Jonathan, the booklet on The Last Dream is not available on my website; it has been out of print for years.

After working out how to do that count as display, did you change the way you handle cards in general?

Not sure I understand the question. That approach doesn’t really work for most card magic, which generally involves a full deck.

Hi Jonathan,

With reference to Joe Riding. The initial release used the Elmsley Count (in both Joe's and Ken Brooke's written instruction) - which for cabaret, meant counting the cards parallel to the floor; and to the side of the body. This looked awkward, as well as creating a visibility issue for those spectators sitting to the other side of your body - i.e. with the cards being counted on your right side, the only folk to see them clearly would be those on your right, and to the centre of the audience.

The count that Joe came up with, was a more natural count for stage work. It wasn't an Elmsley Count as such - it was more of a switch (with the assistance of a finger-held break). Joe started using this around 1995; and explained it when he was at 4 F's in 2000.

Regards,

Barry

Hi Barry,
I'd like to know more about what Joe Riding did.
I'd like to be mindful of what others have done before.
Is there some material on his count work in "print/video" which I could obtain through our open market?
Private correspondence?
Thanks in advance,
JonT

PS folks know how tough it is to relearn habitual/common actions. Imagine working on two such candidate count actions... one looks like a run of cards right out of "erdnase", thumbing the cards singly -while the other more display oriented approach has that upside down (bottom dealing) action.

I found that using larger, thicker cards — like jumbos — made it relatively easy to retrain my hands and brain to do Elmsley counts in the raised position. The only pitfall was watching what was happening on the back of the packet, which gave an odd, confusing perspective. So I relearned the counts in front of a mirror, paying attention to the reflection and not the back of the packet.

I came up with the bright idea of changing the handing for my elmsley and Jordan count so that it mirrored the way I, and most people, do the Hamman count. That is, holding in overhand biddle grip. I eventually got both of these down to a very workable method only to discover when I went online that the work had already been done by others!
Still, my method is a little different. I can't say better or worse, though I'm not too terrible at it.
The idea was, I thought it might confuse any magicians watching me as to whether I'd executed a Hamman count or not when actually I was doing an elmsley. Not only that I didn't like switching positions during a single trick from counting overhand biddle grip one minute then suddenly doing the usual elmsley the next. I assumed people would wonder why the counts are changing. I still do see value in the idea but now I'm into the second year I've realised there are many other things that deserve the time I put into that. Also, people don't tend to notice as much as I thought. Well, some do but most don't seem to.
Just thought I'd throw this in.

HeronsHorse, Did you find that close-up spectators could see the cards better when you used the biddle grip than the more traditional dealer's/pinch grip? I've been struggling in general with how to make the faces and backs of cards visible to people -- same concern Jon has.



-- Well, not quite the same. Jon is asking about parlor magic; I'm concerned with performing close-up, opposite a spectator, with both of us seated, at opposite sides of, say, a card table.

I had the good fortune to get some audience feedback from someone sitting across the table who claimed that they could not see the cards either face up or face down when held in mechanics grip or fingertips for the usual count handlings - as they are almost edge-on to their line of sight - and a little light bouncing off from either side or front loses the detail to reflected glare. "You do know that I can't see the cards" were their exact words. I did some light/angle checking at home and then set back to work on how to use the routines but make sure the audience can see the card faces/backs. Joe Riding's routine came to mind as his handling is pretty much vertical and he puts a card into his lapel rather than on the table etc.

The question about style talking a lead from the Erdnase book, about using over hand shuffle thumb-run-off as a counting process, stands.

Bob, it's about a shift from "it looks good to me" to the audience being able to see the cards. Cards face down in dealer's grip looks good over a coffee table.

You can see Fred Kaps making this adjustment to his card count in the video where he's performing for Brother John Hamman. A magical moment of flattery there.

Look at Joe Riding's routine where he handles the cards holding them pretty much up against his chest when counting.
We usually have more forgiving angles so pick an angle that points the faces of the cards at your audience eye-line.

Here's a clip of David Parr's item in performance.
Notice the counts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpmqF0e6khc bravo!

I notice that David takes the cards from the front of the packet. To me (if this were a genuine count) it would look like he is "cycling" the cards from the front to the back. There is not a clear impression of how many cards there actually are.
I recently purchased Liam Montier's Elmsley Count Project. He teaches a vertical EC (with standard size cards) and it was also "front-to-back"; and likewise looked a bit confusing as to how many cards were supposed to be in the packet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeDTnHGWEcU
I think Bill Wisch's technique is more convincing, because he takes the cards from the back of the packet, and visibly transfers them from one hand to the other. If you were to show 4 cards genuinely to the front, I think this would be the natural way to do it. Pulling them off the front just looks awkward.

I always say use whatever handling feels comfortable to you and gets the job done. If the argument is that displaying the packet starting at the back is more “natural,” I think the plot has been lost