I have learned the mnemonica stack and was thinking about also learning the aronson stack. I always hear the conversations about how one is better than the other and I see that there are benefits to both. So I was thinking instead of just picking one why not learn both and have all the benefits. I have the book mnemonica and would get the book Try the impossible.

I applaud your ambition. The benefits would depend on the effects you prefer to generate.

I also use 2 stacks: Woody's Memorandum and the Redford Stack. I learned Memorandum first and I still use it mainly, but no stack dependent tricks. It is quite easy to separate cards 1-26 and 27-52 with Memorandum. As for Redford, I like the easy conversion between it and Si Stebbins.

When I learned Redford I was afraid to confuse the two stacks, but I have absolutely no problem with that. So it is possible, however, if I had learned Redford first, I think I wouldn't have learned a second one.

I know both Mnemonica and Redford, without issue. I will note that I've known/used Mnemonica for a decade and a half, so forgetting it would likely be very difficult. It didn't impede my ability to learn/use Redford, which is now my primary stack. I used some techniques I came up with, such as leveraging Bob Farmer's Tarotdiction Toolbox and Krajdener's work, to transition between the two... but, in all honesty, it's pointless. They're so much baked into Redford compared to Mnemonica (or other stacks I strongly considered before deciding on Redford) that it's just not worth my time transitioning between stacks and/or setting up in the other stack anymore. Using two simultaneously provides very little benefit. It sounds like you may not have many years under your belt with Mnemonica, so I wouldn't concern myself too much with walking away from your first one altogether, if you think there's a better one. I strongly recommend Redford--you can leverage nearly all the material in Mnemonica with it, as much of it is stack-independent. The same is true for most of the best stack effects/concepts in other books. For example, I think the best effect in Try the Impossible is "Twice as Hard", which I use regularly and is stack-independent.

Thanks for all the feedback I really appreciate it! I see that the redford stack is is pretty good maybe I'll learn that stack instead. Is there a book on the redford stack as I prefer books. Thanks!

You'll want to grab the book "Temporarily Out of Order: The Redford Stack" available from dealers world wide.

I want to grab the Sleightly Out of Order ASAP

Https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......art=20#7 Jan

Thank you for the help! Ill try to pick up a copy of the book. Just wondering if you guys think it's to ambitious to memorize 3 stacks ( Redford, Mnemonica, and aronson) I know it would take a lot of time. What do you guys think? Or am just crazy.

I think you're crazy. It's your brain and your time, but for my schedule it seems redundant.

I might be crazy but I don't need much time to memorize a deck because it takes me around 20 minutes to memorize a deck. Thank for the feedback!

You might take a look at the overlap between Aronson & Memorandum. Also keep Meads book on your radar esp if you learn Redford’s.

That's fantastic. There is no point in limiting your input with that kind of appetite.

Haha Thanks! Now I'll just memorize 12 different stacks. Haha just kidding.

You should look into https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/magic/......ts-book/
I know them and their 14 year old son has four decks memorized using their method. The book actually teaches the two stacks you are interested in. It was the only method that worked for me to learn Aronson stack. And then I used the method to learn my own stack. Of course now that I posted this, a certain someone is sure to come on and put me down for not being able to use his method. Oh well, there it is. I tried the peg system and could not make it work for me. This did.

Hi Kingman,

The Memory Art books are good. I’ve got the original, which shows their method with two stacks, as you said. But it is just a modified peg system right? You have a noun associated with a number (columns, caves, etc.) but instead of rhyming, it’s shape based. Pegs for card values are rhyming in some cases. Or am I thinking about this wrong?