|
|
Post by brimfin on May 12, 2017 11:54:36 GMT
Ruby Red There was no sign of a break-in and only 3 people had keys. So, here's my theory. Tallder committed the murder, stabbing Balchek and then dragging the body over, breaking the glass and planting the ruby in Balchek's hand to throw suspicion on Mayne. You stated that Tallder had made a big deal of saying that Mayne was angry about not getting a promotion to give Mayne a stronger motive. Plus only Tallder knew enough about gems and birthstones to be able pick the right gem on the spot, if the murder wasn't planned in advance, but just happened during an argument. Plus Lord asked if there was a calendar; perhaps Balchek would have marked everyone's birthdays on it. Tallder's motive is greed. He inherits the money from the will. If that's not the answer, I'll just wait for the movie to come out. Brimfin, as usual, your detective skills are right on the money. Excellent work there--you've got all of my clues, including that pesky calendar! If I ever thought of a third level to the story--Heaven protect us from that possibility--believe me, I would be making a movie about it. Thanks. It was a tricky one. If you write that movie with the extra red herring, you could call it "The Case that just Wouldn't Get Solved." |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 12, 2017 11:56:07 GMT
brimfin -- Band Tempo: Correct!. I knew you'd finally get it.  I guess the instruments were already there, courtesy of the roadie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 12, 2017 16:04:26 GMT
Fellas, here's another one--not mine this time around, but borrowed from the hilarious '30s radio program Author! Author!, which I recommend (but not until you've read this riddle!). "The $2,001 Watch"
The scene is in New York City, at a(nother) jewelry store. (Not Balchek's, I hasten to add!) The time? Say late 1930s, when Author! Author! was on-air. The main sales clerk is working behind the counter when a shabbily-dressed man comes up to him. "I'm looking for a watch," this fellow says, slurring his words. "What kind of watch, sir?" says the clerk. "Any kind." "How about this beautiful one?" "How much?" "$2,000, sir." The customer scratches his head and opens his wallet. Then he looks at the watch again. "Fine, I'll take it," he finally mumbles and removes money from his pocket. "I'll give this one dollar for it." Now, our sales clerk is rightfully indignant! " Excuse me, sir! One dollar, you said?" "That's what I said. Take it or leave it." "It's a $2000 watch! I'm not selling it to you for one dollar!" They get into something of a verbal kerfuffle, unsurprisingly, and the commotion attracts the shop owner. "What seems to be all the trouble?" he asks, and his employee explains the ridiculous situation to him. "I see," says the store owner. "All right. Sell the man the watch. Take the dollar." Assuming that the store owner is in his right mind, and that he has never met or seen this customer before, wherefore does he do this? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 12, 2017 17:41:38 GMT
Nalkarj --- A total guess... The store owner realises (for some unknown reason, he is a jeweller and would probably know) that the $1 piece is a rare coin and is worth either $2000 or more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 12, 2017 17:52:09 GMT
Nalkarj --- A total guess... The store owner realises (for some unknown reason) that the $1 piece is a rare coin and is worth either $2000 or more. That's it! Too easy for the folks here, I guess. I tried to make it somewhat fairer, by the fact that the shabbily-dressed man opens his wallet but then removes the money from his pocket (and that the employee had to ask, "One dollar?"), as Author! Author! had different authors coming up with solutions and no single solution.
As for the unknown reason, yes, it's not a great riddle, but, if I had said the store owner were a numismatist, that would have given the game away.
As I wrote, with Author! Author!, there was no one solution but a variety of different authors' "solutions" to a puzzle, so I wonder if you or anyone else has any other "solutions," though yours was the one I was looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 12, 2017 18:02:41 GMT
Nalkarj Pure coincidence. I'd just finished watching an episode of "Hustle" which involved a fictitional supposedly rare "Yankee Green" ($1000 note/bill) worth hundreds of thousands (a scam of course). The "rarity" angle was fresh in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 12, 2017 23:26:15 GMT
I was guessing it might be a rare dollar, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Another possibility is that it's a foreign dollar, but that would have to be one heck of an exchange rate. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 12, 2017 23:58:52 GMT
A better theory: Another possibility is that such an expensive watch is not kept on the grounds and that they just have a cheap fake to give the customer an idea of what the watch will look like before they special order him one. The drunk recognizes that the watch is not real, which is why he offers $1 for it. The manager figures it's easier to sell him the fake for $1 rather than make a scene about it or possibly provoke the drunk into a rage. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 13, 2017 0:13:39 GMT
I was guessing it might be a rare dollar, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Another possibility is that it's a foreign dollar, but that would have to be one heck of an exchange rate. Close, very close, but missing one tiny piece that would make it a bit more plausible. Heck, anyone here know a TV producer (or radio, if any producer is still interested in dramatic radio nowadays)? We could start the Author! Author! show again and have all of you as the "authors"! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 13, 2017 0:14:28 GMT
A better theory: Another possibility is that such an expensive watch is not kept on the grounds and that they just have a cheap fake to give the customer an idea of what the watch will look like before they special order him one. The drunk recognizes that the watch is not real, which is why he offers $1 for it. The manager figures it's easier to sell him the fake for $1 rather than make a scene about it or possibly provoke the drunk into a rage. As ingenious as usual, but how does that explain the employee's indignation? He would have to know, wouldn't he, that the watch is fake? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 13, 2017 0:23:14 GMT
By the ways, guys, if you're interested, critic and Benjamin Franklin biographer Carl Van Doren came up with this solution on Author! Author!: Van Doren posited that the store owner's son had been kidnapped--although, now that I think of it, the idea that the store owner was blackmailed works equally as well. Someone was extorting money from him, in any case. The store owner ("Smith," for convenience) had received three notes, the first telling him that he had to pay $2000, the second to keep watch for a shabbily-dressed man, and the third telling him to be in his shop on a particular day. Therefore, Van Doren continued, the way the extorters got the $2000 (or, to be pedantic, $1999) was by sending their agent, the "drunk," and forcing Smith to give him a $2000 watch. There are a few holes in the solution that the other guest authors/contestants on Author! Author! didn't pick up on, but I thought it quite ingenious. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 13, 2017 12:45:30 GMT
The $2,001 Watch I can only conclude it must be some earlier pre-arranged signal. He's paying off the drunk, who was just a carrier for someone else, for something that's written in code on the dollar. It was supposed to be just part of the watch payment, but the man making the payoff got drunk and so only wanted to give him the one coded dollar he was supposed to slip in with the rest of the money. It's valuable enough to the owner to just give away the watch for it. Maybe the drunk was also supposed to buy something much cheaper so it wouldn't look so odd. Oh, the evils of drinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 13, 2017 12:56:26 GMT
The $2,001 Watch I can only conclude it must be some earlier pre-arranged signal. He's paying off the drunk, who was just a carrier for someone else, for something that's written in code on the dollar. It was supposed to be just part of the watch payment, but the man making the payoff got drunk and so only wanted to give him the one coded dollar he was supposed to slip in with the rest of the money. It's valuable enough to the owner to just give away the watch for it. Maybe the drunk was also supposed to buy something much cheaper so it wouldn't look so odd. Oh, the evils of drinking. Do you mean this as an alternative solution? (I'd love to hear those, as I said.) Because your first solution was mostly accurate, with just one little piece missing. By the way, what did you think of Van Doren's solution? I thought it absolutely ingenious. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 25, 2017 14:24:57 GMT
Where have all the riddlers gone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 1, 2017 5:10:30 GMT
I don't know about the other fellas, tarathian123, but I've been off in Yellowstone National Park without phone or Internet for a week—quite nice to be utterly separated from cares and troubles of life. I'll try to post something sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 6, 2017 15:02:09 GMT
OK, for all the Puzzle Pals ( jervistetch , brimfin , tarathian123 , Pete , persistenceofvision ), here I am, coming out of the woodwork, to provide you with another puzzler, also courtesy of Author! Author!: The scene is in a small town--let's call it Westeville. The time is once again in the '30s. Old Barnaby Weste, whose great-grandfather founded the town, has died at the age of 93, apparently of a heart attack. He was a miserly, greedy old man, so nasty that a pre-reformation Scrooge would have avoided him. All thought that he would die intestate, leaving his heirs to fight each other for the money for years in court. Instead, Mr. Weste did the one nice thing in his life and left the bulk of his fortune to his grand-nephew, young Billy Weste, who is desperately in need of money to cover gambling debts. Young Bill walks up to Mr. Hornbull's office; John Hornbull is the late Mr. Weste's attorney. Hornbull is looking at young Bill. "Well, Billy," Hornbull says, smiling at the young man, "your uncle has done you a great blessing--something that'll help you out of your present--er--difficulty. You get $100,000 from his will"--more than enough to pay off his gambling debts, may I add--"with--well!--just one silly little condition." "Yes?" says Bill Weste. "I mean, your uncle has officially left you a choice: you can take either the $100,000 or--I know this is ridiculous, but it is legally binding--the possession of one blank, empty envelope. Of course, if you take the one, then you forfeit the other, and..." "May I see the envelope?" "Yes, of course," says the lawyer, and hands it to him. The envelope is completely blank, without any writing, stamps, or anything else on it. There is also nothing written in invisible ink [let me stipulate]. It's also completely empty. "Now, as to your taking possession of the money, Mr. Weste..." "Just one minute, sir," Bill says, calmly. "I haven't made my choice." "But I presumed, of course..." "You presumed incorrectly. I'll take the envelope." WHY?
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 6, 2017 23:13:35 GMT
NalkarjWhile we wait for the Puzzle Crew to come and figure out this particular conundrum -- Welcome back from your trip to Jellystone. Glad to see that Yogi and the geysers didn't get you ! Looking forward to seeing the solutions !
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 6, 2017 23:47:39 GMT
Nalkarj While we wait for the Puzzle Crew to come and figure out this particular conundrum -- Welcome back from your trip to Jellystone. Glad to see that Yogi and the geysers didn't get you ! Looking forward to seeing the solutions ! Many thanks, Bat, and, yes, Jellystone was great! In terms of bears, I only saw one black bear and cubs--and she never tried to steal my picnic basket, either! Did see a lot of coyotes and tons of buffalo, though. I look forward to the solutions too. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 7, 2017 12:31:20 GMT
The legacy: 1. My first thought on this was that the legacy was in the form of large Confederacy bills or bonds (valued $500 or $1000 perhaps), which after the Civil War would have no legal value, so the nephew being a true blue Yankee took the envelope instead, out of spite maybe. But then I realised that even Confederacy bills would in the 1930s have had collectable value, so I put the idea to one side.
2. In a dying act of hate against the nephew could the old man have dusted the notes with poison? The envelope which was clean could be offered as a sporting chance. But then how would the old man have prevented others handling the notes before the nephew, without letting on what he'd done?
3. Forgetting the fortune, notes or otherwise, I have to turn to the envelope. Had the nephew secreted a set of envelopes into the uncle's stationery which would cause, and probably had caused, the premature death of the old man. Poisoned gum perhaps? The nephew recognised the envelope as one of them and wished to destroy the evidence. The other envelopes in the set could be acquired and destroyed later. But this falls down in that the nephew didn't know about his uncle's will, unless he had by some covert means discovered the intentions. As a gambler would he have taken the chance and taken the money anyway?
4. Were both uncle and nephew chemists perhaps? Did the nephew recognise something about the envelope which made it more valuable than the money offered? As suggested above, except that it wasn't poison, but a new drug which had been smeared where the gum should be, and so readily available for analysis to obtain the formula. That's as far as my thinking goes. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 7, 2017 15:15:05 GMT
The legacy: 1. My first thought on this was that the legacy was in the form of large Confederacy bills or bonds (valued $500 or $1000 perhaps), which after the Civil War would have no legal value, so the nephew being a true blue Yankee took the envelope instead, out of spite maybe. But then I realised that even Confederacy bills would in the 1930s have had collectable value, so I put the idea to one side.
2. In a dying act of hate against the nephew could the old man have dusted the notes with poison? The envelope which was clean could be offered as a sporting chance. But then how would the old man have prevented others handling the notes before the nephew, without letting on what he'd done?
3. Forgetting the fortune, notes or otherwise, I have to turn to the envelope. Had the nephew secreted a set of envelopes into the uncle's stationery which would cause, and probably had caused, the premature death of the old man. Poisoned gum perhaps? The nephew recognised the envelope as one of them and wished to destroy the evidence. The other envelopes in the set could be acquired and destroyed later. But this falls down in that the nephew didn't know about his uncle's will, unless he had by some covert means discovered the intentions. As a gambler would he have taken the chance and taken the money anyway?
4. Were both uncle and nephew chemists perhaps? Did the nephew recognise something about the envelope which made it more valuable than the money offered? As suggested above, except that it wasn't poison, but a new drug which had been smeared where the gum should be, and so readily available for analysis to obtain the formula. That's as far as my thinking goes. Some excellent thoughts, Al--absolutely brilliant. I'll take them one at a time. 1. I would agree with you about the Confederate money's having collectable value, except that I recently read a '40s story that suggested the opposite--that the money would be worthless. Story could've been wrong, of course. Anyway, how could the lawyer not have known? Unless he's in on it? And how would the nephew know the legacy would be in Confederate currency, anyway?
2. Same question: how could the nephew have known that the notes were dusted in poison? And, even if the legacy were in cash, the lawyer would be unlikely to have given it to Bill Weste in cash.
3. This is the closest to what Frederic Dannay (one half of the two-man writing team that was "Ellery Queen") thought up on the radio show. His explanation was this:
I remember finding Dannay's solution ingenious but also finding a problem with it--but I can't remember what that problem is! You wrote, "As a gambler would he have taken the chance and taken the money anyway?" Maybe. It seems unlikely that, if everyone thought the old man died of a heart attack, the nephew would give up a fortune in exchange for evidence of a murder that no one thought he'd committed.
4. Similar to the theory I was working on. I thought that the paper itself was worth money in some way. (Reminds me of "A Scandal in Bohemia," where Holmes deduces the paper-owner's identity from how much the paper is worth.) It seems a strange dilemma for Uncle to set up for his nephew. |
|
I guess the instruments were already there, courtesy of the roadie. 
