lybrary wrote:Bill, I have earlier on this thread explained in detail how I approach the Smith recollections. I don't pick and choose what fits Gallaway. I am using what has been learned from studying the mind when it comes to remembering things.
Yet all of the things you have confidence in support Gallaway, and all of the things you disbelieve and re-suppose with your own "facts" (he was bald as a younger man? he really remembered a different artist, one named Gallaway? that Smith's estimate of his height was too tall, and not too short?) also support Gallaway. What an amazing
Back then it was unusual to pay by check, particularly in personal transactions.
Checking accounts were quite common
in 1902; especially for business/professional transactions, which is what this was (not a personal transaction).
Or the place where he met, SE corner of State and Congress, because there indeed was a hotel at that very location at that time.
There was no hotel at the SE corner of State and Congress in 1902. The building which stood there was the Siegel-Cooper
bldg, which held a saloon, stores and offices. This was worked out in some detail here on the forum in Sep 2015.
Why should I expect that he is spot on with his age estimate, particularly if we have a reason to believe why his estimate could be significantly off?
He was 29, and thought the author was 40 - 45. He thought the author was 10 or more years older than he was. You suggest that the author was 33, only 4 years older. We don't have to assume that Smith was "spot on" to think he could recognize the difference in age between someone who was significantly older than he was, to someone who was only a little older than he was.
I presume you are referring to baldness as the "reason to believe his estimate could be significantly off". There is no evidence that Gallaway was bald in 1902. The fact that he was so 22 years later does not mean he was bald as a younger man. (Do you have evidence to suggest that most 55 yr old men who are bald were bald at 33? I'm 55, and most of my friends who are my age and are bald were not bald 22 years ago.) In fact, there is reason to believe otherwise -- Smith's description. Gardner's notes say "blondish," not "baldish". If you are describing a man whom you believe to be 40 or so, and that man is bald except for blonde wisps, your description would focus on the baldness, not the color. His description was hair color, so Erdnase's head was hairy.
First, Smith himself admits he is not good with names.
He is being apologetic here for not remembering who the photographer was at the 1947 SAM convention (Irving Desfor?) -- not in reference to Dalrymple (about whose name he expressed no doubts). But in fact, he was good with names. He remembered, in the 8/21/51 letter, that it was Waldo Logan
who did the card stab at that convention.
Many people have difficulties remembering names. A name is an abstract piece of information and can therefore be easily replaced in your mind with another name and you wouldn't even know it, just like the eyewitness of the Unabomber thought she saw a completely different man 10 years later. But I am not simply saying Smith's Dalyrmple recollection is wrong. I have good information that suggests he could very well be wrong,
The mere existence of another artist with another name does not "suggest" that Smith was wrong when he remembered Dalrymple.
because there was another satirical illustrator who worked for Puck and other such magazines, right around the time when it matters (1901), whose name was the same uncommon name than the person I claim is Erdnase. So I have in the case of Gallaway solid evidence that provides an alternative explanation for that comment. If there wouldn't be Walter Gallaway the illustrator that works for Puck, then I agree, there wouldn't be any particularly good reason to assume Smith could have mis-remembered it.
Assume for the moment that this line of thought is correct. E. Gallaway mentioned W. Gallaway, and some how Smith misremembered. What did E. Gallaway say? "I'm related to W. Gallaway." You think he'd have made this statement without also mentioning "we share the same last name"? If he'd said that, then Smith would have also remembered that the author's name was Gallaway. It would have all been reinforced by the check -- which also would have been signed "Gallaway".
You say Smith remembered Dalrymple because they were both artists. W. Gallaway was also an artist; that being the case, Smith would have been just as likely to have remembered that name if it were in fact the name that Erdnase reported; even more so, since it would have been reinforced by the check.
When you compare the two possibilities [(Erdnase said Gallaway, Erdnase was Gallaway, Smith misremembered Dalrymple) vs. (Erdnase said Dalrymple, Erdnase was not Gallaway, Smith remembered Dalrymple)] only the latter makes sense if you are using it to determine something about the author. The former just isn't as likely.
It is therefore definitely possible that the name Dalrymple replaced Gallaway after 45 years of not thinking about it.
But "possible" isn't "likely". If what Smith remembered was that Erdnase said he was related to Dalrymple, then the most likely thing to have happened was that Erdnase was related to Dalrymple.