talkmagic.co.uk

I am not sure or not, but are "Twisted Sisters" and "Twisting the Aces" the same tricks but using different cards? Are they similar?

I dont know, but Just wondering while on the subject,
Do you like the twisting the aces with an elmsley or an ascanio spread. I am starting to prefer the ascanio spread because it is more visually appealing

I use the Elmsly count (finger tips).....could you elaborate on the asciano spread for me? It sounds interesting, and I would like to know more about it? Where would I find some information on it? PM if needed

They're completely different.

Do a search on the internet for video clips of these trick.

well not completely different, in that both have cards that turn over, but that's about the limit of sameness.

Twisted Sister uses two piles of 4 cards and you get 2 specs ( usually ) to each think of a queen in a given packet of four, the thought of queen ends up turning over and jumping from one packet to the other, likewise the same happens from the other packet of four.

Twisted aces uses four aces which one at a time turn over and back again.

Thats kinda the gist anyway.

I personally have done the fingertip elmsley the entire time, but just went back and learned the ascanio, I think it is more visual and easier to follow.
It also is a lot easier for me to perform, atleast the sleight isnt so hard.

Where would I be able to find some info on the ascanio?

I learned it a while ago in Daryl's encyclopedia of card sleights, you could do a seach and find it, its a pretty simple move used to vanish a card, but it can be used for many different things if you apply it right.

Personally, I never use the Elmsley when doing twisted sisters and prefer to use the simple routine where the cards are laid out on the table in two piles in front of the specs before they select their queens.

I find that the patter and the fact that I touch the cards as little as possible both add significantly to the strength of the effect. When I do the reveal of the queens by spreading the cards I find that this is just as powerful because the cards haven't been touched.

I did this last night in a restaurant routine and it blew the specs away. I still love the fact that this simple (to use) routine still seems impossible to the specs.

I find that the patter and the fact that I touch the cards as little as possible both add significantly to the strength of the effect. When I do the reveal of the queens by spreading the cards I find that this is just as powerful because the cards haven't been touched.

Can't agree with this, since you could have turned the queens over before the trick started. If you do an elmsley you clearly show the backs of all the cards before the patter starts and before they make any choice. So you have no need to touch the cards any more than a non elmsley version. Except you have the advantage of showing the decks are not pre-set.

I tend to use the deep elmsley count for both..

basically because it's one sleight I can really do effectively without any hesitation or mistakes all the time.

I really like both tricks though.

If you don't use the Elmsley, it becomes a mentalist routine.
Otherwise it's a card trick.

Not sure which I prefer.
Suppose it depends on your general style, whether you're a mentalist or not.

That's interesting that you think that Saxmad as I've always thought of this as more of a mentalist route than a simple trick.

I don't do the Elmsley as stated and have never thought there to be a need to. Personal choice.

I've always done the Emsley at fingertips but saw elsewhere a discussion about the in-hand method and it got me interested. I discovered the alternative method of doing the Emsley in Crosthwaite's Inner Sanctum V.6. It only took a short while to master but I really do think that the fingertip version is better.

In the Twisted Sisters I set up one packet to do the Emsley and the other packet to do the Jordan because I feel that it looks odd with both cards appearing face up in the same position.

I must admit, from my experience, if I didn't do a count to show all the cards face up, no-one would be surprised when one was

I must agree with everyone else here, that not performing some type of false count on the cards is bad. Despite the fact that 'you had no way of knowing which queen they would choose', because the spectators do not see the packet before you start they immediately assume that the queens were reversed in the packet before you even started.

dat...I think that if you just do a slow elmsley it really doesn't look like you're doing anything funny with the cards - just counting them. I don't think it spoils the not-touching-the-cards idea.

Just my two cents,

Kati