Odd numbers of flower sets

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In a break from our currently scheduled copyright flame war,
here's a silly question:

There appear to be sets in existence which have 4n flowers, where n is
an odd number (and sometimes n=1).
How does one build the wall in such a case? Or should I assume that
any set with 4 flowers has lost another 4 somewhere along the road?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

Julian Bradfield <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<e6cwtzneggw.fsf@palau.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> In a break from our currently scheduled copyright flame war,
> here's a silly question:
>
> There appear to be sets in existence which have 4n flowers, where n is
> an odd number (and sometimes n=1).
> How does one build the wall in such a case? Or should I assume that
> any set with 4 flowers has lost another 4 somewhere along the road?

Hello Julian. Still haven't looked up the pigment info yet. Will get
round to it after I am back off hols.

Why is this a silly question? 1stly, are these 'odd numbered sets in
their original packaging? From my own experience, I would say that
your assumption is probably correct. It seems to me that as early as
1909 (Culin's set) there were two quartets of 'Flowers' or 'Seasons'
or 'Bonus Tiles' or whatever you want to call them.

I personally own a set, (from somewhere between 1901 and 1909 - based
on a comparison with the few sets with documented dates), which has a
quartet of Seasons and a quartet consisting of a God of Wealth, a
Crucible of Gold, a Cat and a Rat. The latter two are definitely
original to the set altho the 1st two are early replacements - but
damn good ones. Another set of mine also has the two quartets and most
probably comes from between 1901 and 1909. it has the Four Noble
Plants plus a Lamp shade, a type of Spear, a Pot of flowers(Prob. Plum
and Lotus) and a small Bird which looks like a quail but has a longer
beak.

I also own sets with 16 'Flowers/Seasons'. I have seen early sets with
more extra tiles - as in the Japanese MJ Museum Book.

One could say that the two Glover sets had eight extra tiles - the
four Middle tiles, the four Seasons, the four Directions Kings and the
Four 'Cosmic' Kings -for want of a better title.

So multiples of eight it seems(tho obviously this is not a universal
statement). This would exclude your odd numbered sets.

But I am not familiar with all set variations so maybe Tom is better
qualified to answer this.

Cheers
Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

mstanwick@aol.com (Michael Stanwick) wrote in message news:<52f8c9c6.0408250655.7ba5efd6@posting.google.com>...

> Why is this a silly question? 1stly, are these 'odd numbered sets in
> their original packaging? From my own experience, I would say that
> your assumption is probably correct. It seems to me that as early as
> 1909 (Culin's set) there were two quartets of 'Flowers' or 'Seasons'
> or 'Bonus Tiles' or whatever you want to call them.

> One could say that the two Glover sets had eight extra tiles - the
> four Middle tiles, the four Seasons, the four Directions Kings and the
> Four 'Cosmic' Kings -for want of a better title.
>
> So multiples of eight it seems(tho obviously this is not a universal
> statement). This would exclude your odd numbered sets.

Hello Michael!

As far as I remember, the Himly set you quote in your most excellent
'Playing-Card' article has 3 'hua' tiles: tong hua, suo hua, wan hua;
and 9 - not 8 - "princes" (wang).
Also the Brooklyn Museum set was supposed to have, according to
Culin's description, 9 "rulers" (= "princes" wang).

So I too wonder how it could have worked...

Thierry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

mstanwick@aol.com (Michael Stanwick) writes:

>> How does one build the wall in such a case? Or should I assume that
>> any set with 4 flowers has lost another 4 somewhere along the road?

> their original packaging? From my own experience, I would say that

It's probably in its original box. It appears to be old, probably
round 1910 by comparison with the Mah-Jong Museum sets. (I'm being
offered it for purchase, but I have a dislike of incomplete sets,
particularly at a high asking price.) My guess was that it originally
had the rich/gold/cat/rat tiles as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

Julian Bradfield <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<e6cbrgzp89i.fsf@palau.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> mstanwick@aol.com (Michael Stanwick) writes:
>
> >> How does one build the wall in such a case? Or should I assume that
> >> any set with 4 flowers has lost another 4 somewhere along the road?
>
> > their original packaging? From my own experience, I would say that
>
> It's probably in its original box. It appears to be old, probably
> round 1910 by comparison with the Mah-Jong Museum sets. (I'm being
> offered it for purchase, but I have a dislike of incomplete sets,
> particularly at a high asking price.) My guess was that it originally
> had the rich/gold/cat/rat tiles as well.

Hello Julian. Can you describe the original box? Which Mah-Jong Museum
are you talking about? If it is Jim May's Cyber Museum then I am not
aware he has any sets that originate from anytime prior to 1920.

To run a comparison, I suggest you either read my two papers(where I
have produced excellent photos of the Glover, Wilkinson, Laufer and
Culin early sets)published in the Playing-card Journal, or visit Tom's
excellent site.

Cheers
Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

"Michael Stanwick" <mstanwick@aol.com> wrote
> So multiples of eight it seems(tho obviously this is not a universal
> statement). This would exclude your odd numbered sets.
> But I am not familiar with all set variations so maybe Tom is better
> qualified to answer this.

It is usual for flowers to come in eights, except in Japan. And excluding
older American sets with the flowers numbered 1-5.

So if the set is not Japanese, doesn't have #5 flowers, and has flowers in
the amount of 4Xn where n is an odd integer, the set is most likely not
complete.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

On 2004-08-25 11:04:31 +0200, Julian Bradfield <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> said:

> In a break from our currently scheduled copyright flame war,
> here's a silly question:
>
> There appear to be sets in existence which have 4n flowers, where n is
> an odd number (and sometimes n=1).
> How does one build the wall in such a case? Or should I assume that
> any set with 4 flowers has lost another 4 somewhere along the road?

I know that Japanese sets have a deviant number of flowers. Many sets
have the 136 ordinary tiles plus three (or four!) red fives. To fill up
the boxes, they add four (or five) flower tiles. These are not used in
the game, since the sets are obviously meant for riichi mahjong only.

--


|
|Martin Rep
|The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper
|Mahjong News:
|www.mahjongnews.com
|The Dutch Championship Riichi Mahjong:
|www.riichi.tk
|The Golden Dragon Hong Kong Mahjong Club:
|www.gouden-draak.nl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

thierry.depaulis@freesbee.fr (Thierry Depaulis) wrote in message news:<5878e597.0408251338.5e0ca955@posting.google.com>...
> mstanwick@aol.com (Michael Stanwick) wrote in message news:<52f8c9c6.0408250655.7ba5efd6@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Why is this a silly question? 1stly, are these 'odd numbered sets in
> > their original packaging? From my own experience, I would say that
> > your assumption is probably correct. It seems to me that as early as
> > 1909 (Culin's set) there were two quartets of 'Flowers' or 'Seasons'
> > or 'Bonus Tiles' or whatever you want to call them.
>
> > One could say that the two Glover sets had eight extra tiles - the
> > four Middle tiles, the four Seasons, the four Directions Kings and the
> > Four 'Cosmic' Kings -for want of a better title.
> >
> > So multiples of eight it seems(tho obviously this is not a universal
> > statement). This would exclude your odd numbered sets.
>
> Hello Michael!
>
> As far as I remember, the Himly set you quote in your most excellent
> 'Playing-Card' article has 3 'hua' tiles: tong hua, suo hua, wan hua;
> and 9 - not 8 - "princes" (wang).
> Also the Brooklyn Museum set was supposed to have, according to
> Culin's description, 9 "rulers" (= "princes" wang).
>
> So I too wonder how it could have worked...
>
> Thierry

Hello Thierry!!
You are quite right about the Himly set of course.

But this 148 tile set can still be accounted for if one assumes that 4
of the eight blanks were used in play - a not unreasonable assumption
I think

But this is discussion is about building a wall and the number of
tiles required for doing so. I was also making the assumption that a
wall was being used as a device in play as early as 1870. Indeed, at
this moment I cannot remember when the earliest published record did
appear.

Cheers
Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In article <52f8c9c6.0408251446.53ad6d24@posting.google.com>,
Michael Stanwick <mstanwick@aol.com> wrote:

>Hello Julian. Can you describe the original box? Which Mah-Jong Museum

The question is moot now, since the offer has expired.

>are you talking about? If it is Jim May's Cyber Museum then I am not

Takeshobo.

>To run a comparison, I suggest you either read my two papers(where I
>have produced excellent photos of the Glover, Wilkinson, Laufer and
>Culin early sets)published in the Playing-card Journal, or visit Tom's

I would love to read your papers, but they're not exactly publicly accessible.
According to its Website, the Playing Card sells only to its members.
and it's such an obscure and poorly managed journal that not even the National
Library of Scotland (to which as a deposit library they are required by
law to send copies, since they're UK based) has a complete run.
Furthermore, the contents listing on the Website doesn't include your
name anywhere, so I don't know in which issue your articles appeared.
If you do know how the general public can obtain your articles, I'm
sure I'm not the only one who would like to know!

(I can't forebear to mention that these days it's infinitely more
useful to put research articles on the Web as PDF. Only the commercial
publishers have any interest in not doing this, and even most of those
have now been forced to allow it (in my field).)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) wrote in message news:<cgk3j3$6em$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
> In article <52f8c9c6.0408251446.53ad6d24@posting.google.com>,
> Michael Stanwick <mstanwick@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >are you talking about? If it is Jim May's Cyber Museum then I am not
>
> Takeshobo.

Ah. Well, they do have a few very early sets(pre 1910), but IMO their
dates are incorrect (they are not early enough).

> >To run a comparison, I suggest you either read my two papers(where I
> >have produced excellent photos of the Glover, Wilkinson, Laufer and
> >Culin early sets)published in the Playing-card Journal, or visit Tom's
>
> I would love to read your papers, but they're not exactly publicly accessible.
> According to its Website, the Playing Card sells only to its members.

Just give me your address or send it to me via email I will gladly
send you colour photocopies by 1st class post(I think you live in the
UK as I do?).

> and it's such an obscure and poorly managed journal that not even the National
> Library of Scotland (to which as a deposit library they are required by
> law to send copies, since they're UK based) has a complete run.
> Furthermore, the contents listing on the Website doesn't include your
> name anywhere, [snip]

That info is a surprise to me. There have been problems within the
Journal but now Thierry has come on board, perhaps he can respond to
those points?

> If you do know how the general public can obtain your articles, I'm
> sure I'm not the only one who would like to know!

The only way I know of is by sending me a request for photocopies.
which I'll send free of charge.

> (I can't forebear to mention that these days it's infinitely more
> useful to put research articles on the Web as PDF. Only the commercial
> publishers have any interest in not doing this, and even most of those
> have now been forced to allow it (in my field).)

A good point.

Cheers
Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In article <52f8c9c6.0408251446.53ad6d24@posting.google.com>,
Michael Stanwick <mstanwick@aol.com> wrote:

>Hello Julian. Can you describe the original box? Which Mah-Jong Museum

For my practical purpose, the question is moot now, since the offer
has expired! However, in the interests of science: the box is a
standard Chinese shallow box with sliding top lid. It has in large
engraved letters four characters that are unfortunately a bit too
cursive for my rudimentary hanzi decipherment skills, and smaller
writing above and below that I can't read at all.

>are you talking about? If it is Jim May's Cyber Museum then I am not

Takeshobo.

>To run a comparison, I suggest you either read my two papers(where I
>have produced excellent photos of the Glover, Wilkinson, Laufer and
>Culin early sets)published in the Playing-card Journal, or visit Tom's

I would love to read your papers, but they're not exactly publicly accessible.
According to its Website, the Playing Card sells only to its members.
and it seems from the catalogue that not even the National
Library of Scotland (to which as a deposit library they are required by
law to send copies, since they're UK based) has a complete run.
Furthermore, the contents listing on the Website doesn't include your
name anywhere, so I don't know in which issue your articles appeared.
If you do know how the general public can obtain your articles, I'm
sure I'm not the only one who would like to know!

(I can't forebear to mention that these days it's infinitely more
useful to put research articles on the Web as PDF. Only the commercial
publishers have any interest in not doing this, and even most of those
have now been forced to allow it (in my field).)