It is a small change, but it makes all the difference. You're correct that it damages the economy of motion of "Twisting the Aces", but I think it is worth doing for the added clarity of effect you gain in exchange. The other approach I've played around with (see the "Crazy Eights" script) is to treat it as a transformation. In that particular handling, I use a sequence to show that all of the cards transform into the Eight of Diamonds. My thinking is that if you're going to treat the first change as a transformation, you're better off altering the premise/plot/theme and really committing to it.

Marty

Just checking here…isn’t the AS already found to be face down if you flip all the cards over at this point?

Just the same, I like the play of this.

For the final phase, the four Aces are held face up, with the Ace of Spades second from the top of the packet. Outjog the Ace of Spades, pull it out and re-insert it, face down back where you took it from. Square up the packet and flip the whole thing face down. The Ace of Spades should be face up, third from the top of the packet. Perform an EC to reveal that the Ace of Spades has turned face down (first magic moment). Perform a slow JC to show four face-down cards. Put them into the card box or envelope and give it a twist. Tip out the cards and spread them carefully with a single finger to show that the Ace of Spades has finally turned face up.

Hopefully, that makes the sequence clearer.

Marty

Thanks Marty, I will try to better understand here. When I get to the final phase, with the packet in my left hand face down, the AS is already in the face up (EC) position, 3rd card down. I’ll figure it out. Thanks again.

Regarding the "transformation" vs reversal" question -
I wasn't aware of this issue until I read Marty's analysis. I agree it is very confusing for the first Ace to "transform" into the second Ace. The effect should indeed be presented as two reversals.
I don't think it is strictly necessary to do the anti-clockwise rotation to turn Ace 1 face down (but its a lovely idea). We don't need to be THAT strict with the internal logic if we don't want to; everyone knows it's not true.
You could turn the cards twice clockwise - once to turn Ace 1 face down, and again to turn Ace 2 face up.
Or you could just turn it once clockwise.
Whatever your actions, I think the crucial aspect is the exposition - you need to SAY that Ace 1 turns down, and Ace 2 turns face up. Not say it transforms. And not leave it unsaid (which is ambiguous).


PS I too need some time to think through the Pop Haydn thing!

Yes, rather than doing this covertly, you're positioning it face-up, third from the top, then performing an EC (or Underground EC). However, you do this by turning all cards face up first, then turning the Ace of Spades face down, second from the top. Turn the entire packet face down, then perform the EC.

Marty

No, you don't have to do it. From an economy of motion perspective, it is better not to do it. After all, Vernon didn't. However, I've found it strengthens the premise, even if it is all nonsense!

Marty

John Bannon spoke highly of the classic in Dear Mr. Fantasy. It's quietly amazing, but relatively unspectacular.

I dispense with the twisting action and present the trick in a gambling context ("The Baltimore Click"). It's an underground "third way" of "inverting" cards (as opposed to revolving them over by either the long edge or the short edge), and something that I'll only perform for "discerning" audiences -- which is pretty much true. Subtly mindboggling. The magic move involves clicking the corner of the packet. For the second phase, I give the pack a "double" click. "One click to turn the ace face-down, and then a second click to... turn it face-up again." If this old, dry joke plays too well, it undermines one of the trick's best effects, so they really should be burning the hands. The final phase is Bannon's (the assisted switch?), where you Elmsley Count the cards by sliding them into the spectator's fingers. This finale, in fact, is the whole reason for the clicking, since you can't really twist the cards when someone holds them in this position. The cards are clicked, and the AS has incredibly turned face-up between their fingers.

This was probably noted above, but calling it "Twisting the Aces," or even just saying you're going to give the aces a "twist" invites people find dozens of versions online.

I just came back to this topic and found Pop Haydn's post (mentioned above by Marty) on page 2 of the thread. (Posted 20 years ago!!!)
It is well worth reading Pop's whole description, but for me the crucial detail is this -



"the four Aces are face up"
This is what I infer from this -
At the end of phase 3, there is one Ace face up, and three are face down.
Usually (as created by Vernon) there is a bit of "adjustment" at this point. It seems to me that Pop has opted to side-step this entirely, and simply turn the third ace face-down. This is congruent with what happens at the end of phase 2.
Then he overtly reverses the Ace of Spades.

I like Vernon's original Twisting The Aces, for its elegance and simplicity.
I think the business after phase 3 is not a problem, so long as you do it in a calm matter-of fact manner. I think Michael Ammar does it just right in this video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDciO3AtvpQ&t=116

I don't think it's even necessary to say the fourth Ace is troublesome. I think you can just say something simple like "Ready for the last one?" as you show they are all face down. Then do the "magic move" (twisting or whatever you prefer) before revealing the final Ace.


Nevertheless, inspired by Pop Haydn'd idea, I have come up with the following presentation, as an alternative -

The magician invites four participants to help him. I rather like the idea of them being attractive females. He introduces the effect, explaining that the magic only works when a beautiful women "of pure heart and virtue" blows upon the cards.
Phase 1 & 2 are exactly as normal. The first two participants blow on the cards, and they pass the "test" when the cards reverse.
Phase 3 - the third participant is also successful. (BUT from here we diverge from the standard handling & presentation)
NB. In this phase the participant can deal the cards into the magicians hand - which I think is better than you doing it)
The magician removes the face-up card, and places it face-down on top of the packet.
Phase 4 -
The magician hands the packet to participant 4 and asks them to repeat what P3 did. They blow, then deal the cards into his hand - but all are face down. They have failed.
He turns the packet FU. The AS (or whatever the 4th Ace is) should be 2nd from top. He reverse the Ace, and invites them to try again from this position. [Exact details can vary, but the net result is they have one or more failed attempts to turn the AS face down or face up, depending which way the packet is turned (up or down))
Eventually he asks P3 to try turning the Ace face down. They succeed - seeming to rub in P4's failure even more.
P4 is handed the packet for one final attempt. They deal the cards into the magicians hand. The final one is the fourth Ace - face UP. Success!

OPTIONAL EXTENDED VERSION -
Phase 3 - P3 successfully reverses the third Ace. (Which is now 3rd from top).
The magician asks them to blow on the cards to turn the Ace face down again. They do so successfully.
Then they blow on the cards again to turn the Ace face up. They deal the cards into the magician's hand. The final one is their Ace - face up again,
The magician places the Ace face down on the bottom.
He then hands the packet to P4. From here phase 4 is basically as above. So in this version there is more successful reversing of the third card in a spectator's hands. (P1 & P2 could also get involved in this).
This hopefully heightens the drama when P4 is the first one to fail.

Obviously this has a totally different flavour from Vernon's original. But the effect is basically the same. I think it might work well with children, if they need to be "good" to succeed - and if there is a reward involved.

All this discussion on Twisting the Aces is interesting and for what it's worth, here is my take.

After we returned to school from Covid, I was pulling a lot of class duty coverage. If I had plans or I could teach the subject (read MS Math) I would, but sometimes you are left with nothing so I always brought cards. As I started to perform TTA, I realized that performing the trick slowly and more deliberately seemed to make the trick seem more impossible. This has been mentioned earlier I realize, but I want to reiterate it as I've found it to be true.

Since I learned TTA from Ammar off of ETMCM V2, I still use the concept of turning over the cards in the spaces in between the cards. One of my additions to the patter that I'm fond of is the use of lawyers for turning the AS back down. I wanted motivation to necktie the deck and a reason to pick up the card from the back so my line is, "Now I've noticed that lawyers do it differently. They always pick up the card from the back like this (necktie the deck) and turn it over because they take notes on those yellow legal pads all day and they are bound on the top, so you have to turn the page from the bottom. Now magicians...". I like things to make sense. That reasoning makes sense to me because it justifies both the deck position and the picking up the card from the short end.

Today as I performed this, I thought, why not have the spectator twist the cards to turn the AD? So after flipping the "AC" I asked the spectator if they wanted to try if they thought they could twist them? Unsurprisingly, the spectator twisting the cards in his hands went over really well. What I expected was that because I did the third card in their hand, it would detract from the finale.

To my surprise, I didn't. The end went over just as well as it normally does. Granted, I do sell the ending hard. I say, Now the AS is the trump suit, the boss card and it just won't turn over by twisting it (packet twisted once and Elmsleyed to show no AS, but set the last card on bottom for another Elmsley to follow). I've seen magicians in the corner of the room stubbornly twisting the packet trying to get the AS to turn over (Twist, twist the packet, then another Elmslely sequence, but this time faster and acting annoyed). NO! You have to COMMAND the Ace to turn over by flicking the pack, snapping your fingers and then you just give them a little shake (here you obviously slowly shake and spread the packet) and the Ace of Spades will turn over.

YMMV but it works well for me. What a wonderful gift to magic this effect is!

I've also contemplated allowing a spectator to twist the Ace of Diamonds face up, although I've never tried this. I'd be tempted to combine this with Darwin Ortiz's "Twisting the Card Case" for the final Ace. I've also devised a handling (similar to something by Larry Jennings) in which all four Aces are placed face down in the centre of the deck. The cards are cased, and the box is twisted four times. The deck is removed by a spectator, who discovers the four Aces face up in the centre of the pack.

I'll try this next time I perform "Twisting the Aces": I'll allow my participant to twist the Ace of Diamonds, followed by me twisting the Ace of Spades in the card case. Then, I'll finish with all four cards turning face up within the cased deck. I'm pretty confident that this combination will be mind-blowing!

I've just written up my (minor) handling of Dai Vernon's "Twisting the Aces" for my Ruseletter. See the latest edition of Vernonesque for the details:

Vernonesque: Tongue Twister

Marty

Here is my version with four cards, any four cards the spectator has selected.
The spectator selects four cards (no force), he touches the four cards in the deck.
Then follows Twisting the Aces routine with four selected cards.
I like this version because it is so direct.

The video is in german language:
https://youtu.be/fQFkKv08IIQ?si=o2oC25AqZOEtgQAw

Very smooth! Thanks for sharing, Darko.