talkmagic.co.uk

Hi,

Just a quick query really...

When I perform the elmsley count, I do it completely at fingertips, yet I have seen many other videos & performances where it is done within the palms of the hands. I certainly seem to be in the minority on this one.

Is it better to do it in the hand rather than the fingertips?

Use whatever method you are comfortable with and that you find most deceptive.

Tenko from TM taught me the version at the fingertips, so thats the only version i do

Ultimately it's whatever looks most natural when you execute it!

If it works at fingertips and never raises suspicion I wouldn't change!

Yeah the finger tips verison is the Dai Vernon version and it is much more prone to 'flash'.

Counting them from a kind of dealers grip is much easier, since it allows for a natural squaring action as the cards are passed hand to hand.

Here'a a recent topic which may help:

http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic22335. ... ht=elmsley

I used to do it at the fingertips, but found that when elmsleying with about 6-8 cards you are less likely to flash any extras if doing it in the palm, as opposed to the tips

This can be trickier in my opinion than people make out an is one of those slieghts that can be done shockingly

I do it at the fingertips (and i blush to say had the honour of being shown this by roy walton). Id have to agree tho if its not broke then done fix it, and make sure its well rehersed and natural.

I do it with tips, thumb and first finger to other thumb and first finger but I have been told on two occasions, 'oh you only have three cards'. I count to four and I know that they don't see the move as I only use it for twisted sisters. Also with twisted sisters when spread everyone can see that they were wrong (four cards) so I ignore and let the comment prove itself wrong later. Kind of adds to the trick in a way, but it has shown me that it's not a totaly infalable way of counting. I tried to do a small fan spread at the end so the borders showed the four cards...but alas I am not yet that good or brave

Marvo Marky wrote:Yeah the finger tips verison is the Dai Vernon version and it is much more prone to 'flash'.

That's odd. I have been doing the 'Ghost Count' for 25 years (and it's one of the few 'real' sleights I do), and I'm sure it was done at fingertips in Elmsley's description. At least...that's how I do it. Then again, I did learn it in about 1982!

I've seen a couple of magicians do it from right hand to left, which seems very out of place to me. I suppose that, logically, the 'best' way to do it is the way you would count those cards properly, but I wouldn't worry too much about it, as long as you do the sleight well.

Marvo Marky wrote:Yeah the finger tips verison is the Dai Vernon version and it is much more prone to 'flash'.

Almost, but not quite. The orignal Elmsley ghost count was done at the fingertips, and Vernon had nothing to do with that. If it is done smoothly and rhythmically, "flash" should not be an issue.

The reason folks do it from a dealer's grip instead of a fingertip grip is because it tends to look more natural overall - that is how cards are typically handled. I think Elmsley also eventually adopted more natural looking methods.

The fingertip approach was made to look natural in the context of a specific trick, i.e. Twisting the Aces. The effect was designed to be done at the fingertips, and Vernon created a way of twisting the cards to JUSTIFY holding them that way for the count, which otherwise is not all together natural. Generally speaking, a dealers grip looks more natural. The handling can be a little bit easier too, because more flesh is interacting with the cards.

This count, when performed well, will be deceptive either way. The more natural things look, however, the more deceptive.

Eugene Burger added an interesting aspect. He modified the count so that instead of holding the cards down to show the faces for example, he holds the cards up more at eye-level, so the audience sees a nice display. In other words, the backs will face him while the fronts face the audience, or vice verse. This is only possible by modifying the method. I am not convinced it is necessarily the most deceptive way. Maybe someone will refine that method too, to make it look more natural. It does have the advantage of a nice display for those across a table from you, and not having to turn your wrists uncomfortably downward when seated.

I taught Lauren the finger tip version because its the method I prefer. I was taught how to do it properly by Derek Newman. I later learnt the in hand version but still use the finger tip version out of preference.

It won't take more than a few weeks to learn both methods, do it. And then decide which method you prefer and then spend time perfecting it.

Which ever method you choose, if you get it off properly, like any sleight, the spectators won't know. If you do the count and the spectators think you have 3 cards and not four then you need to practice it more.

What a great discussion!!!

Being a card geek, I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the different aspects of Elmsley's Ghost Count and oddly enough the hand positioning has little to do with the ease of the move. We all know that whichever method we practice the most is going to be the one that we use(However, being a HUGE fan of Roy Walton, I would do it with my toes if he told me to).

The change to the deeper handling seems to have come as a result of magicians in the late 60's NOT wanting to follow the traditions of their predecessors. The early "underground" movement was more interested in fooling each other than performing magic for real people. This movement led to all of these handling changes.

In some respects, good things came from those processes but many people forgot why a move was constructed in a specific way. Since some of the original tricks with the E.C. used the count as a display and not really as just a count, the fingertip method made sense as it allowed for a much larger portion of the card to be seen. This created a cleaner look.

When the count is used merely as a count where no display is needed, then you would want the count to look exactly as if you were merely counting cards.

For myself, I use both(actually,I use a third where the count is done from the Biddle grip, I needed it so I wouldn't have to change positions in an effect that uses the Hamman count and a Flushtration move). I guess it ultimately depends on what outcome that you desire.

In regards to E. Burger's use, his method written up in an early Heirophant(I think), credited to Marlo(go figure...hehehe), is a bit strange as it seems that he is applying a level of naturalness that isn't very necessary. In some cases, it could be looked at as over-proving therefore providing an unnecessary feeling of trickery in the minds of the audience.

Just an opinion...

Cheers!!

Jamie Kurtz

Mind you, I also said:

Marvo Marky wrote:I had a few problems with this originally. I started off using Vernon's method of doing it at the fingertips. Too flashy....

[blah blah blah etc]

...I'm not going to try and decribe the exact grip as this would be too complicated - just experiment with a few grips until you find one that works.

ie I was not asserting that one method was 'better' than another, however I offered the explanation that one method could be less flashy because of the natural opportunity to square the packet.

Good lord. We have all turned into card bores and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Shufton wrote:The orignal Elmsley ghost count was done at the fingertips, and Vernon had nothing to do with that.

Thanks, Shufton. I thought that's how it was taught in the '4 Card Trick' manuscript.

Marvo Marky wrote:Yeah the finger tips verison is the Dai Vernon version and it is much more prone to 'flash'.

The irony for me is I have the exact opposite problem...I flash all the time in the hand but not at the fingers....so I stick to the fingers.

Ultimately preference is the answer here!