ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 21st, 2007, 6:59 pm

No disrespect, but I think you're in the wrong thread for the kind of details you're looking for, you'd be better posting in the "Workers" over on the Magic Cafe, a forum that's crawling with guys who fret over every card move ever published.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 21st, 2007, 8:52 pm

Regarding Judson Cameron's CHEATING AT BRIDGE (1933) and Erdnase (1902), Jeff Busby in the chapter "Bookmen, Pirates and Ghosts" of THE MAN WHO WAS ERDNASE (1991) wrote (p. 358): "A close examination reveals the astonishing fact that much was lifted by Cameron from THE EXPERT. It is not simply technique re-explained, but true plagiarism of the original text..." Although he cites but one example, Busby clearly was way ahead of the curve on this information. He discusses several other much earlier "derivative" works, perhaps the most interesting being F. R. Ritter's 1905 COMBINED TREATISE ON ADVANTAGE PLAYING AND DRAW POKER, illustrated with photos, which was apparently the volume that Vernon's father showed him, which Vernon later misrecalled as having been Erdnase (Busby does not make this claim, however).

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 22nd, 2007, 12:50 am

Thanks, Mr. silverking. I will try.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 22nd, 2007, 1:38 am

Oleg Stepanov wrote:

On LEGERDEMAIN section, on chapter SHIFTS and paragraph "The S.W.E. Shift" we can read:

"With the deck face up it makes an instantaneous "transformation," and the position of the deck permits the operator to get a glimpse of the index without being observed."

Please, what it means? I understand first part. I understand second part. But I do not understand ",". If parts connected should be "glimpse with the deck face up". Or second part should be like "and, when the deck still face down, the position of the deck permits the operator to get a glimpse of the index without being observed."

On same place but "The Longitudinal Shift":

Now the deck is ready for the shift, but the right hand may be withdrawn without disclosing the break at the inner corner, or the fact that the little finger runs between the packets. The left thumb and finger hold the packets firmly together and the deck could not have a more innocent appearance.

Which "finger" means on second sentence? Little finger from first sentence or this is just typo and should be "fingers"? For me this is important because on my language "little finger" only one word and this is not finger (like thumb on English).

-----------

I don't know whether this is the right place for technical details, and I can't help with the question about Trewey, but here are my thoughts on the previous questions:

Re the S.W.E. Shift:
It's not very explicit, but I think he might be saying that if you do the shift with the deck face up as a transformation, the position of the deck allows you to glimpse the index of a card in the middle of the deck and choose one that contrasts with the card on the face. You can therefore avoid changing (for example) the 8 of Hearts to the 8 of Diamonds, which is not very impressive.

Re the Longitudinal Shift:
I think you are right that it should be "fingers" in the plural, because the deck is held closed by the left second, third and little fingers. In the description of the S.W.E. Shift he says:

"This position, like that of the "Longitudinal" [Shift], allows the second, third and little fingers to appear over the top of the deck (...) the other fingers and thumb holding the packet firmly together."

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 22nd, 2007, 5:36 am

>>>Re: the S.W.E. Shift:
>>>It's not very explicit, but I think he might be saying that if you do the shift with the deck face up as a transformation, the position of the deck allows you to glimpse the index of a card in the middle of the deck and choose one that contrasts with the card on the face. You can therefore avoid changing (for example) the 8 of Hearts to the 8 of Diamonds, which is not very impressive.

Ops. Thanks. After reading this I can not understand what I suppose before. :-)

>>>Re: the Longitudinal Shift:
>>>I think you are right that it should be "fingers" in the plural, because the deck is held closed by the left second, third and little fingers. In the description of the S.W.E. Shift he says:
>>>"This position, like that of the "Longitudinal" [Shift], allows the second, third and little fingers to appear over the top of the deck (...) the other fingers and thumb holding the packet firmly together."

Thants too. Not important is this correct or not, important "it can be correct". I am Russian and after reading Hoffmann, Vernon and Ortiz, when I get something supposed like error I always think "It can not be true that I am most clever man in the World and find errors what not find famous specialists". But if somebody who know language better than me agreed "can be not correct" my stress is out.

Thanks again. I have more questions but I afraid here not correct place. I will try find another.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 22nd, 2007, 11:45 am

Oleg -- even though I'm not able to answer your questions, I enjoy reading them and the discussion they generate. Please continue to participate in the Genii Forum.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 22nd, 2007, 2:28 pm

Dear Mr. Bill Mullins.
Probably this is misunderstanding. I do not want left Genii Forum. I means just, looks like this thread about history and I should ask my questions on another places like History or Close-up...

OK. More errors (or not errors).

Page 66
Then when the right hand has made the next downward motion, instead of drawing off the TOP card with the left thumb...

Am I correct here should be FIRST card, like it calls on TECHNICAL TERMS? So, can it be technical error? Looks like Erdnase confuse on terms what invent.

Page 51
...then as the extra cut is made a convex crimp can be put in the under part by pressing it quickly downwards with right thumb against the table edge as it is drawn out. The ally cuts by the ENDS.

But on THE PLAYER WITHOUT AN ALLY we can read "concave if the player cuts by the ends, and convex if at the sides." So, should here be SIDES?

There are a lot of things what can be calls like typos. Is it interesting too?

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 23rd, 2007, 3:38 am

Although this thread is mostly about historical aspects of Erdnase, I think technical questions are OK too, unless the moderators prefer to have them as separate threads.

Page 66
Then when the right hand has made the next downward motion, instead of drawing off the TOP card with the left thumb...
This does look like a minor inconsistency - as you say, according to his list of technical terms it should be "first card".

Page 51
...then as the extra cut is made a convex crimp can be put in the under part by pressing it quickly downwards with right thumb against the table edge as it is drawn out. The ally cuts by the ENDS.

But on THE PLAYER WITHOUT AN ALLY we can read "concave if the player cuts by the ends, and convex if at the sides." So, should here be SIDES?

I think this is OK. On page 113 (The Player without an Ally) he says "the two packets may be crimped in opposite directions". Depending on whether the other player normally cuts at the ends or at the sides, you have to crimp the two packets accordingly.

In the description on page 51 you start with the whole deck "concaved", so when you cut and make a convex crimp (i.e. in the opposite direction) in the "under part" and then place it on top there will be a gap at the ends of the deck, not at the sides. So the ally can cut by the ends.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 23rd, 2007, 3:22 pm

For all who want to dig deeper into the plagiarism analysis of "Cheating at Bridge" and Erdnase, I have now a digital version (PDF) of Cheating at Bridge available for sale at $5.

Happy plagiarism hunting.

Best,
Chris....
www.lybrary.com
preserving magic one book at a time

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 25th, 2007, 9:02 am

My suggestion that Stepanov might want to check out the Cafe "Workers" forum to get some answers to his Erdnase card handling questions has nothing to do with not wanting to talk about it in this thread.
His questions are highly technical, and the answers he was getting here weren't......if he got any answers at all.
I made the presumption that he wanted answers to his questions from those who might know.

A quick trip over to the Cafe "Workers" will show you that Stepanov is currently engaging with the likes of Hideo Kato and others.

Personally, I read the 'Workers' forum far more often than I read this Erdnase thread, so I'll actually be enjoying much MORE of Stepanov's thoughts than I otherwise would have if he'd kept asking for input only here.
Peace.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 25th, 2007, 11:49 am

>>>>I think this is OK. On page 113 (The Player without an Ally) he says "the two packets may be crimped in opposite directions". Depending on whether the other player normally cuts at the ends or at the sides, you have to crimp the two packets accordingly.
>>>>>In the description on page 51 you start with the whole deck "concaved", so when you cut and make a convex crimp (i.e. in the opposite direction) in the "under part" and then place it on top there will be a gap at the ends of the deck, not at the sides. So the ally can cut by the ends.

I am so apologize. Unfortunatelly I should do not agree with you. Erdnase clearly wrote FULL PROCEDURE "By drawing the deck to the edge of the table the concave tendency can be put in the whole deck first..."

And I suppose "opposite directions" was only regress. So, normal do only one, but if you so ... you can do with both...

Here I come to very much difficult question. Who was Erdnase, how he wrote book, how peoples write books... I made big books and short articles. This is big difference. Big books - high level of links... And this is so difficult to do correct. If you made revolutionary book (like Expert) you should refuse previous ideas. And this is not easy too.

Did Erdnase know bridge? Sure. Why he did not wrote? It was "antiquated moss-covered ruses as well known as nursery rhymes". Can we read "between lines"? What Erdnase "miss" wrote about crimp? Probably - yes.(Apologize for Russian supposition :-)))):
1. Many years ago it was popular across crimp, but now all peoples know it so much that modern expert do not use it. Better bend cards along.
2. If you do crimp for both packs will be easy to see top (blink of sun or lamp), so modern expert do not use it and made bent only bottom part.
Not important is it correct or not (Tuilage was known on 1764), but author mean it when write about crimp. This is inside of book. He "should" be revolutioner ...
But, to be revolutioner not easy, because peoples can say - you just do not know truth what was written on previous books... And unfortunately peoples "made weak" - "the two packets may be crimped in opposite directions".

I am so apologize. May be this is not correct. It was difficult write here so big mesage. But I suppose this is not only technical problem. For example - sleight and slight. What difference between "two authors" and "two printers" (apologize, I do not know how call man who made plates by reading handwritten text). Two different authors use different vocabulary (different words, different forms) but two printers can not write "pack" where written "deck", but they can made different errors if different literacy. "Slight" not only on "LEGERDEMAIN" but last time appear on "CHANGES", so totaly - pages 125-150. It can be another man who made plates. Just supposition.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 27th, 2007, 12:36 am

I am so apologize. May be this is not interesting...

Multiple copyrights was not invented by Erdnase. I get book compiled by Albert A. Hopkins "Magic: Stage Illusions and Scientific Diversions Including Trick Photography" (1897) where 3 copyrights and additionally "All rights reserved".

Also, on magic were not only two "treatises" -"Madern Magic" and "Expert" but Henri Garenne on 1886 wrote "The Art of Modern Conjuring" which was "A Practical Treatise on the Art of Parlor and Stage Magic..."

Just for information.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 27th, 2007, 2:19 pm

If you are writing a revolutionary book, you don't necessarily reject everything that has gone before. For example, if you assume that all the gamblers had read The Secret Out or some other book that has standard sleights in it, you would be wrong. Erdnase's market was different than many of the previous books, although he did include the section on legerdemain. Perhaps he realized that magicians would look for a book on gambling and that he should include something they would find useful.

If you are writing a book that teaches you how to play a musical instrument, such as the flute, you don't leave out the fingering chart and the scales.

Also, nobody says that Erdnase invented multiple copyrights. And if you think that you have even scratched the surface of pre-Erdnase conjuring books, you are really mistaken. There are at least 1000 major titles that appeared before Erdnase.

Jason England
Posts: 285
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jason England » March 27th, 2007, 3:18 pm

Bill,

I think the Russian-English is hurting us a bit here.

I believe that he's referring to the fact that some have called the multiple copyrights in Erdnase "uncommon" for that era; he's not saying that Erdnase was the first.

He's just trying to show that perhaps they were more common that people have indicated.

Or I could be completely off here.

Jason

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » March 27th, 2007, 3:28 pm

>>>>Also, nobody says that Erdnase invented multiple copyrights.

Apologize. Looks like I was wrong. I just read peoples too much interesting on 3 copyrights. "Invented" was just language form.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » April 13th, 2007, 3:17 pm

Here's an interesting EATCT hardcover I've not seen before. Would this be something that a library did as a one off, or is this a published edition?
The owner (who we all know!) has had the book for 40 years...
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Expert-at-the-C ... dZViewItem

Jim Maloney_dup1
Posts: 1709
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » April 13th, 2007, 3:58 pm

Looks like it's a Fleming edition, without the dust jacket. Check out the photos here: http://www.erdnase.com/editions/index.html

-Jim

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » April 13th, 2007, 4:02 pm

Thank you for that Jim.
You can just see the blue covers where the dust jacket is worn away.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » April 30th, 2007, 12:10 am

On Stanyon's "Magic" I find first advertizing of Erdnase on December 1904 and book prise was 4/6. If I understand well it was pounds. How much it was on dollars than time? All three books of Hoffmann sold by same price.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » April 30th, 2007, 1:41 am

4/6 is actually 4 shillings and 6 pence - or about 22 1/2 pence in decimal currency.

this would equate to about a half dollar at current exchange rate.

Jon/Baph

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » April 30th, 2007, 3:07 am

Thanks.
I want Hoffmann on half dollsr. :-)

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 29th, 2007, 12:44 pm


David Alexander

Member # 1398

posted November 26, 2006 02:31 PM |

"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."
Hello David,

just a minor comment if you want to follow this thought: the German plural for Nase (=nose) is Nasen . They would call themselves Erde Nasen or Erd Nasen

Hope that helps.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 29th, 2007, 10:03 pm

I always considered this "Erdnase" = Earth-nose hypothesis a bit far fetched, but I recently did a google book search on "Erdnase" and several pre-1902 German references came up where it is used. Mostly obscure linguistic texts. I believe in one it was the German equivalent of the term for "pig" in a Japanese dialect...

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 12:00 am

Thank you, Thorsten. I hope to get to where I can do a bit more research into my candidates schooling as a mining engineer and I appreciate the correction on the term I should look for.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 12:58 am

Richard, I'd be interested to see some of those references if you have the time to post them. It seems far-fetched to me too, and too much of a coincidence on top of the highly plausible anagram explanation(s) of the name, but who knows...

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 3:32 am

I just did a search in Google Books and found a few references to "Erdnase" (probably the ones Richard mentioned). One is as a literal translation of a word in the Ainu language that apparently means "foothills" (= Vorgebirge), another is a literal translation of a slang term for "pig" in some other language ("Erdnase" or "Nase in Erde" = nose in the dirt), and another seems to be an actual German word meaning something like "mound (of earth)".

But even more interesting was this from a catalogue of works on spiritualism, magic and other related subjects:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FboZAA ... ase&pgis=1

Samuel W. Erdnase / pseud. Robert Samuel ??? Is this just a red herring, or did the catalogue author know something we don't?

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 6:40 am

Edwin, that apparent error dates back to a listing by Frederick J. Drake in the UNITED STATES CATALOG: BOOKS IN AMERICA, interim edition of 1902-1905. This is basically a collection of publisher's catalogs. Drake's of 1904 advertised the book under this name, though the book was never published under that name nor did the edition advertised by Drake (45 illustrations rather than 101, 204 pages rather than 205) ever appear. At least, no known copies survive and the earliest known Drake imprint dates from 1905. Did Drake know something others did not? More likely it was, like the other bibliographic information in the entry, simply an error, one which has been propogated by subsequent catalogers. But who knows? Another mystery...

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 7:53 am

I had a feeling someone might have come across that before. And there I was thinking we'd solved the mystery...

Here's something I found about the second edition of Erdnase - but you probably knew about that too:

http://www.surnateum.org/English/surnat ... sances.htm

Search for the word "Erdnase" (near the bottom of the page).

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 9:20 am

Having just searched the british Library - they have a copy as well. here's the listing

System number 001157102
Author ERDNASE, Samuel Robert.
Title Artifice, ruse and subterfuge at the card table. A treatise on the science and art of manipulating cards, etc.
Publisher/year Chicago: Frederick J. Drake & Co., [1902].
Physical descr. pp. 178; illus. 16 cm.
General note Cover title: The expert at the card table.

Shelfmark X.619/6510.

Their X. stacks are usually firsts and rare. When I get it to read, Anyone want me to make a copy<G>

Jon

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 9:28 am

Some folks in another Genii thread talking about the recent release of Erdnase DVD's wonder if it belittles Erdnase to question if, in fact, he himself could do ALL of the material he wrote about in the book flawlessly.

I don't believe the question belittles Erdnase at all.

That it COULD all be done flawlessly has been shown by the likes of Vernon and Freeman (although seen only briefly on video, likely far more often if you lived in LA and were a Castle regular while Vernon was holding court).....but I think it's certainly fair to wonder if Erdnase himself could do it all.

I've pondered the question since picking up the book over 30 years ago and determining just how difficult it would be to do every move in the book flawlessly.

If Erdnase was a die-hard fan or practitioner of both cheating and/or card magic, I don't believe it's a stretch to wonder if he may have had a great deal more knowledge than he did actual skills (I'm not saying he did, only that it wouldn't be a stretch).
I find many magi and card handlers even today usually KNOW far more about card handling than they can actually perform flawlessly....myself included.

I personally have always thought of Erdnase as highly skilled based on how he wrote and what he said in 'Expert', but also thought that doesn't require that he be able to do every single move he writes about 'under the gun'.

I wonder what others think or would care to postulate about Erdnase's actual card handling ability based on what we know to date?

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2007, 9:42 am

A number of listings of Erdnase are incorrect as Drake was not the original 1902 publisher. The author was.

That the author could explain his sleights clearly is not evidence that he could perform them all flawlessly throughout his life. The book clearly is something that was worked up over a period of years. What seems more likely is that he worked up something, developed a high degree of competence to the point that he fully understood what he was doing, wrote it up, took pictures from which the drawings were made, and then moved on. There is subtle evidence that the reference photographs were taken at different times. Some things he doubtless was more facile with than others, some things he kept fresh and others, not.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 1st, 2007, 5:58 pm

I wanted to take advantage of this forum to discuss the "SWE Shift". I have just finished the Artifice section, and starting the legerdmain section, but i was having trouble thinking of a covering action for the "SW Shift", during a poker game, becuase i know of one magician who blows on the deck, or waves over the deck while doing the shift, but during a poker game those actions cannot be done. So i just ordered Wesley James' 7 DVD and Book Set which is on its way.

If anyone has any tips on the covering motion, or on the shift itself, it would be apreciated!

-John

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 1st, 2007, 6:49 pm

Welcome to the forum, John!

Because of the nature of this thread and the fact that it has become a real jewel of internet interaction, you may find that the moderators ask that you start a new thread on this technical question (perhaps in the "Close-Up Magic" section).

All the best,

Clay Shevlin

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 1st, 2007, 7:18 pm

I have just finished the Artifice section, and starting the legerdmain section, but i was having trouble thinking of a covering action for the "SW Shift", during a poker game
Which is why the shift is not IN the section on Card Table Artifice. It's not meant to be used as a hop. It was designed for card tricks.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 4th, 2007, 12:59 am

Do we know Erdnase was an American? Could explain why finding Andrews is so tough.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 4th, 2007, 2:08 am

would erdnase have been as a great and treasured book if we knew who he was? i personally dont think it's one of the greatest books written on cards, it might have been good for that generation, but i wouldnt recomend it for todays card learners.

im sure if we knew who he was, the book would be pretty much unknown.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 4th, 2007, 7:43 am

Steve, the author gives his nationality as "American" on the first page of the copyright registration form. That, combined with the language, the fact that it was self published in Chicago, and the fact that the illustrator did not recall any signs of a foreign accent (and believed the author was from the East coast) make it extremely likely that he was a citizen of the United States.

Brian, I don't understand your statement at all. Most people thought the book was written by "S. W. Erdnase" and were unaware that there even was an identity issue. Vernon's proselytizing for the book was based on its content, not its mystique.

Jim Morton
Posts: 178
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jim Morton » June 4th, 2007, 9:14 am

would erdnase have been as a great and treasured book if we knew who he was? i personally dont think it's one of the greatest books written on cards, it might have been good for that generation, but i wouldnt recomend it for todays card learners.

im sure if we knew who he was, the book would be pretty much unknown.
This seems like a good time to quote Aaron Fisher--one of today's "card learners"--on the subject:

"Erdase is my favorite book. It's the book that trained me, with some help from an older magician or two, in the craft of card magic. For my money, there is no better manual to learn the craft of serious sleight of hand with cards."

'Nuff said.

Jim

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 4th, 2007, 9:32 am

Anyone doing any of the magic from that book? I mean besides Ricky Jay's use of the patter from the Exclusive Coterie for a version of Hofzinser's Power of Belief.

Guest

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Guest » June 4th, 2007, 10:05 am

Hi everybody:

This thread is absolutely fascinating. Having read all the ideas and theories put forth, I would like to add one little thing.

I have translated Erdnase into Danish (the book is to be published in my language, too, and Richard (Hatch), I have NOT forgotten my promise) and, considering how poor the illustrations in the book are, due to the many reprints from other reprints, I decided to make new drawings.

Since I am no artist, the following is the method I use: I have somebody take photos (colour slides) while I am posing for the shooting. Using a projector, I use a piece of paper as a screen, trace the hands and cards with a pencil, re-trace it with an inkpen, scan it into my computer and place it at the appropriate place in the text.

One thing has surprised me: Several times, I found it impossible to hold my hands and the deck in such a way that the photo (slide) could show the exact position as depicted in the book. In other words, the slide couldn't be super-imposed on the book's drawing in such a way that they register.

My idea is that the artist "cheated" in order the better to show his points.

I am perfectly willing to admit that another possibility could be that my photographer is a poor one. Perhaps others will try out the above, and we may get to know for sure whether the illustrator - whomever he might be - acually used photos. If nobody can superimpose the slide of a drawing and the drawing itself exactly, photos will be out of the question.

Thank you for sharing,
David

Jonathan: I use The Exclusive Coterie all the time - except for the patter. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest card tricks ever, clean, direct, and truly amazing. I have added a few touches of my own but the modus operandi remains the same.


Return to “General”