It certainly was an obsession. And you do agree that Vernon was a prolific creator?

"Cassy Stengle" did play baseball. He was an outfielder. His real name was Charles Dillon Stengel from Kansas City. He only changed it when as a player he kept talking about his home town so much, he was nicked named "Casey".

I saw Dai on television as a kid and I was impressed with his performing ability. At the time I was just developing as a magician, so I didn’t know enough to be of the sort Ortiz talks about in Strong Magic. So in a sense, I was still a lay person as far technical ability was concerned.

Though I agree somewhat in what you say, I feel that Vernon did lay the ground work for all of us. I think it is the better way to do sleight of hand. The Slydini/Vernon school of sleights is more natural and puts more emphasis on performing which it should.

I was going to add to this, but have decided to instead go to a specialist website about baseball and ask what the fuss is about Hank Aaron.

But I'm NOT afraid to confess this!

Ciao!

Besides influencing and teaching the greatest minds in our field today, Vernon's greatest contribution is the fact that he brought naturalness to the forefront of close-up magic. No fancy herky jerky moves; just graceful natural handling of every object he handled when he performed. To watch the L&L DVDs can be a bit disappointing. He was well past his prime when they were filmed. What I don't understand is how these guys can say they have been influenced by Jennings, Ammar, and Cervon but doesn't get what the big deal is about Vernon. Those were 3 of his greatest students/contemporaries. There is quite a bit of The Professor in all 3 of them, and I should think that it has filtered down through the years into every decent practitioner of this art. Shame on anyone who doesn't get what the big deal is. In the words of the man himself, "Go sell shoes."

Now it seems the trend is to do sleight of hand that is showy. My how we have come full circle. We need a Cardini or a Vernon to set us straight again.

Shame on anyone who doesn't get what the big deal is. In the words of the man himself, "Go sell shoes."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.

Here is another can of worms then...on a recent posting in the Genii forum, the Chief Genii referred to the revered prof as a sadist.

If you quote it out of context, then it makes the reference rather sensationalistic.

If you really want to understand the value of Vernon, read The Vernon Touch. This collection of his columns tells all of it. The first column in the series really sets the bar rather high for magicians. I had forgotten how good his column actually was.

mtpascoe wrote:


I wouldn't say THE trend. I would say A trend. If you watch John Carney or Rick Merrill, you will see technical work that is very natural. It's important to remember that the magic Cardini was known for and the magic Vernon was known for were two different things.

Cardini was primarily a manipulator. He had one of the most copied acts in show business for a very long period of time. Vernon, on the other hand, was primarily a card man and coin man who did not do a manipulative act, per se, other than the Harlequin act, and a few of the classics, such as the Rings and the Ball, Cone and Handkerchief. He wasn't noted as a stage performer, even though he occasionally did a cabaret turn.

Cardini's movements were graceful but not so showy that they looked strange on him. His misdirection was top notch. The amount of rehearsal that went into that act must have been phenomenal.

Vernon's movements were sure and steady. Again, his misdirection was also top notch. And he practiced like a fiend. Both performers believed in natural, motivated movements, something that is sadly lacking in many performers these days.

But we do have people such as John Carney to remind us how this should look.

As far as Vernon being a sadist, could be. He could be very insulting and harsh to incompetent magicians. Some see that as sadistic. Some see it as realistic.

Maybe he enjoyed it. I never saw that side of him, though. Maybe I was just lucky.