Do you mean the JC is clean on the first two cards and the EC is clean on the final two cards? I think the EC's more frequent use is due to more effects requiring concealment of a card(s) within a packet rather than at the bottom of a packet and less to do with being cleaner at the finish.

Regarding ease of execution, I recall the JC's second card peel requiring much more practice than the block pushoff nature of the EC. Then again, the EC was the first count I learned, so as most things in magic - "other's mileage may vary".

Happy Counting,

T.J.

« Do you mean the JC is clean on the first two cards and the EC is clean on the final two cards? » : why not? That would be another way to say it. To be totally precise, we could also say the JC is less clean *when the 4th card appear*.

« The consealment » hypothesis is interesting and I never thought about it. On this aspect, we could say that the EC is more concealed before the count and the JC after. One could argue this may also be a reason to use the JC more.

I find this reflexion interesting because I kind of always felt that most EC tricks could be constructed with a JC as well and that the two methods had the same difficulty level (ie. easy at first sight but quite difficult to master). Hence, the many EC trick creators may have find it a bit better than the other. Since this is my opinion as well, I more or less took it as an evidence, without questioning it too much. Happy to see other points of view.

Thomas, I can do the Elmsley count automatically now, without thinking. What a great feeling. I'm having the same experience with the Jordan count that you had: the second card is hard to pull off cleanly. I'm improving at it, though.


Balbec, another possible reason why some people perhaps prefer the EC to the JC: There's something kind of weird about pulling a triple off the packet (on Beat 3). Not impossible by any means, but I can see where people might worry about keeping the cards square. In contrast, the EC requires only a *double* to be pulled off (Beat 2). On the other hand, Roberto Giobbi points out that the JC is superior in that the tricky beat doesn't occur until Beat 3, by which time spectators probably aren't paying much atttention.


This stuff is fun to think about, but I have a feeling it's pretty academic. The counts, when done well, are identical in appearance and similar in diffiulty.


Maybe it's just an accident of magical history that the EC is more popular. Charles Jordan's count preceded Alex Elmsley's, so why did the packet trick rage really take off only with Elmsley's invention?


Bob

It wasn't an accident. Vernon's "Twisting the Aces" and Elmsley's "The Four Card Trick" kick-started a renewed interest in small packet magic in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Previous to this, the Buckle Count and tricks like Edward Victor's "E.Y.E. Trick" inspired what could be considered the Golden Age of Packet Tricks. The combination of the count and the tricks made the difference. I'm sure Paul Hallas can give a better history than me on the matter, though!

Although the Jordan Count is a valuable sleight, the mechanics of the Elmsley Count are a little more reliable. However, my Jordan Count looks the same as my Elmsley Count, mainly due to the way I maintain the same rhythm.

Marty

P.S. I've always found the Jordan Count easier if you think of it as pulling a single card from the bottom of the packet rather than pushing a triple into the opposite hand.