North American Tiddlywinks Association

NATwA founded • 27 February 1966

  • Title: Newswink
  • Whole number: 11
  • Date: 2 August 1980
  • Pages: 14 including a 2 page address list
  • Editor: Rick Tucker
  • Format: printed in black and white on 8½” by 11″ white paper. Prepared using the R document layout software on the MIT Mathlab computer (MIT-ML).
[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
Newswink Eleven

An official publication of the North American Tiddlywinks Association

2 August 1980
Edited by Rick Tucker

A Bright New Star Appears on the Scene

by Dave Lockwood

What a Singles! What an upset! In what was, in the eyes of many, the greatest upset in winks history, the extra player from Britain, a woman in what has always remained men-only country, seeded tenth by the usually accurate Dragon, winkmen and winkwomen of the world, may I introduce Pamela Knowles, the victor in the 1980 North American Singles Championship! With American superstars such as Larry Kahn, Dave Lockwood, Joe Sachs, Sev Drix (alias the Renaissance four) and English scholarship awardee Alan Dean (winner of five of the nine ETwA Singles Championships) in attendance plus the likes of Rick Tucker, Rich Steidle. Fred Shapiro, David desJardins, and Jim Marlin, Pam finished 11-2 for 66½ points, losing games only to the Dragon, twice 6-1. Dave was heard to say for several days after the match, “There is no way Pam could have won the Singles. We’re all suffering from mass hallucinations.” The rest of the top four were Larry 10-3 for 64, the Dragon, 10-3 for 61 points, and Severin 8-5 for 55 1/2 points. In games among the top four:

1 v 2   6-1,   6-1   = 12-2
1 v 3   1-6,   1-6   = 2-12
1 v 4   6-1,   6-1   = 12-2
2 v 3   2-5,   6-1   =  8-6
2 v 4   6-1, 5.5-1.5 = 11.5-2.5
3 v 4   1-6,   1-6   = 2-12

In other words, Pam got 26, Larry got 21.5, The Dragon 20, and Severin got some revenge on The Dragon. It also means they all pretty much did the same thing to everybody else—39 to 42.5 points.

It was such a great finish that Joe, who finished fifth, said, “I wish I’d had more influence on the final result.” Alan seemed to provide moral support for Pam during the final 3 games. It was also the first match where the dreaded Foreign Visitor rule came into play. Horsemeat was awarded the title due to being the top North American finisher and gets a challenge for the World Singles (actually the first challenge) and Pam gets a subsequent challenge. Larry’s scheduled for an August 2 World Singles debut with The Dragon who has climbed to four wins and a loss in World Singles play.

The Ninth NATwA Singles was missing such stars as *, Bill Renke, Ferd, Ross Callon, Bob Henninge, Nan Brady, mary kirman, Arye Gittelman (diet study!), the Barbanos, T. D. Indian, and several others. Any or all would have added to an already great tournament.

Weird things happened: David desJardins (rookie of they year I think?) scored 6 2s and 4 Is in strong efforts against several contenders (I sure felt lucky to get 5 in my game!). Alan suffered his first tournament loss to Pam. Sev beat Dave head-to-head total for the first time … and big too. Larry won the second of two games against Dave, his first Singles victory against The Dragon, and which had a significant effect on the finish. Jim’s first tournament in a long time saw him upset Alan but suffer two 0s. Joe played consistently well but did not have the spark which fired him last year. (Marriage preparations may be wearing him out.) (Hi Terri!)

Anyway, it was a great tournament and it sets up some interesting World Singles matches and marks the peak (so far!) of Pam Knowles’ career. Good luck Pam and congratulations!


1980 Singles

by Larry Kahn

The 1980 North American Singles tournament provided one of the biggest surprises ever as Pam Knowles from England overtook Larry in the last playoff game to win the tournament. Larry, by finishing second, took the NATwA Singles title but got a second place finish in a NAC. Dave Lockwood finished his usual third in a North American Championship (up to 5 in a row) and Sev Drix completed the top four.

The Singles moved south again this year to the ORI building in Silver Spring, Maryland [24-25 May 1980], This may have been the first NATwA tournament played under lock and key, as the conference room where the tournament took place was in a secured area. The cooling mechanism for the air conditioners was turned off and the weather was warm, so all we got was a lot of recycled hot air. Yes, Fred Shapiro was there, too.

The field consisted of Dave Lockwood, Larry Kahn, Alan Dean, Joe Sachs, Rich Steidle, Sev Drix, Rick Tucker, Jim Marlin, Fred, Pam Knowles, and David desJardins. The expected challengers were Dave, Larry, Alan, Joe, and Sev, with Pam being a relative unknown and everyone else being possible spoilers.

In the first round Pam gave notice of things to come by beating Larry 6-1. David desJ showed he wasn’t to be any pushover by nearly beating the Dragon, but finally losing a 5-2. After 3 games it looked like Joe was rolling again this year, with 18, followed by Dave with 17, Sev with 12 in 2, and Pam with 13. Larry was well back with only 7 in 2.

By then end of the first day, Pam had taken the lead with a fine 8-0 record for 42 points. Larry had crept into second on the strength of two 7s and 3 6s after round 3 for 38. Dave was close behind with 36 and Joe and Sev had 34 and 33. Alan had a surprisingly rough first day, losing 6s to Sev and Jim and a 5 to Pam and was far back at 28. I have unfortunately never seen Alan play to the form that gained him the title “El Supremo”; perhaps during the next England trip. desJ had an amazing 5 2s in his 8 games the first day, showing he was in most of his games and doing very well for a rookie.

The completion of the regulation games was going to be interesting. Pam had an easy schedule and was virtually in the playoffs. Sev, though somewhat behind, had Jim and Fred. Meanwhile, Dave, Joe, Larry, and Alan would be playing a mini-round-robin and only 2 would make it. Dave and Larry swept the first two rounds of it, putting them both in, and would play the 11th round to determine the placement for the finals. Up until now, Larry had never beaten Dave in a Singles tournament and the jinx continued as Dave took Larry in a pot-out but only managed a 5.

The finals began with Pam at 53 1/2, Dave at 53, Larry at 51½, and Sev at 47. Joe had ended 5th at 42, Alan at 32½, and Rich at 28. Joe had managed the only win by a non-finalist over a finalist, a 4-3 over Sev.

The first playoff round, after much discussion, pitted Dave against Larry again and Sev vs. Pam. Larry finally got his first Singles win against Dave, a solid 6-1, while Pam disposed of Sev by the same score. Larry then took Sev in a tough game 5½ to 1½, and Dave again beat Pam 6-1. The final round began with Larry up by 2½ over Pam, Dave another ½ back and Sev out of it, 13½ back. Larry’s and Pam’s game began first and about halfway through it looked like a 6 for Pam. In this game Pam played nearly flawlessly, making the tough shot when she had to. Alan was always nearby, lending moral support when needed.

Meanwhile, Dave learned that he probably couldn’t get first, but a 6 would give him second and the NATwA title, also preventing a challenge by an American for the World Singles title. However, Sev repaid Larry for helping him out last year by taking his second 6 from Dave (first time ever in the Singles) and giving Dave a Triple Third for this year.

For the 4th time in 5 years, the second place player going into the last round overtook the leader. Pam played a very solid tournament, nothing particularly fancy, but not many mistakes either. Larry dominated the Americans witha 5.75 ppg but got only 6½ off the British. For the second straight year, the top American finishers were the old Renaissance top four. Can no one stop them? Bill, Ross, *?

How Seedy?

by The Dragon

I made up seedings for the Singles and except for an embarrassing next to last seeding for Pam Knowles, it was an interesting attempt. In analyzing my seedings, I came up with an interesting idea of rating how good seeding forecasts were.

Below are the preliminaries of the Singles as seeded by me, with the actual tournament scores of each game.

                                        Rounds   Final
Seed       D L  A  J Rh S Rk J F  P  D pts  pos pts pos
 1 Dragon  X 5  6  6 6  1 5  7 6  6  5  53   2   61  3
 2 Larry   2 X  4½ 6 7  6 6  6 7  1  6  51½  3   64  2
 3 A1an    1 2½ X  1 7  1 6  1 6  2  5  32½  6
 4 Joe     1 1  6  X 6  4 6  6 6  1  5  42   5
 5 Rich    1 0  0  1 X  2 5  7 6  1  5  28   7
 6 Sev     6 1  6  3 5  X 7  6 6  1  6  47   4   55½ 4
 7 Rick    2 1  1  1 2  0 X  1 6  1  5  20   9
 8 Jim     0 1  6  1 0  1 6  X 4  1  6  26   8
 9 Fred    1 0  1  1 1  1 1  3 X  1½ 5  15½ 10
10 Pam     1 6  5  6 6  6 6  6 5½ X  6  53½  1   66½ 1
11 David   2 1  2  2 2  1 2  1 2  1  X  16  11
This seeding yielded 14 games where a lower seed beat a higher seed out of a total of 55 games. The optimal seeding yields 2. Can you figure it out? * said his probably pre tournament “seedings” would have given him a 12. Ask him for details if you’re not bored stiff already. (No, really, folks. This is good stuff!)

1980 Season

by Larry Kahn

The 1980 winks season may have been the most exciting ever. All three championships came down to the last game, with an incredible photo finish at the Continentals.

For the record, Relix barely nosed out MIT and Moosewinks when the Mister Bill Show eked out a 7 in the last game to win by ⅙ of a point. In the Pairs, Larry Kahn and Arye Gittelman held off Bill Renke & Ross Callon in the final game to win by 3½. The Singles provided the biggest surprise when darkhorse Pam Knowles overtook Larry in the final game of that tournament.

Statistically, Larry had a truly dominating year, going 40-7 for a 5.16 ppg and finishing third, first, and first (second) in the 3 NATwA championships. Evidently the Washington environment does something to improve your game: since moving south Larry has compiled a 169-51-2 record (4.84 ppg). Fred Shapiro apparently agrees with the theory, as he recently moved to Arlington, Virginia. This will truly be the acid test.

Dave Lockwood completed a Triple Third, and adding to this achievement even finished third in ppg behind Ross (4.79) and Larry. In a year of comebacks, Ross led in wins with 48; Bill Renke finally showed up for the Pairs, finishing second; and Fred led in games with 68. Severin went in the opposite direction, having an off year, but we keep writing him off and he keeps coming back.

Nan Brady had possibly the best season for a female winker, going 30-14 for a fine 4.22 ppg. Several new tournaments sprang up, αλτηουγη σομε οφ τηεσε τυρνεδ ούτ το βε νοτηινγ μορε τηαν γλοριφιεδ ΜΙΤ πρακτιξεσ φορ ξερταιν υνναμεδ ωινκερσ το παδ τηειρ στατσ ωιτη [although some of these turned out to be nothing more than glorified MIT practices for certain unnamed winkers to pad their stats with]. Rookie of the Year has to go to David desJardins, and wimp of the year goes to *, who at the Pairs told desJ that if he wanted to play singles he would have to play all the games, and then * turned around and didn’t play all his games with Don Fox.

All in all, a great year for winks and a nice way to close out the decade.

Larry & Arye Edge Bill & Ross in Pairs

by Larry Kahn

This year’s Pairs tournament [the 11th tor NATwA], shaped up as a battle of brains against brawn as the strategy-oriented pairs of Bill Renke & Ross Callon and Dave Lockwood & Joe Sachs took on the high-powered offense of Larry Kahn & Arye Gittelman. Everyone eagerly awaited the return of Bill & Ross to see if the old magic was still there or if the then up and coming youngsters were now kings of the hill. Last year’s champions Severin Drix & Joe had a falling out during the year due to a bad case of Sec-Genitis with the result that Sev played with a returning Carl and Joe, now recovered, played with Dave. The remainder of a fine field included Bob Henninge & Nan Brady, coming off an excellent year, * & Don Fox, Ferd & mary kirman, Brad Schaefer & Fred Shapiro, Rick Tucker & Ken Moraff, and an excellent rookie, David desJardins, playing singles.

On Saturday morning [3 May 1980, in MIT room 407], Brad whipped out his trusty chess book to figure out the schedule and the tournament got underway. As expected, Larry & Arye and Bill & Ross got off to fast starts with Dave & Joe and Bob & Nan right behind. Brad & Fred played tough against both top pairs and got 3s, Larry having to pot a big wink from 18 inches in the fourth and make two more pots in the fifth to eke out the 4.

Despite having played together in only two previous tournament games, Larry & Arye meshed well, each was aware of what the other could do and kept him from trying anything too crazy. They exploded really only once, against * & Don, when over a period of five minutes they kept making longer and longer squops culminating with a 3 foot big on big squop by Larry to squop * out.

Rick & Ken played well as an untested pair, averaging nearly 3 and getting 5 against Bob & Nan and 3½ against Ferd & mary. [This was Rick’s 3rd tie of the season, tying a record set by * in the 1973-4 season.] * continued his recent streak of wimping out at the end of tournaments, but Don still managed a singles 4 against Sev & Carl. David desJardins had two of his wins against biggies, taking 4s from Ferd & mary and Don & *. And Sev, despite being sick, got some measure of revenge against the Dragon, beating him 5-2.

*’s infinite scheduling wisdom had left the Larry-Arye vs Bill-Ross game until the last round, at which point both pairs were undefeated with Larry & Arye holding a slim 1½ point lead. In the first showdown game, Arye had trouble early, went off twice, and Bill & Ross had solid control. It looked like a 6 but Larry nibbled for a while, blew up a pile as regulation ended, and Larry & Arye came away with a 2. This point swing became quite important later.

[At the end of the full round-robin, the scores were as follows:]
              pts   w-l-t
Bill & Ross   47.5  9-0
Arye & Larry  46    8-1
Dragon & Joe  38.5  6-3
Bob & Nan     32.5  4-5
Don & *       29    4-5 [* 25 (3-5)]
Sev & Spike   27.5  3-6
Rick & Ken    26    2-6-1
mary & Ferd   26    3-5-1
Fred & Brad   25    2-7
David         17    3-6

[Note the 4 point difference between 5th place and 9th.]

In the first round of the playoffs among the top four, Bill Ross took a 6-1 from Bob-Nan while Larry-Arye had an ugly 6-1 win over Dave-Joe. In that game, first Larry, then Joe, then Arye went out of turn before it was discovered. The two options available to Dave & Joe both turned out to be undesireable and Larry & Arye eventually gained control (Dave had 3 in from an attempted pot out).

In the next round Larry & Arye buried Bob-Nan 6-1 and Dave, never to hold a grudge, helped out Larry & Arye by beating Bill & Ross 5-2. Dave & Joe then beat Bob & Nan 6-1 to give Dave his fourth straight 3rd place finish in a North American championship.

In the battle for first, Bill & Ross need at least 5, being down 2½ points. Larry (red) & Arye (blue) take an early lead, controlling most of the Ross (green) winks in a medium-sized but under-defended pile. Ross manages to blow the pile near the end of regulation and as time runs out Larry & Arye are slightly up in a game containing only single squops of free winks. At this point either side can try for 4 and probably get it but Bill & Ross need 5.

In early rounds, Arye makes a nice 6 inch big on big squop forcing Ross to squop a red near the edge of the mat. In the third, Larry pots a wink and brings in another threatening to take first. Bill then pots two and tries a long Bristol (yellow on blue) onto another blue and misses just short. Arye takes this piddleable and Ross ends the third by potting and moving on a squop.

Beginning fourth, Larry has one in, one pottable and two up (6 time-limit-points); Arye has three up but one piddleable (3); Bill has two in, one up (7); and Ross has one in, two up (5). Larry then pots and firms up a squop, Bill makes a beautiful click boondock of a blue and squops a red on yellow but not very pottable, Arye piddles and makes his big wink pottable from 4 inches, and Ross boondocks another blue.

Larry then figures that Bill won’t pot any of his yellows (he would even hate to have to make it) and firms up the other squop. Bill then tries to put the bottom wink in so he can squop Arye’s free blue with the top yellow but fails in a good attempt. Larry now has nine points and rather than risk an unlikely spaz of the pot, Arye shoots himself off the table, losing his 6th round shot. Ross must now both pot the close green and then come off the red, knock a red off a yellow and end up squopping two reds. He only manages to do one of those, giving Larry & Arye 4 and the title.

Larry became only the second person to win the Pairs with different partners and Arye became the youngest winner ever (at 18 years 6 months). The Sev and/or Larry stranglehold on the Pairs continues, since for the last six years the winning pair has contained at least one of the two. Based on this season it looks like it’s up to Larry to continue the tradition. Finally, it pays to be ahead going into the last round, as the last round leader of the Pairs has never been overtaken.

[And the final placement of the playoff pairs:]
              pts    w-1   ppg
Larry & Arye  62    11-1  5.166
Bill & Ross   58.5  10-2  4.875
Dragon & Joe  50.5   8-4  4.208
Bob & Nan     35.5   4-8  2.958

1980 Continentals Report

by Fred Shapiro

The 1979-80 season was certainly the most acrimonious in winking memory. Three simultaneous monster disputes raged for months, climaxing at a crowded Friday night meeting at Severin Drix’s before the Continentals. The nastiness of these events now seems to be faded, and if this is so, the reason may be that the winks, as is their wont, reminded us all of the beautiful craziness that our game inspires and which ultimately redeems it all. This was displayed at year’s end when the 10th-seeded player won the Singles, shattering more than one bit of conventional wisdom in the process, but it was most forcefully driven home by the Continentals itself, which turned out like some kind of improbable fantasy only Sunshine could dream up.

Going into the tournament, MRoenoaissseanwceinks was heavily favored to win its fourth straight title, although the emerging idea of self regulation provided some possibility this might not happen. Relix looked strong on paper, but most of its players were severely out of practice. Perceptive observers gave MIT a shot, but the presence of two novices on the six-person squad made victory highly unlikely for the scholastic squad. The other teams were tremendous longshots.

The tournament structure was two divisions, with the top two in each advancing to an (ostensibly) round-robin final. In the Moose-Somerville-MIT-lthaca High School division, Somerville was handicapped by the absence of Nan Brady, who had had an exceptional pre-Continentals season and who was to establish an all-time record for games played in a season without playing in the Continentals (44). Moosewinks, regulating its strength, and MIT therefore advanced. MIT served notice of its seriousness as a contender by defeating Moose head-to-head and providing a classic upset as novices David desJardins and Jim Roberts toppled the very strong pair of Larry Kahn and Rich Steidle 4-3. Trivia freaks noted that Renaissance/Moosewinks had now lost three times head-to-head in its Continentals history, with Rick Tucker and Fred Shapiro being on the opposing team each time.

In the other division, Relix and HYTHNLBTWOO [Hark yon tree hath no leaves but they will out organization] (Chickens) advanced over Cornell and Xenopus [Toads]. Relics Scott Hirsh and Bill Gammerdinger provided one of the most dramatic moments in NATwA history as they arrived from Texas/Seattle on Saturday morning [16 February 1980] and serenaded the hall from a balcony [in the Willard Straight Memorial Room] obviously designed for exactly this purpose.

The finals on Sunday were the most exciting ever. Relix was leading all the way and defeated MIT 37½ to 25½, but had to conclude against the full-strength Mooses while MIT finished against Chickens. At this point it should be noted that the Chickens’ mid-tournament decision to cancel the 13th round, which almost certainly affected the tournament outcome, is probably the kind of thing which should never occur again in NATwA play.

In the penultimate round, MIT bore down against the surprisingly strong Chickens, who were bolstered by the addition of two faces whom everyone was pleased to see again: MP Rouse and Carl Chenkin. Ross Callon & Fred defeated Jake & Dean Solomon 6-1, Rick & Jim Roberts 6-1’d MP & Carl, and Arye Gittelman & David desJardins 5-2’d L & Moishe. Meanwhile the Barbanos were upsetting Joe Sachs & Charles Frankston 6-1, Dave Lockwood & Rich Steidle were edging the Mr. Bill Show 4-3, and Sev & Larry were 4-3’ing T. D. Indian & Scott, a pair from way back reunited.

This set up a last round with three teams in contention. MIT-Chickens finished first: * & Jake 4⅔ over Arye & David; Rick & Jim 6 over Moishe & Dean; Ross & Fred 4 over Carl & MP. Rick was the top MIT scorer with 55 (probable 57 without squidger drop) and Ross proved his clutch credentials by potting for the win in the fifth round in each of the last three games. This created a situation in which Relix needed only 8 in 3 games to clinch. Spectators soon were running around with the news that two of the games were blitzes. Sev & Larry notched a 6 against TDI & Scott and Dave & Rich took 7 from Joe & Charles. MIT, which had been expecting second place all day, now was told that if the Barbanos defeated the Bills, Moose would win; if they got no points, Relix would win; if they got 1 to 3½ points it would be MIT. The MIT range seemed eminently the most probable.

The last game was played under the ultimate in pressure: spectators crowded around and whispering, danger of getting kicked out of the room, complex strategy, etc. Hindsight now suggests that the Barbanos could have played for the 1, forcing the Bills into desperation moves resulting in their throwing away the win and giving Moose the title. Ultimately, however, there was the Renke mystique to contend with: The Man You Would Want to Have Running a Pair If You Really Needed a Seven. The Man Who Would Find a Way. By rounds Gammer had six free. In the fifth he popped the last one in from seven inches. At this point, the valiant young MIT team, built by Fred, Rick, Ross, and Arye from nothing over five months, was looking like the ’78 Red Sox in terms of frustration. Hand trembling, Renke potted his six.

The final scores were Relix 90, MIT 89⅚, Moosewinks 86, the closest finish ever, indeed the closest two-way finish possible (I don’t want to hear about penalties …) and the first real three-way Continentals battle.

Statistically, Rich turned in a stunning performance (11-1, 63½ points). His loss to the novices was his only one, and only * and Gammer (64 points, 1974) have scored better in the modern era. In B Division play, the veteran pair of John Reppy (10-3, 62) and Ken Moraff (9-3, 58) excelled. Ross’s 15 game winning streak was halted by Ferd and Don Fox, Larry’s 14 game one stopped by David & Jim. There were three ties for the first time in a NATwA tournament, and TDI, Scott, and newcomer In {Ellen Davis} became the first to have two in a tournament. L and Dean, playing together, got a 4½ which was the first ever for each. Dave and Larry got that Harpur gleam in their eyes as they played together against the High School (Sachs Cup fever?). [And Joe separated Irom his Ren friends, now being on the winning Continentals team lor 4 straight years; in addition. Charles picked up his lirst NAC.]

In all, 54 people played, more than in any tournament since who knows when. This followed unusually large fields in both Regionals. For the season, 527 total games were played, smashing the record 431 of two years ago. Scholastic winks made a spectacular comeback and the unboondocking phenomenon continued. At the Continentals, organization was smooth, and the Congress was well-run. Special commendation goes to Mr. Dtix for handling a difficult team situation admirably. A good time was had by all. Next year in the Big Apple?

(P S. B Division results: A sometimes authoritative source stated that he believes Cornell should be considered to have defeated Somerville for the B title when penalties for games in which marauding Chickens played for Somerville are taken into account.)

Arye New SecGen

1980 Congress Minutes

by Charles Frankston

Minutes of Congress of North American Tiddlywinks Association
16 February 1980
Willard Straight Hall, Cornell, Ithaca New York
Taken by Charles Frankston

Congress called to order by Josef Sachs at 20:42

Lost property distributed.

Rick Tucker is given round of applause for fine job on Newswink 10.

Joe Sachs calls for new Sec-Gen. T. D. Indian nominates Arye Gittelman, nomination closed, seconded, carried by acclamation, 20:44.

Arye is urged to take control of meeting.

Bill Gammerdinger moves adjournment, is ignored.

Sev Drix mentions that songbooks have not been printed in a long time, * says he still has originals. TDI volunteers to work on new songbook.

Sev raises issue that records of past Congress decisions are not clear. Suggests that Fred Shapiro compile a “digest of the common law of NATwA” (Fred’s words). Fred fears it may be difficult, but consensus is he should try.

Dave Lockweed raises the Chicken (Hythnlbtwoo) issue. Hyth does not want to play out full round robin. Agreed after discussion that Hyth can play only ⅔ round robin against relevant teams.

(Ross Callon: “Does it snow this weekend every year?”)

TDI brings up squidgeoff rule. Newswink 10 reporting of 1979 Congress may not be accurate insofar as voting on this rule goes. TDI reproposes rule, is carried overwhelmingly.

[The first two squidge-offs may not be by the same side. The third squidge off must be taken by the side which has come closest after the first 2 squidge-offs.]

mary kirman proposes moving Continentals to Easter, or some other warm-weather, weekend, primarily to avoid everyone having to travel in bad weather. (Carl Chenkin: “that proposal has too much common sense to be adopted”). Suggests Singles could be switched with Continentals, since the die-hards that come to the Singles would travel in any weather. Weed speaks of intenseness progression of Teams-Pairs-Singles. Barry Rogoff mentions that Toronto might return since Continentals would then no longer conflict with their what’s-it weekend, (“weren’t they kicked out because of the tables?”, “oh, we’ve forgotten that”…) TDI suggests be decided in a captain’s conference call. Sev suggests a meeting, probably at Pairs. Weed wants to decide now, team captains not democratic enough. It is moved that there should be a special session of Congress at the Pairs for this purpose, and that it be open to any interested. Agreed 21:15.

Pairs are to be May 3 & 4 at MIT. Does it conflict with SAT’s? Yes.

* asks who has final decision on legality of a shot if there is no shot judge and no agreement among parties? Weed asserts has always been opponents’ option, Sev says there may be exceptions if it were a particularly unusual shot, subject to abuse. Fred proposes illegal shots must always be taken over, to remove “unpleasantness”. Carl says absolute determination of illegality will never be possible, people just have to be reasonable. MP Rouse points out tournament director has ultimate responsibility (Weed: “The purpose of the rules is to make as little use of the TD as possible” (*: “or the best use”)). Joe suggests opponents strive to anticipate potential disputes and call shot judge beforehand. Sev points out to Fred that accepting a shot is often far less unpleasant than not. MP mentions sometimes feeling intimidated in calling shot judge on experienced players. It is agreed that one should never feel any stigma in calling a shot judge at the slightest doubt. Carl: “There is no way to legislate acts of God”. Move that no rule change is necessary passes by acclamation.

Weed on quick on continuous: from the point that anything in a pile moves things should be quick, feels some have been abusing, such as 5 second pile blowups. There is agreement on this point, which is stated clearly in the Sachs rules.

Sev hands Bill Renke a check for $157, result of $307 in set sales from the Ithaca area minus $150 of Sev’s NATwA related expenses. Sev: Ithaca is a small market compared to let’s say, New York or Boston. Some people buy it for the box.

Treasurer’s report: Fred said someone donated $5 to NATwA and asked about industrial winks league. Bill-R announced he was recently surprised to discover that NATwA had $695. With recent additions that is now $891.44. Proposes to pay back cup fund investors each ⅔ of their investment. This would leave a little over $300 in the NATwA treasurery. Some mention interest on money. Motion passed by acclamation without interest to be paid.

There are now two Memorial Day weekends. Weed proposes using Federal holiday for Singles. Larry says he can have it in his office in Washington. Carried 6-0—Singles shall be in Washington May 24-25.

Jon Mapley will be coming this year again on his own funds. There was talk of sponsoring Alan Dean to come. Bill-R says in gratitude for all the hospitality American winkers have received while in England he would contribute at least $100. Arye appoints Weed head of bring Alan to America fund. Pledges are taken: Weed at least $50, Sev $40, JS $25, Ross $50, Arye $10. [That’s at least $275]

L suggests interest of 1 winks set per pot fund contributor be awarded. Passed 8-3 or so.

Sev on playing surface: last 2 batches from England declared substandard. People should check out the new MIT surface & the Wool Ithaca College blanket Sev has. Sev suggests the blanket be sold in store because they can be folded. MP claims she couldn’t get rid of the wrinkles after folding. Manufacturer could probably customize blanket with baselines and NATwA logo in gold trim or something, mary thinks it might be a good temporary solution, reports Rabbit has been talking with a felt company in Georgia. Some discussion of history of past surface searches. [What ever happened to the National Playing Fields Association?]

Sev discusses communications breakdown, talks about creating more offices within NATwA to help relieve Sec-Gen. Wants Bob Henninge or Bill-R to take more part in coordinating things. Arye insists he will force work off on *, Bill-R, Sev as always. L is always busy when things come up that the Eastern Regional coordinator should do. Doug Young is thanked for his performance as Western Regional coordinator. Joe is thanked for his years of service.

Relix is thanked [thanked ?] for travelling 9,000 miles to get the Continentals.

Sev talks about team structure. Matches should not be decided by who a team can pick up just before a tournament. Sev proposes tribunal to rule on validity of team memberships and what constitutes a consistent but not an artificial team. Carl likes the idea. Arye suggests topic is better considered at special session to take place at Pairs.

Weed proposes a team structure that would consist of a combination of pairs and singles players. Dies from lack of interest.

Sev speaks of different perspectives of Continentals… 2 tournaments to satisfy different people?

MP suggests’ bringing a big graffiti sheet tomorrow to gather comments.

TDI moves adjournment, passed at 22:15.

Continentals Comment Sheet # 1

As per MP’s suggestion at the 1980 Congress, sheets for winking commentary were filled with words on the second day of the Continentals.


A game.

A path bridging the physical and mental-spiritual realms – ergo, a key (one of many) to the universe.

Tiddlywinks is, we must remember, nothing but a stupid children’s game, when you get right down to it.

an opportunity to practice manipulation of the physical plane and bounce off the wills and minds of others both like and unlike me: fun.

Winx seems to be becoming a paradox. We are becoming torn between he concept of winx as a competitive sport and winx as something more fun, more profound, whatever, just something very different. I think that it began as a parody of a competitive sport. Institutions like the Closet of Fame clearly parody institutions of “real” sports. I don’t know what we can do about the paradox, whether it can be reconciled or eliminated. I personally think we are moving toward two NATwAs: the people at the poles are obviously defined. The Relix seem to be the only team who make any attempt to bridge the gap. I have no answers to suggest, but we have to recognize the questions. The continuance of winx depends on dealing with this. Think about this question: was this past year the most successful in our history or the most fucked-up? It is possible to answer both ways. Hopefully the replacement of the Sec-Gen will cure a lot of the misunderstandings and bad feelings and weirdnesses and incompetences, but not everything can be blamed on a scapegoat. It just seems to me that we are losing sight of what it’s all about, and newcomers are not being “taught” what it’s all about and thus have no sense of it.

Something is badly wrong when most teams in NATwA actively seek to avoid playing in the “A” division. Something is very badly wrong when players can even try to justify obnoxious habits of play on the grounds that they improve their performance. Something has gone very seriously wrong when winning changes from merely a necessary focus to the game into the entire purpose of playing.

A game devoid of all pressures, that allows me to play as I feel. If the time is right to try to pot out with two squopped two minutes into the game, then hell, I will. I hate high pressure games in which numerous oh shit!, or oh fuck! phrases are emitted. If winks is to be a sport then I want out.

Comment Sheet #2

In order to determine the format for next year’s (& perhaps other future) Continentals, it’s necessary for the planners to have some idea of what people expect from the Continentals (as a tournament) in particular, & perhaps winx matches or competitions in general. Is the Continentals ”the social event of the season”, the real, hard-core, big-time team tournament, somewhere between, something else? What about “friendlies” vs. games-that-count? etc? Try to be legible.


(spelled right)

Held in the Spring when the weather is better (Winke) I!!

Primarily, the tournament that determines the best team in NATwA, and a reasonable ranking (including B division) so that every team has something to aim at, even if it’s 6th place vs. 7th. This does not mean that competition should be cut-throat, but finishing well should mean something, playing well should mean much, and choice of opponents & format should be such as to maximize validity of standings. Some time (evening?) could be set aside for informal games as well, and the social get-together aspect is important and valuable, though second in importance.

To me, there is no inherent quality that does or should define the Continentals. NATwA is an organization of winkers. Yet it is perhaps more, a [illegible] of many groups of people who have greatly disparate wants, needs, demands in terms of winks. In order to enable NATwA to continue to function, therefore, it would appear to me that the Continentals, being as it is (and I would like it to remain) a time when all winkers big and small come from far & near, must always be a compromise. That is, it must take into account the needs of hard cores and fun-lovers alike and all the variations thereunto. It is very possible that few will be entirely satisfied with the format, but that seems inevitable in a group this large that has such heterogeneity of desires. The trick is to gracefully accept the need to compromise on non-essentials, to attempt to sincerely limit the allegedly “essential” aspects of what we want, and to resolve the issues as amicably as possible.

I feel that the Continentals should provide an opportunity for high level winx, experience on whatever level of play is so desired, for fun, for good competition … i.e., for whatever people play winx for. In short for interacting with people and with winks. It is our ‘team’ tourney so it should help the players have as unified (or otherwise) sense of group or team concept as desired. For many this could mean going for a championship, for others simply a chance to play with another enjoyed group. The format should be such that both of these goals (and any others) should be compatible. In trying to figure out one’s own preferences one should try to think of what others would also enjoy.

I think the Continentals (i) has too many games; and/or (ii) is too competitive. This takes much of the enjoyment out of it for me (Ross).

I agree that our tradition of 12 games is too draining and that a 10 or 11 game match should be seriously considered.

A chance to get away from Boston and meet “real” girls. (Panther)

I wish you would quit winks and not fuck over women, in NATwA or Ithaca or anywhere, unless your choice of language doesn’t truly reflect your spirit.

The “A” division is an all-out, but gentlepersonly, battle for #1 ranking. The “B” division is for “fun” games. Bill G

Notes on Robustness, Winks, Winning, and Fun

by Ross Callon

“Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.” The Robustness Principle, from DOD Standard Transmission Control Protocol.

As some of you may know, I am employed to work on definition of computer protocol standards, which are the rules by which computers talk to each other. The above quote is from a Department of Defense protocol specification, but would seem to apply just as well to winks protocol (the rules by which winkers talk to each other). When a computer protocol standard comes out, it is almost certainly ambiguous, incomplete, and/or self-contradictory. When one is deciding how to interpret the protocol rules for designing what one’s own computer will do, one invariably finds oneself asking “am I allowed to do this”, “must I allow for the possibility that someone might do this”, etc. The basic principle is that if you want to have a hope that things will work, then you had better do things only if you’re sure they’re ok, and you better not insist that others do things unless you are sure they’re required. This follows from the obvious fact that different people will have different interpretations of what’s ok.

It would seem that the opposite approach is often used in human interaction. The rule seems to be to get away with as much as possible, complain like hell if anyone else tries to get away with anything you don’t like. We see people complaining that teams of free agents (or otherwise) are too strong and shouldn’t be allowed to play; then a year or too later the same individuals form their own cruncher team largely of free agents and seemingly argue the opposite. We see tournaments designed to be tests of stamina and endurance; something to be endured rather than enjoyed. When teams suggest playing a ⅔ round robin, it would seem that some would rather have a team not play than put up with the inelegance of a ⅔ round robin.

To me, winks contains the essence of amateur athletics at its best. Winks is clearly one of the best games ever invented. We practice for hours, recruit new winkers, and maintain a high level of play because it’s FUN. When desire to win, or to improve one’s statistics takes precedence over respect for a fellow person, something’s wrong. When winks stops being fun, it’s time to quit.

Silver Squidger

On 15 March 1980, a new NATwA tournament was born … conceived by Ross Callon after some similar tournament in some other sport (which one, I wouldn’t know). The sole winner was to receive a unique prize, and one which a winker could, at some future instant, pull out of his or her squidger case (or pocket) to the gasps of all winkers there about: a Silver Squidger.

The format would be one in which all players—superstar, novice, or otherwise—should have a chance to win. Presumably some method of matching partners for each round would even out the disparities in skills. As it turned out, complaints about the scheduling turned out to be irrelevant…

as the winner was Jim Roberts. Jim won all 6 games, taking 34.5 points. Arye Gittelman was second, at 5-1 and 32.5, then David desJardins, Ken Moraff, Sev Drix.

Charles Frankston flew in from Livermore, California, to play one game, and a good one: a 5 with Sev against Ross & Brad Schaefer. Ron Mabbitt appeared for the first time in over a year, playing one game, his 50th NATwA career game. And the SST was the first tournament for Tina Wray (Fay) of MIT.

But no silver squidger was awarded the winner … instead, Rick Tucker awarded Jim Roberts with a shiny dark purple one inch squidger … and an orange one to David desJardins for new player of the year. The next time you see these squidgers, beware.

Origin of Double-Squop

26 Canadian Avenue,
London, S.E.6,
6th March 1980.

Dear Rick,

Congratulations on Newswink 10, which came over with David Lockwood for the Hampshire Open Championship. It is a good read, and as the oldest winker still playing in England—I began in 1960—I was particularly interested in [Fred Shapiro’s article] “historical gleanings”. Can I throw some light on the origins of ‘double-squop’? Contrary to Crick’s statement, double-squop was invented by Oxford, and first played in the Oxford-Cambridge match of 1960. Cambridge did not play double-squop in that match, but pot-squop (one player potted and the other squopper), and Cambridge won by 58 points to 54.

I did not play in that match, for my first year at Cambridge began in the autumn of 1960, but I played in the Varsity (Oxford-Cambridge) matches of the four subsequent years. In 1961 Oxford continued to play double-squop, and as there was no agreed time-limit, and of course no five rounds at the end of the game, it presented the problem that a game might continue for ever. It was during 1960-61 that there was much discussion at Cambridge as to how to play against double-squop, and our best answer was “very good potting by our specialist potters”. This did not succeed, for Cambridge lost against Oxford in 1961, by 52½ points to 59½, the first ever Cambridge loss. Nevertheless John Furlonger & Norman Bardsley, playing potter & squopper managed 20 points out of 24 against double-squop. There was of course no point-transfer if you potted out in those days, and at time limit winks in the pot counted two points each not three. We played 35 minutes in 1961.

It was during the 1960-61 season that the present desquopping rule was formulated—by Geoff Wilsher of Cambridge. Previously, Oxford maintained that you could only touch your own wink in a pile, whereas Cambridge believed that you could play your own and any covered wink. A really long desquop shot was known as a xylophone shot.

As to the Bolton brothers and Bristol, they were very fine players, especially Humphrey Bolton, who played for England against Scotland in 1961. Bristol’s best season was 1961-62 when they won the Silver Wink (Britain’s Inter-University Trophy). The Bolton brothers did play double-squop and were Bristol’s strongest pair, which is possibly why Crick remembers them. Stuart Clark & David Fletcher were also very good.

Enough of my reminiscences. You are welcome to add my name to your NATwA address list for the benefit of any of your members Boondocked to the U.K. My telephone number is 01-690-2885. The 01- is only needed if you are outside London.

If you can spare any back numbers of Newswink, I should be v. pleased to have them. But do not post them: wait until some winker crosses the Atlantic.

I am sending this to your ‘term’ address, and I hope it reaches you safely.

Yours sincerely Charles Relle


by Rick Tucker

The Boston April Tournament, 19 April 1980, was another one of those glorified MIT practices, pulling in well-known MIT players Don Fox, Dave Lockwood, a returning Nan Brady, Ferd, Todd Brachman, Bob Shwartz, Bill Renke, Bob Henninge, and the eponymous Q, not to mention Arye Gittelman, Ross Callon, Fred Shapiro, David desJardins, Jim Roberts, and Rick Tucker. Other well-known MIT players such as Sunshine, Larry Kahn, Joe Sachs, Charles Frankston, Sev Drix, T. D. Indian, et al[.], apparently got lost trying to locate the tournament room in the MIT Student Center.

It was Yaks vs. Green Thumbs and Forefinger, the latter winning each of the 6 rounds but the last, ending up with 77 points, with 63 for the Yaks. Individual dishonor was Ross’s with 5-1 and a ppg of 4.8 33 . That despite a 0 against Dave Lockwood and Rick in which Rick blitzed for the first time perhaps since playing with Rich Steidle. Renke copped next place, 4-1 for 4.6; and Nan was 4-2 for 4.25.


by Larry Kahn

During the past two years there have been stories or rumors of my potting those twelve small winks in 21 shots. Well, it’s true and here are my recollections of that night.

For those of you not familiar with this record, a brief summary. The aim is to pot twelve small winks initially 3 feet from the cup in as few shots as possible. A normal perfect score is 24, each wink requiring an approach and a pot but this can be lowered if you get lucky and bounce one or more in. The record had been at 23 for some time, held by several English winkers and Bill Renke.

Several years ago there seemed to be a rush to set potting records, particularly the endurance type of N out of 1000. I have never been one for that type of practice but since Bill had recently lowered the American small wink record to 23 I tried for that. After a month of scattered attempts I did manage a 23 that, oddly enough, contained two Carnovskys (plus a missed pot). I was bouncing in one out of every fifteen or so but I knew that 23 was probably a realistic limit and stopped consciously trying for a new record. I usually made a few attempts during normal practice but nothing substantial.

The fateful night occurred sometime in early July of 1978, shortly after I had moved into my new house.

I was practicing potting while a couple of my roommates casually watched while having a bull session. I was beginning a twelve wink attempt and Carnovskyed the first wink. Somebody noticed and said ‘that wasn’t bad’. I gave them a quick rundown of the twelve wink record and they watched as I lined up the second wink. Another Carnovsky! I couldn’t believe it! Now I got really excited because I could get a 22 and there would be someone there to see it. I continued, very carefully, and after 7 or 8 winks I had two in and all the others well within range. Then lightning struck for the third time, another Carnovsky! Now I was really sweating but I managed to get the last few in quite close to the cup.

So here I was, in twelve shots I had put three winks in, had one ten incher, one eight incher and everything else closer than six. I could feel that if I missed even once it was all over because the magic would be gone. I started with the close ones, as is my style, and all went in. I was terribly afraid of a bounce out because I couldn’t stand the thought of losing it that way. I lined up the eight incher and in it went. For the last one I was more nervous than for any other pot I ever tried but somehow it went in.

I was absolutely stunned. Not being winkers, my roommates were somewhat impressed but soon drifted away to do something else. I literally couldn’t move for about ten minutes while I contemplated the feat. After awhile I got up and practiced a little more and then quit.

I think I called Severin later that night and told him about the new record and about my new method for flattening winks. Eventually the word got around to the rest of NATwA. Understandably there were some skeptics but on my honor as a winker it actually happened.

Fred, among others, has suggested I try and get the record into the Guinness Book. Unfortunately, the documentation and witnesses I would have would not meet their requirements. (A long time ago I sent for these for a tennis marathon some friends and I were planning). If NATwA (Fred) organizes a push to get some winks records into the book I will gladly track down my roommates and get their signatures. However, having my name occupy a small space in a book is only secondary. For me, the most meaningful aspect is that I managed (with a lot of luck) to set a winks record that may never be beaten (realistically it will be very tough) and as long as I play winks I will remember that twelfth wink disappearing into the cup. That is satisfaction enough.

Tiddlywinks Patents

by Rick Tucker

In Newswink 10, Joseph Assheton Fincher’s patent specification and drawing for A New and Improved Game was presented. This patent was brought to our attention by British games expert Iona Opie. As it stands, it undoubtedly is the original patent for tiddlywinks. The application was filed by Fincher on 8 November 1888, No. 16,215, and accepted 19 October 1889. While the patent was being processed, Fincher filed an application for a trademark for TIDDLEDY-WINKS on 29 January 1889, No. 85.800, which was first published in the Trade Marks Journal issue of 15 May 1889, and was registered in the period 6-12 March 1890. An antique set is known to exist with the indication “Joseph Fincher—Inventor”. Fred Shapiro and I have found no earlier tiddlywinks-like games, patented or otherwise (with the sole exception of the Rabelais-era game crapault described as a squopping game in 1856, as reported in Newswink 10).

However, between the date of Fincher’s first provisional specification of his patent and the acceptance of his complete specification, two other patent applications for tiddlywinks variations were received in England. Neither of them used the name TIDDLEDY-WINKS or variant, but they are clearly tiddlywinks-type games in that a disc (wink) is propelled in various ways by the pressure of a shooting implement (squidger, stylus, etc.).

George Scott of England patented his golf simulation game in England (No. 9387, applied 6 June 1889; accepted 22 March 1890) and in the US (filed 20 December 1889, accepted 15 July 1890, No. 432,170); his is the earliest US patent found so far. His “springers” are generally sticks of various specialized ends, and he specifically prefers the discs to be “3/4 inch in diameter and about 3/64 inch in thickness. Of this 3/64 inch, 1/64 inch in the centre is vertical, but on each side it is bevelled off to about 1/32 inch from the circumference.” The golf holes are either holes in felt, pedestals, hollow cylinders, or truncated cones, and numerous obstacles up to 4 inches in height are laid out on the full table course. Some hazards (as ponds) are made of an extra layer of felt or a hard suiface such as wood.

A patent by Edward F. Maitland in England (No. 9882, 1889) is for A Game of Skill without a compressible surface. It consists of propelling counters over ditches, through hoops, into holes, etc.

Since 1889 there have been at least 20 British patents, and about 45 US patents for games of the tiddlywinks type. Recently the US Patent and Trademark Office changed a section of its classification system so that now a “Tiddlywink game” has its own official Subclass, 353, under Class 273, “Amusement Devices, Games”. Of the 46 US patents I have found, 26 have been sports simulation games (perversions in our argot): 8 for golf, 7 basketball, 3 football, 2 tennis, 2 baseball, 2 soccer, 1 hockey, and 1 horseshoes. Tiddledy Wink Ten Pins is another, for which a trademark was acquired by William Sowdon in 1891; no patents have yet been found for bowling-type games. Another common theme is war battle simulation (Tiddledy Winks at Seapublished by J. Jaques & Son may be of this type) for which there are 3 British and 1 US patents. The most recent US patent for any tiddlywinks-type game was registered in 1979. The rest of this article deals only with US patents.

Some patents are dull, just presenting some uninteresting target. Some patented targets are monstrously complicated, such as that of Charles Zimmerling (1892) which I hope to reproduce for Newswink. It is a vertical circular board on which is mounted a “king cup” and 19 “general cups”, plus a chute to a separate cup. Each cup “may be of different tones, which, as is evident, will be pleasantly apparent when the chips strike or enter the same.”

Some have peculiar winks, such as William R. Purnell’s Radio Game (1924) in which a wink has a hook on it, and is to be propelled to catch on a wire. Johannes Klauder used rings caught by hooks in his Ring Game (1898). Horseshoe-shaped winks were used by Clarence Comstock (1925), which I believe were marketed by Sears as Pitchem Winks. Rectangular pieces were used in George H. Johnson’s Ballot-Box Game (1925) where the discs have “one State designated on each side thereof, a number thereon corresponding to the number of electoral votes …. the sides of said discs also representing the two principal parties.” Morris E. Yaraus (of Cambridge, Mass.) in his Indoor Parlor Miniature Football Game had each “disk convexed on one side and concaved on the other side, a stylus adapted to move the [disk] horizontally along the said gridiron when brought in contact with the convexed edge of said [disk], and to raise the [disk] in an arc when contacted with the concaved side.” The disc in Charles Fowler’s basketball game (1929) has “its opposite surfaces differently marked so that the possession of the disc may be determined by the uppermost marking each time the disc comes to rest during the play of the game.” Edward Savage’s “missile” (1939) is cross shaped.

Robert B. Mars (1969) marked discs with “letters of the alphabet, or numbers or words or mathematical symbols.” Then there is Emerson F. Martyn’s Mathematical Tiddly-wink Apparatus (1975) in which winks are made of two paits, pivotally connected, so that “after all players have taken their turns then each player … opens each wink to expose the mathematical formula imprinted thereon. Each player must then work the mathematical formula to arrive at the correct solution …. The winner of the game is the player having the highest mathematical score such that the player with the most winks in the container is not necessarily the winner.”


Dragon Stuffs Drix in Boring Match

by our Ithaca correspondent

12 April 1980 saw Dave Lockwood once again defend his World Singles title, this time against paper tiger Severin Drix. Note that after 4 games, Sev had won 3 of them, but was behind in points. The match took place in the Ithaca Common.

Drix views tiddlywinks competition as a test of his meditative endeavors, of his ability to play “detached”. Lockwood just likes to win.

—Ithaca Journal; 14 April 1980, page 1.
   Game      Cumulative
Sev   Dave  Sev  Dave
4 3   4 3
4.5   2.5   8.5   5.5
1     6     9.5  11.5
4     3    13.5  14.5
1     6    14.5  20.5
1     6    15.5  26.5

NATwA Spelling List

by Fred Shapiro

(all spellings actually recorded in NATwA historical files)

tiddlywinks, Tiddlywinks, tiddly winks, Tiddly Winks, tiddly-winks, Tiddly-winks, Tiddly-Winks

tiddleywinks, Tiddleywinks, Tiddley Winks, tiddley-winks

tiddledywinks, Tiddledywinks, tiddledy winks, Tiddledy winks, Tiddledy Winks, tiddledy-winks, Tiddledy-winks, tiddle-dy-winks,

tiddledewinks, Tiddledewinks, tiddle de winks, Tiddle de winks, Tiddle de Winks, tiddle-de-winks, Tiddle de winks, Tiddle-de-Winks


Tidleywinks, Tidley winks, Tidley Winks

tiddlewinks, Tiddlewinks, Tiddle-winks




Tiddle di winks

Tiddleley winks


Horsemeat’s Potting Guide

by Larry Kahn

There are five basic components to a successful pot: the squidger, the winks, the mat, the grip, and the set-up and release. Squidgers come in two general types, thin and regular. The primary advantage of a thin squidger is that it produces a higher shot trajectory, allowing a larger margin of error as the wink enters the pot. A flatter shot must be almost perfect since the projected area of the opening is small. One disadvantage of the thin squidger is that for longer pots a higher pressure is needed to obtain the equivalent distance to that of a regular squidger This problem exists because thin squidger shots cause the winks to rotate more rapidly and some of the potential energy of the mat must go into rotating the wink, leaving less energy for pure distance. I prefer thin squidgers for most shots, regular squidgers for large winks further than a foot or smalls further than two feet, and big mama for small nurdled winks.

Single winks on the mat present few problems. For short pots the winks should be concave up: for longer pots this is still desirable but becomes less critical because there is more time to get the wink up. Never shoot off the warp, except for nurdled winks I find that using the warp here will help, although I’ve seen some people actually turn the wink concave down to pot it. Winks on piles may be as easy as free winks or quite difficult depending on the position. Nothing is impossible and it is just a matter of trying the weird combinations to see how the winks behave. A standard pot style is not always best, sometimes squopping the wink into the cup works better. Experience and practice will make the difference for those tough fifth round pots.

Mats can vary somewhat, some may be dead, others fluffy and bouncy. I really don’t think the mat is that important unless the surface is one of the extremes, in which case you probably don’t want to play on it anyway. Most of the differences will show up when trying to pot nurdled winks so you should try a few of those before the game. A few long pots should enable you to see how live the mat is and you may want to remember this when trying large winks. Otherwise don’t worry about the mat very much.

Squidger grip can be two, three, or even four fingered with the hand closed or spread out like Sunshine does it. The main thing is find the grip that is most comfortable. I use a three fingered grip with my hand rather closed only because that is what I’ve gotten used to. One disadvantage of spreading out is that piles get in the way easier.

People generally pot from the side or towards yourself. Dave Barbano sometimes pots away from himself but it’s too difficult to pot nurdled winks this way. Side potting enables you to judge the distance better but it is harder to get the direction. Towards yourself potting is the other way around. I like side potting but there are plenty of excellent potters so take your pick.

The last factor is the amount of time spent in lining up the shot until actually doing it. Frankly, I don’t see how Lokweed can take so long over a wink and still manage to get it in. To me, potting has become pretty much a reflex action and I like to get on the wink and do it within a second or two. I think the longer you wait, the more second guessing you will do and chances are you’ll miss. Everyone will find their own best set-up time and you shouldn’t vary it too much after finding something that’s comfortable. One disadvantage of taking a long time is that when you must start your shot in the air the difference from a regular pot will be greater.

That’s about all there is to making your pots. I don’t guarantee instant results but even just a few minutes’ practice every day can make a big difference. The main thing is relax and be confident.

Strategy Tips from Literature

by Fred Shapiro

This is the first of what will be a regular feature in Newswink. Next issue: “Sunshine and the Dragon in Literature”. ###


Lunching before going to bed is a bad habit.

—R. L. Alsaker, Maintaining Health; 1920

After making three he potted his opponent’s ball.

Evening Standard; 18 December 1885

Crab your enemies—I’ve got a many. You can pot ’em proper for a penny.

Punch’s Almanack; February 1880


Potting is one of the oldest industries in the world.

Westminster Gazette; 7 May 1894

In which kind of potshot our English are growne such stout Proficients that some of them dares bandy and contend with the Dutch.

—John Taylor (“The Water Poet”), Taylor’s Travels; 1630

Martin had been in a hurry to pot her, and lost her by an inch.

—Charles Reade, The Cloister and the Hearth; 1860


This dissipated piddling soon gave way to the serious business of the evening.

—Charles Johnston, Chrysal; 1760

There are good reasons for believing these pile-builders are the direct descendants of the pre-Aryan aboriginals.

Nature; 19 June 1884

That it may be brought into a condition of potability.

—John Webster, Metallographia; 1671

Setting the stage for a ‘blitz’ comeback.

Topeka Journal; 19 April 1940

Threes, fours, and fives appear as easy tor him to get.

—”Bat”, Cricketer’s Man; 1836

NOTE: All quotations in this feature will be authentic.

1979 Congress Minutes

by Charles Frankston

Minutes of the Congress of the North American Tiddlywinks Association
Mezzanine Lounge MIT Student Center Cambridge Massachusetts
17 February 1979

Secretary General Josef Sachs presiding. Minutes taken by Charles Frankston, while trying not to fall asleep.

Discussion of location of Pairs vs. Singles. D.C.? From 12-13 people say they will come if Singles is in Boston, about 10 will if in D.C., about 11-12 if in Ithaca. 11 people favor Boston Singles on Memorial Day weekend (May 26-27) 5 are opposed. Opinion is that Pairs and Singles should not be one week apart.

Discussion of team structure—current structure will probably remain.

Discussion of qualifying for Pairs & Singles?—work it out

Status of persimmons. Probably should not be forced to play against, should avoid in major tournaments.

Quick run-through of rest of Agenda points, nothing serious said. It is stated that the Sec-Gen should make all decisions for NATwA.

Finances: Equipment fund has $230 and a lot of accounts receivable. See no need for dues increases. Tournament entry fees unpopular. If people want a trophy for a tournament, Winke promises $50 toward a trophy that would bear his name. Other fund raising schemes: Hustle them at the dance? Plastic packaging keeps sets fresh—Scott.

Rules: An out of bounds wink shall lose the next shot rather than the next turn. The offic[i]al name to appear on winks sets for market is to be Tournament Tiddlywinks (with 16 votes vs. 8 for Four Color Tiddlywinks). A rule that shots must start at the top of a wink is defeated. A rule that there must be a downward component to all shots passes. A rule stating that only 1 wink may be squidged in per shot passes. The Indian rule is defeated 10-12, read the 1980 minutes for an explanation. A rule that the final resting place of a squidge-off is the one that counts passes. The discussion of penalties for not freeing leads to the conclusion that one must make an honest attempt to free immediately, i.e. one is not even permitted to try and pot first.

The meeting may have been adjourned, but I think I fell asleep first.

Squidger Making with or without a Lathe

and Manipulating Winks

by Rick Tucker

My method of making squidgers usually starts off with sanding using a fairly coarse sandpaper (the black wet/dry type seems good—I use it dry, though I plan to experiment with it wet to reduce the dust which sets off my hayfever). Wearing a mask over mouth and nostrils, and wearing eye goggles would be recommended. The plastic dust gets everywhere, and some types of plastic, such as PVC, have been shown to cause cancer.

I always find it best if the piece of plastic I’m using is circular and exactly the diameter desired, i.e., pretty much a disc, because the circularity is often difficult to sculpt from a jagged blank. I don’t know whether using a lathe could help control the circularity.

Sandpaper is either labeled numerically or by names. The 120 is about the coarsest I use. I use it to get the blank squidger down fairly close to final shape. I use a rolled piece of tape—I hold it with my three fingers pressing down on the center of the blank. The tape does not last very long. For my first method, a whole sheet of coarse or medium sandpaper is on my fairly fluffy rug, and simply swirling each side of the blank around and around on the sandpaper for 15 minutes to 30 minutes will give it a fairly nice curvature due to the compressibility of the rug. This method is for fairly to very thin squidgers. Sometimes in swirling one part of the edge gets thinner than the rest, so I compensate. When the edge gets to be uniformly less than a millimeter, I then start working with finer grades of sandpaper to get the edge just right and to remove scratches from both faces. I work down grades to 220, 400, and 600 (I haven’t been able to find 800 in a store). I don’t always continue swirling the squidger around in the finer grades, but usually revert to my other method of shaping squidgers, as described next.

The other method I have used, which is in fact harder, takes longer, and is somewhat less uniform in results (depending on my patience), is to hold a small folded strip of sandpaper in my right hand and hold the blank still in my left, and sand around each face and edge (on and on). Or, hold the strip unfolded in my left hand and move the blank back and forth on it using my right hand.

As to the shape and form of the squidger to be made, I offer little in the way of suggestion. Different winkers have different preferences. I generally don’t make squidgers as a service for winkers; I make squidgers when I feel like it and often don’t want to part with some that I make. More recently the squidgers I’ve made have been very thin, some in fact thinner than I’d ever used before. The value of a squidger in making various shots depends a lot on its edge and the material. Before a few years ago everyone used regular-sized (1⅜ inch) squidgers for Bristols. Nowadays one inch squidgers are primarily used. I believe that squidgers play a more important part in shot-making than I used to think. Then again, I shudder when I see the older superstars squop and pot with set-supplied, half-round edged squidgers. You probably don’t need a thousand squidgers. But we got Moishe (famed for “status quo”ing a proposed rules revision in which a winker’s next shot would be missed for sending any wink off the table) to start using a sharp (colloquially “thin”) squidger; it’s worth experimenting with different implements. More capabilities may come within your grasp with new tools.

After smoothing the nascent squidger with my finest grade of sandpaper, I use buffing compounds to polish it shiny. The first is Emery compound, then Jeweler’s Rouge for the fine polish. These can be found at Sears. They are fairly cheap, and the best buy is a pack of 4 buffing compounds; you also get White Rouge and Tripoli. They are sticks in a box about 5 inches square by 1 inch. To use buffing compounds with a lathe, there are buffing wheels of cloth which should be near the buffing compounds in the store. As I don’t use a lathe, I use old socks for buffing. The squidger must be reasonably smooth and free from deep sandpaper scratches, and pay particular attention to buff the area near the edge. Using buffing wheels on a lathe will undoubtedly allow you to get a better polish.

In making squidgers on a lathe, people have generally mounted a blank with some sort of suction cup, and for 15 minutes to a half hour held sandpaper against it while it was rotating. Arye Gittelman says that using too fast a speed can increase the likelihood of a squidger chipping either while it’s being made or after. Andy Madison (ex-Ithaca High School) used to glue each squidger to something he could attach more easily to the lathe, and later break the attachment off. I’d like to hear of some squidger making methods that other people have tried using a lathe—any with an automated apparatus?

As for plastic—you could start with ordinary normal set-supplied squidgers. I really don’t like using really warped blanks. (If I do, I flatten both sides out first on sandpaper against a hard surface.) I try to use blanks that are essentially discs. I recently bought 100 poker chips from David P. Ehrlich, tobacconist, which are very nice blanks, just slightly larger than set-supplied squidgers. They seem very good for squopping and potting. All I have made so far from the poker chips are fairly thin ones. I have also used buttons that don’t have metal eyelets, and are not recessed in the back; there are very few such buttons in stores. The Windsor Button Shop on Chancy Street in Boston has some. Buttons are generally smaller than desireable to be made into general purpose squidgers. Larry Kahn’s famous personally-crafted set of PVC squidgers (including Big Mama, a squopping squidger. and a one inch) were made on a lathe. The PVC came in a long rod. Different types of plastic have all sorts of different properties— flexibility, stickiness (certain types of Plexiglas are too sticky to use), strength, so I can t suggest any particular source of materials—it’s all a matter of trying all sorts of different things and methods, which is what I’ve been doing for over a year. I’ve used phonographic record PVC, plastic I find on the street, BankAmericards, buttons, poker chips, product packaging. When you look at some buttons and poker chips and see how well made they really are, and often very close to a squidger form, and for 20 cents to $1 or $2 each, you’d think that the companies who made them could make excellent squidgers.

I would very much like to hear from others about their squidger-making experiences; also about wink manipulation. Larry Kahn developed a method of flattening winks by boiling them in a small strainer for 10 seconds (no more!) and holding them flat as they cool. Boiling winks or squidgers for longer periods tends to make them grainy, increasing their friction properties, which in some instances might be useful for squidgers. Ross Callon and others have wondered about how to fix scratched, thick, or defective winks. Ross tried sanding a scratched wink with 600 grade sandpaper and buffed it to some success. NATwA’s mass purchase a few years ago of unselected winks from Walmsleys in London brought us some of the worst winks ever seen, and a particular defect appears on many of them—scratchy sections of tiny chips caused perhaps by being cut off of rods when too cool. Almost all the small greens have the defect. We undoubtedly will have to live with these for a while, so perhaps set owners can modify their own sets to the better. If we could only get the West German mushroom winks makers to make us winks! Their winks are uniform, seldom have defects— and are by far the best winks available anywhere.

1977 Congress Minutes

by Charles Frankston

February 19, 1977
Minutes of 1977 NATwA Congress

8:30 Most people have already arrived. Preliminary discussion mentions involving more High School people in more activities, making better efforts to interest passersby and browsers. Copies of NATwA address list version of February 17, 1977 are distributed. Corrections to the address list should be given to Charles Frankston, Rick Tucker, or Joe Sachs.

8:54 Ferd appointed chairman. Severin Drix arrives. Selection of topics. Dave Barbano congratulated on tournament directorship.

8:56 Carl Chenkin arrives. Severin points out English sent him request for assistance in collecting payment of 117 pounds for mats which Winke has not sent yet. Great expressions of surprise from audience.

8:58 First topic is equipment


Prototypes of new pot passed around. Not perfect copy.

Charles; The manufacturer has so far been given a $200 advance to start work, has sent a bill for the full $700, has not yet been informed that there are deficiencies. We do not know what sort of a bargaining position we are in. The new pots were used at the recent boondock tournament after which a committee discussed the defects in detail. It was decided the order of importance for correcting defects was as follows:

  1. Outside diameter increases in a straight line going from bottom to top, should be a some what exponential curve.
  2. Inside cavity is flat at the bottom, should be round.
  3. It was decided that we should not ask to have the thickness of the cup wall decreased.


Severin: There is an adequate supply of (unpaid for) mats in North America. The winks situation is more complicated and difficult. Written correspondence seems to contradict more optimistic picture Severin had gotten while in England over the summer. Perhaps person with whom he spoke did not have authority to do what he said. Some information may have been lost when the company’s offices were burglarized. Their reply to Severin’s letter seems to state that we must order a minimum of 50,000 winks of each color. We do not know whether this means 50,000 of each color of each size, or regardless of size. Depending on interpretion the cost could be $520, $1300, or $4000. It was suggested that perhaps we should ask English winkers to help resolve the situation. Severin’s current stock stands at 72 sets, and 2 rolls of mats good for about 20 to 25 mats per roll. There are also lots of sets and mats distributed to various people but not yet sold.



Was unable to make it due to variety of reasons. Lots of things going on there this month, discouraging driving conditions around Buffalo area.

Dues issue

At the Toronto Regionals the Toronto people used their dues money to buy several 6’ by 3’ plywood boards as there were no other playing surfaces available.

mary kirman: decision to allow that as Toronto’s dues was made by her and Renke.

Severin: Should make definite rules for future as to how and by whom financial decisions may be made. Proposal: (paraphrased)

  1. Expenditures should be made only if they are directly necessary to the function of NATwA.
  2. If there is any doubt as to the absolute necessity of an expenditure prior approval should be sought.
  3. A ⅔ vote of team captains may approve an expenditure.
  4. Step 3 should only be used if the expenditure cannot wait till Congress.
  5. The application for funds should be made to the Secretary-General.
  6. The Secretary-General may approve obvious expenditures.
  7. If team captains disapprove an expenditure, Congress can still approve it.
  8. If a decision needs to made quickly, then the best local officer can, as always, use their judgement, and hope the official vote will reimburse them.

Motion passes unanimously to allow Toronto dues expenditure as proper.

Some discussion on state of winks in Toronto. Secretary-General is directed to correspond with them, telling them what’s been happening, and conveying hopes to see them soon at tournaments, possibly in Toronto?

9:56 Dues

*: Summer and November decisions conflict on classes of dues.

Dues rule is: If a person has played > 10 games in a season, then he always is subsequently a $4 person. If not, novice dues are $1. It is the responsibility of the team captain to calculate and collect the dues for their team. The regional coordinator is supposed to make sure that everyone that plays in a tournament pays the proper amount of dues and collect said dues from the team captains or individuals as appropriate.

10:06 Discussion of having Pairs or Singles be in Washington D C. or Baltimore area, Larry Kahn and Joe can each probably get a place to hold it, there are other winkers around the area. Motion to hold Singles in Washington D C. area passes. Motion to hold Pairs in Washington state dies due to not being mentioned.

10:08 Nomination for IFTwA Secretary-General. Only Dave Lokweed wants the job. Dave Lokweed is officially nominated by NATwA.

10:11 Fall tournaments: postponed until summer. (The discussion of, not the tournaments, dummy.). Sev: Toronto should be notified of any summer discussions.

10:13 Discussion that pot fund does not have as broad a base of contributors as desired. Motion that the new Secretary-General go around and collect lots of small pledges during tomorrow’s games passes.

10:15 Rules revisions: It was decided to select a committee with Bob Henninge as chairman to meet at Pairs tournament.

10:18 Dave Barbano thanked for doing a good job as tournament director.

10:19 Sev: would like a more reliable Newswink and membership cards. Secretary-General should take care of it.

10:22 Carl says that as Secretary-General he didn’t have enough to do.

10:23 California people are going to try and bring a team next year. Scott Hirsh and Tim Schiller are warned against falling into the sea.


Election of new Secretary-General.

Bill Gammerdinger nominates mary. * nominates Joe. Dave Lockwood nominates Scott.

mary says she has no phone, and is not accessible, but is otherwise willing.

Joe says he has a phone but is never home, his main goal will be marketing sets, wants to “take the fun out, put the money in”.

Scott says he is not interested, but he has a phone, but doesn’t pay the bills.

Tim to Carl: Why aren’t you running?

Carl: Because I want to put the fun back in me.

Vote: mary 5, Joe about 20.

People start to rustle for adjournment, but the die-hards carry on.

10:33 Jake Solomon: Move to make Carl honorary Secretary-General passes.

10:34 Sev: The English suggested that in order to resolve the 20 vs. 25 minute time rule, we each try playing the other way for a year. Motion to play the upcoming regionals with a 20 minute time limit passes. Other tournaments at the option of tournament director.

10:38 *: Suggests lowering time limit to 25 seconds. I think this got ignored.

MP announces party at her place.

Play starts tomorrow at 9:30 in the Straight.

Congress collapses at 10:37

Minutes taken by Charles Frankston

John Kennedy – Founder of NATwA?

by Fred Shapiro

The Harvard Alumni Bulletin of 27 October 1962 includes in its famous column, “The Undergraduate” (written at that time, I believe, by Michael Crichton) one of the most thorough accounts we have of the founding of winks at Harvard. The article contains the following tidbit not found in other chronicles: “It was not long before growing interest had prompted a letter challenging President Kennedy’s touch football squad to a match. The President wrote that he was really too busy but suggested to Dean Monro that an officially-sanctioned team be set up by the university.” I do not necessarily accept this anecdote as true, but it is not inherently implausible.

Stats Rampant

by Fred Shapiro


1967 Phil Villar                    14-2    83⅓
1968 Ferd & Bob Henninge             8-0    48
1969 Tim Schiller & Mitch Wand      11-0    68
1970 Tim & Mitch                     6-0    33
1971 Bob Henninge                   10-1-1  60½
1972 Tim Schil1er & Franz Christ     8-1    44⅔
1973 Tim & Franz                     9-3    58½
     Dave Alexander & Scott Hirsh   10-2    58½
1974 Sunshine & Bill Gammerdinger   10-2    64
1975 Bill Renke & Dave York         11-1    56
1976 Bill Renke & Bill Gammerdinger 10-2    61
1977 Joe Sachs                      11-1    61
1978 Larry Kahn                      9-2-1  60
1979 Joe Sachs                      10-2    62
     Larry Kahn                      9-3    62
1980 Rich Steidle                   11-1    63½
Fleas Supplement
Note: the following 5 stats (Sixty-Point, and Most Points in Consecutive Continentals) include only “modern” (1971-1980) Continentals.


1971 Bob Henninge       60⅚
1974 Sunshine           64
     Bill Gammerdinger  64
1976 Bill Renke         61
Bill Gammerdinger       61
1977 Joe Sachs          61
1978 Larry Kahn         60
1979 Joe Sachs          62
     Larry Kahn         62
     Bill Renke         61
     Bill Gammerdinger  61 
     Dave Lockwood      60½
1980 Rich Steidle       63½


122 Larry Kahn, 1978-9


179½ Joe Sachs, 1977-9


231½ Larry Kahn, 1976-9


284 Larry Kahn, 1976-80

TOTAL FRACTIONAL SCORES as of 1980 Continentals

1 Bob Henninge       68
2 Ferd               52
3 Sunshine           51
  Moishe             51
5 Severin Drix       49
6 mary kirman        44
7 Dave Lockwood      43
8 Craig Schweinhart  39
9 Indian             38
  Bill Renke         38


Severin Drix (twice)
mary kirman (twice)
Bob Henninge (twice)
Feed (twice)
Betsy Smith
Charles Frankston
Jake Solomon
T. D. Indian
Bill Gammerdinger
Fred Shapiro
MP Rouse
Beast Solomon—quickest completion of distribution, smashing brother’s mark.


4⅔: Don Fox, Joe Sachs, Larry Kahn, Rick Tucker, Nan Brady, L Arye Gittelman
2⅓: Bill Renke, Dave Barbano, Dave Lockwood, Phyllis Barbano, Jim Marlin
3½: Dean Solomon
7: Mex/Rich Davis


Scott Hirsh 202 (0, 2⅓)


(3½, 4⅔, 2⅓)

15 Severin Drix
10 mary kirman
9 Sunshine, Bob Henninge
8 Ferd
7 T. D. Indian, Larry Kahn
6 Jake Solomon, L, Rick Tucker


Matt Sola 152


(through 1980 BAT)

0  Craig Schweinhart 233
1  Sam Lipson         10
1½ Carl Chenkin      167
2  Phil Villar        58
2⅓ Dave Lockwood     435
2½ Rich Steidle      136
3  Diane Bachman      37
3½ Dean Solomon      189
4  Albert Wu          33
4½ Andy Tomaszewski  113
4⅔ Larry Kahn        368
5  Chris Howard       37
5½ Tina Warren        92
   Roger Clarke       92
6  Chris Howard       37
7  Michael Krasner   138


(based on material supplied by *)

Note: mary kirman played 10 games prior to her ”rookie” 1971-2 season, so her marks from that year are listed with an asterisk here; similarly with Betsy Smith (2 games) and T. D, Indian (2).

   * mary kirman      68
   David desJardins   66
   Joe Sachs          53
   Jim Roberts        50

   * mary kirman      39
   Dave Alexander     30
   Jim Roberts        26
   Ross Callon        25
   * Betsy Smith      25
   * T. D. Indian     25 

   * mary kirman     260⅚
   Dave Alexander    190½
   David desJardins  177⅚
   * Betsy Smith     173⅓
   Jim Roberts       170

   Ross Callon         4.67
   Dave Alexander      4.65
   Pete Copper         4.55

“I’d have to vote for Dave Alexander as best rookie record (Ross was a bunch in B division)”—*


(Fleas list corrected)

1967     Phil Villar
1968-9   Bob Henninge
1969-70  Ferd the Bull
1970-1   Bob Henninge
1971-2   Bill Renke
1972-3   Bill Renke
1973-4   Severin Drix
1974-5   Severin Drix
1975-6   Dave Lockwood
1976-7   Dave Lockwood
1977-8   Larry Kahn
1978-9   Joe Sachs
1979-80  Larry Kahn


Arye Gittelman, Mike Moore, Ken Moraff, Beast Solomon, Big, Doug Young, Rob Mabbitt, Jim Roberts, David desJardins


Marg Henninge 42, Steve Krasner 42, Pete Zahler 38, Phyllis Lis 38, Mac 32, Rabbit Goody 31


200 Severin Drix
173 Dave Lockwood
165 Bill Renke
163 Sunshine
159 Larry Kahn
144 Bob Henninge
142 Ferd
 95 Ross Callon
 90 Tim Schiller
 61 Bill Gammerdinger
 58 Joe Sachs
 54 Scott Hirsh
 52 T. D. Indian



   78-9  Joe Sachs        54
         Dave Lockwood    49
         Larry Kahn       49
 79-80   Fred Shapiro     68
         David desJardins 66
         Arye Gittelman   64

   78-9  Joe Sachs        42
         Dave Lockwood    37
         Severin Drix     34 
 79-80   Ross Callon      48
         Larry Kahn       40
         Arye Gittelman   40

   78-9  Joe Sachs       271½
         Dave Lockwood   229
         Larry Kahn      221½
  79-80  Ross Callon     288⅙
         Arye Gittelman  269⅚
         Larry Kahn      242½

   78-9  Joe Sachs         5.03
         Severin Drix      5.02
         Dave Lockwood     4.67
  79-80  Larry Kahn        5.16
         Ross Callon       4.80
         Dave Lockwood     4.48


I’m not psyching myself out, I’m just expecting everything to go wrong because it will.

—Ira Summer as heard by Matt Solà, 15 March 1980.

The Chinese considered white felt to be peculiarly sacred.

A complete felt-making plant was discovered in the ruins of Pompeii.

—Werner bon Bergen in Wool Handbook; 1970, volume 2, part 2, page 1075.

Have we sold our precious heritage in exchange for frivolity and a game of tiddlywinks?

—letter by Lillie Struble in Library Journal, 15 April 1978, page 790.

A 15th-century Donatello bronze, The Madonna and Child, served the Fitzwilliam family as a tiddlywinks bowl until the Victoria and Albert Museum recognized its importance.

ARTnews; January 1980, page 85.

[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
G. Scott. Game. No. 432,170. Patented July 15, 1890.
U. S. Patent Office
[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
G. Scott. Game. No. 432,170. Patented July 15, 1890.
U. S. Patent Office

NATwA Address List 25 July 1980


{Names and addresses are not published online.}

[104 entries]