Isn't it the same copy of the Stele that he used in Equinox I,7, between pages 368-369?

There is the white spot, near Nuit's bellybutton, but no holes.

93!

Yes, you seem to be right. So it might really be just a mounted photograph. I really don't think a replica would have all those aging artefacts and patina included. Still, he looks astonishingly young there.

Love=Law
Lutz

Is there a high res image available?
If only we could look into the reflections on the chalice....

The artist of the replica in the Equinox seems to have tried to reproduce some of the aging effects, such as the stains in front of Nuit's knees and shins, and the lightening above Ankh-f-n-Khonsu's head.

I don't believe anyone's subjective impression of his relative youthfulness is reason to imagine all sorts of chicanery and speculative scenarios, including fabricating the presence of Thelema, etc. The museum was closed when he was there in 1902, in any case.

The photo referenced above is, I believe, taken from the 1929 edition of Confessions. The version from Book 4 part 2 is better, and slightly different [but obviously same session]. I'll send a copy to the galleries.

I'm in a position of not being able to use part of my computer at present but I remember examining this photo recently and trying to calculate the size of the Book from a object of known size - the Stele.  Modern reproductions claim to be full size and give the Stele width as 30.5cm [almost exactly one Imperial foot] That makes the Book measure only 3.68 inches [from memory] which seems too small.

I suspect that the Stele in the photo is bigger than 12 inches, not least because that is the size of a vinyl LP which I am visually familiar with.

I can't right now check the size of the real Stele so I just put this forward for someone else to sort out.

I suspect that the peculiar tones in the photo are an artefact of photography as it then stood. For instance photochromatic stock renders red things black in b/w photos and there are probably other phenomena I know nothing of.

OK

93!

Checking the Equinox 7 pic was a good idea, it really seems to be this one. And since it is in color it also seems to be "faked" patina. Astonishing!

I certainly didn't want to give the expression that the photo including book and stele is from 1902. I was wondering what kind of stele was in the picture, if he had access to it in later years. But comparing it with the Equinox pic, it seems to be a replica, however produced. I still think his youthfulness is at least weird when compared to other photos taken around that time, like his visit with Guillarmod, the K2 photos etc.

Anyway, thanks for all the input, I should have checked a little better before posting.

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. If I am not mistaken I can detect a copy of an Egyptian Gazette from ... wait ... dang! ... from 1902 in the chalice reflection!

For what it's worth, Lutz, I think you're on entirely the right lines. Keep studying that photo!

🙂

http://www.lashtal.com/portal/resources/thegalleries/aleister-crowley-photographs/magician-bk4-1-1028.html

Lutz, is AC really all that youthful in the photo? His physique seems rather effeminate (breasts, belly), which lets me believe he was a little chubby at the time. The face only seems youthful due to it being shaven. My guess is that the pic was taken ca. 1912.

Markus

Dwtw

There is a photo of  the inscription that AC made in the Windram copy of Thelema contained in the 'legis1' pdf, made available at the beginning of the fill/kill controversy. This photo has a ruler and a highlighting pen in it for scale.

The ruler at the bottom appears to have a scale in centimeters, indicating that the book is about 9 cm wide, or about 3.54 inches.

The highlighter pen at the top is a Staedtler TextSurfer 364-4, which is supposedly 4.8 inches in length, or 12.2 centimeters. This would be typical for highlighters of this style. Given that the pen is wider than the book itself, it is not a far stretch to say that the book is approx. 3.5" in width.

So I think your estimate may be a good approximation. Speaking roughly, the volume of Thelema is a bit less than a third as wide as the Stele, thus around 9-10 cm and therefore around 3.5 - 4". If all that is true, then the Stele in the photo, if it is not the original, looks to be the same size as the original.

Litlluw
RLG

Have you seen R T Coles latest post in Bogus, Lutz?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liber-L-vel-Bogus-The-Real-Confession-of-Aleister-Crowley/1687315198161452?fref=nf

Quite chatty for a dead man really!  😉

Hi, Paul, 93!

Yes, I have, but I don't see his point. The quality is too bad, but in my opinion neither the background nor the Goetia is authentic. Still, I don't see any point...

Love=law
Lutz

93!

As Paul already pointed out on FB the rope of the bell has gone missing, as has the left part of his hood under his ear. Whoever retouched the pic to put in a new background did not do a good job.

But - what's the point (concerning Mr. Cole's presumptions)?

Love=law
Lutz

That his book is completely satire?

I'm surprised 'Mr Cole' posted it online. It's clearly a poor Photoshop job that merely serves to complicate and confuse the situation, which is a shame because the original photograph has some genuinely odd 'anomalies' that merit further research.

That it might not be him? I remain "concerned" (but not to the point of loss of sleep or needing doctor visits) that the Facebook page is titled On behalf of Richard Cole (without the middle "T").

Something is rotten in Denmark ... or is it England?

Hang on a minute.

Lashtal says "a shame because the original photograph has some genuinely odd 'anomalies' that merit further research."

Huh, like wot?  :-*

For those members and visitors who don't inhabit Facebook, I thought it might be worth quoting a couple comments from the relevant thread which, I think, clearly indicate my current position on this whole 'Liber AL vel Bogus' malarkey:

Liber L. vel Bogus - The Real Confession of Aleister Crowley: '"The first rule of life is to tell a good lie & stick to it" was for Crowley a 'life-quote' and so applicable to all facets of his life, including the Cairo fable.'

Lashtal Paul: 'If the person posting is genuinely RTC, then you know that I have my suspicions about certain aspects of the Cairo Working account, but 'applicable to all facets of his life'? Really? I fear that whoever is posting is over-doing the hype. Posting as a serious contribution to the debate the image that 'you' sent me previously as a Photoshop joke is an example. 'You' can do better than this. And RTC deserves better.'

Context for this exchange is perhaps demonstrated if I reproduce the image itself...

That photo looks like a 10th generation copy, converted from gif to jpg and then saved several times, while back-posing a blurred scene, all of it at about 50 dots/lines per inch. Egads and Rumpelstiltskins, what next? There seems to be an abundance of manipulated Crowley photos invading the internet this week.

Doesn't even merit comment.

There seems to be an abundance of manipulated Crowley photos invading the internet this week.

Perhaps we are all just noticing the s--t a bit more.

Now Michael, my posts give people something to moan about after all, I am providing a conduit for repressed aggression. 🙂
Yes there is a lot of crap but thats why its in the clippings section after all.

The dishonesty of the people behind the "Liber L vel Bogus" charade reaches new depths. We have an image which is described as a photograph, but which is a very poorly Photoshopped image. There is a quote by Crowley from the 1938 Memoranda section which is reproduced as a core principle casting further doubt on the Cairo Working.

The sentence occurs in a passage at the end of the Memoranda section, after a five-verse rhyme about "Sally, a darling little bitch", and reads as follows:

"Much success with my story of George Washington. His father answered back. "Bend over son! I'm going to lick the hell out of you. The first rule of life is to tell a good lie & stick to it".

So a throw-away sentence in a piece of whimsy becomes elevated to a core axiom. Pathetic.

Ain't got a lot, these "Liber L vel Bogus" people, have they?

Now Michael, my posts give people something to moan about after all,

You are performing a valuable public service!

The Stele
I'd wondered whether the facsimile of the stele had been produced by AOS or perhaps Fuller - both more than capable. However, unless they had the original they wouldn't be able to produce the patina described elsewhere on this thread. I assume neither visited Cairo to take a look at or copy the original. Does anyone know if either did?

So, if the stele in the photograph is such a good facsimile it may have been completed by an illustrator/draughtsman in Cairo - likely attached to the museum in some way. It's not hard to imagine being able to find a good artist given how many Egyptian artifacts were being collected and catalogued.

Photographs
It's been suggested on the Bogus Facebook page that the photo containing the stele was taken circa late 1907 or 1908 with a dummy copy of 'Thelema' - perhaps a mock-up from the printer - to promote the recently formed A.'.A.'. or the book itself. That may be true. But, it may also be one of a number taken in advance to be used in the The Equinox. This publication would have been planned well in advance with several of the volumes' content sketched out at an early date. A studio would then be booked and the appropriate shots posed and photographed at the same session (or several in close succession). For example, shots may have been taken in advance for illustrating The Temple of Solomon the King which appears in several volumes. In one example A.C. is posed in regalia - not strictly A.'.A.'. (leopard skin and Nemes headdress) to illustrate John St. John.

Note that what appears to be the same wand and bell appear in the 'stele and young A.C.' photo and one of the regalia ones (Crowley has his arms crossed holding both weapons). While not proof of anything it might be that both photos were taken at a single session or sessions close to one another.

You can see some of the photos framed in A.C.’s Victoria Street Studio in one of The Rites of Eleusis photos. One of the regalia shots is on the mantlepiece and the one with the Perdurabo Magister book hangs on the wall.

The photograph containing the Stele and a young(?) A.C.
Does anyone know if several copies of this photo exist that show different shading, contrast or lighting when reproduced in mono?

The reason I ask is that i wondered whether this photograph was originally to be reproduced in colour. Photo mechanical reproduction existed at the time. The object would be photographed three times through three different coloured filters (red / green /blue). These would then be recombined in the printing process to reproduce a full colour image. I've not had sight of an early Equinox VII (?) so I don't know whether the original volume showed the stele in colour. If it was the case the then this is probably the same process used in its reproduction. Again, the stele illustration may have been shot at the same time as the young A.C. one.

At first I thought this may not be possible for a live subject - i.e. they'd move between takes (assuming three separate shots were taken with the filters swapped in between). But it turns out there is evidence that such live subjects were indeed photographed this way - see the following image (taken 1911).

Now, if this was the case and some of the subsequent plates were later lost or damaged (a colour image was never forthcoming, or maybe A.C. settled on showing the stele only) you could salvage a monotone image by reproducing one of the filtered plates in black only.

This may go some way to explaining why A.C. looks so young in the extant photos. He may have had makeup applied to produce a better colour result - this would smooth out some facial features. And if the later black and white photo was reproduced from a filtered plate some detail would be lost (smoothing the face out, making it look younger); it being originally replicated across three different images. [See the mono-plates in the example above.] Plus he holds his head back (possibly to stop the crown slipping forward in a long held pose) stretching the skin, making the neck look longer and so on…

Why produce this particular shot in colour - perhaps because of the stele? It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day.

As an aside the chalice/crystal looks to me like a crystal ball atop a silver holder (similar to the stem of a wine glass). If that's so it is probably not a reflection in the crystal but a reversed and distorted image of the surrounding and back view of the scene. I experimented with a crystal ball this morning and couldn't reproduce a reflection, just an inverted and distorted image of the background. Blowing up the photo around the crystal and rotating it through 180 degrees shows what seems to be a white panel (the plain background?) and is that an assistant with trimmed beard, wearing a hat off to one side out of shot?  😉

Crowley states (somewhere - Confessions?) that he did have someone (?) make a copy of the Stele - in Cairo. Maybe someone else knows/remembers the details. He also describes (somewhere - Confessions?) when "somebody stole my stele out of my pack" when he was off on one of his outdoor adventures.

It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day.

According to Frater Aquarius (Ray Burlingame), the stele didn't fade because the "paints" were composed of ground-up precious gems.

Confessions, page 408 -

"We had arranged before leaving Egypt for the 'abstruction' of the Stele of Revealing. I did not understand the word or the context, and contented myself with having a replica made by one of the artists attached to the museum."

Also in Crowley to Mudd, explaining certain phrases of Liber AL, c. 1925 -

"'Abstruction. Replica made subsequently."

I don't recall the stolen stele incident off hand.

If the replica stele was stolen then Crowley must have had another made - or had a spare - since in a letter to Germet of March 1948, Yorke says that the stele would be sent to Germer as part of a shipment about a month later.

Yes, and it ended up in the temple at Solar Lodge. This subject was covered ad infinitum here in a forum, 3 or 4 years ago, wherein we tried to play "Stele, Stele, who's got the Stele?" Paul Feazy pointed out that the original Stele had a plaster-like coating over wood, upon which the artwork/hieroglyphs was painted. So that eliminated any copies from being swapped for the original, because all the copies, including the Yorke-Germer-Solar one, were simply wood with paint.

Obviously (it turns out), if the first copy, mentioned by Crowley as having been made by an artist in Cairo, and then (supposedly) that same copy was stolen, then the "final" copy that was with him in his room in Hastings and transported Yorke>Germer>Solar was a "later" copy.

Then McMurtry bought a Stele copy at the Solar Lodge "fire sale" in 1969, and claimed to have bought "thee an image which I will show thee, especial, not unlike the one thou knowest," and claimed magical power, or something, because of this. He also purchased a copy of Solar Lodge's Liber AL. He sent a copy of a photo of his purchases to Jean Brayton as proof of his Caliphship, or something.

[/align:1d17wvxj]

Then, Jerry Cornelius (who had seen the Grady Stele) and I went over the subject many times, and the final conclusion was that Grady had bought one of the Solar student-produced Steles and not the Crowley-Yorke-Germer-Solar wood-painted Stele, with the whereabouts of that copy being either "burned" or "stolen" (again) or "lost" or who really knows?

Anyway, this is all latter-day Steleology, and the subject is the Stele in the Crowley photo that no one really knows what date it was taken or what that Stele's composition is/was.

So someone steled it? This is a job for Simon Iff!

The Stele in the famous photo and that published in Equinox I,7 (and elsewhere) are the same one.
It is the Copy Crowley had had made before leaving Cairo in April of 1904 (Confessions, p. 408; correspondence with Mudd, c. 1925). While the Copy is good, differences can be seen between the Copy and the Real Stele, even in the generally poor-quality photographs in which it is usually seen.

The Copy of the Stele can be seen in colour in:

1. Equinox I,7 (1912), between pages 368 and 369
2. Equinox of the Gods (1936), two frontispiece pages

3. In black and white, front only, in

Confessions (1969), plate 12 (facing page 512)

The Real Stele can be seen in black and white in:

1. ΘΕΛΗΜΑ: The Holy Books of Thelema (1983), pp. 237-238

In colour in:

1. Magick: Liber ABA, Book 4, Parts I-IV (1994/1997) plate between pages 300-301
2. Various personal photos taken in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, posted in the galleries of LAShTAL and on the web (see end for links).

The artist of the Copy tried to reproduce the discolouration due to aging as closely as possible. But it is not exact, and there are some clear examples of the differences between the Copy and the Real Stele in the Stele in the photo first published in Book 4, part II (1913), facing page 3.

The most obvious one, that can be seen clearly even in the worst reproductions, is the difference between the discolouration in the real Stele and the copy in the darkening in front of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu’s waist.

I have not digitally enhanced the tones or sharpness of these pictures in any way.

Copy -

Left – copy from Equinox I,7; centre – Magician photograph; right – b/w copy in Confessions

Real -

Left – Stele photograph from Egyptian Museum for Magick (1994/1997); centre – Paul’s photograph (see link at end); right - ΘΕΛΗΜΑ (1983)

The shape of the painted discolouration in the copy looks like a vase, decanter or inverted  “T” (┴). It has a very thick bottom part which cuts off sharply at the same place along the sash that can be seen even in small reproductions, e.g.

Left – Magick (Symonds and Grant, eds., 1973, plate 2a (facing page 169); centre – Magick (1997), frontispiece; right – Symonds, The Beast 666 (1997), second plate between pp. 244-245.

The most striking aspect of the difference is that the artist has painted the darkening to about a third of the way down Ankh-f-n-Khonsu’s sash, while in the Real Stele it is very clean and clear in front of his sash at that point, and the darkening stops slightly above the cincture (it looks to me a like a barking dog, for instance). So the Copy has darkening where the Real Stele has none. Crowley’s Stele in the Magician photo is the Copy.

Another difference is the shape of the discolouration above Ankh-f-n-Khonsu’s head. In the Copy, the artist has painted it to somewhat curve around his head, while in the Real Stele the discolouration does not curve. There is a notable protrusion at the end of the curve right above the centre of his head, which is not in the Real Stele.

Copy -

Left – copy from Equinox I,7; centre – Magician photograph; right – b/w copy in Confessions

Real –

Left – Stele photograph from Egyptian Museum for Magick (1994/1997); centre – ΘΕΛΗΜΑ (1983); right - Paul’s photograph (see link at end)

A third example is the discolouration in front of Nuit’s legs. The artist has painted it rather irregularly, while the natural aging of the Real Stele has occurred in a straight line against her legs.

Copy –

Left – Lutz’s image in post 14 above; centre – Equinox I,7 Copy; right – Magician photo.

Real –

Left – Magick (1994/1997); centre-left - ΘΕΛΗΜΑ (1983); centre-right – Paul’s photo; right - Golden Lotus Lodge photo, 2009 (see link below)

A big difference between the Copy and Real Stele is the crescent-shaped discolouration to the left above the bird’s perch; in the Real Stele it is wispy, empty inside, while in the Copy the crescent is solid, or almost solid; the way the artist has painted the discolouration below the bird’s perch makes it a wavy line that reaches under the perch, a feature barely present in the natural aging of the Real Stele. In any case, Lutz’s high-resolution photo of that part of the Magician Stele and the Copy in Equinox I,7 are identical.

There are others when you compare closely.

Here are the Real Stele and the Equinox Copy, side-by-side:

Magician from Book 4, part II, posted by Okontrair or Paul
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/resources/thegalleries/aleister-crowley-photographs/magician-bk4-1-1028.html
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/resources/thegalleries/image.raw?view=image&type=orig&id=1028

Paul’s photo -
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/resources/thegalleries/ankhefenkhons-i/img-0660-93.html
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/resources/thegalleries/image.raw?view=image&type=orig&id=93

Golden Lotus Lodge photo –
http://goldenlotus-oto.org/archives/20

So to summarise McMurtry thought he'd got the genuine Crowley replica Stele, not the stolen Stele but the paint-on-wood Stele stashed with Germer, for a steal but it was in fact the wrong Stele. So the whereabouts of the Stolen Stele and the Stele stashed with Germer that ended up with Crowley in Hastings are currently unknown.

😀

It definitely seems like a case for Simon Iff, as nnOuch2 so pithily and cogently remarked ... 

I have always wondered what fate befell the version of the Stele created “out of the blue” to A.C.’s astonishment by I think it was Jane Cheron to wean herself off opium addiction at the time (I don’t have references to hand at the moment so am relying on memory here) – might anyone happen to know what may have occurred to that particular item as well?

N Joy

Further to a search for the above item,

On January 30 [1920], Crowley called on his old mistress, Jane Chéron, hoping to make love, smoke opium, and catch up with Walter Duranty.  He struck out on all three counts: Duranty was still on assignment in Russia for the New York Times, and Chéron was disinclined to both sex and drugs.  However, when Crowley prepared to leave empty-handed, Jane insisted, “Shut your eyes!”  Then she unfurled a piece of cloth and told him he could look.

Before his stunned eyes he saw a four-foot silk applique reproduction of the Stele of Revealing. She explained that in February, 1917, she and her “young man” – almost certainly Duranty – searched the south of France for a cure for opium addiction.  She was suffering from insomnia at the time and awoke one day after dozing off to realize she had drawn, in her sleep, a reproduction of the Stele.  This so impressed her that she spent the next three months reproducing it in silk.  Such a labor from a woman uninterested in magick also impressed Crowley.  That this encounter should come at such a crucial time in his life was, to Crowley, an unmistakable sign from the Gods that he was on the right course with this Abbey [of Thelema] business.

(Richard Kaczynski: Perdurabo [New Falcon, first edition: 2002], pp. 277-8)[/align:2ceq4jro]

This greater than twice life-size homage sounds like quite a staggering work of art, the equivalent of a Thelemic Bayeux tapestry.  Let’s hope the moths – the bane and scourge of many an artistic craft creation fashioned out of wool, silk or cotton – haven’t ever managed to get hold of it, wherever it has ended up.  It’s a shame also there doesn’t appear to have been a photograph extant as it sounds as if it must have been quite a wonder to behold.

N Joy 

Since my post of a week ago has elicited no comment, let alone controversy, from the participants on this thread, can I assume that everyone is satisfied that the Stele in the "Magician" photo and the Stele in Equinox I,7 are the same copy?

Your research on the issue has been stellar (as usual), and yes, the stele in the photo and the stele in the Equinox appear to be the same. Seeing the image of the real stele and the replica side by side is interesting to say the least.

Yes, bel, they seem to be the same or very similar at least.  Since I thought this and had nothing further “controversial” or otherwise to add, I didn’t think it was necessary to make a response.  (Also along with the material on the Rabelais thread as well, concerning both of which I fully concur with all of herupakraath’s words here – keep up the “stellar” work!)

"Bravissimo”,
N Joy

Dwtw

Thanks Belmurru, it's edifying to see these images in contrast with each other. As far as one can tell from the poor quality of the famous AC photo, the Stele copy is the one featured in that picture. The first example of the discoloration in front of A-A-N-K is particularly telling. It certainly looks to my eyes that you've proven your case.

Litlluw
RLG

So the data provided in this thread, demonstrates that AC's visit to Cairo in 1902 did not include a well-known photographic portrait usually described as having been taken a decade later, contrary to the following claim quoted in the OP of this thread?:

Belmurru's done yet more excellent work but you are misinterpreting his conclusions in your restatement. His research suggests that the photo must have been taken before it was published (!) in Eq I:7 and that it appears to be of a copy and not the original.

(Actually, as an aside, the stele was cleaned in the 1990s so any conclusions by others based on comparisons of the staining pre-1912 with that post-2000 need to be treated with caution...)

I am not deliberately misinterpreting Belmurru's conclusions, but asking if have understood or misunderstood the said conclusions.

If I have understood the data provided by Belmurru in this thread correctly, the Stele in the said photo is in fact not the original Stele, but a copy of the original Stele, something which can implie that Crowley had a copy of the said Stele made before the said photo was taken. So if it can be determined or proven that the said photo was taken in 1902, this either implies that Crowley already in 1902 had a copy made of the said Stele, or at least implies that Crowley already in 1902 was aware of the said Stele, even if was not he himself who ordered the making of the Stele copy or Stele replica he is depicted together with in the said photo (as the said Stele replica can have been made just because the museum wanted to have a replica of the said Stele).

My conclusion is that the Stele in the Magician photo is the same as that pictured in Equinox I,7.

That doesn't date the photo, but the internal evidence of the picture, showing the volume of ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, dates it to not before 1909-1910. The difficulty with dating that book is because it is undated internally. Hymenaeus Beta believes that the book in the photograph may be the very book that Crowley gave to James Windram in 1913:

“I had good reason to think it might be the very copy that appears on the altar in the famous ‘Magician’ photo of Crowley, as I knew that A.C. had inscribed the book, almost certainly to Windram on his departure for South Africa after his 1913 visit to London, so it had without question been Crowley’s copy before 1913.”

Hymenaeus Beta "News from International Headquarters",
April 10 2013
http://www.oto.org/news0413.html

Photo of the book, in HB's paper "On the Kill me / Fill me correction to Liber Legis", written during the controversy in 2013 (it may be in the archives on LAShTAL; in the original, the book is laying flat on a table; I have made it vertical, and enlarged it so the spine can be read)

Here he explains the difficulty of dating this copy of the book precisely, suggesting that the one-volume edition may have been printed and bound later than the three-volume ones, so even 1910 is not too late (my emphasis in bold) -

"“This brings us to the first publication of Liber CCXX in the first edition of the Holy Books in three volumes, Thelema. This book is undated internally, but proofs of some sections (including Liber CCXX) survive, dated October 20, 1908. These were proofread by Crowley, but it was not what is called a “copy” proofreading, comparing the source to the new setting; his few markings are concerned with bad margins and dropped punctuation at the margins, i.e., typical letterpress typesetting problems of a technical nature. We know from Crowley's 1924 e.v. conversations recorded by Norman Mudd, quoted above, that the MS. was not used to prepare Thelema—it was still missing when Thelema was being typeset and proofed in 1908. According to Crowley in The Equinox of the Gods (end of chap. 6), Thelema was published in 1909. There is however a diary entry from April 8, 1924 that dates Thelema to An. Ovi (spring 1910–spring 1911 e.v.), but Crowley was uncertain, writing “AL private edition?” Almost all copies of Thelema are in three volumes in cream vellum boards. Crowley made up a few in one volume, printed on animal vellum with a gilt Morocco binding by Zaehnsdorf. This fine binder may well have taken their time with the commission for the special copies, which may mean that Crowley did not receive his personal copy of Thelema until a little later than 1909.”

So Crowley is doing layout corrections in late 1908, suggesting that the book had not been printed yet, let alone bound. However, it is not impossible that he had his personal one-volume copy printed first, I guess, so the earliest possible date would be very late 1908, with the range extending, on HB's reasoning, into 1910. Of course it could be even later, but that is the earliest possible range of dates.

I see no reason to presume trickery in the photo, so I accept that range of dates.

Here is a more direct comparison of the two photos of the book, showing that the copy in the Magician photograph is the one-volume edition, with six books in it, separated by six bands on the spine:

LXI
LXV
VII
CCXX
XXVII
DCCCXIII

Thank you for your clarification[-s] belmurru.

The claim quoted above this sentence, is quoted in  the OP of this thread, and the context it is quoted from is « Reply #576 on: February 14, 2015, 02:03:09 pm » in the thread Liber L. vel Bogus - The real confession of Aleister Crowley:

The point I am curious about, is how Crowley's visit to Cairo in 1902, can have included a photo that was not taken in 1902?

For all your attempts to indicate serious analysis, wellreadwellbred, you're simply not reading what's in front of you.

It's self-evident that 'Crowley's visit to Cairo in 1902' can't 'have included a photo that was not taken in 1902.' So, what does this imply? On the one hand, that I'm wrong in my hint. On the other, that you're missing something that you'd see if you bothered to do some research of your own; namely, actually looking - closely - at the photograph.

For anyone else reading this thread, please forgive my apparent vagueness. During the time that Richard Cole still communicated with me, he highlighted certain 'inconsistencies' with the photograph. This was his research and not mine. It would be grossly unprofessional for me to 'steal his thunder' on this point, especially as we appear to be close to publication of his book. I fully expect him to extend the same courtesy to me - although his use of a photo of me in a promotional photoshopped image (albeit in a humorous context), does suggest some naivety on my part!

Dwtw

I'm not a photographic analyst, but the only inconsistencies I can detect from the admittedly limited-res 'Magician' photo are that the phial of holy oil and the volume of Thelema do not appear to be casting a shadow to the lower right, whereas the crystal ball and AC's chin appear to do so. Also, the phial appears to cover up two 'errors' in the copy of the Stele - a sort of smudged section on line four, and the 'eye' hieroglyph on line five that is missing the iris. Both of those anomalies are clearly seen in the reproduction photo of the Stele printed in the Equinox, as provided by Belmurru. Whether this was on purpose is anybody's guess, as the 'errors' are so small as to be hardly noticeable, even if they weren't covered up. But if it was done on purpose, then to what end? Crowley never claimed that the Stele in the photo was the original, so hiding the fact that it was a copy seems to serve no purpose.

Perhaps Lutz's high-res copy of the photo would provide a better specimen to examine in this regard.

Litlluw
RLG