Araucaria Is Dead !

[mikey4444]

Araucaria died today...may he rest in peace.
Bloody hell, I shall miss him. I have been doing his puzzles for more years than I can care to remember.

[Tilly2]

Done that as well, jomlett. Thank you to you too.

[maurice]

Many thanx again, Jomlett: I'll have a go at it tomorrow!

[maurice]

..............and finished, as usual with pleasure!
Can anyone answer a rather pedantic question that occurs to me: how come recent puzzles have reached a number over 26,000 --- in 55 years at something like 300 per year that would make nearly 10,000 less (fewer)?!
Where have I gone wrong? The number here was only 163! There's no doubt a simple explanation somewhere....................

[Tilly2]

That's a good point, maurice. I have just been fiddling around with numbers on my calculator and I can't understand it either?

[murraymints]

Ft

[murraymints]

Ignore that ...went by mistook

[THECORBYLOON]

It's been going since January 5 1929.

[Tilly2]

But his first puzzle in 1958 was numbered 163.

[THECORBYLOON]

They did a count a few year ago, see this link, http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/may/03/cryptic-crossword-celebrating-25000th

[Tilly2]

Thank you for that link, corbyloon. That was interesting. It stilll doesn't answer maurice's question though.
Never mind. It doesn't matter that much.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why does it not answer the question? If they have counted every cryptic crossword since they first appeared in the paper since 1929, why would they not be in the 26,000s by now?

[Tilly2]

It doesn't explain why a crossword compiled in 1958 would be the 163rd.

[maurice]

Exavtly! Thank you, Tilly! I'm sure the high number is correct; the q. remains why THIS one is so low......................

[Tilly2]

Is it anthing to do with the name change from The Manchester Guardian to The Guardian?

[maurice]

Tilly: that happened the following year, in 1959.
I've had another idea: is it possible they were at first numbered only within a given year? If we could establish the date of this "163" it would have to be (@ 6 a week) in week 27 or so, i.e. July '58.Archives on G. website don't go back that far though. That might be an explanation I suppose -- until they started numbering them cumulatively. What do you think?

[Tilly2]

Maurice that sound feasible. We could email the paper and ask. I have just been out and bought today's paper. Both the first and last crossword are printed in the G2 section.
Front page report and an obituary.j

[maurice]

Sorry, Tilly --- I'm a bit late replying. Just to say I HAVE mailed the crossword editor with my question, but have had no reply yet of course.If & when I do, I'll post it here (just for the curious)!

[Hypognosis]

More a case of I'd heard of him rather than knowingly doing any of his crosswords. Never been much of a buyer of newspapers but the Grauniad xword always used to leave me stumped, is my abiding recollection.

R.I.P.

[maurice]

Only for those who were as mystified as I was by the NUMBER of Arau's first puzzle, reprinted yesterday: they did in fact count only within each year in the bad old days, the Editor has just confirmed. So no problem -----except that (I suppose) we won't be getting to see any more of his, unless they've got some to use posthumously. I hope so.

[joggerjayne]

Sad, sad, sad ...

I never quite got to grips with his clues ... although kayakamina tried to help me.

I will miss sitting, staring at the uncompleted crossword, then giving up and dropping it in the bin at Starbucks,