Revelation has landed

[David Regal]

I have seen the deluxe edition.
I have bought the deluxe edition.

This book is a work of art. Mike Caveney and Michael Albright have given us a gift. Either version of the book will deeply please, but the deluxe edition comes with, among other things, a tipped-in photo of The Professor that I'd never seen before, and it is wonderful.

[Cugel]

Is it true this version omits Diaconis' introduction?

And what are people's views on the Walter Scott false cut?

[Richard Kaufman]

The Diaconis material is missing, including the description of Jennings' Turn and Take Bottom Deal, and all of Greg Manwaring's illustrations done in the style of Erdnase--these are here replaced with the original photos of Vernon's hands.

[Furneaux]

That's a disappointment.

All-in-all, I'm quite pleased....

Don't have that "total" feeling of satisfaction though.

[Cugel]

The Diaconis material is missing, including the description of Jennings' Turn and Take Bottom Deal, and all of Greg Manwaring's illustrations done in the style of Erdnase--these are here replaced with the original photos of Vernon's hands.

A shame. There's a whole lot of good stuff in the Diaconis intro. Well, I suppose it's a shame. I guess it means some of that stuff will be underground all over again!

[Richard Kaufman]

I don't think it's an issue ... it keeps the first edition unique and helps it maintain its intellectual value. The second edition completely eclipses the first except for those things.

[Robert Stacher]

Although I only have the original "Early Vernon" at hand, I believe that Jamy is correct in that it is a different photograph that graces the cover of Revelation. I chose this photograph and pulled the image from the original portrait size negative shot by Ross Bertram. The other image, and again, I would have to double check, was shot at the same session but is slightly different. The curtains, for example, in other photo were closed. Further, the focus on the print of the book on the table is much sharper. Perhaps an owner of the later reprint can see whether it is, in fact, the same image.

I own the 1967 reprint of "Early Vernon" and after comparing the photo with the dustjacket photo of "Revelation" I strongly believe that they both are the same! At least I can not find ANY differences (neither in the curtain nor any other detail)...

[Dave Egleston]

Has the Deluxe Edition been sent out yet?

Dave

[PickaCard]

Now we come to 2008. When I got the scans of the original typed pages, the first thing I did was to compare them, line by line, to our published edition. Amazingly, there was material in the book that did not appear in the typed version. This was Persi's extra 10%. In the new edition, Persi's additions have been set off in brackets to more clearly identify them. Finally, here was proof positive that the entire manuscript did appear in the first edition.

We led off this new edition with facsimile reproductions of the entire typed manuscript so everyone can do their own comparison.

The Diaconis material is missing, including the description of Jennings' Turn and Take Bottom Deal, and all of Greg Manwaring's illustrations done in the style of Erdnase--these are here replaced with the original photos of Vernon's hands.

Mike Caveney,

It seems to me you mislead the Genii Forum readers.

I guess this is not the definitive Revelations after all.

I have the original; I guess I'll stick with that one since (to quote you) this edition seems to be the only one with 110% of the content.

[David Ben]

With respect to Pickacard's comments...

Persi's introduction was not part of Revelations as Vernon originally envisioned the book. The extra 10% that Mike was referring to -Persi's extra 10% - was in response to the notion that someone deliberately held out the best of Vernon's annotations from the 1984 edition of Revelations. As the current edition seems to indicate, this was not the case.

Further, the material in Persi's introduction to the 1984 edition is something completely separate and distinct. And, by the same token, we could make the argument that the 1984 is less complete because it does not have my introduction with commentary on moves like the Walter Scott Double Belly Cut.

So, Mike did not mislead the Genii Forum readers. It is the definitive Revelation as it includes all of Vernon's previous work plus many more of Vernon's discoveries. So, by your calculations, if the 1984 edition had 110% of the content, the 2008 edition would have 150% of the content.

[David Scollnik]

Near the back of the book, as part of the included ephemera, is a photo of a female dancer / hostess. I was wondering who that is and what the special significance of the photo is (if any)? I couldn't spy any explanatory note.

[David Ben]

David, the photo is of the cover of the issue of Bold magazine where the first full-fledged account of Vernon's hunt for the center deal was published. We included the cover image to both document the source and provide a visual link to the time period and tabloid-style realization of the story that was then reproduced in the pages that followed. It helped set up the distinction between "myth" and "reality, the reality being represented visually by the later image of Allen Kennedy. That was, at least, our intention.

[David Scollnik]

Thanks kindly for the explanation.

[Roger M.]

David's polite explanation of the Diaconis intro shows how using statements like "Mike Caveney, It seems to me you mislead the Genii Forum readers." may not represent the best method of asking for information here on the Genii Forum.

Perhaps something along the lines of "I'd like to pose a question to either Mike Caveney or David Ben about Persi Diaconis's introduction........." would have seen a similar answer, but without the initial insult, and associated implication that Mike was somehow dishonest in what he had posted......which as David has pointed out, he wasn't.

[Richard Kaufman]

The introduction by Persi from the original edition is not in the new edition because Persi didn't want it included.

It has nothing to do with Mike Caveney or David Ben making any sort of choice to include or not include it.

As David has pointed out, the Diaconis introduction was never part of the Revelations manuscript. There is more of Revelation(s)in the new edition than the old, because there is more of Vernon in the new edition than the old. What there is not, is Persi Diaconis.

Anyone who is interested in Dai Vernon will want to have both editions. For most people, the second (latest) edition will be the one to have because there is more Vernon in it!

[magicalt]

I received and email from magicwords this past Friday stating that they had some more problems with the slip cover did not say when the Delux edition would be sent out.

[SoMd]

Revelation is a magnificent book. How anyone could display such disrespect to the creators of this book is beyond my imagination. The immense effort that went into this book by all its creators is so evident from the end result that I'm astonished that anyone would have the gall to post such petty whining on this forum.

I believe that we are in the golden age of magic books. The extraordinary high quality of books that Mike, Richard, Todd Karr and Stephen Minch have published in recent years is incredible. Very few of us deserve the privilege of owning these things.

Revelation is a masterpiece of the highest order, one of the finest books on any subject that I have ever seen. How could anyone think they are entitled to any more than this?

[Hannes Freytag]

Hi,

I read the book for the last days and it was a pleasure.
But there is something i don't understand: are the pictures on page 101 inlustrating the "cut to retain complete stock" on page 100? They are placed und the headline "to retain the top stock", but that doesn't fitt - and nowhere in the text is refered to them.

thanks
Hannes

PS: I think the original Fig.11

[espermachine]

But there is something i don't understand: are the pictures on page 101 inlustrating the "cut to retain complete stock" on page 100? They are placed und the headline "to retain the top stock", but that doesn't fitt - and nowhere in the text is refered to them.

I noticed the same thing myself recently. It is a bit confusing, I agree.

On a different note: the almost spooky Walter Scott group photo on page 345 must rank as one of the best I've ever seen in a magic book.

[David Ben]

There are, in essence, two different sets of photographs to illustrate "To Retain Top Stock", both shot on different formats and at different times. We elected to go with the larger format - and lesser number of images - set out on page 103, referenced to the text set on on page 102. Your best bet is to read the text on page 101-102 and work with the photos on page 103. You can then go back to the images on 101 which represent the same sort of action, but from a front perspective.

So, to break it down further, the left hand cuts a small packet off the top and tables it. (Photo 1), the right hand carries its portion back on top (Photos 2 and 3) - and picks up the break at the back. The left hand starts cutting off small packets of cards to the table (Photo 4) until it reaches the original top stock. (Photo 5) The right hand places the top stock on top, slightly jogged. (Photo 6) The fingers and thumbs square the cards. (Photo 7)

Hopefully that helps.

[Richard Kaufman]

Thank you.

[espermachine]

Thank you Mr. Ben, that is most helpful.

[Sebastien L.]

Thank you Mr. Ben, the clarification is much appreciated. I will print that out and insert it in my own copy.

Now, am I the only one that has had the craziest time trying to understand the hop on pp294-295? Despite the claim that "the accompanying array of photos will leave nothing to the imagination", out of the three photos only the first seems to correspond to the text. I think I understand what the move is supposed to accomplish and I may have seen a video of it before, but I can't make heads or tails of the description. I'd appreciate any pointers, in private or otherwise.

[Robert Stacher]

Dear Mr. Ben,

referring to my post #171661 of July 29, can you please clarify the issue of a "previously unpublished photo" that has possibly been published earlier?

Despite all previous speakers, I truly want to thank you for work in the field of magic history. I read your Vernon biography with immense delight and I am looking forward to all your future publications.

Kind regards,
Robert Stacher

[David Ben]

I will try and address both Sebastien's and Mr. Stacher's questions and then, if you don't mind, disappear for a while.

As for the shift, it is what it is. One of the issues in assembling the material was recognizing that it is both an historical record and a technical manual, one written by Vernon. So, I was very reluctant to flesh out any of the descriptions as, at best, they would only be my reconstructions. It was after much lobbying by Michael Albright and Mike Caveney that I wrote up text for the Ping Pong Shift and Perfect the Good and I did that simply because all I had were photographs. So, this means that you have to struggle with some of the material to discover its inherent value. It's there but may just take more work to access or discover than others. Some like to have everything spelt out for them, others like to play and allow their imagination and hands to complete the move. I prefer the latter as it forces you to interact more with the text. (It also makes me return again and again to the work as my own base level of knowledge increases.)

The shift in question, by the way, is similar to one used by Artanis. Others, like Herb Zarrow, were working on similar techniques in the late 1950s. I mention this because I described two other approaches in the same family of sleights in Herb's book. (The book will be out in a few months.) So, if you want to experiment with this type of work, you might find the forthcoming Zarrow book helpful.

Now, for Mr. Stacher:

The short answer is that it is positively a different picture because it was digitally altered and enhanced by Michael Albright. Items in the foreground - on the table - were blacked out, for example, to enhance the dramatic feel of the image. So, it's not the same.

With all due respect, however, I suggest that your return on investment would improve if you spent more time on the contents of the book than its cover. For me the entire question is moot. Perhaps a version of it appeared in Early Vernon. It is not in the first edition. I do not have the second edition and nor do I want to spend time finding one to compare the images. Ross Bertram shot many photos at the session, each one with tiny variants in composition and/or lighting. All of them were posed shots.

At best, the image you may have in the later edition of Early Vernon would be a third generation copy of an image from that same shoot, and a tiny reproduction at that printed on low-grade paper. The cover image of Revelation was pulled digitally from the original portrait-size negative - hence the clarity - and then digitally altered, and then printed on high-grade stock. So, if Jamy thought that it was a never seen before image - something I agree with for reasons cited early - and said so in his review, who cares. The image is so vastly superior in every regard that I cannot see why you - and now I - have spent so much time discussing it.

Enough.

[Robert Stacher]

Wow, what a friendly way to answer my appreciation for your work!! ..."who cares" - "enough" - "spend more time on the contents"...

First, I never doubted that the image QUALITY is superior. Of course, after 41 years since "Early Vernon", it has been reproduced, altered, improved. It is marvelous, superb, breathtaking - no question about that. But to speak of a "previously unpublished photo" seems misleading to me.

Second, please do not assume I do not spend time with the contents - I already have and surely will in the future. Discussing it here took me about 10 minutes. I just did not expect that this issue is a pain in the neck for you. Onwards with the Ping Pong Shift...

[Tom Gaudette]

It was previously stated, "One of the issues in assembling the material was recognizing that it is both an historical record and a technical manual, one written by Vernon." I assume this references the Erdnase annotations.

Here is something you may find interesting. I've copied the following from an email previously sent to a several friends.

The Three Card Trick for Draw Poker found on page 270 of Revelation can be found almost verbatim as Three Card Draw Trick beginning on page 20 of Poker to Win by Al Smith. The Al Smith description contains more information. It was also written in 1931.

Here's one example:

Smith begins : "This trick, three variations of which will be described, is capable of breaking up any six, seven or eight handed draw poker game by causing all the players except the cheaters to run out of money."

Vernon begins: "This method of advantage playing is capable of breaking up any six- or seven-, or eight-handed draw poker game by causing all the players except the "cheaters" to run out of money".

The entire write-up can be compared in this way.

Vernon's handwritten notes included in Revelation are most likely personal notes taken when he had access to the Al Smith manuscript. This may be one of the items removed from the previous edition of Revelation(s) because it is not Vernon's.

Tom Gaudette

[Robert J Christ]

Richard,

My name is Robert J. Christ. I am the Grandson of Henry Christ.
I have met Dai Vernon many times while he and my grandfather were alive. He was my grandfather best friend. The "Manuscript" does exist. It contains details about the 150 tricks that Henry Christ invented. The Manuscript is with a family friend who intends to write a book. If I find out anymore information I will contact you.
Bob Christ

[Jim Maloney]

Bob,
Welcome! I'm glad that you have joined us here, and also to hear the news about the book.

-Jim

[El Mystico]

This is fabulous news!

Bob -

a)you need to understand that this manuscript has been talked about for years. There are many magicians who are very keen to see the material. Please let the family friend know that there are many people appreciating the work he is doing.

b) I'd love to hear any Vernon stories you have to share!

[Joneseymagic]

I'm a huge fan of Mike Caveney's publications, so I "bit the bullet" and ordered a copy of the deluxe edition. My copy arrived in the UK today and.....

WOW!!!! It's SO beautiful, I'm almost scared to read it! I just don't want to deface such a lovely object with my greasy fingers!

I'm going to have to buy a regular edition, so I can learn from it "guilt free"!! :-)

Congratulations to Mike and all concerned for their tremendous efforts in bringing this book into being.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, "Revelation" is indeed a great book. I was recently treated to a private viewing of a video showing a hustler using the Ping Pong Shift in action. All of you who read it in the book: it can be done.

[Joneseymagic]

That's fascinating Richard - can you give us any more details, or is it "under wraps"?

Is the move "invisible" or was there misdirection employed as the move was made? In the book David Ben mentions that the move happened as Ping Pong reached the punchline of a joke.

As an aside, how come a movie was made of a hustler "in action" I would have thought a professional cheat would run a mile if he saw a camera filming a game! :-)

Dave

[Richard Kaufman]

This was surveillance video from a casino and more I cannot say. The move requires heavy misdirection.

[Doc Dixon]

In the book David Ben mentions that the move happened as Ping Pong reached the punchline of a joke.

Now that the mystery of the Ping Pong shift has been "solved", I've got another mystery I'd love to have revealed: What was the joke or jokes he told to supply the misdirection for such a move? I'm not kidding, but I'm pretty sure there's no way to find out (but if anyone could, David Ben could).

DD

[Richard Kaufman]

I learned this lesson long ago from Ron Wilson: he covered the moves in his routines with jokes--all perfectly timed. I wish you could have seen his act: it was about perfect.

In Ping Pong's case, he was a hustler, so it doesn't matter what the specific joke was (and it might--and most likely wasn't--the same joke each time). It only matters that he said something amusing at the moment he did the shift.

When people laugh, their brain relaxes and they stop watching.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...

When people laugh, their brain relaxes and they stop watching.

That's very close to what happens when we sneeze.

[Richard Kaufman]

ACHOOOOOO!

Did you see me switch the deck?

[Bill Duncan]

Now that the mystery of the Ping Pong shift has been "solved", I've got another mystery I'd love to have revealed: What was the joke or jokes he told to supply the misdirection for such a move?

Operator: 911, are you reporting a problem?
Distraught Man: My friend and I are hunting, and I think he had a heart attack. I think hes dead! What am I going to do?
Operator: Ok sir, I need you to calm down. First we need to make sure if hes dead.
[sound of a gunshot]
Distraught Man: OK. Now what?

[martinka]

The deluxe edition of Revelation sold out almost instantly.

If you missed out, there's another chance at Martinka.

We have listed a lettered deluxe edition, just 26 of these were produced. Here's the link:

Revelation for Auction