Even without a formal tally, it's clear that the above events produced some remarkably brilliant examples - but also some real stinkers - a lot of "ho hum" and a few "this is terrible symbolism." Without actually counting the scores, I come away from the last couple of hours of work thinking (1) to my surprise there seems to be something to do this and (2) it is highly unreliable, either missing or mischaracterizing too many events. And it's a real limitation if we can only count on it for negative events. (All of my spectacular positive events showed as terrible, malefic events.)
From this
first impression, I've left with the idea that this is a minor method (perhaps like tertiaries) that sorta kinda works - and scores aces when it does! - but that I wouldn't rely on.
Before finalizing that view, though, I should tally the scores. I'll give two extra +3 scores for the Jack and Jackie examples earlier. Here's what we get with the usual Excellent, Great, Good, Neutral or Mixed, Poor, Bad, Terrible ratings.
+3: * * * * * * * * * * (10)
+2: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (21)
+1: * * * * * * * * * * * (11)
00: * * * * * * * * * * * (11)
-1: * * * * * (5)
-2: * * * * * * * * * * (10)
-3: *(1)
It's clear at a glance that the positive scores outweigh the negative scores. That there are so many +3 scores and a strong run of +2 (what we should normally expect from a valid, reliable system) speaks well. 45% of the examples had a score of +2 or higher.
I add +1 more gingerly since I gave many of them the benefit of the doubt (to compensate for my negative expectations). But, since I gave the score, I should count it: 62% (nearly two-thirds) of the examples had a +1 or higher (defined as "on balance, this chart is more correct than incorrect - more right than wrong").
But 62% isn't a very high score. Bradley reported that transits alone account for about 70% of major events, and progressions alone for about the same. This technique did not do that well. About four out of ten charts scored worse than "more right than wrong on balance." One-fourth of the examples were more wrong than right. The -2 scores are as common as the +3 examples.
So... unless some other block of evidence says otherwise... I'm inclined to two opinions on Vertex Arc Directions:
- There is something to the system. Sometimes it even produces stunning examples.
- However, it isn't reliable. I can't count on it. It does not score a win as often as basic techniques like transits and secondary progressions and seems oblivious to positive events. It might be fun to spot check when studying an event in hindsight, though.
Since the most dramatic examples have extremely tight orbs, I'll calculate my own exact hits for the next year and watch them as time passes. Between my 2024 and 2025 birthdays, progressed Vertex moves from 9°47' t 10°39' Gemini, so Vertex Arcs are moving just a little slower than Solar Arcs: 0°52'/year or a little over 4'/month.
I just looked - I have only two exact Vertex Arc aspects in the next year:
d Saturn sq r Venus 1/30/25
d Saturn op r Pluto 5/5/25
In the last year I had two. I don't recall last December having been this rough (I got my cornea transplant at the end):
d Neptune sq r Mercury 12/15/23
d Mars op r Saturn 12/20/23
