|A trio of Tuttles--the Hodge, Orlando, and MacNeil specimens.|
The most unusual thing about the six specimens is the tremendous amount of variation between them. I've spent months staring at the pictured Psychographs and the other three known survivors, and rely on a set of distinguishing markers in an attempt to trace the device's evolution. There's the font, which differs wildly from the smaller, more precise font of the Hodge specimen to the wide, bold font of the Orlando specimen with its unique sweeping tail on the "A." There are variations of the circle on which the letters sit: either one line or two lines, but at least two specimens with breaks in the printing that might serve to assign them similar dates. Some specimens have other weird print variations--the Psychic Observer ad, for example, shows unusual spacing between "W XYZ," and the "Don't Know" is italicized and misaligned--properties which show up on at least one recently-discovered surviving specimen. There's an inverse-printed model with dark paper and light letters, and variations in the wood and shape used for the wheel. And the comparative starting point of the "A" relatively to the board's bottom is always different between models--9-o'-clock on one, 10-o'-clock on another. Such variations are easily picked out in the pictures above, and there are many.
And don't even get me started on the instructions printed on the boards' backs. They differ way more wildly than the front print, and present a whole new set of clues and comparisons to analyze.
|Buchanan's Journal of Man, May 1889|
|The Psychograph in use.|
But forensics on the surviving Tuttles aren't exactly what inspired today's post. It's the forensics of the non-surviving Psychograph that has my attention this morning.
Thanks to the IAPSOP, we've known about the "new attachment" to the Psychograph for some years now, and without a surviving model to compare, the descriptions have been difficult to decipher. Take, for instance, the December 3, 1887 Religio-Philosophical Journal's letter from Tuttle himself explaining the new addition to the Psychograph:
So, we've got "an extra alphabet be placed on one half of the revolving table [the top disk]," and a "stationary index placed so as to mark the letters passing under it." So, two indexes now--one on the wheel pointing to letters on the board, and one on the board pointing to letters on the wheel. Geez. The Psychograph already being a very expedient means of alphabetic communication--dare I say faster than the Ouija--it seems strange to add an additional alphabet on top of the disk, with a second index to point to that alphabet. Or how that alphabet offers any more expediency that the primary one on the board's base.
Pondering other configurations, it seems the only way to imagine this description really is to have another arc of letters pasted on top of the disk, and a stationary index attached to the base of the board that hovers over the revolving disk in order to point out the second set of letters. While I don't know if each index pointed to the same letter at the same time--this seems likely to avoid confusion--I suppose I just don't understand the purpose. As it is, there's only a 180° arc of movement to arrive at any given letter of the alphabet in either case, which is hardly inexpedient. But it is a curiosity, and might be worth an unobtrusive mockup on a surviving board to see how it might have been a favorable variation.
Despite the stated shortcomings of the secondary index possibly becoming bent in the mail, we know the improved Psychograph was still in circulation at least two years later, as Marc recently discovered in the April 13, 1889 Religio-Philosophical Journal, which details the improved version being given as a gift to William Emmette Coleman. It is likely this variation, like every other configuration of the Tuttle Pschograph, eventually gave way to a new design, and that the improved version was either sold concurrently with the original version or eventually proved too troublesome and was abandoned. Given the unlikelyhood of every known surviving specimen pre-dating an 1887 addition that persisted until 1915, one or the other scenario seems likely.
I look forward to seeing a surviving specimen with the attached improvement, so check your attics, folks, and report in!