(Close Window)
Topic: The Diagonal Palm Shift (Variation)
Message: Posted by: MichaelSternMagic (Apr 20, 2010 12:08AM)
I have been doing the DPS for about 4/5 years and have for the past 3 years been working on my own variation that I have shown many magicians. Some of you have most likely seen it, for the rest of you, I hope you enjoy this fun change of pace.

[url=http://vimeo.com/11069084]Diagonal Palm Shift 4/19/09[/url]

-Michael Stern

Any thoughts and comments are always greatly appreciated and not just thrown aside. I do value everyone's criticism.
Message: Posted by: chrisgali (Apr 20, 2010 01:05AM)
Wow, I think its a great control...the add on after the "push thru" is really not seen!
(sorry I m german)
Message: Posted by: Doctor REvil (Apr 20, 2010 02:51AM)
Michael, that's a great vid man!.....DPS coming to the top is fantastic idea too!.


David.
Message: Posted by: harry tim (Apr 20, 2010 02:27PM)
Yeah I think that looks really good! Better cover than most side steals it seems to me. Of course you did a lot of your own work on this but do you have a favorite reference for it?

Harry
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Apr 20, 2010 04:16PM)
Hey, nice work on it. Your left hand moves too much. In the original DPS, the left hand does not change position or even move forward, so try to just get the right hand moving with the left as stationary as possible. But nicely done.

Another idea for you that will make it more covered from the top (where you would flash the most), is to control it second from the top, which isn't hard to do; plus, controlling it to the second from the top can be quite advantageous for many effects. Hold a break with your right thumb and the card should slide right under it. I get the break when I push the selected card into the deck with my right hand's second and third fingers. With the index finger curled above, it can easily move that top card back enough to get a break.

Rmax
Message: Posted by: Steven Youell (Apr 20, 2010 06:04PM)
Actually I don't think it's a DPS. It may be a good steal, but this is missing several elements of the Diagonal Palm Shift. I know you used the term "Variation", but I don't think it's close enough to be a variation.

1) The card moves to the top. In the DPS the card does not move to the top.
2) In the DPS the left hand moves away from the deck and that's what propels the card into the hand, not the fingers. In other words, in a DPS the hands move apart.

I feel that these two factors alone should prohibit calling it a DPS Variation.

And I hate to say it, but I don't really care for this variation. There's more finger movement there than a piano player.

SEY
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 20, 2010 06:14PM)
Steven, please correct if I'm wrong on either of these two points.
First, I'm away from my copy of erdnase at the moment, but does the original write up not describe returning the stolen card to the top? It is a shift after all, not a steal. Although that's how its mostly used.

Secondly, contrary to your post, I have always been under the impression that it is the right hand which moves away with the deck while the left remains stationery(somewhat). Not the left moving away from the right.

Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong.
Message: Posted by: rawdawg (Apr 20, 2010 06:41PM)
If I recall right, Erdnase does not use the shift to move the card(s) to the top. He does use the shift to steal the card(s) from any position including the top.

And to Michael, it seems to me there's a lot more activity going on underneath the deck than needs to be.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 20, 2010 06:42PM)
[quote]
On 2010-04-20 19:14, magicfish wrote:
Steven, please correct if I'm wrong on either of these two points.
First, I'm away from my copy of erdnase at the moment, but does the original write up not describe returning the stolen card to the top? It is a shift after all, not a steal. Although that's how its mostly used.

Secondly, contrary to your post, I have always been under the impression that it is the right hand which moves away with the deck while the left remains stationery(somewhat). Not the left moving away from the right.

Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote]

First I'd like to correct my spelling of stationary.
Second, as I said I'm away from my library but perhaps I've confused Erdnase's description with Roger Crosthwaite's. I don't recall now, but I certainly have studied the DPS whereby the card is "shifted".

Rodney
Message: Posted by: ilmungo (Apr 20, 2010 06:43PM)
[quote]
On 2010-04-20 19:14, magicfish wrote:
Steven, please correct if I'm wrong on either of these two points.
First, I'm away from my copy of erdnase at the moment, but does the original write up not describe returning the stolen card to the top? It is a shift after all, not a steal. Although that's how its mostly used.
[/quote]

Not really. Here's what Erdnase says (relevant content only):

[quote]
The plan of having one or several selected cards inserted in the deck, then forcing them through slightly
diagonally, and twisting them out to the top or bottom, is well known to most conjurers, and by some is treated as a blind shuffle. That the process is not satisfactory is seen by the fact that it is seldom or never employed, and but rarely even mentioned in any list of card slights. Our efforts to improve, or rather to combine the first part of this manoeuvre [i]with a process for palming the inserted cards, instead of placing them on top or bottom of the deck[/i], is shown in the following description.
[/quote]

Emphasis is mine. A little later on:

[quote]
The usual procedure of card-handlers is to insert the little finger over the selected card, shift the two packets and palm the card from the top in the right hand. This process takes more time, the shift must be concealed by a partial turn, swing or drop of the hands; and to palm, the deck must be covered at least for an instant. In the palm-shift described the card is placed in its diagonal position with apparently the customary movement of squaring up, and the rest is accomplished, as it were, by handing the deck to be shuffled.
[/quote]

So it appears to me that Erdnase designed the slight for palming, and specifically to [i]avoid[/i] having to control a card to the top in order to palm it off. In fact, it seems that the OP modified the DPS back to the handling that Erdnase specifically considered awkward and impractical...

Cheers,
Luigi
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 20, 2010 06:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-04-20 19:43, ilmungo wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-04-20 19:14, magicfish wrote:
Steven, please correct if I'm wrong on either of these two points.
First, I'm away from my copy of erdnase at the moment, but does the original write up not describe returning the stolen card to the top? It is a shift after all, not a steal. Although that's how its mostly used.
[/quote]

Not really. Here's what Erdnase says (relevant content only):

[quote]
The plan of having one or several selected cards inserted in the deck, then forcing them through slightly
diagonally, and twisting them out to the top or bottom, is well known to most conjurers, and by some is treated as a blind shuffle. That the process is not satisfactory is seen by the fact that it is seldom or never employed, and but rarely even mentioned in any list of card slights. Our efforts to improve, or rather to combine the first part of this manoeuvre [i]with a process for palming the inserted cards, instead of placing them on top or bottom of the deck[/i], is shown in the following description.
[/quote]

Emphasis is mine. A little later on:

[quote]
The usual procedure of card-handlers is to insert the little finger over the selected card, shift the two packets and palm the card from the top in the right hand. This process takes more time, the shift must be concealed by a partial turn, swing or drop of the hands; and to palm, the deck must be covered at least for an instant. In the palm-shift described the card is placed in its diagonal position with apparently the customary movement of squaring up, and the rest is accomplished, as it were, by handing the deck to be shuffled.
[/quote]

So it appears to me that Erdnase designed the slight for palming, and specifically to [i]avoid[/i] having to control a card to the top in order to palm it off. In fact, it seems that the OP modified the DPS back to the handling that Erdnase specifically considered awkward and impractical...

Cheers,
Luigi
[/quote]
See my post above we must have posted at the same time.

Rod

P.S. I use the DPS as a diagonal palm like most. My question is where does the shift come in to play. Again I believe Roger Crosthwaite adresses this in his book. But I better stop talking now because like I said, I'm away from the books and could be citing the wrong references.

Rod
Message: Posted by: Sword of the Soldier (Apr 20, 2010 07:39PM)
Personally I think this looks quite good. Regardless of whether you could consider it a DPS or not.

I also think that we should remember that we are seeing it out of context and head on. I don't know how it would look from a different angle but in the context of a performance where there is a dialog and a justification for what he's doing I don't think a lay person would arouse much suspicion from the move or finger movement.

My problem with the DPS has always been that so many magicians put the card in and and then the hands move apart too quickly. In some cases it just looks like the card glides right through the deck in some way if that makes any sense...but I digress.

Best,

Josh
Message: Posted by: MarvinWang (Apr 21, 2010 12:31AM)
The video does look awesome, nice idea, thanks for sharing!!!
Message: Posted by: Ben Train (Apr 21, 2010 02:47AM)
I'm going to jump in because I love Erdnase and dig Mike's variation.

First, Erdnase says that the previous methods (to which I assume he means the Diagonal Pass from Sachs) are unsatisfactory because they are "seldom" employed and rarely mentioned. This is [b]terrible[/b] justification for discarding a move- I think we can all agree to that. In fact, ironically, the same justification was used for not studying [b]Erdnase[/b] itself at some point (no one was using it)!

Second, as far as it being a variation or not, as usual the answer lies in the text itself. Erdnase says he is trying to "improve" the previous method "or rather combine" the palm with the steal. So, if you aren't ending up with it in palm then it's not the DPS, but rather the "first part of the maneuver"- a diagonal pass.

It is important to understand the objective for the DPS, which is to replace having to control and then palm the card out. The end goal is to have it palmed "instead of placing them on top or bottom of the deck".

Third, as far as the hand's movement goes, my understanding was that only the right hand moves to accomplish the actual palm (the left acting as a pivot during the square-up). This I think is implied by Erdnase stating that the "beauty of the **** is in the natural and simple manner of palming the selected card by [b]the ordinary movement the right hand makes[/b] in passing the deck to be shuffled." (emphasis mine)

Finally, as far as finger flashing goes- there was a little, but I wonder how much an issue that is since the card doesn't end up in palm, and the hand is shown clean. There is finger motion (or at least motion) during a square, and since we aren't worried about heat on the left hand during the action... I dunno. But, Mike, working on the finger flaring (it wouldn't hurt).

Love,
Ben
Message: Posted by: Ben Train (Apr 21, 2010 02:48AM)
Darn it- can someone explain to me how to make things bold or italicized? Isn't that the code? I suck.

Ben
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Apr 21, 2010 02:58AM)
Square brackets.
Message: Posted by: m.taylor (Apr 21, 2010 03:01AM)
HTML might be blocked
although BBcode is enabled so you could do this instead.
[b] [/b]
Message: Posted by: Indigo (Apr 21, 2010 09:45AM)
[quote]


First, Erdnase says that the previous methods (to which I assume he means the Diagonal Pass from Sachs) are unsatisfactory because they are "seldom" employed and rarely mentioned. This is TERRIBLE justification for discarding a move- I think we can all agree to that.
[/quote]

No, he's saying they're seldom employed and rarely mentioned because they are unsatisfactory, not the other way around.
Message: Posted by: Ben Train (Apr 21, 2010 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2010-04-21 10:45, Indigo wrote:
[quote]


First, Erdnase says that the previous methods (to which I assume he means the Diagonal Pass from Sachs) are unsatisfactory because they are "seldom" employed and rarely mentioned. This is TERRIBLE justification for discarding a move- I think we can all agree to that.
[/quote]

No, he's saying they're seldom employed and rarely mentioned because they are unsatisfactory, not the other way around.
[/quote]

It's possible I'm wrong (it happens frequently) but I read it as this:

"That the process is not satisfactory is seen by the fact that it is seldom or never employed..." This implies that "seldom employed" (and rarely mentioned) is offered of proof for the moving being unsatisfactory. What he says is: the move is unsatisfactory. Why? It's seldom or never employed.

Erdnase offers to actual grounds for objecting to the move other then- no one does it. From a pragmatic standpoint this might make sense: if you want to get the money why work on a move that isn't proven to work when you can work on one (like a bottom deal) that IS proven to work. But this seems a strange thing to say about Erdnase's philosophy since he pioneered several brand new moves, the usefulness of those moves which are still debated today!

So what justification could Erdnase have for the move being unsatisfactory, other then it being seldom employed? Maybe he was unsatisfied because he knew it wasn't reaching it's maximum potential (as a steal)- after all, what does the single card shift offer that a normal shift doesn't (in Erdnase's day)? We know Erdnase didn't consider the single card shift as a replacement for the 'normal', classic, shift because he writes that in the "exhibitions and literature of conjurers, not one of them knows of, or at least employs or writes of, a satisfactory substitute".

What we do know is that he liked the moved enough to want to improve it, "or rather to combine the first part of the maneuver with a process for palming".

If we look at Mike's move as a diagonal pass then I think it's an unqualified success- the card appears on top with little visible movement. I say bravo, keep working on it, and I love the video journal idea to monitor your progress (I wish I had done that when I was younger: maybe I wouldn't suck now!).

Ben
Message: Posted by: Jon Hackett (Apr 21, 2010 10:52AM)
Ben, I believe I'm afraid that Inidgo is correct, and you have it topsy turvy.

You said,

"That the process is not satisfactory is seen by the fact that it is seldom or never employed..." This implies that "seldom employed" (and rarely mentioned) is offered of proof for the moving being unsatisfactory. What he says is: the move is unsatisfactory. Why? It's seldom or never employed.

This as it goes, is correct, but you are neglecting to take into account the full context of the paragraph. He is talking about OTHER conjurers. They seldom use the move because it is unsatisfactory.

Anyway, its by the by, I found your comments very interesting anyway, and in no way meant any criticism, I just don't agree.

**

Back to Sterny's move,

The relevance of other peoples opinion on the genealogy of YOUR move is irrelevant.

If you learnt the DPS, from say, Erdnase, and used that to develop your move, it is a variant of the said move, because that is its genealogy.

But lets ignore all of that shizzle, and talk about the move itself.

Well, I think it is great! Really great, because it is yours, and the more you do it the more you will feel comfortable with it because it is YOURS!

AND as an added bonus, it is pretty darn burnable, even for a load of magicians, watching it straight on!

Now loads of people are going to come on here and criticise this and hate that, but the only thing really wrong with your move at the moment, is that all of the left hand movement suggest psychologically to the subconscious mind that something fishy is going on.

Hence lots of people above have suggested that is how you do the move (i would love if you had just thrown that in to mess with us!) but the fact is, it does ally a little suspicion.

Not enough however, for you to not be able to misdirect away from, but that can be a little tricky with both hands holding the deck! (a tres suspicious position to be in!)

SO, well bloody done! I reckons the left hand finger flutter will all be a thing of the past, as of a couple of months, and then think how much use you will get out of this!

Jon Hackett

P.S. just to clarify Sterny, I think it is an inch of being a thing of beauty!
Message: Posted by: RevJohn (Apr 21, 2010 11:38AM)
I really enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing. Burned me bad.

RevJohn
Message: Posted by: Indigo (Apr 21, 2010 12:41PM)
Get the money? No, the diagonal palm shift is in the legerdemain section.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Apr 21, 2010 01:34PM)
That move starts out as similar to the the "Diagonal Pass" that is describe in [i]The Annotated Erdnase[/i] by Darwin Ortiz on page 162, only in the video, MichaelSternMagic is inserting the card in the deck instead of getting the cards into position after a spectator peek, and he's only using a single card.

It's not really a pass, or course. A note on page 163 of the [i]Annotated Erdnase[/i] states that this is identical to Dr. Daley's Side Steal that's in [i]Expert Card Technique[/i].

With the DPS, it is necessary to take the card away palmed.

I expect the Diagonal Pass doesn't have as good angles as the DPS because of the way the hands must separate for that move.

Ben Train wrote:
[quote]
Finally, as far as finger flashing goes- there was a little, but I wonder how much an issue that is since the card doesn't end up in palm, and the hand is shown clean. There is finger motion (or at least motion) during a square, and since we aren't worried about heat on the left hand during the action... I dunno. But, Mike, working on the finger flaring (it wouldn't hurt).
[/quote]
It can be difficult to judge a move without the move being done in the context of a routine. Certainly, in this case the finger flashing doesn't provide any clue as to the method. There is no justification for it though. If the performer was fiddling with the cards, or there was some overt justification the movement might seem natural. Of course, the best solution is to eliminate any tell whenever possible.

Just doing something strange and then having the cards on top would hint that something untoward happened, and that does kill the magic.

All in all, Michael, you're doing quite well for such a relatively difficult move. I wish I had done it [i]at all[/i] when I was your age!

Listen to Steven Youell, he knows what he's talking about. I listen to him. Keep working on it.

Ben Train wrote:
[quote]
First, Erdnase says that the previous methods (to which I assume he means the Diagonal Pass from Sachs) are unsatisfactory because they are "seldom" employed and rarely mentioned. This is [b]terrible[/b] justification for discarding a move- I think we can all agree to that. In fact, ironically, the same justification was used for not studying [b]Erdnase[/b] itself at some point (no one was using it)!
[/quote]
Erdnase wrote, "that the process is not satisfactory is seen..."

[i]Sach's Sleight of Hand[/i] books describes the "Diagonal Pass", not the DPS, but it's not the same "Diagonal Pass" mentioned in the [i]Annotated Erdnase[/i]. The card(s) have an opposite diagonal jog, i.e. it's the same side of the deck, but the job in the front. Sach's recommends [i]not[/i] using the move, because "too much of the cards to be passed is exposed" and because "... is likely to carry indifferent cards intervening between two of them." The latter issue wouldn't matter if only one card is stolen, but there are better ways to do it than that sleight.

LePaul has a different move where the card is jogged to the left that is good.

Apparently Sach's described the older sleight with the same name because it was in common use at the time. It does seem strange to have over a page of a book describing a move and then at the end the to have a recommendation [i]not[/i] to use it!
Message: Posted by: Daniel White (Apr 21, 2010 11:01PM)
Looks GREAT!
Message: Posted by: Ben Train (Apr 22, 2010 12:34AM)
[quote]
On 2010-04-21 13:41, Indigo wrote:
Get the money? No, the diagonal palm shift is in the legerdemain section.
[/quote]

Erdnase's philosophy to gambling permeates his work in the legerdemain and card trick sections later in the book. I was merely suggesting if take a 'common' hustler's mentality (or, rather, something often expressed AS a common mentality) and apply it to his comments then it would seem to be in conflict with what Erdnase tries to do later.

I wasn't suggesting the move as actually used TO get the money (in a gambling context).

Ben