Hi folks,


I'm a beginner; I've been studying and practicing basic sleights for about a year; and I'd like to try out some packet tricks, which are pleasingly minimal. It seems that nearly everyone uses the Elmsley Count, but Jerry Mentzer in his Counts...Subtleties book says that Veeser's count accomplishes the same thing but in a more natural way that's easier for beginners. On the other hand, there's a thread in the Deckless category called "Veeser Count" in which one contributor (Paul) says that the two aren't interchangeable. Does anyone have advice about which one to learn first? If the two counts *are* interchangeable, I'd just as soon learn the easier one first -- Veeser's -- if in fact his *is* easier!


Thanks for any advice.


Bob

I hadn't heard/remembered the Veeser Count, so had to pull out my CCM&S and look it up.

I couldn't do an Elmsley very well until after I bought Liam Montier/Big Blind Media's Elmsley Count Project.

Yea, I know, it's easy, but I just couldn't pull it off. Now I can.


Dave

My recollection is Vesser is Elmsley in biddle grip.

When I started out I learned two counts. The Elmsley and Jordan. Basically one count gets you into a position to do the other. I don't know why packet tricks don't teach the Jordan count and instead have you switch cards from top to bottom.

That being said, don't choose the 'easier path' just because it's easier. Choose BOTH! Learn both and perfect them. Hard to do a Vesser with dollar bills. But you learn both and you have more in your 'bag of tricks'.

Counting the 'elmsley way' is more natural in my opinion and you don't need the cover that a biddle grip provides for Vesser.

Bob, I've been practising the Elmsley and Jordan for the last few months and initially I found the latter far easier to do. I haven't seen anyone else say this so it might just be a quirk of mine, but the transfer felt far more natural and not as complex to acquire the muscle memory for, so it might be worth giving that a go too and seeing how you find it.

That said, it really is worth the effort of grinding away until you get both down. Mine is still far from perfect but I've got to the point where the muscle memory is basically there, and once you have it it opens the way to so many wonderful effects. My practice routine was doing Twisting the Aces a few times in a row which I've found a pretty pleasurable way of learning it.

Dad and NWJay, Thanks for your insights.


Dad: It sounds like Veeser is more "closed" looking than Elmsley, which would make Elmsley less suspicious-looking. Yes, I want to learn *all* sleights, but time is limited...



NWJay: I found your experience interesting. I'll play with both Jordan and Elmsley and see whether the Jordan comes easier. If so I'll follow your lead and learn Jordan first.


Thanks again! Bob

Bob, the most used count is Elmsley, a lot of packet tricks use just elmsley and they are great, just practice it while doing tricks. Aldo Colombini has millions as well as Paul Gordon and Phil Goldstein.

Queen out of Control is a great trick with many surprises and only Elmsley counts, check it out

Thanks Pablonius! Given where I am, I like the sound of *only* Elmsley.

I didn't really find the Elmsley that hard to pick up, and the BBM Elmsley Count Project as mentioned by boomer is a great resource.
IIRC, Gerry Griffin's Complete Card Magic is where I learned it, from 'Back to Basics Poker'.

The Elmsley count is pretty easy, so I think learning the Elmsley count first is better.

Jljones and KazMagic,


Thanks for your messages. In the time since I first posted, I bought Frank Garcia's book on the Wild Card, because I want to adapt that plot to a story I have in mind. And one of the variations is perfect and uses only the Elmsley count. So, given what you both said, Elmsley here I come!


Bob (Note to jones: I don't know why I'm just receiving your message today, given that you posted it in May.)

I'd say go with Elmsley. IMO you will get more out of it. $.02

Thanks, DB. Nice to hear from you.


Bob

The EC seems to be more popular, likely because more routines / tricks use this count. But in the end, it all comes down to the utility of the count. If a specific effect is what you are after, go with the count that works!

Then there’s the years of patient practice... and the fuss behind presenting magic.

I actually use both counts, the Veeser count can be very effective when used for a thought of card across for example however the Elmsley count is definitely more commonly used so your more likely to encounter effects that require that particular count.

Interesting -- thanks, Warren. Clearly EC is going to come first for me because of its more common use, but I'd be curious to hear how you use the Veeser count and what it's advantages are.


Thanks,


Bob

Are you familiar with the Veeser count and how it's done ?

I've read the description in Mentzer's Counts, Cuts, Moves, and Subtlety. I started this thread because Mentzer says (p. 23) that although the the counts accomplish similar objectives, hand positions are more natural than in the VC than in the EC, making the VC perhaps easier to learn. That passage left me wondering (and I'm still wondering) whether I should learn the VC before the EC. But Mentzer also says, without giving examples, that each count has its own strengths. I don't have enough experience to know when one count would be more advantageous than the other.


At this point I figure I'll learn the EC first since it has broader application, so my question isn't about which count to learn first anymore; rather, it's about when to the VC. I hope that helps clarify things.

Just to clarify my clarification: pleae ignore the parenthetical remark, "and I'm still wondering."

Although the Mentzer book says that the EC isn't natural that is most likely due to the way it was originally done at the finger tips in an un-natural manner rather than the cards being held in the more natural mechanics grip which is how most people perform the technique these days which is obviously completely natural.
I only use the VC for one effect and see it more as a packet switch if that helps.