Cag,

Curious about this line in your post, I just looked through about 30 different KC Card Co. catalogs - I didn't find a single word that could be construed as "disdainful" about concave, or N-strippers in any of them. In fact, KC proudly touted their concave strippers as being the best work available in their later catalogs.

Now, in a few of the dozen or so HC Evans catalogs I have, they cast aspersions on all of the other companies' concave strippers (calling them merely "notched") but boldly proclaimed their concave strippers were the "real deal."

I don't take that to be treating the concept of concave or negative strippers "disdainfully" at all - it's just marketing.
Could you clarify your comments?

Jason

Totally agree with Jason here. Arguing over whether or not they are truly secret or "underground" is silly. Unless the accusation is that the intent of using those words is to deceive folks and drive sales, in which case those are the least hyperbolic words that I could think would be used for such a purpose. I've long considered neg strippers a wonderful oddity: something that those in the know have widely, and without any sort of agreement, kept the mechanics from spreading all over YouTube. Just incredible in this day and age.

I'll need a better riffle cull demo now

Mike brings up an interesting point, and one I hadn't considered (at least not specifically).

Search YouTube for "second deal" using quotation marks. I got about 6900 results. "Bottom deal" got over 7000.

"Negative strippers" got: 0

"Concave strippers" got 0.

"N-Strippers" and "In-strippers" both returned a few hundred results, but all of them were about girls taking their clothes off, not methods of locating Kings and Aces.

For better or for worse, YouTube is sort of the defacto dumping ground for all sorts of arcane knowledge. The fact that the specific phrase "negative strippers" brought back 0 results is astonishing. I was ready for at least a handful or hastily shot and poorly edited videos.

None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Jason

Kind of neat that one of the best printed sources of information ( but nowhere near comprehensive) is Vernon's handwritten note to Zarrow. That's been online for years without a ton of attention.

Mike,

Are you talking about the letter and pack of cards from the Zarrow auction a few years ago?

Jason

That's the one.

Well it sounds like it will be a great year for n strippers. I'm looking forward to the booklet and Jason's work on the subject.

Bobby,

Arnold's booklet will be great for guys that already know the basics and how to pull the work. The 1-on-1 for T11 is geared towards absolute beginners (at least with regard to negative stripper work).

Although the overarching subject matter is the same, we're really aiming at two different markets (at least I get the impression we are - Arnold's previous Arcanum volumes were definitely not for beginners!).

I'm looking forward to his book for sure.

Jason

Awesome, thank you for the additional information Jason.
(I can't edit that last past I did but it should read Arnold's Booklet)

Well,well, well... I'm very busy at the moment, but stay tuned, a long answer is boiling.

I'm not sure they're quite as "secret" as they're being made out:

https://coolotis.wordpress.com/new-visit......ted-here

https://coolotis.wordpress.com/pocket-trimmer-forum/

Here's a very, very basic primer on N-Strippers, initially written by an associate of mine for a small group of interested souls, originally used as a one-sheet written primer to go along with a live demonstration. Combined with the information I linked to above, it should be enough to at least let one understand the basics of N-Strippers. If you have access to Doc's old N-Stripper videos, you're even further ahead. This just to whet everybody's appetite for Jason and Arnold's upcoming N-Stripper releases!:

Simply put, the N-Stripper has the work put in multiple locations on the long and short sides of the cards such that multiple different sets of cards can be stripped from the same deck.
As well, the work is so fine as to be many times more deceptive than a belly-in deck.
As opposed to being cut with a blade of knife, N-Stripper work is typically put in by sanding the card in the desired locations.
This sanding can easily put in with a fiber fingernail file, as available from any cosmetics counter.

N-Strippers are difficult to pull, and typically require a great deal of practice to benefit from their use.
Although the N-Stripper can pull multiple sets of different cards, any combination of between a single set, up to 5 sets is typical, depending on the game being played, or the decks intended use.
In a deck set to pull 5 different sets, 3 will typically be pulled from work put in on the long side, and two pulled with work put in on the short side (ends).
This also places N-Strippers (somewhat obtusely) into the Combination Stripper category.

The principal behind pulling N-Strippers is also what makes them extremely difficult to pull, but at the same time is what makes them highly deceptive.
If the deck is held in the left hand (for right handed users), between the thumb and forefinger, with the thumb and forefinger placed over one of the concave sanded areas, this results in the deck essentially supported by all the playing cards that aren’t sanded in that location (re-read that sentence a few times for clarity).
The sanded cards (target cards) are simply resting within the deck supported by the cards above and below them.
This lack of direct support from the fingers makes them unique in the deck, because drawing the right hand thumb and forefinger down the long side of the deck will cause those un-sanded cards to remain in place due to the friction of the left hands thumb and forefinger.

However, this same right hand drawing action can “pull out” our sanded target cards, as those cards experience no friction from the forefinger and thumb of the left hand (due to the sanded scallop in the target cards).
The target cards will pull out of the deck approximately ¼ inch or so (based on the length of the sanded scallop), at which time the unmodified portion of the long side of the cards (to each side of the scallop) will cause the target cards to encounter friction and stop.

But by the time the target cards stop, they will protrude far enough from the deck to be gripped by the thumb and forefinger of the right hand, and pulled the remainder of the way out of the deck.
The above is all done in a seamless motion, and taking only a split second.
The mechanics of the stripping action are based on a very tiny bit of the flesh on the right thumb and forefinger contacting one wall of the sanded convex area of the N-Stripper, which causes that target card (or cards) to begin to move, while the rest of the deck remains stationary in the left hand.
By sanding each set of target cards in different locations along the long and short sides, completely different groups of target cards can be pulled from the deck.

The above description may make the process seem somewhat easy, whereas in reality it remains exceptionally difficult.
The lengthy learning process first requires the miscreant to gain 100% proficiency in stripping a single set of target cards….then deceptively manipulating those cards to an advantage.
Different grips are required for work put in towards the ends of the long sides of the cards as is required for handling cars with the work put in near the center of the long side.

Completely different grip and technique is again required for handling target cards that have had the work put in on the short sides.
Working all the combinations deceptively at the table makes the N-Sripper a difficult stripper deck to work with.
The pay-off for those who endure the learning process is a most flexible and most deceptive technique.

Artie,

The fact that you had to reach to the internet for something published only 3 years ago is hysterical!

You realize you're proving my point by doing so, right?

Jason

PS: I have one of Todd's later, pocket cutters. I sometimes use it for demos, but usually sand by hand.

Jason, my somewhat casual point was only that what N-Strippers are, and how they pull is not as deeply underground as folks seem to imply it is.

Although I disagree with those who state that they were tipped years ago by Malek (they weren't, they were noted, but not tipped), they were described in the Castle Notebooks such that they could be easily understood.

But I agree with you, three years isn't a very long time. And I'd further agree with you that even 5 years ago, N-Strippers were much further underground than they are today.

But I would still note that there are plenty of folks around today who know what N-Strippers are, and how they work.

What I will give you in spades however, is that of the group of people I'm talking about, there is likely only a very small percentage who have any idea about what N-Strippers can do beyond pulling cards out of the deck.
In the short description posted above, only one short line make reference to manipulating the cards "to an advantage", something that still remains somewhat under the radar.

It blunt terms, pulling them is one thing, but knowing what to do with them once they're manipulated such that they project from the deck in some fashion is something else entirely.

I too have one of Lassen's small pocket cutters, and although handy for demos, or to make a deck for a friend, a small piece of P2500 grit wet'n'dry sandpaper presents a much finer, and often undetectable cut.

Artie,

I don't measure secrets by how many people know them. I measure them by how many people don't know them.

Imagine some Lockheed executive sitting in his office trying to tell you that since 2,000 people in his building know the design specs of a new spy plane they're building that those specs are not "secret." Of course they are! Just because 2000 people know the information means nothing. You have to look to the 25,000,000 aviation enthusiasts worldwide that would love a chance at looking at those design specs to determine if they're secret or not.

Unless you're more involved in the amateur magic scene than I think you are, you only have one side of the equation - you spend time talking to people that know about negs. But you aren't out lecturing for magic groups and asking people to raise their hands if they know what negs are and seeing a room full of people staring blankly at you. I'm telling you, they just don't know!

Please understand - I'm not suggesting these people couldn't have found out what negs are over the years - I'm only reporting that they HAVEN'T. The information was out there, in several places. I know Arnold could probably document dozens and dozens of references to negs going back over 100 years.

But if no one was paying attention to those references (other than die-hards like us), and if the ones that did read the descriptions didn't quite understand them (a reasonable assumption considering the sparse nature of good information), then it's no surprise that these things are still little-known amongst mainstream magicians.

I realize that there are degrees of secrecy in the world. But when you determine a concept's "secretness" (I just made that word up), the important factor isn't the number of "knowers" it's the number of non-knowers. The method behind a chop-cup is a "secret" to non-magicians: they don't know it and there are people out there that make a conscious effort to prevent them from finding out. Boom - that's a secret.

Could they find out how it works with a quick Google search? Sure. But that speaks to the impenetrability of a secret, not to its status as a secret. Those are different things.

At the end of the day, published information that few bothered to read and even fewer understood is just about as secret as information that was never published in the first place.

Jason

PS: I'm still waiting for someone to explain the complete lack of exposure videos on YouTube. I think that's an unbelievably telling piece of "non-information."

I think you have already answered that question.

Hey Jason...not true....

Here is a video of a Negative Stripper in action.

Watch till end of video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4B888bSZE

Talking about exposure.

30 catalogs! 30 catalogs!!! I never had 30 KC Co. catalogs in my entire life. Maybe 4 or 5. You have me at a serious disadvantage here.

Joking aside. To clarify, Concave Strippers are not N-Strippers although the principle is the same. N-Strippers are a variation of Concaves and based upon the same principle. In fact, N-Stripper terminology did not even exist back in those days and was never described as such.

Keep in mind, gamblers have their own terminology and magicians have theirs. It appears to me that N- Strippers is a term devised by magicians, not hustlers.

KC Co. made the same type statements as HC Evans in the body of their description of concave work being notched by some companies but I am operating from memory going back 50 years or so. However, I am pretty sure of that.

Your interpretation of the KC/Evans statements may be correct but would be different from my interpretation since I saw some of the type work being sold back in those days. I was actually there and dealt with these companies directly. The concave cuts were somewhat notched by some companies instead of using the nice clean symmetrical concave cuts and were considered of lower quality and inferior. From what I recall, the notched work was more noticeable than the concave cuts but if one knows what he is looking for, they are still both stripper decks and detectible as such.

Jason,

I take your point absolutely. I suppose I didn't consider the scale of the market to which you were catering. My initial statement could probably be refined to: "They don't strike me as much of a secret amongst people who are interested in this type of work." Perhaps that would be too inclusive? I'm doubting my own judgement now; as you point out, I don't spend a great deal of time around the "amateur magic scene".

You're right in that they don't "feel like a secret" to me (probably specifically because I know about them, yet definitely do not consider myself "more educated than most" - quite the contrary), and this perhaps caused me to overlook the wider picture. Forgive my solipsism.

I hope I didn't cause any offence, I simply didn't imagine that anything of which I was aware could really be described in such 'cloak and dagger' terms, so doubted that the project was in fact Ns. I'm now excited as a school girl, both in awaiting what I'm sure will be an incredibly informative download from yourself, and in the knowledge that I know a secret that the other boys and girls haven't heard yet. Very thrilling.

Thanks for your response.

Best wishes to all,

Ross.