The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » Jordan Count tricks (2 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
rjthomp
View Profile
Regular user
Pasadena
194 Posts

Profile of rjthomp
Many tricks that use a Jordan could be done with a Elmsley, in which you put the last card on the bottom instead of the top to preserve the desired order. John Bannon, for example, seems to avoid Jordans religiously, even if tricks like twisted sister or duplicity seem like they would naturally use a Jordan... For beginners, its much better to start with an Elmsley rather than a double lift. Double lifts are generally over used and abused by many magicians. An Elmsley count, if performed casually (you're not trying to show the spectators anything, just casually going through the packet), will never be suspected. A good way to get experience doing these slights in front of an audience is to actually use them in tricks where they AREN'T needed. So if you have a packet of 4 face down red backed cards, say, just go ahead and give them an Elmsley. This can be done with a lot of other slights as well (so throw in a pass before you hand out a deck for a shuffle; use a classic force even when you don't need to know the card selected etc.). Besides making you more comfortable using these slights, there's an added bonus of really confusing any magicians in the audience...
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
I started this thread, but so long ago that I don't remember whether anyone brought up this trick: Illogical Conclusion, by Roy Walton. I'm learning it now. What a delight it is! It uses Elmsleys and a Jordan, and one other little move.


Note to rjthomp: I wasn't aware that the Elmsley (or "Ghost" -- what a great name!) can sometimes stand in for the Jordan. I won't think about whether that's possible in Walton's trick, because I'm finally learning the Jordan, and it's just so cool...


Bob
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
Personally, I don't like performing a straight Ghost Count followed by an Underground Ghost Count (the last card goes on the bottom). It looks inconsistent. I'd rather do a Jordan Count. When done correctly, it is imperceptible from a Ghost Count. However, you need to put the practice in to make it smooth and train your brain not to perform a Ghost Count.

And I've never understood why John Bannon doesn't use a Jordan Count in his trick Twisted Sisters. The opening display looks better if you do.

Marty
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
I agree with you Marty, and I'm surprised at how many tricks use the GC but with the last card placed at the bottom of the packet. So here's a question for you (or whoever cares to answer). If the instructions for a trick direct you to do an EC, but place the last card on the bottom, is there always a way to replace the move just described with a JC?


I just did an experiment to see what effect each of the three procedures has on the final order of the cards. Each time, I started with the all four cards face down, in the order A 2 3 4 from the top.


a. After doing GC the new order is: A 4 2 3.


b. After doing JC the new order is: A 3 4 2.


c. After doing the GC but with last card placed on bottom, the new order is: 4 2 3 A.


So options (b) and (c) are not equivalent. Clearly there's a missing piece that I need to know about.


Thanks,


Bob
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
P. S. On rereading, I picked up your phrase, "a straight Ghost Count followed by an Underground Ghost Count." So maybe you're saying that Ghost Count followed by Underground Ghost Count is equivalent to a single Jordan count. Way past lunch time here, so I'm going to eat before I try this.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Just tried the experiment. If you do a straight GC followed by an UGC, the result is 3 4 2 A. This is not the same order that results from a single JC ((b) in previous post). It's always possible I made a mistake, but I checked and double-checked. So I'm still not following what you're saying, rjthomp and Marty.
Francois Lagrange
View Profile
Loyal user
Paris, France
272 Posts

Profile of Francois Lagrange
I think your problem stems from thinking that the order of the 3 other cards is relevant, when in fact it might not be the case.

Here’s a trivial example: imagine you have 3 red-backed and one blue-backed cards. The BB is in 3rd position from the top and you perform an EC.

If you wanted to perform a second count and still hide the BB card, you could either perform a JC or, by performing an underground EC on the first count, segue with another EC.

If the order of the 3 other cards is relevant, then it might not be possible to replace one handling (EC + JC) with the other (UEC + EC).
Protect me from my friends, I'll take care of my enemies.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Ah, okay, I see. Thanks for the nice example.

Bob
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
Hi Bob, if the exact sequence is important a GC followed by an UGC is not equivalent to a JC. However, if you are performing something like Dai Vernon's "Twisting the Aces", then I'd rather do a GC followed by a JC because the order (at that stage of the trick) is not important.

Interestingly, I often use false counts to re-order cards in a small packet, either to set me up to perform a trick (without having to memorise the specific setup needed) or to reset the packet before placing it in my pocket. Often, I find that an UGC is the easiest and quickest way to reset.

Marty
Francois Lagrange
View Profile
Loyal user
Paris, France
272 Posts

Profile of Francois Lagrange
Quote:
On Mar 5, 2021, martyjacobs wrote:

Interestingly, I often use false counts to re-order cards in a small packet, either to set me up to perform a trick (without having to memorise the specific setup needed) or to reset the packet before placing it in my pocket. Often, I find that an UGC is the easiest and quickest way to reset.

Marty


I don’t get that bit.

An EC + JC will reset the order to what it was before starting the EC. I don’t understand how an UEC will work here. Can you elaborate?

And, I'm curious, why do you keep calling Elmsley’s count “Ghost Count”? Ghost Count (Elmlsey’s original name) has been universally superseded with “Elmsley Count” in modern literature.

Genuine question.
Protect me from my friends, I'll take care of my enemies.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2136 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Thanks, Marty. In line with Francois' question, I'd be curious to hear an example or two of how you use the UGC to reset, in a PM, perhaps, if it would be revealing too much. I know the GC and am on my way to mastering the JC, so my ability to string together packet trick routines should soon go up a notch. It's amazing how many quite different things these counts can accomplish.


Francois, I can't speak to Marty's reasons, but I, too, prefer "Ghost Count." I find it a delightfully picturesque name. I usually use "Elmsley Count" because it's more likely that people will know what I mean, and I do like to honor the move's creator, but it's a shame that people don't use GC much anymore. FWIW
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » Jordan Count tricks (2 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL