ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 9th, 2018, 3:51 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Chris, this is really nothing but wild speculation on your part! You state, as if it's a fact, that the drawings were produced from photographs that were "flipped" (the accurate term is "flopped") and that's why the indices are not standardized.

How do you make this stuff up?
Details are in my ebook and in my upcoming newsletter. For example, you will remember that illustrations 99 and 100 are drawn with a left hand while the text refers to a right hand. This is another error that can easily happen in that transition from left to right. I believe they forgot to flop these two illustrations. Roterberg teaches it with the right hand.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24883
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 9th, 2018, 4:01 pm

You are creating a false construct based on what are far more likely to have been simple errors.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 9th, 2018, 4:16 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:You are creating a false construct based on what are far more likely to have been simple errors.
Two groups of errors both explainable by one decision to change from left- to right-handed. That is much more evidence than the complex anagram theory by David Alexander on which his entire Sanders case is built. There is zero evidence that Erdnase used anagrams.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 9th, 2018, 4:20 pm

I think it very likely that Smith's drawings were traced from photographs. But only the 29 or 30 that are truly his. The others appear to be modifications of his originals (the reconfiguration of the hands by another "artist"), and some absolutely wretched sketches done by "the amateur" himself.

Now, figure 37, which Bill cites above, is one of those I attribute to Smith. It might be that the delineation of the wrinkles and creases of the hands (indicating the length of the joints) Is slightly inaccurate, as these were probably added after the general outline of the hand was traced. Though this would affect the measurement of the joints, it is not likely to skew the overall dimensions of the hand (length, width, etc.).

As for the illustration of the cards--I believe that Smith probably drew them after he did the hands, and might not have bothered to depict them exactly as they were modeled.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 9th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:Look at the joint lengths in Fig 37.

Image
The right-hand proximal phalange is 40% longer than the one on the left hand. This is accurate drawing?
How do you know that the left-hand proximal phalange isn't inclined towards the viewing plane? This would reduce its length. When you get your hand in this position you will see that this part of the pinky is not planar to the viewing plane. Keep in mind that we do see the backs of the cards, which means we are viewing this from an angle from the top and not head on from the side. I am not an illustrator, but such obvious effects of how a part of a finger is oriented which leads to an apparent length reduction should be obvious.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 9th, 2018, 5:08 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:-In Fig 16, the left edge of the table would be parallel to the left edge of the tabled portion of the deck, since the deck and table are on parallel planes, and their front edges are parallel.
Another error by Bill who doesn't understand perspective. If I remember this correctly then Tom Sawyer has pointed this out before on his blog. Illustration 16 is NOT incorrect. If the center of the camera is in line with the left edge of the table and the viewing direction is along that left edge of the table, that left edge of the table will come out perfectly perpendicular to the front edge, which runs parallel to the camera. But the somewhat to the right positioned deck of cards would show exactly the left and right edges running at an angle (not parallel) to the left table edge. I don't have the time to set up a camera, but I remember Tom had a photo that proved that this is a correct perspective. Which is yet another proof that these were traced from photos, because I agree, that the lines look at first sight wrong. But they aren't.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Jackpot
Posts: 178
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jackpot » April 9th, 2018, 6:06 pm

lybrary wrote:There is zero evidence that Erdnase used anagrams.


Erdnase not only used anagrams he was an anagram.

And clever he was, too. Erdnase is an anagram for "arse end". I think we must be looking for someone who is British by birth and comes from a very remote location. To be specific [the arse end of nowhere
Not the one who created the Potter Index.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 9th, 2018, 7:09 pm

Forgive me if this next question has already been addressed, but I would like to know how the advocates of Sanders explain the apparent use of more than one "artist". Do they deny the suggestion, or do they have some clever theory?

If Sanders had plenty of money, it makes no sense for him to have paid for thirty drawings and then laboured to do the rest himself. Perhaps he called upon an old school chum to help him.

I think the obvious conclusion is that the author or "publisher" could not afford more, and had little choice but to finish the job as best he could, re-working Smith's sketches, tilting the hands at different angles to make them seem novel, putting different cards in them to illustrate various techniques, etc.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5102
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 10th, 2018, 12:55 am

lybrary wrote:How do you know that the left-hand proximal phalange isn't inclined towards the viewing plane?


Thanks, Chris, for making my point for me. We don't know in either this illustration, or in Fig 79, whether the part being measured is in the plane of the drawing or not. So it is impossible to make accurate measurements. I'm glad you understand this now.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 10:46 am

Bill Mullins wrote:
lybrary wrote:How do you know that the left-hand proximal phalange isn't inclined towards the viewing plane?


Thanks, Chris, for making my point for me. We don't know in either this illustration, or in Fig 79, whether the part being measured is in the plane of the drawing or not. So it is impossible to make accurate measurements. I'm glad you understand this now.
In figure 37 one part of the pinky you measured is certainly not in plane invalidating your claim that the drawing is not correct. In figure 79, which I use, the hand is sufficiently in-plane that a measurement can be taken. A few degrees of tilt and a possibly somewhat bent hand does not mean we can't use this illustration for an estimate. As I have shown, you can add 13 mm (almost 8%) to my measurement of the length of the hand and still get to 5'4" as the center of the distribution from empirical data Bob has posted. Despite variations and noise, illustration 79 allows one to take an estimate of the hand size of Erdnase, and thus allows an estimate of his stature. This is a completely reasonable and rational evaluation of the evidence we have. The fact that it matches what Smith told us about Erdnase's stature makes it that much more compelling. It is more solid evidence than many other things that have been discussed on this thread.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 10th, 2018, 11:06 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:I think it very likely that Smith's drawings were traced from photographs.


From The Gardner-Smith Correspondence, page 8 -
"10. Smith (who was about 25 then, he says) sketched his hands in pencil, then took them home to ink them in."

Somebody needs to do their homework!
Peter Zenner

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 10th, 2018, 11:19 am

Zenner wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I think it very likely that Smith's drawings were traced from photographs.


From The Gardner-Smith Correspondence, page 8 -
"10. Smith (who was about 25 then, he says) sketched his hands in pencil, then took them home to ink them in."

Somebody needs to do their homework!


It is entirely possible (within the context of the quote you provided), for Smith to have traced the outlines of the hands in pencil, and taken the sketches home to add the details. This is actually the way I had supposed it was done.

Are you unaware that my opinions support your candidate? While I do believe that Gallaway was instrumental in the publication of EATCT, I think Benedict is the most reasonable choice amongst the proposed authors.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 1:03 pm

Zenner wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I think it very likely that Smith's drawings were traced from photographs.


From The Gardner-Smith Correspondence, page 8 -
"10. Smith (who was about 25 then, he says) sketched his hands in pencil, then took them home to ink them in."

Somebody needs to do their homework!
Yes, and that would be you Peter. Here is what Gardner wrote about Smith:
"He recognized his lettering on the book pictures, but not the drawings themselves. He thinks it strange he can’t recall doing the drawings, which must have been big job, so probably did them from photographs."

Further to that, if you compare the lettering on the illustrations they all look similar, for all illustrations. This negates the multiple artist theory. Why would Smith number illustrations he didn't do?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 1:37 pm

Here is my theory about the illustrations and how they were done. In the Gardner-Smith notes we find this comment:
He recalls that Andrews had to O. K. each drawing before he did this.
With 'this' he meant inking in the drawings. I do think the vast majority of them were traced from photos. Once Smith had them traced in pencil Erdnase looked them over. At that point Erdnase may have requested that some be modified. Perhaps he was not happy with the position of some fingers. Maybe he wanted other changes. Smith would then modify the illustrations without the benefit of a photo. He would alter his pencil traces which may be the reason why some illustrations are better and some are worse. I can also imagine that Erdnase may have requested to add a few more illustrations which Smith would then have sketched from life without tracing a photo. Perhaps those are the ones jkeyes1000 has labeled 'from amateur'. Either way, once Erdnase was happy and the sequence/numbering was established, Smith inked them and numbered them. In other words, all were done by Smith. Most were purely traced from photos, some were traced and then modified, and a few were done without photos.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 10th, 2018, 1:43 pm

lybrary wrote:
Zenner wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I think it very likely that Smith's drawings were traced from photographs.


From The Gardner-Smith Correspondence, page 8 -
"10. Smith (who was about 25 then, he says) sketched his hands in pencil, then took them home to ink them in."

Somebody needs to do their homework!
Yes, and that would be you Peter. Here is what Gardner wrote about Smith:
"He recognized his lettering on the book pictures, but not the drawings themselves. He thinks it strange he can’t recall doing the drawings, which must have been big job, so probably did them from photographs."

Further to that, if you compare the lettering on the illustrations they all look similar, for all illustrations. This negates the multiple artist theory. Why would Smith number illustrations he didn't do?


All one need do to substantiate the multiple artist theory is to refer to figures 77, 78, 89, 90, 91 and 92.

These are hen-scratchings! They are positively not the work of a commercial illustrator, and there is no way that they were traced from photographs. The proportions and contortions were depicted with a free hand, and an untrained one at that.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 2:00 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:All one need do to substantiate the multiple artist theory is to refer to figures 77, 78, 89, 90, 91 and 92.

These are hen-scratchings! They are positively not the work of a commercial illustrator, and there is no way that they were traced from photographs. The proportions and contortions were depicted with a free hand, and an untrained one at that.
I don't agree, but then again I am not an illustrator. The only thing I would note that all these illustrations you listed require the hand to be in a particularly strained position, especially for a small hand. That means the fingers are in unusual positions. For example, I don't see what is so bad with illustration 77 or 91.

But we may get an interesting new set of data. Joe Crist just published his version of Expert, where each illustration was exchanged with a photo showing his hands. I have not yet seen the book, but my expectation is that the photos try to replicate the illustrations as closely as possible. One could then trace the photos for the illustrations you listed and compare.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5102
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 10th, 2018, 4:33 pm


Bill Mullins
Posts: 5102
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 10th, 2018, 4:36 pm

lybrary wrote:But we may get an interesting new set of data. Joe Crist just published his version of Expert, where each illustration was exchanged with a photo showing his hands.


David Ben has already gone down this road, with The Experts at the Card Table (photographs by Julie Eng.)

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 4:45 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
lybrary wrote: but then again I am not an illustrator.


From your ebook:
I am not an expert in poetry
I am not a print estimator,


Yet you expound on all these topics.
Because I take the time to talk and work with experts. I have consulted expert linguists, expert handwriting analysts, pro magicians, printers, experts in print history, experts in pre WWII print technology, professional historians in various fields, graphic artists, pro genealogists, countless English native speakers, and many more. If you would do the same you would learn a lot, like how perspective works.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5102
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 10th, 2018, 4:58 pm

lybrary wrote: Further to that, if you compare the lettering on the illustrations they all look similar, for all illustrations.


Eoin O'Hare has uploaded all the figures to a single page. Compare the "g" in Fig. 33 (big loop, small descender) to the "g" in Fig. 32 (small loop, big descender). Sometimes "Fig." has a period, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the descender in "g" is full (Fig. ), sometimes it is partial (Fig. 64). Sometimes the second digit of a figure number is larger, sometimes it isn't.
While drawing is hard, neat lettering is within the grasp of almost anyone. Instruction existed in Smith's time. He did sloppy work.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 10th, 2018, 5:15 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:Eoin O'Hare has uploaded all the figures to a single page. Compare the "g" in Fig. 33 (big loop, small descender) to the "g" in Fig. 32 (small loop, big descender). Sometimes "Fig." has a period, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the descender in "g" is full (Fig. ), sometimes it is partial (Fig. 64). Sometimes the second digit of a figure number is larger, sometimes it isn't.
While drawing is hard, neat lettering is within the grasp of almost anyone. Instruction existed in Smith's time. He did sloppy work.
It is one of your most silly points you have made in past months. Smith was an illustrator not a sign painter. The lettering looks nice and is as consistent as one would expect handwriting to be. He might have expected that the figure numbers would be typeset rather than left as they are and didn't pay particular attention to them.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 10th, 2018, 5:26 pm

Another problem with figure 79 is the proportions of the fingers. Why is the pinky so long?

The pinky in this illustration is almost as long as the other fingers and extends to the bottom of the nail on the ring finger. Normally, a pinky is roughly at the last joint on the ring finger. This is not a normal looking hand. The only other explanation I can think of is that the other fingers are bent, making them appear shorter than they are.

Either explanation is deadly for Chris's hand size calculations.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 10th, 2018, 5:41 pm

Here is the way I see it. First, the facts:

1)Smith says he doesn't remember making all the drawings.

2)He says he believes that he only made about thirty

3)He tells us that "Erdnase" was careful with his money

Now the observations:

A)By sheer coincidence, the illustrations that are well done (in my opinion) amount to no more than thirty

B)What can the phrase "careful with his money" (or words to that effect) possibly mean, if not "reluctant to pay for artwork that was not absolutely necessary"? Was Smith suggesting that the author was too stingy to provide coffee and doughnuts?

C)Some of the illustrations are so bad that it is impossible to believe that "Erdnase" (the miser) would have approved of them, let alone paid for them.

Inferences:

If Smith believed that he only sold about thirty drawings to "Erdnase"--yet he doesn't actually recall the amount of work--it is a fair assumption that he based this number on the money he received for it. I'm guessing that he got no more than $1.00 per sketch (does anyone know?), so he might have remembered a cheque for $30.

And it is clear that many of the "mediocre" drawings are re-configurations of Smith's work. Why--if these were also by Smith--are they markedly inferior? Why are the lines rougher (the sign of an amateur), and why are the proportions distorted in the re-makes?

Conclusion:

"Erdnase" could only afford (or was only willing) to pay for thirty drawings. He cleverly decided that he could use the thirty illustrations in various ways, that he could economise, by recycling Smith's figures in order to complete the book. In a few instances, the fingering was so unusual that he needed to draw his own illustrations. Which were crap, but at least he got it done and saved some cash!

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 10th, 2018, 6:40 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote: Are you unaware that my opinions support your candidate? While I do believe that Gallaway was instrumental in the publication of EATCT, I think Benedict is the most reasonable choice amongst the proposed authors.


Thankyou! I was unaware - I thought that you supported the Benedict theory for a while but then I got the impression that you had strayed off. :-)

Gallaway may have had something to do with the setting up of the type, or whatever, but I think that Chris has wasted a lot of time and expense in his quest to prove that he wrote the book or was even capable of doing so. The only thing that he did which has proved to be beneficial is the tracking down of - and making available - the McKinney files. Spotting E.D. Benedict in there was well worth my $15.00!
Peter Zenner

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1870
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leonard Hevia » April 10th, 2018, 8:42 pm

lybrary wrote:Despite variations and noise, illustration 79 allows one to take an estimate of the hand size of Erdnase, and thus allows an estimate of his stature. This is a completely reasonable and rational evaluation of the evidence we have. The fact that it matches what Smith told us about Erdnase's stature makes it that much more compelling. It is more solid evidence than many other things that have been discussed on this thread.


Your calculations based on illustration 79 is solid evidence?

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 10th, 2018, 11:05 pm

The hands in Fig 11 are enormous. I'd say based on those, Erdnase must have been at least 6'4" !!

But seriously, there are so many anomalies and inconsistencies in these illustrations (hand sizes, finger lengths, card widths, etc) that it's impossible to infer anything about the actual hands being depicted, much less Erdnase's height. And claiming to know his height with any precision based on these illustrations is absolutely absurd.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 11th, 2018, 12:11 am

Leonard Hevia wrote:I found some words written by Sanders from the reunion book that match:

1. with UNWHISPERED request
2. humour would FLASH and beam in him as FLASH the lightnings

I noticed something very interesting about FLASH. Erdnase uses the word six times to describe the speed of certain sleights being performed; and in three of those he mentions the absence of sound. In one case, however, he refers to particular sound, a "snap and crack", clearly of lightning.

Erdnase: The shift can be MADE LIKE A FLASH, and with the cards in perfect order. When executed perfectly, the ONLY SOUND is the slipping of one packet over the other. There is NO SNAP OR CRACK, and it is in every way worthy of the practice necessary to acquire it.

Significantly, when Sanders uses the term FLASH, he mentions lightning explicitly and even invokes the way lightning forms on a warm midsummer day. The metaphorical FLASH has become literal.

Sanders: enjoyed the added WARMTH UPON A MIDSUMMER DAY, ... mirth and humor would FLASH and beam in him as FLASH the LIGHTNINGS of his beloved Physics.

It could be argued that the sound of a shift is as important an aspect as the speed. While this is true, it would be unusual to characterize the sound as a snap and crack independently of the flash of lightning metaphor. In both texts, the author used the term figuratively but tied it to its literal roots.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 11th, 2018, 8:26 am

Lets compare some statements made here on this thread about Smith's drawings:

1) The opinion of Bob Coyne, who as far as we can tell, has not produced a single illustration for a magic book:
Bob Coyne wrote:But seriously, there are so many anomalies and inconsistencies in these illustrations (hand sizes, finger lengths, card widths, etc) that it's impossible to infer anything about the actual hands being depicted, much less Erdnase's height.

2) The opinion of Bill Mullins, who as far as we can tell, has not produced a single illustration for a magic book. He has also proven to us that he doesn't understand perspective:
Bill Mullins wrote:dimensions aren't consistent ... This is accurate drawing? ... These are accurate drawings? ... He did sloppy work.
In other words, both Bob and Bill consider the drawings not correctly proportioned, badly and sloppily done.

3) The opinion of Richard Kaufman who has done several thousand of illustrations for magic books:
Richard Kaufman wrote:These illustrations could not have been sketched from life. It seems impossible to me that this degree of anatomical accuracy could have reproduced from quick sketches made from looking at Erdnase's hands. My own experience forces me to assume that they have been traced from photographs.
I wonder, who is more credible?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4000
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 11th, 2018, 8:31 am

who is more credible?

the person not engaging in basic logical fallacies

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 11th, 2018, 8:46 am

Brad Henderson wrote:who is more credible?

the person not engaging in basic logical fallacies

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I hope that next time you need surgery that the guy or gal operating on you is not a medical doctor, not an expert, because you certainly do not want to fall prey to basic logical fallacies.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 11th, 2018, 9:14 am

Richard's statement, as quoted above, is true of some of the illustrations. But I wonder whether he would positively assert that all of the drawings seem to be equally well proportioned.

Figures 77, 78, 89 and 90 are the worst in the book. In my opinion, they are clearly free-hand sketches, and are certainly not up to Smith's standards.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4000
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 11th, 2018, 9:19 am

lybrary wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:who is more credible?

the person not engaging in basic logical fallacies

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I hope that next time you need surgery that the guy or gal operating on you is not a medical doctor, not an expert, because you certainly do not want to fall prey to basic logical fallacies.


so are you ignorant of the fallacy in which you engage or just deflecting now?

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 11th, 2018, 9:52 am

lybrary wrote:I hope that next time you need surgery that the guy or gal operating on you is not a medical doctor, not an expert, because you certainly do not want to fall prey to basic logical fallacies.


You're compounding your illogic. There are at least three separate issues involved:

1) whether the hands are consistently drawn and with normal proportions and dimensions. i.e. Do they look real. This requires primarily that one be a normal human who can navigate through the world and reflect on what they see. If you can recognize one face from another or can identify a person from the idiosyncratic way they walk, then you're sensitive to proportions and dimensions. The inconsistent and poor quality of the majority of these illustrations has been commented on by many people over many years. Some of them look absolutely freakishly wrong. Noticing that is completely different than being able to draw hands accurately.

2) whether there is enough accuracy in all the steps and sources in your inferential pipeline to draw conclusions about Erdnase's height. This requires the ability to think logically and judge what data means. A completely different set of skills, one that is much more technical and analytical.

3) what can we conclude about the process by which they were drawn (i.e. from sketched life or traced or both and if there were multiple "illustrators"). I'd expect that illustrators, printers, publishers, and the like would have extra insight and knowledge pertinent to this aspect. However, this is really a peripheral issue and not relevant to the quotes you pulled from Bill and me, which were about the quality of the drawings themselves (and your inferences from them), not how they were made. And, even here, various non-artistic aspects come to play. e.g. historical data on what we know about Smith's other work etc.

So, right, you shouldn't ask a non-doctor to perform surgery or ask me to illustrate a book for you. But I'm perfectly capable and confident in my ability to judge whether they're consistently and accurately drawn and whether your conclusions are warranted.

Perhaps there are aspects of them that indicate to Richard that they were traced from photos. Or perhaps from experience he knows how long it would take to draw them all from life, and that would have been impossible given the brief session Smith had with Erdnase. But none of that changes the fact that a) they're not realistically and consistently drawn and b) that you can't conclude anything to any level of specificity about Erdnase's height from them.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 11th, 2018, 10:30 am

I think that some of you are failing to see the proverbial "forest for the trees"

Chris insists that there was only one artist, presumably because this presumption supports his contention that Erdnase was short. But it is not necessary to calculate the man's height in order to eliminate Sanders. If Chris were to concede that there were apparently two artists, then the Sanders advocates would have a hard time explaining why he didn't simply pay one artist to do all of the work.

And the advocates of Sanders, such as Bob, seem to be arguing against Chris solely because they must find fault wherever they can. The irony is that they are compromising their own case by admitting that there might have been more than one illustrator.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 11th, 2018, 11:10 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:Chris insists that there was only one artist, presumably because this presumption supports his contention that Erdnase was short.
The biggest clue for me why I think there was only one artist and the artist was Smith is the lettering of the figure numbers. They show a consistent handwriting by one person. Smith recognized this handwriting as his. Therefore he wrote those figure numbers. There is no other explanation I can think of than he made all the illustrations.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8067
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 11th, 2018, 11:22 am

lybrary wrote:.... Smith recognized this handwriting as his. Therefore he wrote those figure numbers. There is no other explanation ...

no chance of copy and paste?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 11th, 2018, 11:26 am

lybrary wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:Chris insists that there was only one artist, presumably because this presumption supports his contention that Erdnase was short.
The biggest clue for me why I think there was only one artist and the artist was Smith is the lettering of the figure numbers. They show a consistent handwriting by one person. Smith recognized this handwriting as his. Therefore he wrote those figure numbers. There is no other explanation I can think of than he made all the illustrations.


That would indeed be a significant point, if we could be sure that Smith had scrutinised the lettering under each and every drawing. However, I think that very unlikely. He probably looked at just a few.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 11th, 2018, 11:53 am

And something else that is not clear: Did Smith recognise his hand-writing of the word "fig" alone, or the numbers as well?

It is obvious to me that many of Smith's illustrations were re-cycled; therefore it may be that the author retained the artist's lettering, but changed the digits. I see, in the pic above (fig. 37), the word "fig." is straight up, yet the numeral "37" appears to be slanted to the right.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4000
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 11th, 2018, 12:08 pm

why would we assume that drawings intended to illustrate moves with cards would be anatomically precise?

I have posed for photographs and illustrations and though i haven’t done it tens of thousands of times, i already know that many times the concept you wish to illustrate can not be directly or easily photographed - and illustrators can ‘cheat’ in order to best convey the most relevant information.

When we sat for a photo shoot i don’t know how many hundreds we shot in an effort to get the one that actually worked, and even then we did an editing process after.

and that’s with digital photographs that costs nothing per snap.

some seem to be assuming that 1) the photos taken (if any) would be worthy of tracing. 2) we also assume that whomever was directing the project held the myopic view of valuing realism over the constance of accurate information.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4000
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 11th, 2018, 12:19 pm

and if they were traced from photos, who took them?


Return to “General”