|
|
imfletcher Loyal user 260 Posts |
Hi Mr. Beam
I was wondering if you could answer this question. I have heard that your Underhand False Shuffle and Dan Garrett's are almost the same. If they are not please correct me. Which one came fist? Just curious. Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. Take Care John |
Steve Beam V.I.P. 169 Posts |
John,
Please call me Steve. Regarding the shuffles, the only thing they share is a similar title - which is both unfortunate and not altogether unexpected. A false overhand shuffle implies something underhanded. Thus we both titled our shuffles the same thing. As far as who used the title first (I think Dan's is called the "Underhanded Shuffle" or the "Underhanded Overhand Shuffle" - my *guess* would be Dan but not by much. Otherwise I would have known of it and used a different title.) The similarities end there. If memory serves, Dan's shuffle is based upon the G.W. Hunter shuffle - not the same thing - but based upon it. Mine is completely different. Also from memory, Dan's is easier to do, mine is more utilitarian. It really depends on what you want or need. Since overhand shuffles provide a "casualness" they fit my performance style better than riffle shuffles. They also don't require a table. The Overhand Shuffle is one of my most heavily purchased items at lectures by those that have seen its many possibilities demonstrated. It was first published in SACT3. I continued to develop it and ultimately published a small booklet exploring many additional possibilities. For those that have the SACT series, I would not overlook my "R&B Shuffle" from SACT5 and my newest shuffle, the "Northern Ireland Shuffle" from SACT6 which provides a "fix" for the old (Laurie) Ireland Shuffle. Both are easy to do and are great for specific occasions. By the way, I have a new move I'm going to publish in my SOH count book in the near future - I call it the Elmsley Count. Not sure the title will catch on - but I think it's snappy. Best, Steve |
imfletcher Loyal user 260 Posts |
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your reply, my parents always told me to be respectful to my elders. John |
Zap Regular user 181 Posts |
I do both shuffles, and indeed they are completely different. Dan Garrett's Shuffle is a real overhand shuffle, and requires running and counting single cards.
Steve's shuffle LOOKS like an overhand shuffle, but it's actually something different. NO counting, and no running single cards. I prefer Steve's because I have dry hands, and I prefer to not count (!) on running single cards. Also, Steve's shuffle looks great with the cards face up (also works fine with cards face down). |
Steve Beam V.I.P. 169 Posts |
John, your parents were right as were mine who told me to take care of the John. I'm sure we are making them proud.
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts |
Steve,
How hard is it to learn the Underhand shuffle? I know that is not necessarily and easy question to answer. When I watched the demo of it, it seemed like it could be a knack kind of move. Is it the kind of shuffle that you could do without looking at it?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
Steve Beam V.I.P. 169 Posts |
Kaliix,
If you are looking for the easier shuffle, I would go with Dan's. The Underhand Shuffle (my shuffle) is going to take practice. Please note that "semi-automatic" does not mean "easy." It means "not physically difficult." The best way to practice the shuffle is while doing something else so that you are NOT watching it. While they can burn your hands when you do the shuffle, you don't look at a regular overhand shuffle in progress so you shouldn't watch a false one in progress. I NEVER watch my hands while I do this shuffle. Approaching the question from a different angle, I don't consider it difficult. I also think that it's one of the most valuable tools a semi-automatic or sleight of hand magician can have in his arsenal. As everyone who has seen me can tell you - I perform what I write - and I do this shuffle in every show. Probably every time I do more than three tricks. So I think it's worth the five to ten hours it would take to master it. (I would spread those hours over a few weeks so you develop the muscle memory.) Best, Steve |
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts |
I wasn't looking for an easy shuffle necessarily, you really just scared me a little with being able to do the part of the shuffle, tap and totally square up the cards and then finish it, with apparently not holding any breaks. It just seemed a little daunting is all. I can see how useful the shuffle can be, that's why I was asking. I guess I am just going to have to take the leap and buy the manuscript.
Thanks for your help, Jason
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts |
Okay Steve, I want to learn this shuffle. So in your humble opinion, should I buy the individual manuscript or buy SACT Vol 3 (that is the vol it's in right)?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
Steve Beam V.I.P. 169 Posts |
Kaliix,
Hmmm. Let me think for a moment... Vol. 3 = $45. Underhand Shuffle = $15. ... just a minute... it's coming to me... (Holding hands out like they are scales)... $45...$15... Actually, if you are interested in learning everything there is to know about the shuffle, I would buy the manuscript. If you are interested in the basics on the shuffle (and enough to please most anybody) and want to pick up a bunch of other tricks in the bargain - Vol. 3. But the answer to your question is the manuscript. (Did I already mention the bunch of other tricks in the bargain???) |
Zap Regular user 181 Posts |
I vote for volume 3. It's a great book, with several routines that I use regularly, including Simply Shuffled, which is the best, easiest in-the-hands Triumph using the Goodwin-Jennings Display(came out long before Bannon's version, which is also good but harder), Palindrome (by Gary Plants), and Monte 101 by Joel Givens.
Steve, a question about Monte 101. In the final phase, the bent corner as I read it is bent the wrong way. Is this a discrepancy, or am I doing it wrong? It hasn't seemed to be noticed by spectators. |
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts |
Okay, I guess I should have clarified. It is not an issue of money for me. I want to learn the shuffle and wanted to know how much more detail is given in the manuscript versus how the trick is explained in SATC Vol. 3 when compared against the numerous tricks that I would get when buying the whole volume. I have to assume that you did a decent enough job of explaining it in Vol 3, but either there was more to it to warrant a stand alone manuscript or enough people asked about it and wanted just the shuffle so you put it out individually. Or maybe something else. Hence the reason for the question. You did answer that, mostly, so thank you. Sorry for asking so many questions of you about this. One just doesn't get an opportunity like this too often and I have been contemplating learning this shuffle on and off for a couple of years. Thanks again, Jason p.s. I may just buy them both at this point... (lol) Quote: On 2007-03-29 22:46, Steve Beam wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
Steve Beam V.I.P. 169 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-03-30 12:33, Kaliix wrote: Well, I think you've answered your own question better than I could. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The March 2007 entrée: Steve Beam » » What Came First? Dan Garrett's Shuffle or the Underhand Shuffle » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |