Vernon claimed this book was actually written by Sam Horowitz or his card material was the source (I don't have a copy of the Vernon Touch).

Anyone know why Vernon made this statement and how Kaplan defended being the author (he apparently responded in Genii that same year).

I recently acquired this book and I am interested in it’s history and why it is on the list of so many famous magicians reading list.

I have purchased a copy of the Vernon Touch to read the source statement (plus it's a good book to have) and awaiting its arrival.
So I will have the first have of the puzzle.

In the foreword, Kaplan acknowledged Jean Hugard for editing the book. Vernon claims Hugard was a ghost writer for Fine Art of Magic.

Kaplan responds in Genii 1971 September issue page 44, which I do not have.

Kaplan was not happy with Vernon accusations. There are letters where he addresses the issue. Horowitz was not happy that Kaplan included some things he did in the book. Hugard did edit the book but Kaplan indeed did write or compile it depending on your viewpoint.

Hi everybody,

I have the Vernon Touch and in the March 1972 column, Vernon says that Larsen received a letter from George Kaplan.
In the letter Kaplan states that "Sam Horowitz wrote 80% of the material, in the Fine Art Of Magic."

Vernon talks about how no credit is given to Horowitz and that Kaplan, by his own admission goes along with what Vernon said, in a previous column.

I also own The Fine Art of Magic, if there are any other questions.



Justin

I just received my copy of The Vernon Touch.

July 1971 (page 140)

Vernon in his colum states how a student of Sam Horowitz had written the book The Fine Art of Magic and Horowitz was not given any credit.
"I was flabbergasted upon reading it to see that the material in the book had been culled from Sam, Al Baker, and myself." - Dai Vernon.

Justin, what source did you find Kaplan admitting using the material of Sam Horowitz, Baker and Vernon?

Kaplan did respond that same year in Genii. I do not know the content.

Jerry,

Page 158, March 1972, of the vernon touch. Vernon says that the editor larsen received a letter.


Justin

Justin, thank you very much for the reference.

What a truly bizarre response.
He writes to Ed Larsen that Vernon was presumptuously correct? And he agrees with Vernon claims, so he complains? I would love to see the letter!

Is this underground material (at the time of publication)? If Kaplan had not plagiarized this content, would we never have seen this?

The history of this book, for me at least, is fascinating.

I will admit I am not a “card guy” and not even a skilled magician (one day I will invest the proper time), however this book is on my short list to read for card magic. Why is so respected by the major talent and experts? If it so good, and I am not saying it is not, but why was it never reprinted?

[quote]On Sep 12, 2016, Jerry wrote:

Is this underground material (at the time of publication)? If Kaplan had not plagiarized this content, would we never have seen this?

Around that time, I think it was fairly underground. Horowitz has material in greater magic, so it seems he had no issue with publishing his magic.


I will admit I am not a “card guy” and not even a skilled magician (one day I will invest the proper time), however this book is on my short list to read for card magic. Why is so respected by the major talent and experts? If it so good, and I am not saying it is not, but why was it never reprinted?

It's respected because the magic is practical and effective. though, a lot of the material is cards, there are mentalism type tricks,coin magic,stand up etc. It's a book for magicians, who perform for paying audiences.
Not sure why it hasn't been reprinted, but I hope it never does!

by the way, it's nice to talk with people, who are interested in studying the true classics of our craft!



Justin

Considering that Horowitz reportedly ripped off the majority of card material that was intended to be published in Greater Magic, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

How about some details?

Eric, yes, please may I have your source so I can investigate this further?
I am very interested in this topic of course.

The information I referenced is found in the latest publication of Greater Magic (Magic Factory?) concerning its origins. Jean Hugard loaned Horowitz most of, or at least a good deal of the card material that Hilliard had compiled so as to verify the value and practicality I guess. Horowitz kept the material and never returned it despite repeated requests from Hugard.
That’s what I can recall anyway, I sure hope I’m right. It’s been years since I read it.

I think you are referring to the Horowitz-Jones-Hugard correspondence in the Kaufman/Greenberg edition of Greater Magic. It begins on (more or less) on page 1101.

It's a question of whether the material was lost in transit or deliberately kept from the publisher. Horowitz showed Hilliard a number of effects and Hilliard made notes on them.

Hilliard then passed away and Jones gave Horowitz two manuscripts of effects for editing and evaluation. Those effects were never returned. Carl Jones even met with Horowitz in New York and still Horowitz couldn't seem to locate the material. I think Horowitz just lost them rather than nefariously keeping them from being published. If he was willing to share them with Hilliard knowing full well he intended to publish them, it doesn't seem logical he would later recant and keep them from Jones and putting them in [i}Greater Magic[/i].

To be clear, the only material he might have held back was his own. He had a right to do that, although as has been commented, why would he, having already contributed it? Maybe he did change his mind, although maybe he did just lose it.

Kaplan responded to the Vernon accusation with this: "After publication of THE FINE ART OF MAGIC, Sam remarked to me that there were two or three things for which he felt he should have been given mention even though, as he put it, “it may be hair-splitting”. (Incidently he told the same thing to Jean Hagard.) In our discussion of this he conceded that although the tricks he spoke of were similar in effect to my versions, my method of doing them differed materially from his.” Genii (Volume 36, No. 1, September 1971 p. 44) (typos not mine)