"Could we all agree not to describe the original effect as a "version"? Vernon didn't have a "version" of the routine, he invented the effect, period. Everything that came after, (and that includes my youthfully short-sighted, academic exploration in Apocalypse) is a version."

Hi Geoff,
I think the phrase "original version by Vernon" clearly communicates what I wanted to say and I'm sorry you are in any way offended by the way I choose my words but I do not choose them carelessly. If I had said the "Vernon version" then I think you would have a point. If you check the word version in the dictionary you will see a number of definitions including "a particular form or variation".

Alex Elmsley created an effect called the 4 Card Trick which was based on the Ghost Count or what we now call the Elmsley Count. This effect was sold at an IBM Convention in the US before he sent Dai Vernon a description of his count in that famous letter. Elmsley's description of the sleight to Vernon was not the current pinch grip or fingertip grip that Vernon used. It was an in the hands deal. The fingertip technique was developed by Jack Avis to use with jumbo cards after he learned the Ghost Count from Elmsley. Jack Avis therefore was the first to use the fingertip handling for the Ghost Count well before Dai Vernon popularized it. I do not believe that Elmsley disputes that Dai Vernon developed the Twisting The Aces effect.

Larry,

That wasn't really aimed at your statement; you were quite clear about whose trick it was. It's just that many times on this board I read things like "Is Vernon's version of Triumph as good as Daryl's?" and so forth. So no offense taken.

Interesting info about the pinch grip, thanks.

Best,

Geoff

"The effect of a packet of cards reversing themselves one by one was popularized when Alex Elmsley's "Twisting The Aces" appeared in Dai Vernon's "More Inner Secrets Of Card Magic" written by Lewis Ganson."

-Phil Goldstein (who should know) 1976

The chapter on Twisting the Aces only refers to this trick as "a favorite with Vernon". Nowhere does it state that Vernon was the creator.

Absolutely.

Elmsley sent Vernon a write of his Ghost Count. Vernon later used a fingertip variation of the Ghost Count in his Twisting the Aces routine.

Interestly, in the sole footage I have seen of Vernon performing Twisting The Aces he used the Elmsley grip rather than the fingertip version.

Kevin

Two more cents on Twisting: I love the idea and the effect, but I found that spectators had a bit of trouble keeping track of the aces, i.e. which ones had turned already, which hadn't, etc. Also, selling it "cards turn over, one at a time" seemed a little hollow and repetitive to me.

What I do now, and works well for me, is to not uses aces, but the A,2,3, and 4 of a suit (set up 2143 for those of you who are lazy). It's an easy presentation to motivate; I ask the spectator if he's ever heard of counting cards; invariably, someone says yes. I say, "That's what these are; these are my counting cards. Guess how high they can count?" I spread the four cards rather obviously, two in each hand. Most of the time, someone says 4; if not, I tell them. Then I say, "If they counted by fours, it would be a pretty boring trick, and a pretty fast one. They'd say, 'Four!'and it would be over" (at that point, I do the triple and show the 4).

From then on, the cards very logically count their way to 4. I explain along the way that the 4 is newly trained; last week, they were only counting to 3. This explains why the 4 needs two tries. This is just one idea, and since I play a lot of card games, the idea of working "counting cards" into my patter works for me. I haven't seen it, but a person could probably do all kinds of cool things using 4 blank cards with special pictures on them.

Larry, I would submit that if you find that the lifts and turnovers detract from the "ideal" then you should revisit your presentation of the effect. My experience in doing this for 30 years has been that the lifts and turnovers go unnoticed, are never commented on, because they are OFF THE PLOT POINTS of the effect (That's theater talk...). They appear to be an effort to explain in the clearest terms, what you are doing and why. In fact, they are amongst the many "proving" points that make the effect seem so magical. That is part of the brilliance of Vernon's construction. By the way, I'm aware that the Gods' have "feet of clay". I don't assume that everything that Vernon developed is sacrosanct, nor did I imply that, in fact quite the opposite. I suggested that you strive for understanding before you "fumble around fixing" Vernon's work. Your implication that the words YOU PUT IN MY MOUTH are absurd just reflects your own ...well, you figure it out. This particular effect has stood the test of time, and weathered MANY efforts to "improve" it, all of them falling dismally short of the original. But, that's just many men's opinions...

Best, PSC

This is getting more interesting by the minute! Is Phil Goldstein correct? Did Alex Elmsley really invent Twisting the Aces?

Let's not go into fantasy land here
If Elmsley had created "Twisting The Aces" don't you think it would have been mentioned and included in "The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley"?

However, on p.77 of volume 1, in a related effect, it states:
"Mr Elmsley created this interesting variation in the 1960's, not long after Dai Vernon's 'Twisting The Aces' was published."

Paul

"Your implication that the words YOU PUT IN MY MOUTH are absurd just reflects your own ...well, you figure it out."

I didn't think this was going to be a shouting match nor inferences on my character by leaving blanks at the end of a sentence. When I say "implies" that does not equate with what you said nor does it put words in your mouth. It is a logical step that leads to my conclusion and does not in any way invalidate your statement or opinion. It doesn't make your opinion absurd nor your statements absurd.

In my opinion, an effect that is continuous without flipping cards over is more magical to me and in my experience is a stronger effect for the audience. Rather then just accept that there is an honest difference in opinion and experience, you appear to assume that I must be doing something wrong in the way I perform that effect otherwise I should have come to the same conclusion you did.

So who really invented this trick?? Vernon or Elmsley?

Vermsley.

I thought Elmsley conceived his count around 1954, and Vernon published Twisting the Aces first in 1960 some 6 years later.

Does anyone know when this letter was sent to Vernon? Or how long Vernon worked with the sleight before the routine was established? Was this indeed the first trick Vernon published using the count?

Did Elmsley keep this count to himself for any amount of time?

I have been taking for granted the speed of communication these days. It is amazing how much has changed since that time!

Now if this is true then all those who have been defending "Twisting the Aces" because of it's apparent fairness that everything is done at the fingertips, where do you stand now? The Professor didn't even use a fingertip grip?

I could be wrong as I'm just going on the above quote.

John.

The attribution I gave in 1976 was mistaken. In every mention of "Twisting the Aces" I have published in the ensuing 27 years, I've properly credited Dai Vernon.

Whatever...

I wonder if anyone has an opinion regarding Elmsley's Four Card Trick (the first published effect to use the Ghost Count) compared with Twisting the Aces by Vernon?

Thank you for clearing that up. Nice to see you here also!

I bought Elmsley's trick for the description of the Elmsley count a few years ago.

It's nothing like "Twisting the Aces". It's a four card monte type trick done in the hands. The spectators are asked to follow one card of four and after a series Elmsley counts and other moves the card isn't where it's suppose to be.

At the end the colour of the cards back changes and everything is examinable.

John.

Elmsley himself has credited Vernon with Twisting the Aces. He stated that "The Professor took my count and changed the grip to fit his wonderful effect, Twisting the Aces." And Max Maven (Phil Goldstein) himself has corrected his mistaken credit. This should end any ANY doubt as to the attribution of the effect, as Vernon claimed it, Elmsley himself credited him, and Max has retracted his mistaken credit from '76.

As to the ongoing debate about the best way to do it...

IMO, the original tops all the variations I've seen, due to routine construction and time misdirection. While the hidden half-pass versions are more visual, I do not agree that more visual always necessarily translates to more magical. The original is more angle friendly and can be performed in a slower, more deliberate manner, which, IMO seems more fair. Further, because, as has been stated, the edges of the cards are seen and the magic (effect) is separated from the method by time, it is virtually impossible for laymen to reconstruct the method.

This is not to say that the effect cannot be improved upon. For example, I like Bro John Hamman's idea of using the A-4 of one suit, as it is easier for the audience to follow--they don't have to try to remember which cards have turned over and which haven't. And certainly, at least part of the time, "better" is nothing more than a performer's personal preference. If you got 500 people and asked them to tell you which version was better and then showed the original and three or four (good) variations, I'm sure the response would be a unanimous, "HUH?"

I think the point that some of the more experienced guys are trying to pass on to the less experienced guys is that you shouldn't make "improvements" five minutes after learning the original handling. STUDY the effect and try to understand WHY it is constructed as it is. Make sure that the weak points really ARE weak points, and that it's not just a case of you not understanding why the routine is constructed in that way. THEN and ONLY then, start to play around with alternative handlings.

Someone may point out that my books are full of "versions" (and that's true), and that I am therefore, being hypocritical. However, rarely if ever do I say that my variations are "improvements." My variations are caused by my need to put effects that I like within my ability to perform with my oft-injured digits, and an attempt to simplify and/or streamline plots to match my ability and my performing persona. Sometimes I'm more successful than others. But, for ME in MY PERFORMANCES, they work better. That in no way means they are "better" versions. They may very well not be better for anyone but me.

It is (or should be) the mission of every performing magician to give the best show possible. This means picking effects that suit your character and performing them in a way consistent with that character and in a way that will best "reach" that particular audience. Sometimes, that will mean changing the handling of an effect. but sometimes (probably MOST times) it may mean leaving a near-perfect effect like this one as is.

Only you and your audience can decide for sure. But sometimes we tend to lull ourselves into a false sense of security. Many performers deceive themselves--they think they are much better than they are.

I'm rambling, but I want to end by bringing this back to a key point--make sure you understand an effect and have an excellent reason for changing it, particularly with classics like this one, before you tamper with it.

Thanks for setting the record straight,
Mr. Maven!

Steven Youell