marshall in the 1950s. As noted above by Bill Mullins, Johnston was only 11 or 12 years old in 1905 when MFA died, and wasn't actively working in vaudeville theaters at that time. Denver's Empress Theater wasn't built until 1907, at which time it was named the Majestic and didn't change its name to the Empress until 1911. So it seems quite unlikely that Johnston met MFA as Erdnase based on that timeline. That October 1913 Sphinx article quoted above by Bob Coyne mentions that "Xaviar and Kent came in late but were very accomodating and entertained us with some new and interesting card tricks" at the September 19th meeting of the Chicago Magicians' Club. Xaviar (sometimes Xavier) was Hugh Johnston's stage name at the time and he was doing a double act with flutist Emmet Kent. So we can place Del Adelphia and Hugh Johnston in the same hotel room in Chicago on September 19, 1913, both doing card tricks. Had they already met in Denver and got re-acquainted in Chicago, or was that their first meeting and a reason for Del Alelphia to seek out Johnston later in Denver when they were both there? I suspect the latter, but could be wrong. But it fits Johnston's recollection that he was doing a single act in Denver, not the Xaviar and Kent act. Bill Mullins has found that Del Adelphia was playing the Empress in Denver in August 1913, just a month before this meeting, I haven't been able to place Johnston there yet. Del Adelphia died in February 1917, so it is a fairly short window to explore. I'm in touch with Hugh Johnston's daughter who is very interested in this topic and trying to access her father's scrapbooks to confirm his early appearance in Denver, but to no avail yet. Here's a silent clip of Hugh Johnston doing card manipulations, probably circa 1930, courtesy Gary Plants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTSljsWV6sg

[Bob Coyne]

Hugh Johnston was 12 years old in 1905. The story as related by Marshall may not be accurate in all respects.

Yeah, Mike Caveney mentions that discrepancy regarding the date and Johnston's age. Also that the Empress Theater didn't yet exist (at least with that name) in 1905. But he suggests that it's easy to imagine the date being off by a few years, especially since the story is buttressed by Adelphia having a copy of EATCT. It's impossible to know, but given that Adelphia seems to have been fairly tall, one possibility is that Johnston was conflating them or that there was a miscommunication with Marshall. It's also possible Marshall misremembered when he relayed the story to Gardner.

Smith was quite certain that Erdnase was short (and couldn't have been MFA, for example). So I think that's more credible. It's unfortunate we don't have any direct statement from Johnston, only a third hand report via Johnston to Marshall to Gardner.

[Bob Coyne]

I'm in touch with Hugh Johnston's daughter who is very interested in this topic and trying to access her father's scrapbooks to confirm his early appearance in Denver, but to no avail yet. Here's a silent clip of Hugh Johnston doing card manipulations, probably circa 1930, courtesy Gary Plants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTSljsWV6sg

That's a intriguing development! Hopefully something turns up in her father's scrapbooks related to his being in Denver in that timeframe or anything related to Adelphia.

And thanks for the old video.

[Jack Shalom]

In Chris Wasshuber's latest newsletter, he repeats his contention that the S W Erdnase reverse was a double fake out on Gallaway's part. That is, he wanted to throw people off by having them think they solved the mystery by reversing the name.

Just curious if there are any extant examples of this supposed swindle that anyone has found;in other words, an author's name, which when reversed gives an apparently legitimate name, but is in fact still a pseudonym for the real author. I'm looking at you, Bill Mullins...

[Marty Jacobs]

I have just finished reading Chris Wasshuber's article on this particular matter, and I find it an exciting and well-formed opinion piece. However, based on the principle of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely to be true (without any other evidence). In this case, it seems plausible that the author might have reversed his name to remain anonymous and avoid any repercussions if his employer (or a disgruntled gambler or card cheat) were to take issue with him writing a book on card table artifice.

Chris Wasshuber uses the term "Andrews Trap" emotively, perhaps suggesting that using such a simple pseudonym is an absurd suggestion. But a double bluff would not have been necessary if the author truly wanted to remain anonymous. He could have used a pen name with no relation to his real name, such as Henning Nelms did when writing detective fiction under the name Hake Talbot. This use of real name and pen name is not usually done to hide the author's identity but to ensure the books end up on different shelves in the bookstore. That he didn't do this suggests that The Expert at the Card Table was the only book he wrote.

Marty

[Jack Shalom]

I'd be curious if Chris has any other examples of this happening. It would strengthen his case if he could show that this was not just an ad hoc kind of justification.

[Bill Mullins]

Just curious if there are any extant examples of this supposed swindle that anyone has found;in other words, an author's name, which when reversed gives an apparently legitimate name, but is in fact still a pseudonym for the real author. I'm looking at you, Bill Mullins...

In every example of a reverse-spelled real person's name being used as a pseudonym that I can recall, it's the actual author's name that's being reversed.

Wasshuber says "we do not know if this information comes from Frederick Drake or his son." But if we examine Vernon's account (Genii Aug 1970), he quotes Sprong referring to Drake as "the old man". When Drake (father) died in 1912, he was 47. His sons were much younger (Logan, age 20; Frederick Jr., 19; Stafford, 16; and Robert, 6). None of the sons were old enough for "old man" to make sense, regardless of whether Sprong meant it literally, referring to Drake's actual age, or (more likely) figuatively, referring to the senior Drake's status as patriarch of the family.

It would strengthen his case if he could show that this was not just an ad hoc kind of justification.

A statement that could be applied to so much of what he claims . . .

[Dustin Stinett]

A statement that could be applied to so much of what he claims . . .

"An expression that can mean anything means nothing."
~Michael Crichton

[crandash]

Just really a wonderful thread! The Sanders Timeline from the website link from Mr. Bob Coyne is fantastic and it reminds me of all the rabbit holes I had gone down over the years trying to find anything clear or definitive to tie Houdini to a specific location he may have visited in Montana and maybe could tie in a Sanders connection or link to the Colour Change and I just could never pin down, that he (Houdini) was ever here in Montana. And I found it odd as Houdini writes a semi-fictional tale about undermining a seance in Montana in the story "The Hoax of the Spirit Lover" (c. 1924 from the periodical Weird Tales). And Margery, the medium he most disliked, was in Butte-perhaps the story connection?

This find I had not clearly remembered if anyone had mentioned it previously or knew about it. In October of 2004 there is a Bibliographies directory under Swann's Magic Catalog of Houdini's Diary and Date Book from 1897-1898 and there is mention of Houdini's show in Butte being cancelled and Bess being upset about it. ....(16 July 1898); "Received a Cancle [i.e. cancel] from Butte on Short notice, shattered all my air castles & spoiled 20 weeks work."

I often wondered if Houdini had not received that cancel from Butte from July of 1898 how this search for Erdnase would have evolved.

Anyways, I enjoy reading all of these posts.

[Richard Evans]

An interesting item just sold on eBay. Erdnase clearly 'borrowed' from other authors. One of the most intriguing possible sources is a rare booklet 'The 52 Wonders' by C.H. Wilson, published in San Francisco in 1877. I believe only 2 copies are known to exist, one of which was discovered by Tyler Wilson in Stanford University’s Cecil H. Green Library. The book includes descriptions of what the author calls the ‘Long pass’ and the ‘Short pass’, which are identical to Erdnase’s ‘Longitudinal Shift’ and ‘Open Shift’, but published more than 25 years before TEATCT.

Who was C.H. Wilson, the author of The 52 Wonders? I don't think that's known for sure. However, there was a magician with the same name active in Massachusetts at the turn of the century. This was 'Prof' Charles H. Wilson. A 4-page promotional brochure of Wilson's just sold for over $200 on eBay: link here while it lasts (eBay item #364832632359).

Could he have been the author of The 52 Wonders? The price realised for the brochure suggests there was some interest in the potential connection with TEATCT.

There are a few sources online to Prof C. H. Wilson, including this one in the Lawrence American and Andover Advertiser from 1903 (page 5, towards the bottom of column 2). At this stage in his career, it seems he was doing a fairly conventional show - no mention of cards at all. Does anyone know anything else about Prof Charles Wilson and his career?

The 52 Wonders was reproduced in Gibecière, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter 2015), with an excellent essay by Tyler Wilson - well worth a read.

[Brad Jeffers]

HERE is the Stanford University copy of The 52 Wonders ...

[Jack Shalom]

Great find, Brad.

I always thought that Expert's claim to fame is that it was the first American card trick book that really went into detail about teaching card sleights. But this 52 Wonders seems to be quite detailed too (though no illustrations).

[PressureFan]

It takes some brass for Erdnase to make this claim; "The Longitudinal Shift.— This shift, for which we have
to thank no one,".

[Chris Aguilar]

No amount of "Gee it just makes sense! Occams razor! Other people did it! blah blah " is going to convince me that the whole reversed name "clue" is something that should be taken as an article of faith.

[Jim Martin]

Thanks for the '52 Wonders' link, Brad!