Tommy, I don't know either way but how about this: there are a lot of "one hit wonder" bands on the radio. Bands that aren't very good, but somehow hit the magic formula and put together a great song, and then never do it again. Maybe this was one of those situations?

Again, I wasn't there, so I ain't saying either way.

Maybe TJ I see the point. It just bugs me when something does not seem to add up.

Tommy

card123

He could have read Selbit's book out in 1901 or the mag etc is the obvious answer but who knows.

I hear you.

Glenn,

I'm not saying Houdini did or didn't read Erdnase...only that The Expert At The Card Table at that time wasn't the standard reference it is today. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Houdini had read Erdnase's book, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he hadn't, either. We can certainly establish a few facts and some sort of chronology, but we have to be careful about jumping from there to saying what certain individuals did and didn't know a hundred years ago.


Tommy,

No one here has proposed that Vernon thought Houdini knew little about cards. My understanding is that Vernon considered Houdini to be a mediocre magical performer. The public may well have agreed with him, since Houdini's magic show apparently wasn't doing well enough to suit him, hence his switch to escapes, which he found much easier to publicize and build an aura around. They also set him apart from most performers of his day.

It's also important to understand that even if his magic act might have been a good one, it was also very derivative, particularly of the works of Robert-Houdin. Robert-Houdin was originally an idol of Houdini's, but they fell into bitter feuding that began because Robert-Houdin felt Houdini was stealing his act and his name.

You've expressed some surprise that Houdini could have thought of the transformation that appeared in Erdnase and still be a mediocre performer, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. The fact is, though, that our field is rife with mediocre performers, but many of them have contributed one or two really good ideas. Despite his own early publicity, Houdini was neither a connoisseur of the pasteboards nor did he prolificly contribute to card technique. He may have been knowledgeable (and he probably was), but knowledge and consistent creativity are two different things.


card123,

The Houdini Transformation is one of those moves that probably "got around." It's a very nice technique and people would have been enamored with it, just like they are today. It could be one of those things that a lot of guys were doing and showing each other (again, just like today) -- and maybe very few of them actually knew the source, either. Erdnase, whoever he was, could have learned the technique from Selbit's book, but it's just as likely (if not moreso) that he learned the technique from someone he ran into.

Cheers...

Fair comment. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick on hearing Vernon speak about fooling Houdini in a film I have about it. I seem to grasp at straws when we get a clue about Erdnase.
It is just a possible that Houdini knew Erdnase: He lived at the same time was about the same age and both were into magic and one of Houdini’s moves ends up in the Erdnase book. I just wish Vernon would have asked him if he knew anything about Erdnase and I knew his answer, even if to eliminate him from the enquiry.

Tommy

Umm...Lance? Just a quick fact-check here. Robert-Houdin died in 1871. Erich Weiss was born in 1874. I don't think Robert-Houdin had a whole lot to say about Houdini's act.

-Jim

1.) This is impossible to prove one way or the other, but we may have a clue: The Houdini Library is part of the collection at the Library of Congress that includes Houdini's holdings at the time of his death, plus the McManus-Young Library. A search of the contents may reveal a copy of Erdnase, and which library it came from. If it is from the Houdini Estate, then it is at least POSSIBLE that Houdini read the book. Nothing certain, but a clue, at least...

2.) It's a minor point in the scheme of things here, I know, but: Houdini was upset that Robert-Houdin's WIDOW wouldn't see him, not Robert-Houdin himself. Robert-Houdin was dead as of 1871, Houdini not born until 1874. They never met, but you're right, Robert-Houdin was Houdini's inspiration, idol, the reason he so doggedly pursued excellence in all things magical. The "Unmasking of Robert-Houdin", and the refutations by Hugard and Sardina that the book inspired are great reading. History written, re-written, uunwritten, etc.

Best, PSC

Tommy,

I don't blame Vernon for taking some perverse delight in fooling Houdini the way he did...it wasn't that Vernon fooled him, it was that Vernon fooled him seven times in a row, and Houdini wouldn't admit it. Vernon learned from Bess later that Houdini had stayed up all night trying to figure out what Vernon did, but never solved the mystery. For someone as cocky and confident as Houdini apparently was (to have issued the public challenge in the first place is a demonstration of hubris), this is quite something. For someone as cocky and as confident as Vernon apparently was, you can understand why he was pleased with himself.

Cheers...

I thought Houdin was dead at the time of Houdin when it was said but I thought I was getting mixed up with another magician.

Paul thanks for the tip.

Can we search that librray on line, does any one have the link.

Tommy

Ach...I can't believe I got my facts so screwed up. I just realized I was thinking about something else altogether. Thanks, Jim and Paul...in light of this SNAFU, just take everything I've written in this thread and trash it.

:)


Cheers...

It is hard to keep track of all these Dini magi but I think you make some fair points Lance.

Tommy

Paul:

Only about half of Houdini's library went to The Library of Congress. The remainder went to John Mulholland. It is now in the collection of David Copperfield. Perhaps someone with access to DC could ask about whether there is a copy of Ernase there (with pencilled in annotations saying: "Hey! This Color change is mine! - HH "). That would certainly help to clear things up.

- entity

Sorry to have mis-spelled Erdnase. Not due to a lack of respect, but rather a lack of co-ordination this afternoon.

- entity

I believe that the CC in question was already in the public domain when Erdnase wrote and published. In other words, it ain't his!

Mainly, I believe this because, as has been previously mentioned, Erdnase was sure to note anything that he felt was his - for instance, the "homemade article" listed as the "sixth method", under "Transformations". He is sure to take credit for the DPS, the Longitudinal Shift, the Erdnase Shift, the Open Shift, the S.W.E. shift, the second method for the "Transformations. One Hand", etc. In fact, it would be interesting to carefully review the entire text to make note of everything that Erdnase specifically claims as his. I don't know that such a list has ever been done. It seems likely that Erdnase would have noted his involvement in the development of the first "Transformation With Two Hands" if in fact it was of his devising. He was certainly not shy about claiming credit where he felt it was his due...

In addition to what I listed above, and off the top of my head, I can remember the following: The ERDNASE SYSTEM of Blind Shuffles, The ERDNASE SYSTEM of Blind Riffles and Cuts, The ERDNASE SYSTEM of Stock Shuffling, The ERDNASE SYSTEM of Cull Shuffling, The ERDNASE SYSTEM of Palming (Both Top and Bottom Palms and Replacement), The Erdnase shifts (One and Two Hands)...

That's all that come to mind, though I may have missed a thing or two. These thigns are claimed specifically by Erdnase, either by attaching his name to them, or by indicating in the description that he invented them. Since he went to the trouble to be so specific, I am guessing that anything NOT so noted is something he leaarned from someone else, or from the written record...

Best, PSC

Well that gives me something to do in my spare time.

I note that no one gave an answer to my question, what moves are in Expert at the Card Table that have been attributed to someone other than Erdnase.
That is apart from the Houdini CC and Charlier cut/pass. Do I take it that there are none?
What about the tricks, are they all Erdnase or are any of them, credited to someone.

At the start he says: We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know.
Is that not meaning to say it is all his?

Tommy

No, it doesn't mean it is all his. I believe it means that no one gave him anything, that he earned all the knowledge he is imparting. Several other statements in the book support this interpretation....

Clearly some of the things in the book are quite old. The most obvious is his description of the standard Pass. He also acknowledges the top change and the Charlier Shuffle, or Greek shuffle as well known. There are other instances throughout the book.

The line you quote has been subject to several interpretations over the years, but I'm convinced that Erdnase was referring to the fact that he had to earn all the knowledge he had, in one way or another...

Best, PSC

I also suspect that he was saying that anything in the book that was not original with him had already been printed elsewhere.

- entity

Right! I think he gathered information from old books, magazines, magicians he met along the way, other hustlers, both friend AND foe, as he indicates in the opening paragraphs, where he says something like, " ...our early knowledge was acquired at the usual excessive cost to the uninitiated...". This clearly means he was hustled by his soon-to-be peers, and discovered thier methods one way or another.

The fact that Erdnase was well-acquainted with the books of the time is evident in the opening of the "Card Table Artifice" section. Erdnase clearly states that, "...works on conjuring invariably devote much space to the consideration of card tricks, and many have been written exclusively for that purpose...", and, "...Self-styled "ex-professionals" have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of thier former wiles and wickedness, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by exhuming some antiquated, moss-covered ruses as well known as nursery rhymes...", which I take as evidence that he was well-read in both the magic and the gambling expose arenas. How else would he know the particulars of what was in print?

He considers himself well enough informed to declare unequivocally that his work stands, "...unique in the list of card books.We modestly claim originality for the particular manner of accomplishing many, (NOT ALL - my note...), of the manoeuvres described, and believe them vastly superior to others that have come under our observation..."

So, yes, he obviously drew on the books and pamphlets of the time, as well as the personal instruction he might have recieved and the "ruses" he uncovered by dint of observation and play. He included whatever he thought important to advantage play, and he contributed his own methods alongside the best of the current material. He was particular about noting what WAS his own invention, taking credit wherever it was due him, and seemed not to bother with crediting anything he didn't create. Maybe he assumed that the buyer would discover those sources on his own!

Finally, he says, "We betray no confidences in publishing this book..." This statement has sometimes been erroneously,(I believe),interpreted to mean that he ONLY published what was his, or in the public domain, that he was not disclosing anything he learned from others. This is often given as the reason for things not included that were obviously known at the time, like "The Spread". I don't believe that this is what he meant at all. The statement is usually, (as I did here), taken out of context. If read IN context, it seems to me that Erdnase is telling the reader that he doesn't feel a responsibility to anyone for the material he is putting in print, that he has already paid a price for this knowledge and that it is therefore his to do with as he pleases. This seems obvious to me as he continues with, "...having only ourselves to thank for what we know. Our tuition was recieved in the cold school of experience... "

This interpretation then, makes one wonder why, indeed, certain things were omitted from Erdnase. It seems likely that he would have known about "The Spread", for instance. Could be that he was still using it, or that he had friends in the game that were still using it. For that reason he might well have left it out. We cardmen are a funny lot. How many times have magicians published work and left out a "touch"? "Forgotten" to include the method they use for "fast company"? "Well,...", they say when asked, "I had to keep something for myself!" Maybe Erdnase was just "keeping something for himself..."? I doubt that we'll ever know the answer, but it is fun to speculate, isn't it? One writer has speculated that Erdnase, by the time he wrote the book, was so far out of the game that although "The Spread" was in use, he wasn't familiar with it. Could be, I guess... The other possibility regarding this particular manoeuvre is this: Erdnase didn't think it WORTH including, since he seems to be opposed to "working partners". Erdnase wrote from the standpoint of a man alone, not one who practiced collusion - maybe he just plain didn't like the idea?

Well, there is a lot more to think about when you read Erdnase, but I may go far astray if I continue...

Best, PSC

There is a copy of erdnase in the houdini library at the library of congress. Got to look at it relatively recently.

I see it like this at the moment but I am still considering rather than concluding:

The book is in two parts. The first is about the Card Table Artifice (Cheating) and second is about Legerdemain and Card Tricks (Magic.)
When Erdnase makes the comment:

“We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know.”

Although he says “publishing this book” In context, he is only referring to the first part of the book, that is Card Table Artifice. It does not relate to the Legerdemain or Card Tricks parts of the book.

So what he is telling us is the knowledge in the Card Table Artifice section is what he has gained from the card table through the cold school of experience at the table and working with the deck alone and not from books on magic or magicians or "...Self-styled "ex-professionals" who have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of their former wiles and wickedness, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by exhuming some antiquated, moss-covered ruses as well known as nursery rhymes...",

The magic part of the book is different story. In this part he tells what he learnt from magic books and magicians and what he has invented for magic himself. Which is why there are some things in the magic section that relate to magicians and the magic literature. Such as The Houdini Colour Change and The Charlier Pass.


Regards

Tommy

As for The Spread I think he felt it was an antiquated, moss-covered ruse.
As for working alone it seems to me he preferred not and more or less advises the reader to work with a confederate as is half the battle won. But that as they say is another story.

Tommy some of the moves in Erdnase may have been used for cheating by someone - but I feel that the whole book is a magic book. The first part is pretending to be a card shark expo and I feel that it was a wonderful advertising ploy. That was done to better sell the book - or better sell E.S. Andrews in some way using Erdnase as a stage name. Like I mentioned Marlo doing with a bottom deal through magic inc.

I think Andrews was becoming a stage persona as Erdnase the EXPERT. And the book was part of that promo.

He doesn't expose the gamblers palm or cop. But shows how to do what gamblers or card sharks consider to be the full magicians palm. Plus his stacking or stocking methods are better and explained as a demonstration. Including the 12 card fancy stock. Any card cheat would be nuts to do that in a real game.

His bottom deal is also "Performed"...

Anyway the clues are in the book and what I just gave you is just a Theory from the clues and just a point of view.