I am convinced I have found Erdnase. For more info go here http://www.lybrary.com/the-hunt-for-erdn......843.html

Fascinating! Thrilling!

Chris Wasshuber solved a more then 100 years old mystery. The search for Erdnase has been going on for decades. But at now the magic community may be pretty sure Edward Gallaway will be generally accepted as S.W. Erdnase.

Chris Wasshuber can even explain the name S. W. Erdnase. Erdnase actually comes from the German words Erd (earth or soil) and Nase (nose).

Chris Wasshuber explores Gallaway's opportunity, motive and means to prove his theory. Gallaway must be S.W. Erdnase!

This book received a highly skeptical review from John Lovick in the January 2017 issue of Genii.

Please may you say more about Lovick's review?

The credit of noting that Erdnase has the German meaning 'earth nose' should go to Tom Sawyer who was the first to publish this insight. My contribution was to actually find this term in the German literature before 1902 and to also find that it is to this date used as nickname for kids and pets. We can therefore conclude that both the term Erdnase existed during the time the book was written, and that it has been used as nickname. It is therefore quite possible that Erdnase was a nickname of the author, particularly since we know that Gallaway spoke, read and wrote German fluently, went to a German school, had German relatives, and worked for a German newspaper. While we do not know for sure how the author chose his pseudonym, I find the nickname theory the most likely explanation for Gallaway.

I have now read John Lovick's review in the January 2017 Genii. I have read many critical reviews, and have received many critical remarks regarding my work, but I have never read such an unqualified review than this one by Lovick. He starts off chastising me for writing a book on the Hooker card rise in 2007, but not flying to LA to watch a performance of it. At the time of the LA performance I was professionally at the other side of the earth unable to attend. He also fails to recognize that I built a prototype which can replicate the core of the Hooker effect, which is a lot more than all the speculation by all those great magicians that came before. Besides, the fact that Gaughan had a temper outburst when he met me at a magic history conference confirmed that my method must be fairly close to the real thing, otherwise Gaughan would have had nothing to be mad about. However, all of this is completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with my work on Erdnase. This just shows you how much off the mark Mr. Lovick is from the very start of his review. It appears that Mr. Lovick either didn't really read the ebook or he just can't follow the arguments in the book. After some contemplation I think Mr. Lovick just can't believe and accept that somebody could actually solve these long standing mysteries in magic. For romantic and emotional reasons he tries to hold on to the believe that they are unsolvable.

Let's address some of the errors in the review:

For example he states that I was shocked seeing the similar cover designs of Expert and Estimating. If he would have read my ebook he would know that my shock didn't come from the cover designs but from the similarities on the title pages (or perhaps Lovick doesn't know the difference between cover and title page), particularly the price on the title page, and that the real shock came from the prefaces which have surprising similarities.

Then he states that my claim that Gallaway performed magic in a amateur theater production in 1924 is not true. Well Mr. Lovick is wrong again. We have both the program of the theater production as well as reports of people commenting about Gallaway's performance in that show. In the program Gallaway's performance is called "The Magic Wand", and a reviewer wrote: "Mr. Gallaway and his bag of tricks was one of the outstanding features." Add this with the fact that we know that Gallaway had magic books in his library. I think it should be pretty obvious that magic was part of the performance.

But what really disqualifies Mr. Lovick in my own judgement is that he compares Dr. John Olsson's careful 36 page analysis with a bit of word counting done by Bill Mullins on the Genii forum. Mullins concludes that Gallaway can't be Erdnase - a ridiculous conclusion considering that Mullins is no linguist and the little bit of counting hardly amounts to an analysis of any depth. But for Mr. Lovick it is enough to dismiss Olsson's work and conclusion.

I guess Mr. Lovick has to do his job and review for Genii. I have nothing about critical reviews, but when it is littered with incorrect statements, misinformation and personal attacks then I do have a problem.

Since I am at it, here are a few more points:

Mr. Lovick spends a lot of time talking about my Hooker book from 10 years ago, but he doesn't see the need to even mention my historic discovery of the James McKinney and Jamieson Higgins bankruptcy files. All those clever, smart, and hard working Erdnase hunters who came before me could not find it. Here I come and find it. Yet, Mr. Lovick doesn't even mention it. I guess it didn't fit his narrative. One can have different opinions on how important a find this was, but at the very least it allowed the identification of who filled out the copyright application form for Expert. It also told us a lot more about the printer James McKinney and what kind of operation he ran. Given the fact that we only have two other sets of documents surrounding Erdnase (his book, and the copyright application form) my find of the bankruptcy records was certainly a big discovery.

Mr. Lovick finds the fact that Gallaway toured with a circus for three years "almost irrelevant". This is another beauty. I guess he missed to read my ebook and learn that Martin Gardner found credible evidence that Erdnase had contact with James Harto, who at the same time as Gallaway toured with circuses. So why would it then be "almost irrelevant"? It is hard to follow Mr. Lovick's logic, which he doesn't share with us. I guess he lacks it or he had a different agenda writing his review.

Mr. Lovick's review lacks any backing up of his statements. For example, he mentions that he was not convinced by the opportunity, motive and means I present for Gallaway, but Lovick does not share any information why he was not convinced. He simply states his opinion without explaining himself. Genuine reviewers explain themselves. It is very easy to say: "I don't believe that." But it carries little weight unless one can provide some reasons, arguments or other explanations supporting that opinion. Regardless of Mr. Lovick's opinion regarding my ebook, it is not a particularly helpful or enlightening review.

The only magic text that Gallaway had in his library is The Expert at the Card Table. To wit, Chris cannot prove that Gallawy owned any more than this one magic book.

I thought that a little update on my research into Erdnase and Edward Gallaway is in order.

1) We have found out that Erdnase must have read German magic books, because several items we find in "Expert at the Card Table" (EATCT) only appear in German books and magazines prior to 1902. For example, the trick called "The Three Aces" from EATCT, which was assumed to be an invention of Erdnase, because nobody found any prior mention, was published by H. F. C. Suhr in his book Der Kartenkuenstler (1895) https://www.lybrary.com/der-kartenkuenstler-p-922426.html under the trick title "Das verwandelte As" (trans. The transformed Ace) and in Der Amateurzauberer (1900) https://www.lybrary.com/der-amateurzauberer-p-922413.html under the trick title "Die Unsichtbare Wanderung" (trans. The Invisible Hike). Also formulas for the prearranged deck were published prior to Erdnase in German magic literature developed by Hugo Schrader for a 28-card deck (a 32-card deck from which the four 7s have been removed), and published by both Willmann and Conradi in both their journals (Zauberspiegel https://www.lybrary.com/zauberspiegel-al......995.html and Zauberwelt) as well as in their books.

Since Gallaway spoke German fluently this finding about Erdnase's German sources makes him an even likelier candidate.

2) I found that Edward Gallaway not only wrote two print estimating textbooks for his school, and earlier a comprehensive printing practice course for R.R. Donnelley, but also two books on The Monotype System for Lanston Monotype Machine Co. Very likely he was also the editor of their Monotype journal as well as was involved in various promotional and instructional publications which were largely excerpts from the books he wrote. The Monotype was the most versatile and capable composing (typesetting) machine on the market. In these books we find proof that Gallaway played cards skillfully. He writes:

"The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who 'take all day' to decide what card to play."

Gallaway continues to use magic phrases in these technical books such as:

- "like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat"
- "it is not magic"
- "magic stick"
- "second-sight"

Additionally we find photos of Gallaway's hands which match several characteristics of the hands illustrated in EATCT. One photo shows him making a beautiful fan with rulers produced with the Monotype casting machine.

3) Edward's great aunt Harriet was an Andrews - Harriet Andrews (1808 - 1884). She and her son's (John Henry) family lived in Fort Wayne, only a short train ride away from Delphos, OH, where Edward grew up. They certainly met on various occasions. We have a newspaper note of one such visit. Edward also worked at least a year in Fort Wayne, which means he may have roomed with this branch of the Gallaway family. This is probable cause for Edward to adopt the Andrews name as his cardsharking cover identity.

All of these new discoveries proof that Edward Gallaway was Erdnase. When you have the right guy new findings further strengthen the case.

I would like to remind folks to search for any magic and gambling books with the Edward Gallaway bookplate. His bookplate can be seen here https://www.lybrary.com/looking-for-book......-31.html If anybody has or knows about a book with this bookplate, magic or not, please contact me.

Gallaway's writing does not resemble anything from Erdnase. Literary characteristics in the pages of The Expert are not evident in Gallaway's published work such as humor, vernacular dialect, and parenthetical quote marks.

Now you say that Gallaway utilized his great aunt's name "Andrews" as inspiration to create the S.W. Erdnase pseudonym that spells out E.S. Andrews backwards? Beyond your creative speculation, where is the evidence for this?

Have you finally encountered any evidence that Gallaway patronized gambling establishments?

What you write is completely wrong. You do not know what you are talking about. You should read Dr. Olsson's report, and my analysis of rare words and phrases which both Erdnase and Gallaway use. But one does not necessarily have to go deep into linguistics to see some odd things. Why does Gallaway constantly use magic phrases in his non-magic books? Why is he using words and phrases such as "second-sight", "tricks they can perform", "subterfuge", "vanished into thin air", "not like magic", etc. Other authors who are not magicians do not do that. This is proof for Gallaway's interest in magic.


Are you disputing that Gallaway had a great-aunt Andrews? That information is in the genealogical record (census, marriage licenses, newspaper clippings). Edward not necessarily took his great aunt's name, but a name of one of her relatives. I am thinking that perhaps she had a brother, uncle, father, grand-father, cousin, etc., who was a gambler and she told stories about him to Edward. That could have been the reason for Edward to adopt his name for a gambling cover identity. My point is that there was an Andrews family which was closely related to Edward Gallaway. That is a good reason to adopt that name as cover identity.


Not yet. But we know he played cards, and we know he owned several gambling books. That combination means he played and gambled with cards.

Sorry, but owning books doesn't mean anything. I have a number of books and material on cold reading and have never, nor will I ever give a cold reading. Trouble is with any and all Erdnase candidates, is facts. Some have a few more check boxes than the others, but there is a long way from saying someone is definitively Erdnase. Most of what's available is conjecture and story telling. Look at the last line in Chris's above post. He admits in the first sentence that he has no evidence that Galloway patronized gambling establishments, but he played cards and had gambling books, so he gambled with cards. Conjecture.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Dr. Olsson's report has already been discussed at length on the Genii Forum. You failed to provide Dr. Olsson with sufficient examples of Sanders writing, and that skewed the results in Gallaway's favor. That Gallaway uses words associated with magic is not enough literary evidence to even compare with the noted lexical characteristics in the pages of The Expert. Where is the dialect that mimics the speech of minorities? Where is the French and Latin? Where are the square quotes? Where are any of these things in Gallaway's work?

You have gone on a creative tangent with Gallaway's family, speculating that his great aunt told him stories about gambling uncles and whatnot. Evidently you're still drinking the Kool Aid.

No evidence yet that Galllawy patronized gambling joints as W.E. Sanders used to? Not surprising at all.

Bob Coyne's detailed report on the writing similarities between W.E. Sanders and Erdnase is astounding:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdnas......age.html

The books somebody has means a lot. I guess you have never heard the quote: "For to know a man's library is, in some measure, to know his mind." - Geraldine Brooks. Of course, one can't take that too far, and there are exceptions, but we have several pieces of evidence which point in the same direction:

1) A copy of "Expert at the Card Table" in his library.
2) Several books on gambling in his library.
3) We know he played cards skillfully by counting and tracking the cards played.
4) Unusual frequent reference to magic in his non-magic technical writing.
5) A stage number titled "The Magic Wand" which he performed in 1924.

That is a lot of evidence to support he had an interest in magic, card play, and gambling.

3) We know he played cards skillfully by counting and tracking the cards played.

Where is the evidence for this card counting?

Gallaway writes: "The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who "take all day" to decide what card to play."

This is not only evidence that he played cards, but that he played seriously by remembering which cards were played out. (It is also an example for scare quotes, which you claimed Gallaway does not use. There are of course many many more scare quotes he uses in his writings.)

This is not evidence that Gallaway gambled with cards by any stretch. Are you suggesting that Gallaway card counted "seriously" in money games? There is no evidence of this--just your speculation.

On the subject of scare quotes, here is a scare quote by Erdnase: to "make good"
And a scare quote from W.E. Sanders: "made good"

Eerie isn't it?

Wow, you have really maxed out on your scare quote similarities. Gallaway has more scare quote similarities. Here are some:

Erdnase: "doctored"
Gallaway: "doctoring"; "doctor" his work

Erdnase: "forcing"
Gallaway: "force"

Use of the word so-called before a scare quote:
Erdnase: so-called "victims"
Gallaway: so-called "chalk"; so-called "Standard Line Type"; so-called "two-letter matrices"

One more similar scare quote is hardly impressive. Where are the other similar scare quotes you allude to?

And don't forget paranthetical punctuations shared by Sanders and Erdnase:

Both Sanders and Erdnase use parentheses around individual letters/characters, to interject doubt:
Erdnase: careless (?) dealer
Erdnase: when his error (?)
Erdnase: cant of reformed (?) gamblers
Sanders: innate and in(co)herent modesty
Sanders: We were fed fit for princes (?) stuffed with veal without the veal [Diaries... Marty Demarest]
Sanders: I am becoming quite a professional (?) cuisiner [Diaries... Marty Demarest]

And French and other foreign terms ****(H)

Both Sanders and Erdnase include foreign (especially French) terms in their writing.
Erdnase: beté noir, denouement, Beau-monde, entrée, cong‌é
Sanders: mon cherez frères d'amie [CRpoem]; coups des main [CRpoem]; chapeaux [CRpoem]; retrousse [CRbio]; avec corp de sanitation [CRpoem]; salud! [CRbio], terra incognita [montLib], aber nit [CRpoem]

And puns:

Erdnase: The Longitudinal Shift -- This SHIFT, for which we have to thank no one, is given a VERY LONG NAME, but the reader who is interested sufficiently to practice the process, will find it a VERY SHORT SHIFT [p130]
Sanders: SHIFTED some more cars up to the platform. ... Glad to hear the noon whistle and still more so to hear the evening's signal for the end of the SHIFT.

You are kidding, right? Just because Sanders used the words 'shifted' and 'shift' in the same paragraph you call this a pun? That is where you loose all credibility. Where exactly is this paragraph from anyway?

Much more pun-like are Gallaway's expressions of: "A long longitudinal shaft", or "short of sorts".

Your other examples are also fraught with problems. Sanders uses (?) only in his informal writing (notebooks), not in his published work. Most of his use of French words is from poems. As I have pointed out many times, one cannot compare poetry with prose. These are two completely different forms and genres. But if you want to use his poems I can point you to a big discrepancy compared to Erdnase. Erdnase does not use any common contractions except the word "don't", which he uses 4 times in EATCT. He does not use "we'll", "haven't", etc. Sanders' poems are filled with common contractions of every kind. So if you really want to argue that the poems need to be included and compared to Erdnase's prose you also have to point out where they provide obvious discrepancies.

You are asking where is Gallaway's use of foreign words. Here are some examples: misnomer, nonpareil, homilies, bourgeoise.

You are asking where is Gallaway's use of (?). Here is one: "... indicates by a query (?) the question raised to the author."

Let me ask you, where is Sanders use of words ending in -wise excluding common ones such as lengthwise, crosswise, likewise, otherwise. Erdnase likes words ending in -wise such as: lengthwise, crosswise, endwise, fanwise, bookwise. Gallaway displays the same likeness when he uses: lengthwise, crosswise, endwise, sheetwise, edgewise, linewise, columnwise, setwise, pointwise, clockwise, counterclockwise, and others.

Erdnase and Gallaway share the use of lengthwise, crosswise, and endwise, and the fondness of unusual -wise constructs. 'Lengthwise' and 'crosswise' are not particularly uncommon, but 'endwise' is an uncommon word. The fact that Gallaway and Erdnase are using it is yet another authorship identity marker. Sanders does not use endwise or other unusual -wise constructs.