talkmagic.co.uk

Effect:
You start with a packet of 4 cards. After counting them face down and face up (being blank on the faces). A joker appears when the cards are counted again. The joker is placed in the pack and moves position when the cards are counted. This happens again after a further count. The joker then disapears and re-apears on subsequent counts. Finally the magi shows that there is only one card with a face (the joker) and the others are all blank. The killer finish is that the joker is the only card with a different coloured back when the cards are turned over.

Cost:
£3.80 off Ebay.

Difficulty:
1 (easy to do) if you do the Emsley count.
4 (Advanced sleights used) if you don't.

Review:
This is a very old effect but when I noticed it for sale I assumed that it used the Emsley Count which is a favourite of mine and bought it for that reason. It did. For those following another thread elsewhere on the 2 versions of the Emsley, the method explained in the instructions is the 'in hand' method as opposed to the 'fingertip' version.

I use the later, and have used it on this effect since I bought it and all I can say is, "It blows people's socks off"

Overall:
Best packet trick I've ever bought. No-one has said anything to me about using 4 cards and not taking them out of a pack. AND the killer is putting the cards on the table afterwards and letting them pick them up. Normally with packet tricks you can't do that, but with this one you can.

This will always be in my wallet from now on, 10 out of 10.

If anyone wants to discuss the options of 'fingertips' to 'deep hand' method of the Emsley please PM me, everyone has preferences, and I'm always open to discussion.

About fingertip elmsleys...

I think that these are a way of getting out of practice. The moment a spectator catches a magician counting like this, they'll immediately suspect something fishy. Spend the extra week or two and do an in-the-hand Elmsley...it's worth it.

I find it easier to do an in-the-hand elmsley count. I always get caught when doing finger-tip elmsley..."Wait, why'd you count the two as one?" oops... the gap! Also, I think that the first notion that occurs to the spectators' mind is that "Why not count them from hand to hand? why not place them individually on a table? Why put each card behind the packet, squaring it up?".

Perhaps off-topic, but I once saw a magician do a strange count -- and I'm sure it's not an Elmsley -- he only counted obviously only three cards and, after having counted three, he pointed the pack with his finger and said "four". It was more like saying "Two, three" at the same time when he was counting the second card! I knew immediately that something smelly was going on.

In-the-hand Elmsley, on the other hand, is much safer I find. It looks like the magi is actually counting one by one, even though it's done in his hand, not counted respectively on a table. It runs smoother and faster than the finger-tip method....well, at least for me. I haven't been arrested red-handed on this one yet....or, it may just be that the spectators are having great mercy on me even though they spot it

katrielalex wrote:About fingertip elmsleys...

I think that these are a way of getting out of practice. The moment a spectator catches a magician counting like this, they'll immediately suspect something fishy. Spend the extra week or two and do an in-the-hand Elmsley...it's worth it.

I'm comfortable with my handling of the fingertip Elmsley but less so with the in-the-hand version. I normally hold a deck in mechanics in my right hand and deliver them to my left or deal them with my left. I appreciate that the in-the-hand Elmsley delivers them deeply *into* my left hand but they are still being delivered *from* the fingertips of the right hand. If not, how would the thumb be able to do it's work? This makes me feel awkward and a couple of folks have mentioned it afterwards when they've noticed the different grip demonstrated by my right hand when I've been using the Elmsley rather than, say, doing a DL from my standard right mechanics. Any tips?

I hope that I haven't exposed anything here - I know there are sites where the Elmsley is described in great detail but I don't want to commit the cardinal sin of exposure!

I agree with Juan. Being able to do both counts I believe that the in hand method looks more fake than the fingertip method.

At the end of the day, neither method is natural anyway !! Ask anyone to count some cards for you ? They will peel one after the other off the top of the pack in an overlapping way as they count them. Neither of the Emsley's look anything like that so they are obviously fake.

To me, the in hand method looks so fake when I see it done. Yet, many times when I do the fingertip version people have commented that I did things so openly they just cannot believe what happened.

Its all a matter of opinion, but to me the in hand method isn't a patch on the fingertip one.

As described, this is EXACTLY the same as the ghost count, where Elmsley first described his technique and count (as described in the complete works of Alex Elmsley Vol 1). As an effect I really like it, although selling it as a packet trick is a bit rich IMO.

Does the literature that was supplied with it give any credit to Alex Elmsley (see other threads on this site?)

Fatman,

The effect is called Emsleys 4 card trick and was his invention. You are not buying the instructions of the Emsley count you are buying a trick consisting of 4 cards and a secret. The effect uses the Emsley count which was originally called the ghost count, it is one and the same.

Katrie -

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the fingertip Elmsley count. It's not a way to get out of it, and in fact the fingertip version is the original method for the count.

I practice both versions every day - and I find no difference in difficulty in either trick. While the in the hand version may appear less suspicious to you, I assure you most laymen would not be.

The fingertip version is actually more convincing, in my opinion. Most spectators these days are aware of the CONCEPT of sleight of hand. However, I believe most still think it's centered around blocking their vision of the cards (which is not always the case) The fingertip Elmsley is so disarming BECAUSE the spec can see almost every inch of those cards. A typical laymen would never think you're manipulating the cards while holding just a tiny portion of them between the fingertips.

Both versions have their advantages and disadvantages - but you need to look at the situation to be sure.

Look at tricks like Vernon's Twisting the Aces - An in the hands Elmsley looks awkward in this trick, since you would have to do the twisting motion, THEN reposition the cards for the count. With the fingertip count, you twist and go right into it.

Also - the fingertip version blends seamlessly with the jordan count - allowing you (if you were so inclined) to do both counts over and over without pause.

I will say that I tend to use the in the hands version more often, but I have to disagree that using the fingertip count is, in some way, a sign of being lazy.

JuanTheMan wrote:I appreciate that the in-the-hand Elmsley delivers them deeply *into* my left hand but they are still being delivered *from* the fingertips of the right hand. If not, how would the thumb be able to do it's work?

Not necessarily, the way I do it delivers from deep in the hand as well as recieving deep.

Finger tips may be open and fair, but if I were to normally count four cards I would do it the way I do a deep elmsley, so doing it more 'fairly' for me would be introducing suspicion by doing something differently. I think this is more likely to jar a spectator into thinking that someting is up than doing something differently to the way they do it.