Re: ERDNASE
Posted: April 13th, 2018, 6:08 pm
This is indeed looking like two/three lawyers arguing about the fine details of a crime scene....I guess it's kind of inevitable.....better this than nothing at all, in my opinion...
lybrary wrote: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.
Richard Hatch wrote:Magic and gambling collector Tom Blue has posted a video championing a candidate for Erdnase:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ol6T_Ne35U&
Zenner wrote:Richard Hatch wrote:Magic and gambling collector Tom Blue has posted a video championing a candidate for Erdnase:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ol6T_Ne35U&
I am sure that William Symes Andrews has been proposed before.
Richard Hatch wrote:But I agree that based on Marshall Smith's eyewitness testimony concerning the author's age...we can probably rule him out. Also, to me, his writing does not sound much like Erdnase.
Richard Hatch wrote: I agree that based on Marshall Smith's eyewitness testimony concerning the author's age and lack of a foreign accent, we can probably rule him out.
Bill Mullins wrote:Richard Hatch wrote: I agree that based on Marshall Smith's eyewitness testimony concerning the author's age and lack of a foreign accent, we can probably rule him out.
He did say "back east" -- do you suppose he meant as far east as England?
Gallaway did use snippets of classic literature in his writing. In 1906 he wrote a petition to establish lending libraries at two facilities of the Odd Fellows which starts:jkeyes1000 wrote:I would guess that most of you serious fans of Erdnase have seen Gallaway's library bookplate, but I noticed that it had a quote from Milton at the top. He might not have used snippets like this in his writing, but it shows that he was just as capable as Sanders of referring to authors of classic literature.
His plate is the third one down on this blog:
http://blog.mysentimentallibrary.com/20 ... ction.html
This is quoted from Joseph Dennie's "The Lay Preacher". The full petition and other information surrounding it is in my ebook.WHEREAS, "In sickness, in sorrow, in the most doleful days of dejection, or in the most gloomy seasons of the calendar, the reading of a good book is the sweetest solace and the surest refuge … A book produces a delightful abstraction from the cares and sorrows of this world. By the magic illusion of a fascinating author we are transported from the couch of anguish, or the gripe of melancholy, to Milton's Paradise or the Elysium of Virgil": and
WHEREAS, This Grand Lodge should consider it an imperative duty to provide good literature for our brothers and sisters at the Old Folks’ Home, and also to instill and foster a love for good, healthy reading in the hearts of our boys and girls at the Orphans’ Home; and
lybrary wrote:Gallaway did use snippets of classic literature in his writing. In 1906 he wrote a petition to establish lending libraries at two facilities of the Odd Fellows which starts:This is quoted from Joseph Dennie's "The Lay Preacher". The full petition and other information surrounding it is in my ebook.WHEREAS, "In sickness, in sorrow, in the most doleful days of dejection, or in the most gloomy seasons of the calendar, the reading of a good book is the sweetest solace and the surest refuge … A book produces a delightful abstraction from the cares and sorrows of this world. By the magic illusion of a fascinating author we are transported from the couch of anguish, or the gripe of melancholy, to Milton's Paradise or the Elysium of Virgil": and
WHEREAS, This Grand Lodge should consider it an imperative duty to provide good literature for our brothers and sisters at the Old Folks’ Home, and also to instill and foster a love for good, healthy reading in the hearts of our boys and girls at the Orphans’ Home; and
Bob Coyne wrote:lybrary wrote:Gallaway did use snippets of classic literature in his writing. In 1906 he wrote a petition to establish lending libraries at two facilities of the Odd Fellows which starts:This is quoted from Joseph Dennie's "The Lay Preacher". The full petition and other information surrounding it is in my ebook.WHEREAS, "In sickness, in sorrow, in the most doleful days of dejection, or in the most gloomy seasons of the calendar, the reading of a good book is the sweetest solace and the surest refuge … A book produces a delightful abstraction from the cares and sorrows of this world. By the magic illusion of a fascinating author we are transported from the couch of anguish, or the gripe of melancholy, to Milton's Paradise or the Elysium of Virgil": and
WHEREAS, This Grand Lodge should consider it an imperative duty to provide good literature for our brothers and sisters at the Old Folks’ Home, and also to instill and foster a love for good, healthy reading in the hearts of our boys and girls at the Orphans’ Home; and
These classical references are to prove what? You're the one who had claimed Sanders (unlike Erdnase) was an outdoors "miner" and wasn't "bookish". As I said at the time, "bookish" connotes something different (stodgy, socially withdrawn, etc). And I think you probably meant that he wasn't well read and that he didn't have scholarly interests. In any case, your point was quickly disproven by Sanders' quotes in Latin, references to various authors, historical research, etc.
So now you're showcasing this clunky boilerplate quote (unlike Sanders witty and substantive ones) to show that Gallaway was familiar with the classics. But that's not something anyone raised about him, was it? He was known to have a fairly large library, right? I don't get your point. Or are you still insisting that Sanders didn't know Milton from Shakespeare?
Roger M. wrote:Smith recalls nothing that would suggest Erdnase had a wife.
Leonard Hevia wrote:Roger M. wrote:Smith recalls nothing that would suggest Erdnase had a wife.
A quote from our old friend Roger M. who had listed what Smith remembered from that meeting. Gallaway had married in June of 1901 and would have been a 6 month newlywed by December of that year. It is most likely that the meeting in the hotel room took place in December 1901. Now American husbands did not traditionally begin to wear wedding bands till around WWII, so if he was married, Erdnase would not have been wearing a band on his left fourth finger.
We know from Smith that Erdnase made small talk such as his relationship to Dalrymple while showing him card tricks and so on. Yet Erdnase said nothing about being married (recently?) and what that was like. Two men alone in a hotel room, one possibly married six months prior, and no mention of that? When men get together informally, the subject of marriage is usually not far away. If Gallaway was in that hotel room, he felt obligated not to discuss his recent marriage. Or maybe it wasn't Gallaway in that hotel room...
Bob Coyne wrote:Here's something of potential interest to everyone here... There's a new version of Erdnase out by Joe Crist with photos of his hands vs the old illustrations. It looks really great. In his foreword, he tells a story about Erdnase that he heard from his teacher Joe Artanis whose card teacher was apparently friends with Erdnase. I don't want to say more, but I'm very glad I got the book (even though it's expensive).
https://artificeruseandsubterfuge.com
jkeyes1000 wrote:Or maybe he thought that Dalrymple was more relevant to the conversation.
It was this oneLeonard Hevia wrote:Speaking of Dalrymple, what was the title of the political cartoon connected to Erdnase that Dalrymple illustrated?
Leonard Hevia wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote:Or maybe he thought that Dalrymple was more relevant to the conversation.
Really? Speaking of Dalrymple, what was the title of the political cartoon connected to Erdnase that Dalrymple illustrated? If you had followed Bill Mullin's suggestion to read up on the relevant material you might be able to answer this question. I would wager a crisp $100 dollar bill on the green baize that you have read nothing. Chiming in with uninformed opinions is nothing short of buffoonery.
jkeyes1000 wrote:.....If Erdnase were a no-nonsense sort of fellow, he might have spoken only of art-related matters.....
Roger M. wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote:.....If Erdnase were a no-nonsense sort of fellow, he might have spoken only of art-related matters.....
A small bit of research indicates that Erdnase spoke far more broadly than about just "art-related matters":Erdnase talked to Smith about, and demonstrated card tricks
Erdnase talked to Smith about how cold it was outside
Erdnase talked to Smith at length about how he took care of his hands in order to better handle playing cards
Erdnase talked to Smith about being a card shark
Erdnase talked to Smith about going straight
Erdnase talked to Smith about how he (Erdnase) didn't care about how artistic the drawings were, as long as they got the point across.
Erdnase talked about the fact that he was related to Dalrymple
So as you can see, Erdnase spoke with Smith about an array of subjects ... one of which (in any normal conversation) would no doubt been about his wife, if indeed he was married ... which he very likely (as per Smith's observations) wasn't.
The likelihood that Erdnase would have proffered information on his marital status would have been a wide open door as soon as Erdnase mentioned he was related to Dalrymple.
The list above is obviously only what Smith could recall for Gardner, but the likelihood is very high that Smith and Erdnase spoke about much more than just what's on this list.
jkeyes1000 wrote:If he were as chatty as you suggest, then why would he have neglected to inform Smith of his career in the printing business (if he was Gallaway), or the fact that his father was a senator (if he was Sanders)?
jkeyes1000 wrote: I think it more sensible to consider the distinct possibility that Erdnase was a business man, to whom "time was money"......
How would have Smith seen that he was married?Roger M. wrote:if indeed he was married ... which he very likely (as per Smith's observations) wasn't.
Oh really? A man who self-publishes a book to make money is as far as I am concerned an entrepreneur. Don't know what your definition for a 'businessman' is, but it is as much businessman as it can get if you put up your own money to start a risky project with the goal to make a profit.Roger M. wrote:That S.W. Erdnase was definitely not a businessman ...
Roger M. wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote: I think it more sensible to consider the distinct possibility that Erdnase was a business man, to whom "time was money"......
The lack of understanding as to what's actually contained in the book remains a surprise to me.
Erdnase definitely wasn't a businessman, nor would I posit that he was a magician ... the facts betray Erdnase as a professional card cheat who devoted his entire adult life to developing (almost) completely original and outrageously complex card sleights designed to gain an advantage at a card table, sleights and thinking never before experienced by any living person, sleights and thinking never contemplated by previous card cheats as even being possible.
That S.W. Erdnase was definitely not a businessman is all there for the taking for readers who take the time to understand the true depth of the contents of the EATCT, who then read the entirety of this thread a few times, read the various Genii articles, read the various Magic articles, read the Magicana issue/book, read Hurts brilliant book, and read Tom Sawyers ever insightful book(s) ... and although fatally flawed, TMWWE remains an additional reference of great value.
jkeyes1000 wrote:Which only supports the notion that Erdnase's remarks were pertinent to the project. There is no discussion about home life--or personal habits that do not touch upon gambling. If he were as chatty as you suggest, then why would he have neglected to inform Smith of his career in the printing business (if he was Gallaway), or the fact that his father was a senator (if he was Sanders)?
You can speculate all you like about what a man you can't even identify would have talked about, but I think it more sensible to consider the distinct possibility that Erdnase was a business man, to whom "time was money". Thus, even he had been newly wed, he might have refrained from mentioning the wife.
Your intuition is spot on. Here is the relevant note:jkeyes1000 wrote:And, come to think of it, the reference to the weather might have been related to the meeting with Smith. As the cold would naturally stiffen the hands, which Erdnase would need to warm up before demonstrating the card moves.
He remembers scene vividly because it was a bitter cold winter day and there was no heat in the room. Smith kept his overcoat on, but recalls that Andrews did not. He remembers Andrews showing him some card tricks, and complaining that the cold made his fingers stiff. He remembers Andrews rubbing his hands together to warm them up, and telling him that it was necessary for him to keep his hands in good condition. He said that he kept them ―greased.
lybrary wrote:Your intuition is spot on. Here is the relevant note:jkeyes1000 wrote:And, come to think of it, the reference to the weather might have been related to the meeting with Smith. As the cold would naturally stiffen the hands, which Erdnase would need to warm up before demonstrating the card moves.He remembers scene vividly because it was a bitter cold winter day and there was no heat in the room. Smith kept his overcoat on, but recalls that Andrews did not. He remembers Andrews showing him some card tricks, and complaining that the cold made his fingers stiff. He remembers Andrews rubbing his hands together to warm them up, and telling him that it was necessary for him to keep his hands in good condition. He said that he kept them ―greased.
Except as you noted yourself, the tradition for the groom to get a wedding band only started after WWII in the US. So married or not, there was no way for Smith to know if he was married, unless Erdnase would have told him. But why would Erdnase during a business meeting talk about his family? My experience is that family matters may come up after a business meeting at a dinner or in the bar. No indication from Smith that they had anything but work related meetings. If they would have indeed chatted about family and other non-business stuff then Smith would have known many other things directly from Erdnase and didn't have to guess such as where he came from, what else he did besides card sharking, or what his plans were going forward, etc.Leonard Hevia wrote:Here is another relevant note: Smith also recalled nothing that would suggest Erdnase had a wife.
That would appear to exclude Gallaway, since had just recently married. A pesky fact that purchasers of that $45.00 Gallaway e-book hopefully won't notice.
Leonard Hevia wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote:Which only supports the notion that Erdnase's remarks were pertinent to the project. There is no discussion about home life--or personal habits that do not touch upon gambling. If he were as chatty as you suggest, then why would he have neglected to inform Smith of his career in the printing business (if he was Gallaway), or the fact that his father was a senator (if he was Sanders)?
You can speculate all you like about what a man you can't even identify would have talked about, but I think it more sensible to consider the distinct possibility that Erdnase was a business man, to whom "time was money". Thus, even he had been newly wed, he might have refrained from mentioning the wife.
A notion based on what? No reading or study? Mr. Keyes--your notions are like the half gallon containers of cheap ice cream in grocery stores. They weigh almost nothing because they're air whipped. The consumer is paying for a lot of air.
Smith told Gardner that Erdnase "was honest with me...He put more cards on the table than was necessary. He withheld nothing." This can be interpreted to mean that Erdnase was frank and open with him to a certain extent. It's strange that he wouldn't mention a fairly recent marriage, which is a life changing event for most people.
lybrary wrote:So married or not, there was no way for Smith to know if he was married, unless Erdnase would have told him.
lybrary wrote:But why would Erdnase during a business meeting talk about his family?
jkeyes1000 wrote:...perhaps you can explain why he preferred to boast of his connection to Dalrymple, rather than to his illustrious father?
Jackpot wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote:...perhaps you can explain why he preferred to boast of his connection to Dalrymple, rather than to his illustrious father?
Although your question is not directed at me I find the answer rather obvious. Since it appears that Erdnase wished to maintain some anonymity it seems likely that he would be careful in the personal details he shared.
jkeyes1000 wrote:Have I got that straight?
Unless Smith was clairvoyant there was no way for him, or anybody else, to see or feel if Erdnase was married. So yes, I am questioning Smith on that.Leonard Hevia wrote:Yet Smith got the feeling Erdnase wasn't married. Are you questioning Smith?
First, we do not know if Erdnase ever made that comment. Second, commenting to an illustrator that Erdnase was related to another well-known illustrator, one that Smith was most likely aware of, would be much more interesting to Smith than if Erdnase was married or not.Leonard Hevia wrote:He mentioned a relationship to Dalrymple the cartoonist. Isn't that a possible comment on family? That had nothing to do with the business at hand. And if that is a comment on family, why not comment on getting recently married?
Unless he wanted to plant a false lead. Or perhaps he never made that comment to Smith. Smith may have mixed this up with somebody else telling him they were related to Dalrymple.Jackpot wrote:Since it appears that Erdnase wished to maintain some anonymity it seems likely that he would be careful in the personal details he shared.
Jackpot wrote:jkeyes1000 wrote:Have I got that straight?
You have gone off on a different a tangent and you do not have that straight.