|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
rjthomp Regular user Pasadena 199 Posts 
|
Many tricks that use a Jordan could be done with a Elmsley, in which you put the last card on the bottom instead of the top to preserve the desired order. John Bannon, for example, seems to avoid Jordans religiously, even if tricks like twisted sister or duplicity seem like they would naturally use a Jordan... For beginners, its much better to start with an Elmsley rather than a double lift. Double lifts are generally over used and abused by many magicians. An Elmsley count, if performed casually (you're not trying to show the spectators anything, just casually going through the packet), will never be suspected. A good way to get experience doing these slights in front of an audience is to actually use them in tricks where they AREN'T needed. So if you have a packet of 4 face down red backed cards, say, just go ahead and give them an Elmsley. This can be done with a lot of other slights as well (so throw in a pass before you hand out a deck for a shuffle; use a classic force even when you don't need to know the card selected etc.). Besides making you more comfortable using these slights, there's an added bonus of really confusing any magicians in the audience...
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
I started this thread, but so long ago that I don't remember whether anyone brought up this trick: Illogical Conclusion, by Roy Walton. I'm learning it now. What a delight it is! It uses Elmsleys and a Jordan, and one other little move.
Note to rjthomp: I wasn't aware that the Elmsley (or "Ghost" -- what a great name!) can sometimes stand in for the Jordan. I won't think about whether that's possible in Walton's trick, because I'm finally learning the Jordan, and it's just so cool... Bob |
|||||||||
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1718 Posts
|
Personally, I don't like performing a straight Ghost Count followed by an Underground Ghost Count (the last card goes on the bottom). It looks inconsistent. I'd rather do a Jordan Count. When done correctly, it is imperceptible from a Ghost Count. However, you need to put the practice in to make it smooth and train your brain not to perform a Ghost Count.
And I've never understood why John Bannon doesn't use a Jordan Count in his trick Twisted Sisters. The opening display looks better if you do. Marty |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
I agree with you Marty, and I'm surprised at how many tricks use the GC but with the last card placed at the bottom of the packet. So here's a question for you (or whoever cares to answer). If the instructions for a trick direct you to do an EC, but place the last card on the bottom, is there always a way to replace the move just described with a JC?
I just did an experiment to see what effect each of the three procedures has on the final order of the cards. Each time, I started with the all four cards face down, in the order A 2 3 4 from the top. a. After doing GC the new order is: A 4 2 3. b. After doing JC the new order is: A 3 4 2. c. After doing the GC but with last card placed on bottom, the new order is: 4 2 3 A. So options (b) and (c) are not equivalent. Clearly there's a missing piece that I need to know about. Thanks, Bob |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
P. S. On rereading, I picked up your phrase, "a straight Ghost Count followed by an Underground Ghost Count." So maybe you're saying that Ghost Count followed by Underground Ghost Count is equivalent to a single Jordan count. Way past lunch time here, so I'm going to eat before I try this.
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Just tried the experiment. If you do a straight GC followed by an UGC, the result is 3 4 2 A. This is not the same order that results from a single JC ((b) in previous post). It's always possible I made a mistake, but I checked and double-checked. So I'm still not following what you're saying, rjthomp and Marty.
|
|||||||||
|
Francois Lagrange Veteran user Paris, France 384 Posts
|
I think your problem stems from thinking that the order of the 3 other cards is relevant, when in fact it might not be the case.
Here’s a trivial example: imagine you have 3 red-backed and one blue-backed cards. The BB is in 3rd position from the top and you perform an EC. If you wanted to perform a second count and still hide the BB card, you could either perform a JC or, by performing an underground EC on the first count, segue with another EC. If the order of the 3 other cards is relevant, then it might not be possible to replace one handling (EC + JC) with the other (UEC + EC).
Protect me from my friends, I'll deal with my enemies.
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Ah, okay, I see. Thanks for the nice example.
Bob |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1718 Posts
|
Hi Bob, if the exact sequence is important a GC followed by an UGC is not equivalent to a JC. However, if you are performing something like Dai Vernon's "Twisting the Aces", then I'd rather do a GC followed by a JC because the order (at that stage of the trick) is not important.
Interestingly, I often use false counts to re-order cards in a small packet, either to set me up to perform a trick (without having to memorise the specific setup needed) or to reset the packet before placing it in my pocket. Often, I find that an UGC is the easiest and quickest way to reset. Marty |
|||||||||
|
Francois Lagrange Veteran user Paris, France 384 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2021, martyjacobs wrote: I don’t get that bit. An EC + JC will reset the order to what it was before starting the EC. I don’t understand how an UEC will work here. Can you elaborate? And, I'm curious, why do you keep calling Elmsley’s count “Ghost Count”? Ghost Count (Elmlsey’s original name) has been universally superseded with “Elmsley Count” in modern literature. Genuine question.
Protect me from my friends, I'll deal with my enemies.
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Thanks, Marty. In line with Francois' question, I'd be curious to hear an example or two of how you use the UGC to reset, in a PM, perhaps, if it would be revealing too much. I know the GC and am on my way to mastering the JC, so my ability to string together packet trick routines should soon go up a notch. It's amazing how many quite different things these counts can accomplish.
Francois, I can't speak to Marty's reasons, but I, too, prefer "Ghost Count." I find it a delightfully picturesque name. I usually use "Elmsley Count" because it's more likely that people will know what I mean, and I do like to honor the move's creator, but it's a shame that people don't use GC much anymore. FWIW |
|||||||||
|
poolside New user Tampa, Florida 73 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 23, 2020, Betrayal Mix wrote: Betrayal Mix - A Chicago Opener DL is easy if you get a roughing stick and use it on the middle section of the face of your Chicago Opener odd card. Pressing on the middle of the back of the odd card will give you an extremely easy DL and the two cards separate easily when you slide them at the top or bottom. Best of all, your magician friends will be impressed with your perfect DL!
"It's a good feeling to know you're alive" - Fred Rogers
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Hi Poolside,
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think you'd have to apply the roughing stick to both the face of the odd card and the back of the chosen card -- otherwise the cards won't stick. One solution would be to f**ce the selection. Alternatively, Betrayal Mix could look at Christian Schenk's ("Card-Shark's") website. He sells Science Friction, which lots of people rave about. It requires only one card to be treated. Bob |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Another trick that I really like is a version of O&W by J. K. Hartman, "Fixit Mixer." It uses both Elmsley and Jordan counts, so great for practicing both. (God, E and J were geniuses!) Aldo Colombini teaches it on his Oil Water 2, available from Chris Wasshumber's Lybrary.com.
|
|||||||||
|
Francois Lagrange Veteran user Paris, France 384 Posts
|
For CO, I apply zig 2-way glue pen on the face of the odd card. Works a treat and dirt cheap.
Protect me from my friends, I'll deal with my enemies.
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
Interesting! I never heard of a 2-way glue pen. Must look into this.
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2878 Posts
|
A couple of messages ago, I meant Wasshuber. The "m" crept in on its own; I had nothing to do with it.
|
|||||||||
|
balbec New user few 62 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 19, 2021, martydoesmagic wrote: The JC is close to what a layman would do if he where trying to hide a card in a small packet : put the last card under the other ones. The EC is somehow the opposite : it is very clean on the last card, hence more deceptive. That’s why the EC is a core technique in so many tricks, and the JC, while still ok in many cases, is only secondary. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1211 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, balbec wrote: I disagree with this on several counts (excuse the pun) - 1. EC and JC should both be undetectable if executed correctly. They should both look simply like you are displaying four cards (which means of course that they should be indistinguishable from each other. 2. The dirty work happens on the second card for EC, and the third for JC. The last card of the JC is a single card, just like the EC. (But as mentioned above, the whole count should look clean anyway. 3, What is the evidence that a layman would hide an odd card on the bottom rather than second from bottom? 4. The EC does seem to be more common than JC, but that does not mean JC is inferior. It could be that many handlings happen to give rise to a situation where EC is the natural solution. OR it could be that a lot of magicians find the EC a bit easier so avoid the JC. They are both valuable tools to be used in the appropriate situation. |
|||||||||
|
balbec New user few 62 Posts
|
Interesting :
1- Sure.I assume excellent technique in both cases, otherwise, the discussion is pointless. 2- Disagree : the dirty work happens on the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th cards, even though you display the 4th distinctly and thus cleanly at the end. 3- No evidence, just a personal reflexion. Still, its quite clear that any layman who plays with cards has thought about the idea of displaying / hidding at one point of time, and that the jordan is closer to what he would do if he has to invent a method. It may be interesting to ask a couple of them. 4- It could, don’t see why someone would consider the Jordan more difficult, though. This is far from black and white anyway…. and I use both. |
|||||||||
Posted: Feb 18, 2021 05:48 pm 