Re: ERDNASE
Posted: April 11th, 2018, 12:44 pm
Also, the photographer would be one more person having contact with Erdnase and one more to pay.
Brad Henderson wrote: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.
jkeyes1000 wrote: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.
lybrary wrote:I asked Gregg Webb about his opinion on the illustrations in Expert. Gregg is a graphical artist, teaches at Pratt institute, and does his own illustrations for his magic books (many of which can be found here https://www.lybrary.com/gregg-webb-m-215953.html ). His last trilogy (SOHO) was even hand lettered. Great material BTW. Another expert that Brad tells us to dismiss, but I prefer to take them serious. His opinion is that the illustrations were done by one artist and that they were traced from photos. He also made some interesting comments regarding the 'drawings from life' comment. He wrote: "...in those days nobody wanted to admit tracing. To this day if you go to art exhibits, you'll find that especially European artists will not admit using photo reference. Their agents tell them their price will go down if they ever admit."
And for the record, because Bill Mullins makes a habit to misrepresent my published opinion, I have two name theories which I consider about equally likely for Gallaway. One is the German nickname theory, the other is the Edward-Subterfuge-and-Ruse-becoming-E.S.-Andrews-spelled-backwards theory. As my thinking stands now I actually do prefer somewhat the 'Edward Subterfuge and Ruse' theory.
Another expert that Brad tells us to dismiss,
And for the record, because Bill Mullins makes a habit to misrepresent my published opinion
Let's see how intellectually honest you are yourself. Here is what you wrote:Bill Mullins wrote:And this is where it gets offensive. Doing stuff like this is intellectually dishonest in two ways: ...
Yes, we do know a lot more, because Smith said Erdnase was a very small man no taller than 5'6". That is a lot more information than you want to admit. And you are somebody who generally takes Smith by his word. Very intellectually dishonest. Also your "range of over a foot" is intellectually dishonest, because it is not an evenly distributed error range, it is a decreasing distribution. Most cases are located closely around the center of the distribution. The farther one leaves the center the more unlikely it becomes. It is a bit like Bill's silly counter examples. While there has been one freak who could reconfigure his spine to change his height, the chances that Sanders could do that are for all practical purposes zero. While there is a possibility that the 5'9" Sanders had very small hands, it is very unlikely, particularly given what Smith stated about Erdnase's height, and what we can see in the photos of Sanders. All of that is Bill's intellectual dishonesty.Bill Mullins wrote:Any process which gives a range of over a foot in height isn't analysis, it's reading tea leaves. We know that the 6'1" Smith thought Erdnase was shorter than he was. In 1901, most everyone was shorter than 6'1". We don't know much more.
lybrary wrote: Also your "range of over a foot" is intellectually dishonest, because it is not an evenly distributed error range, it is a decreasing distribution. Most cases are located closely around the center of the distribution. The farther one leaves the center the more unlikely it becomes.
lybrary wrote:Bill and others here get upset when I state my conviction that I have found Erdnase. It would be intellectually dishonest of me not to say what I believe. That is what I believe. You can believe something else, but to excuse your attacks with my convictions is a lame excuse, and just as intellectually dishonest as so many other things here. Many responses to my newsletter completely agree with my arguments and many believe Gallaway is Erdnase, or Gallaway has the best case to be Erdnase. This thread is by no means a broad assessment of the opinion on Erdnase. It is a place where most have their favorite candidate for one or another reason, which produces not an open and objective discussion, but rather deteriorates into a match of whose dick is longer. I am simply defending my conviction against all the intellectually dishonest attacks.
lybrary wrote:And for the record, because Bill Mullins makes a habit to misrepresent my published opinion, I have two name theories which I consider about equally likely for Gallaway. One is the German nickname theory, the other is the Edward-Subterfuge-and-Ruse-becoming-E.S.-Andrews-spelled-backwards theory.
Yes, we do know a lot more, because Smith said Erdnase was a very small man no taller than 5'6". That is a lot more information than you want to admit.Bill Mullins wrote:Any process which gives a range of over a foot in height isn't analysis, it's reading tea leaves. We know that the 6'1" Smith thought Erdnase was shorter than he was. In 1901, most everyone was shorter than 6'1". We don't know much more.
-"Recalls nothing to suggest he had a wife."
Gallaway was not only married but newly wed (for the second time) in late 1901.
-"Has impression he was not a Chicago man...He came from the East and N.Y."
Gallaway was a Chicago man, and from the midwest. Not from N.Y.
-"He was about 40"
Gallaway was 33 in late 1901.
-"Features were on the "sharp" rather than "blunt" side."
Gallaway's close up portrait has a reasonably broad nose and full lips. Not sharp.
-"He mentioned to Smith that he was related to Dalrymple."
There is nothing known about Gallaway to suggest he was related to Dalrymple.
-"Andrews told Smith he was a former card shark who had decided to go straight."
There is nothing known about Gallaway to suggest he had been a card shark.
Also your "range of over a foot" is intellectually dishonest, because it is not an evenly distributed error range, it is a decreasing distribution. Most cases are located closely around the center of the distribution. The farther one leaves the center the more unlikely it becomes.
It is a bit like Bill's silly counter examples. While there has been one freak who could reconfigure his spine to change his height, the chances that Sanders could do that are for all practical purposes zero. While there is a possibility that the 5'9" Sanders had very small hands, it is very unlikely, particularly given what Smith stated about Erdnase's height, and what we can see in the photos of Sanders.
Bill and others here get upset when I state my conviction that I have found Erdnase.
It is a place where most have their favorite candidate for one or another reason, which produces not an open and objective discussion, but rather deteriorates into a match of whose dick is longer.
Reverse spelling and complex anagrams are also merely theories without any evidence. There are plenty of authors who have chosen pseudonyms which were not derived via an anagram.Bill Mullins wrote:My bad. Allow me to revise and extend my earlier remarks: "In addition to the German nickname theory, Chris has another theory which is based solely on speculation and has no evidence to support it. Neither of his theories hold water, and in no case can he point to someone who has used something similar to arrive at a pseudonym."
And you are wrong again. This was not a phone interview. It was in person. Gardner met Smith. How could Gardner otherwise write: "When I said Andrews, his face lighted up..." I don't think they had a video phone chat.Bill Mullins wrote:The Gardner-Smith Correspondence book addresses Erdnase's height in two places.
1. Gardner's notes of the initial phone interview. I would view these as a paraphrase of the conversation. "Andrews was a very small man of slight build. Not over 5’ 6". About my build, but not as tall."
Again very dishonest of you. This second statement resulted after Gardner repeatedly presented the tall MFA and he tried as hard as he could to push Smith higher. That is not at all the 'best record'. His first uninfluenced statement is by far more credible.Bill Mullins wrote:2. Smith's own words, in his letter to Gardner: "I’m certain I looked down. I think this fellow was about 5’6, at most 5'7". Could be he was 5’5"."
So, the best record is the second. Smith was "certain" he looked down -- consistent with what I said.
No it is not, because Smith never defines a lower boundary. Please tell us where Smith defines his lower boundary for the height. All we have is Gardner pushing him higher and higher. Never do they discuss the lower end.Bill Mullins wrote:If you want me to concede that 5'8" is too tall, you'll have to do likewise and concede that the range of 5'2" - 5'4" is too short.
The photos show Gallaway in his mid 50s. He would have met Smith when he was 33. Many put on weight when they get older. But I don't agree that Gallaway was fat even in the photos we have of him. One photo has him leaning weirdly which makes it look like he has a belly, but it might just be the way he sits or leans. The second photo does not suggest he has a belly.Bill Mullins wrote:But notice how you always elide the rest of the description. "Slight build -- about my [Gardner's] build, but not as tall." None of the photos of Gallaway show a man of slight build.
None of these things are as immutable and as observable as height and eye color are. Erdnase could have made up the Dalrymple comment. Judging from where somebody comes based on how they speak works sometimes and fails sometimes. Judging somebodies age can be off by several years. Additionally Smith never defines a lower boundary, so we do not know how young Erdnase could have been according to Smith. The photos we have of Gallaway are when he is a senior. Beyond his height and eye color it is not knowable if he was thin or fat when he was younger. Age and being from a particular region is a highly subjective estimate, nowhere as clearly observable as height and eye color. How would Smith know if he was married or not? Not everybody wears a wedding band. All of the things you say disprove Gallaway are no reasons to exclude him or anybody else, because they cannot directly be observed by Smith. They are merely his opinions and best guesses. Height and eye color, if you believe Smith is correct in his recollections, are hard reasons to exclude somebody, because they can't be changed and they are directly observable by Smith.Bill Mullins wrote:You can't have it both ways. If the Smith description is valid, it rules out Gallaway as well. If it is correct only in a general sense, it is just as reasonable to include Sanders as it is Gallaway.
There's other statements by Smith that you gloss over as well:-"Recalls nothing to suggest he had a wife."
Gallaway was not only married but newly wed (for the second time) in late 1901.
-"Has impression he was not a Chicago man...He came from the East and N.Y."
Gallaway was a Chicago man, and from the midwest. Not from N.Y.
-"He was about 40"
Gallaway was 33 in late 1901.
-"Features were on the "sharp" rather than "blunt" side."
Gallaway's close up portrait has a reasonably broad nose and full lips. Not sharp.
-"He mentioned to Smith that he was related to Dalrymple."
There is nothing known about Gallaway to suggest he was related to Dalrymple.
-"Andrews told Smith he was a former card shark who had decided to go straight."
There is nothing known about Gallaway to suggest he had been a card shark.
In the context I made the comment it was not wrong, because common sense, and having a meaningful and sensible discussion excluded it. But that is not what you want to have.Bill Mullins wrote:I don't think that Sanders could stretch or shrink his height. The example was obviously provided tongue in cheek, in rebuttal to (yet another) blanket statement you had made that was demonstrably wrong.
Since you have this arrogant and ignorant view I am quoting from an article by Leopoldo Costa which you can read in full here https://stravaganzastravaganza.blogspot ... names.htmlBill Mullins wrote:My bad. Allow me to revise and extend my earlier remarks: "In addition to the German nickname theory, Chris has another theory which is based solely on speculation and has no evidence to support it. Neither of his theories hold water, and in no case can he point to someone who has used something similar to arrive at a pseudonym." Happy now?
Nicknames play an important role in the creation of pseudonyms. A person is given a nickname and adopts it, or becomes so widely known by it that it replaces the original name. The distinction between an adopted nickname and an adopted new name can be very fine. The criterion is usually whether the person becomes mainly or solely known by the adopted nickname or not. Thus the U.S. pool player Minnesota Fats is generally known by his nickname rather than his original formal name, Rudolf Walter Wanderone, Jr. The same goes for the many musical performers nicknamed “Big,” such as Big Bopper, who was exclusively billed under this name rather than his birth name, Jiles Perry Richardson, Jr.
Like all pseudonyms, nicknames can be in any language, including the two quoted above for Roman emperors. Caracalla was so dubbed for a type of cloak he designed, from a Latin word of Gaulish origin, while Caligula was given a name meaning “little boots,” a nickname bestowed when the emperor-to-be ran around camp as a child. (Two millennia later his Latin name was adopted in its English version by pop singer Little Boots, born Victoria Hesketh.) Single-word pseudonyms are fairly frequently found. The adopted name may be simply an original first name or surname, or a form of it. The painter Giorgione already mentioned thus came to be known by a name amounting to “Big George,” derived from his given name.
How could Smith have independently observed that Erdnase was related to Dalrymple? There was no way to do that. If Erdnase indeed said it, then all we have left is trust what Erdnase said and what Smith remembered. Two assumptions that can be wrong. With height and eye color such trust in Erdnase is not necessary. It is not anything he could have changed or falsified. It was directly observable for Smith. That means the only assumption is that Smith remembered it correctly. That makes height and eye color already much more reliable than other things Smith remembered about Erdnase. Since Smith was an illustrator trained to observe visually, height and eye color, are more likely correct than something abstract that came via his auditory sense like a name. Additionally we have the illustrations which depict small hands suggesting a small man. So not only is it more likely that Smith remembered a visually observable like height more accurately than a name, we also have an independent confirmation of the height via the illustrations. That makes particularly the height much more reliable than the Dalrymple comment.Brad Henderson wrote:like when Dalrymple was a lie.
lybrary wrote:Reverse spelling and complex anagrams are also merely theories without any evidence. There are plenty of authors who have chosen pseudonyms which were not derived via an anagram.Bill Mullins wrote:My bad. Allow me to revise and extend my earlier remarks: "In addition to the German nickname theory, Chris has another theory which is based solely on speculation and has no evidence to support it. Neither of his theories hold water, and in no case can he point to someone who has used something similar to arrive at a pseudonym."
True, that is one way to see it. Or it could also be that he has heard the name Dalrymple in several other instances, being the illustrator he was, and thus he inadvertently exchanged it with the real name Erdnase mentioned, or he created a false memory altogether and Erdnase never mentioned anything being related to an illustrator. In memory research one important factor is uniqueness. We can assume that Smith heard the name Dalrymple in many other situations. That creates a problem for his long term memory.Tom Gilbert wrote:As for the Dalrymple comment by Smith, with Smith being an artist and Erdnase mentioning being related to a famous artist, could make it more memorable than some other comments.
That should settle the question. He had very small hands.We presume that the larger, or the longer the hand, the easier it will be for a beginner to accomplish this shift, but a very small hand can perform the action when the knack is once acquired.
Jonathan Townsend wrote:@lybrary, your quote from the section on the Erdnase Shift-One Hand is interesting. The notion is also expressed earlier in the text in the section on Acquiring the Art: "The beginner invariably imagines his hands are too small or too large, but the size has little to do with the possibilities of skill. ". However, saying a thing is possible is not the same as saying a thing applies to oneself.
Jonathan, if you read the sentence carefully it is clear that he is saying he indeed has small hands. He says 'presume that the larger or the longer hand'. In other words he doesn't know, so he assumes or supposes, because he doesn't have a larger or longer hand. If he would have a larger hand he doesn't need to presume. But in the case of a very small hand he knows that it is possible, no assumption necessary, because he is speaking from his own experience.Jonathan Townsend wrote:@lybrary, your quote from the section on the Erdnase Shift-One Hand is interesting. The notion is also expressed earlier in the text in the section on Acquiring the Art: "The beginner invariably imagines his hands are too small or too large, but the size has little to do with the possibilities of skill. ". However, saying a thing is possible is not the same as saying a thing applies to oneself.
lybrary wrote:Jonathan, if you read the sentence carefully it is clear that he is saying he indeed has small hands. He says 'presume that the larger or the longer hand'. In other words he doesn't know, so he assumes or supposes, because he doesn't have a larger or longer hand. If he would have a larger hand he doesn't need to presume. But in the case of a very small hand he knows that it is possible, no assumption necessary, because he is speaking from his own experience.Jonathan Townsend wrote:@lybrary, your quote from the section on the Erdnase Shift-One Hand is interesting. The notion is also expressed earlier in the text in the section on Acquiring the Art: "The beginner invariably imagines his hands are too small or too large, but the size has little to do with the possibilities of skill. ". However, saying a thing is possible is not the same as saying a thing applies to oneself.
lybrary wrote: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.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.
Bill Mullins wrote:lybrary wrote: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.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.
I say, "Drawing isn't accurate, because in axonometric drawing, table edge and card edges should be parallel." Chris says, "No, dummy, drawing isn't axonometric, it's a perspective drawing." Sorry, that doesn't work either. In a perspective drawing, the parallel lines should all recede to a common vanishing point (as you try and show in the Donnelley classroom drawings in your ebook.)
(and before you say the front edge of the deck isn't parallel to the front edge of the table, so the decks convergence point wouldn't be the same as the table's, check them out. Acrobat's measuring tool says both lines are at 1.2 degrees from the horizontal.)
(and notice how the portion of the deck in the hand is wider than that on the table. This would make sense if the hand were closer to the viewer than the tabled portion, bu the text says to draw the hand "inward" when doing this move.)
jkeyes1000 wrote:The edge of the table was, without a doubt in my mind, drawn long after the figure of the hand. Therefore, any suggestion of false perspective is insignificant. The table is a bit of decoration, a mere setting, a stock image. If the hand were traced from a photograph, it is very unlikely that the edge of the table would have been traced as well. For all we know, there might not have been a table in the photograph!
The drawn edges are too short that you could extend them that far back and hope to get them all run through the same vanishing point. The small variations tracing introduces, and a possible small misalignment of edge of the deck to the edge of the board, easily explains why the three lines do not cross in one precise point. If you use the inside edge of the board rather than the outside you will already get a closer match. However, what your image nicely shows, is that the perspective shown is correct to the precision of a traced photo. BTW, the edges shown are not the edges of a table. They are the edges of the shuffle board Erdnase is using and Smith mentions.Bill Mullins wrote:In a perspective drawing, the parallel lines should all recede to a common vanishing point (as you try and show in the Donnelley classroom drawings in your ebook.)
(and before you say the front edge of the deck isn't parallel to the front edge of the table, so the decks convergence point wouldn't be the same as the table's, check them out. Acrobat's measuring tool says both lines are at 1.2 degrees from the horizontal.)
The obvious reason why the cards held in the hand appear wider is because they are tilted towards the viewing plane. You only need to look at their short edges to understand that they are not in a parallel plane to the cards on the board.Bill Mullins wrote:(and notice how the portion of the deck in the hand is wider than that on the table. This would make sense if the hand were closer to the viewer than the tabled portion, bu the text says to draw the hand "inward" when doing this move.)
lybrary wrote:The obvious reason why the cards held in the hand appear wider is because they are tilted towards the viewing plane. You only need to look at their short edges to understand that they are not in a parallel plane to the cards on the board.Bill Mullins wrote:(and notice how the portion of the deck in the hand is wider than that on the table. This would make sense if the hand were closer to the viewer than the tabled portion, bu the text says to draw the hand "inward" when doing this move.)
Bill Mullins wrote:lybrary wrote:The obvious reason why the cards held in the hand appear wider is because they are tilted towards the viewing plane. You only need to look at their short edges to understand that they are not in a parallel plane to the cards on the board.Bill Mullins wrote:(and notice how the portion of the deck in the hand is wider than that on the table. This would make sense if the hand were closer to the viewer than the tabled portion, bu the text says to draw the hand "inward" when doing this move.)
The edges that I'm referring to are those that run left-to-right, the longitudinal edges. They are parallel to the same edges as those on the talon on the board. Tilting the deck upwards wouldn't change their apparent size.
We generally consider the width of a card to be along its shorter side and the length along its longer side. But besides that point I think you don't fully understand this move. Yes, Erdnase writes "swing or jerk downwards and inwards". However, to move inwards and have the cards end up on top of the already tabled portion requires you to start from father away. Otherwise the cards wouldn't land on top of the already tabled pack. So yes, the movement is inwards, but his starting point, which the illustration captures, is with the hand further out beyond where the tabled cards are. That is why the cards in the hand appear a bit longer. They are closer to the camera.Bill Mullins wrote:lybrary wrote:The obvious reason why the cards held in the hand appear wider is because they are tilted towards the viewing plane. You only need to look at their short edges to understand that they are not in a parallel plane to the cards on the board.Bill Mullins wrote:(and notice how the portion of the deck in the hand is wider than that on the table. This would make sense if the hand were closer to the viewer than the tabled portion, bu the text says to draw the hand "inward" when doing this move.)
The edges that I'm referring to are those that run left-to-right, the longitudinal edges. They are parallel to the same edges as those on the talon on the board. Tilting the deck upwards wouldn't change their apparent size.
lybrary wrote: BTW, the edges shown are not the edges of a table. They are the edges of the shuffle board Erdnase is using and Smith mentions.
The obvious reason why the cards held in the hand appear wider is because they are tilted towards the viewing plane. You only need to look at their short edges to understand that they are not in a parallel plane to the cards on the board.
However, to move inwards and have the cards end up on top of the already tabled portion requires you to start from father away. Otherwise the cards wouldn't land on top of the already tabled pack.
Not if you move inward as the text instructs. As Erdnase states it is a downward and inward movement. That means the hand is not only going down but also inward. That means the hand imparts the cards with an inward movement, besides gravity pulling them down. You know, Newton's laws of motion and such. When the hand releases the cards they will therefore not fall straight down, they will have a velocity component pointing inwards. Additionally the illustration captures the moment slightly before the cards are released. At that point the hand is slightly in front of the pack. As it travels inwards and releases the cards, so that they land on top of the pack. But even if you want to insist that the hand is not slightly in front of the pack, it certainly is above the pack and thus closer to the camera making the cards in the hand appear larger.Bill Mullins wrote:??? No, I don't think so. If the cards are an inch in front of the tabled talon, and you pull the lower half of the deck out from under them, then they will land an inch in front of the tabled talon. Gravity pulls straight down. Remember, they "fall flatly".