Triumph

[Jim Maloney]

final point here - when was the all-backs effect invented? I know of Vernon's handling in ECT - was he the first?

Ralph Hull marketed the NRA Deck in the 20's/early 30's -- that seems to be the start of the All Backs plot. That was a gaffed deck. He later published an ungaffed handling in "More Eye Openers" in 1933.

-Jim

[Glenn Bishop]

Well, you know, this is probably the first time I've felt a bit of sympathy for Glenn (not that he probably wants my sympathy!).

We all know that there are many unpublished handlings of effects.
I don't know Glenn, but let's say he did spend time with the old time greats.

The first old time great I would say was Billy Bishop (my Dad). For El Mystico - who doesn't seem to know who Billy Bishop was. He was a magician that performed in Vaudeville. Since we are talking about "facts" here - It is a fact that my Mom and Dad met in a Vaudeville theater. It "was" the Capital theater in Portland OR.

My Dad was a magician and my Mom was a Dancer and a singer.

This was after WW2 - before my Mom and Dad met. He was a member of the magic club the royal order of scarlet wands - a club that had members like Lee Grable.

Well one of the first dates that my mom and dad went on was to see the Dai Vernon lecture. This was a lecture that my Dad sort of had to go to - because he was on the booking committee and he was one of the guys that booked the lectures for the Portland SAM at the time.

I can't tell you what a treat that it was for me to sit at our kitchen table at home and listen to my Dad and Jerry Andres tell about how they felt watching Vernon perform such classics as the cups and balls - the travelers - and TRIUMPH!

And I also remember my Dad going on about how Jerry Andres fooled the hell out of Dai Vernon doing his linking pin routine.

This was a time when Jerry Andres came to Bishop's magic shop and lectured in the 70's. At the time I was working on the cups and balls and Jerry Andres showed me his routine with tubes and balls. I have to say it was quite amazing.

But I am getting ahead of my story here arent I.

After my Mom and Dad were Married they went for the big time in New York. And what a big time it was. They landed the agent "Mark Leddy" the agent that booked variety acts into Night Clubs and on early TV. It was here that they met "Jay Marshall".

If I may add Mark Leddy booked my dad and mom (and Jay) for quite some time and even booked them on an early TV show that was called at the time "Toast of the town" - later to become known as "THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW".

Jay took my Dad and my mom (my mom sometimes did not go) around New York and introduced them to many night club managers and other magicians working at the time - Like Dr. Jaks - Galli Galli - Scarne (who was a privet party entertainer at the time).

Later my dad was booked into a 6 month booking at Billy Roses Diamond Horseshoe. Later on when we would play chess into the odd hours of the night and mourning - he was fond of telling the story of on his opening night in the club - during his first show he could see - way in the back - three people watching his show - it was Billy Rose - Carl Ballentine - and Jay Marshall.

Jay and Carl both complemented my dad and his performance all through his act to Billy Rose - which shows in my opinion what a great guy and friend Jay and Carl were.

I had the pleasure of meeting Carl Ballentine when I did one week at the Magic Castle in the close up Gallery. Carl remembered my Dad and the night.

But woops - there I go again getting ahead of the story.

I came along when my Dad and Mom moved to WI. I was told by Jay Marshal that my first words were "hey toots - new in town". This was at a party at my parents house in WI.

At the time I really wasn't old enough to talk. Jay was doing a vent bit with me - and I don't know if I said the same words when he drank a glass of water. And I don't think that I sang if I had my way.

But as I remember - we had - and we went to "a lot of" show business parties when I was growing up. One of the clubs that my Parents belonged to was the "three sheeters". This was a show business club and in it were a lot of old school acts - not just magicians there were variety acts in the club too.

People like Celeste Evens and Don Alan - Jay Marshall - Jack Pyle and many others were members.

Then there were other acts too like the Todd family act - the Getchie brothers - Georgie Carl - Glenn Haywood. Some acts that were touring in the 60's would stop by my Dads house and spend the night - on there way from California to New York. Or stay at my Dads house if they got booked in the Midwest.

Glenn Haywood used to come through often and in later years he (like others) working the county and state fair circuit used to park their mobile home in our driveway. Often my dad and someone would come to town - they would meet Jay at Magic INC. And end up at our house at the end of the day.

Glenn Haywood told me he took lessons from Slydini and he was the magician that first showed me the coins through table - the way Slydini did it.

I started doing birthday party shows at eight - and went on to restaurants - later I was performing in magic restaurants that were in Chicago - one of them was Houdini's pub where I met and worked with for a few years - Bill Malone.

Then still later I worked out a night club magic act and a night club comedy hypnotism act at "Bit "O" Magic - with Bill Weimer who is one of the greatest comedy magician of today in my opinion.

At this time my close friends were Terry Veckey - Bill Weimer - Jim Gleason - Al Bach - Steve Sadaro. And it was after we moved the shop from Old Chicago Amusement park and into Riverside IL.

All this time I have had the interest in card cheating moves and methods and I learned a lot from Jack Pyle - Buddy Farnan - Jim Ryan - Terry Veckey - Bill Malone and others. At this time I am also performing just about any show I can get - from birthday parties to night clubs - close up - and the comedy hypnotic show.

If I may add - Jay Marshall - Jim Ryan - Don Alan - Buddy Farnan - Al James - Terry Veckey - Celeste Evens and of course my Dad - Billy Bishop - and many more - they all "booked" me to do shows for many years - unlike many magicians in these message boards - they thought my magic - was "very" good.

Then later on my Dad had a stroke and I closed the shop and just did magic full time - then he passed on six year later.

I hope that answers some of your question. If not I suggest that you check out one of my web sites.

www.bishthemagish.org

www.mrhypnotist.org

Or read the book "The Life and Magic Of Billy Bishop Bish The Magish" Published by David Charvet.

The rest is not worth my time to respond to.

Just my opinion.

[Philippe Billot]

Vernon's All Backs Routine was published in Hugard's Magic Monthly, Vol. 7, N 1, June 1949.

But according to the Potter's Index, there is a trick by E. Brian MacCarthy named Vanishing Faces in his book Sleights Supreme (1948).

As I haven't this book who can tell me how he did his version ?

Thanks in advance.

[Glenn Bishop]

There is also an "all backs" routine in Expert card Technique by Hugard and Braue. Page 459 - 1950.

Vernon is credited in a Vernon Chapter.

And if I may add reverso in my opinion isn't triumph.

I hope this helps.

[El Mystico]

Glenn;
You must understand, you missed all the key questions that have been posed to you here.
Which is entirely your perogative.
but your post doesn't begin to address the questions posed here.
Which is fine. Maybe you feel you have a vested interest in keeping Leipzig's all backs routine to yourself.
If the rest of us think that Leipzig never came close to the routine..well, you're really the winner, aren't you?

[Glenn Bishop]

El Mystico - Try reading in several of my posts - that I don't care what you or any other magicians think.

I did not miss key questions - I choose not to answer.

Thanks for speaking for "every" magician when you said the rest of us - Or did you PM every magician in this message board and arrived at that conclusion?

However I told as much of the story as I care to tell. And that is all it is - a story that one magician told another magician. However when the magician "has" authority and magicians that want to listen - it seem in the world that magicians are ready to accept the stories as fact. And it seems even more so after they are published.

However if an older magician like Jay Marshall or Don Alan takes the time with me to show me a routine - and then tells me a story about who the routine belongs to "like a Fred Kapps" or another magic tick.

I tend to take there word for it.

Just my opinion.

[Glenn Bishop]

Third, if you are going to use a gimmicked deck for an all backs routine, I credit Leipzig with the intelligence to use a better approach.

I would guess if this is true - why would Reverso be written up in the book at all? In the opinion's on this thread and in the book - Leipzig might have gotten a lot out of the trick as it was written.

So to knock my opinion - having not seen the trick or even read it - or the story based on this in my opinion would be rather silly and childish.

Just my opinion

[Jim Maloney]

However if an older magician like Jay Marshall or Don Alan takes the time with me to show me a routine - and then tells me a story about who the routine belongs to "like a Fred Kapps" or another magic tick.

I tend to take there word for it.

I would tend to agree with this. That's why I'm curious to know who it was that showed you the routine and credited it to Leipzig.

Look, I don't really care one way or the other what exactly Leipzig performed -- I'm only interested in uncovering the truth. If you have some evidence that goes against the published record, I very much want to hear it so that I can add it to all my other research.

-Jim

[NCMarsh]

Jim,

Are you working on a particular Leipzig project?

N.

[Jim Maloney]

Nathan,
Yes, for several years now I've been researching with the intention of writing a book expanding upon and correcting errors in the Vernon book. It's been stalled recently due to my "real life" taking over (i.e., the birth of my daughter a year and a half ago and buying a house last June). I have, however, started getting back into it in the past month or so.

The research I've done so far has uncovered some interesting things which I've shared with a few people here. I've spoken with three separate family members: one being the granddaughter of Leipzig's brother Fred, the other two were children of Leila's (Nate's wife) nieces. I've also been in touch with some descendants of other magicians who had contact with Leipzig, such as Frank Chapman's daughter.

The plan is an expanded biography, which includes details that the family members were not even aware of, as well as an in depth look at Leipzig's repertoire. Updated histories, corrected handlings, "lost" details -- at least one item has never seen print in English, to my knowledge.

I hope this explains somewhat my interest in the "Reverso" item and my desire to make sure I have the correct information.

-Jim

[Glenn Bishop]

I'm only interested in uncovering the truth. If you have some evidence that goes against the published record, I very much want to hear it so that I can add it to all my other research.

-Jim

Sorry Jim - I have nothing more than a routine - that is a little different than what was in print. And a story that the magician that showed it to me told me it was Leipzigs.

He did not claim any part of it - and he could have. That is why I tend to believe as a gut feeling that it might be true. He could have told me that this was his way of doing Leipzig's Reverso - or this is something that he came up with.

But he credited Leipzig.

I also don't want to talk about it until I find my Reverso deck and run through the routine a few times - it has been a few years since I used it.

And that is my point as to a few posts back. I could have claimed and published this as my own effect - and how would anyone know? But I tend to want to credit - and credit who inspired my work such as Vernon and his work on the triumph shuffle.

If people don't think that triumph is a shuffle and then they can do the face up and face down mix - with the shuffle. That is fine with me.

For me it is about giving credit - so when I published the book I did on the triumph shuffle - I credit Vernon and the Stars of magic - part of the why? - it is in the story I wrote above. My Dad learned Triumph from Vernon - when it was a "new" idea.

How cool is that?

So my opinion about the shuffle and my writing that book about the Triumph shuffle is my way of crediting Vernon and trying to show the magic world that the Triumph shuffle has it's place in block transfer work. And it's place in the history of magic - in riffle shuffle work. And show the magic world that there is a lot more that you can do with the shuffle - and it is a very practical shuffle to use to cull cards on the fly and cut to the aces one at a time from a shuffled deck.

Even when a lot of magicians today "choose" other shuffles like the Zarrow to do the trick - triumph. And other techniques over the original way of doing the triumph shuffle.

But as I said above - it is nothing more than story - hear-say at best.

And just my opinion.

[Lemniscate]

While I refuse to say anything about what shuffle is superior (it's a silly point of contention anyway)

Being somewhat oblique, can I ask another question? What's more convincing to the uninformed viewer - Wile E. Coyote ending up covered in ash when the TNT goes off, or CNN footage of a roadside bomb in Basra detonating next to a Humvee?

If you don't think different actions/events/conditions are perceived differently, then how can you be discerning about anything?

Very rarely is a counter-argument this easy to crush, thanks for the fat slowball.

I never said things aren't perceived differently. I said that "best" is a silly point of contention. Discerning differences and establishing "best" are not the same thing, they aren't even remotely the same thing.

But maybe you having trouble "besting" the difference.

Wait, sorry, I meant "discerning" the difference.

-L

EDIT: To be fair, I used best instead of superior, my mistake but I will leave the post as is because the point is still the same: discerning differences is not the same as establishing superiority. To think they are the same, to try to draw analogies like you did, is simply wrong. I think the cartoon is superior by the way, some people probably think CNN, so your example illustrates my point exactly, thanks.

[Brad Henderson]

Richard,

How is Reverso and Cheek to Cheek different? Is Cheek to Cheek really nothing more than a variation of Reverso?

This is from Whaley's:

The mechanical version (using 26 double-backer & 26 regular cards) of Vernon's pure sleight-of-hand Triumph effect of 1946. Invented by Arthur Finley (according to Vernon) and first marketed by 1948 by U.F. Grant. According to Waters it was invented by Finley, based on T.N. Downs' "Reverso", a provenance that Busby judges absurd because, unlike "Reverso", it uses several double-back cards. REF: Jeff Busby, Dominque Duvivier's The Deck That Shuffles Itself! (1996), 3-4; Waters (1988), 70.

This seems to raise two questions: One, what is Downs's connection to this, if any; and two, Is there another "Rerverso" that uses less than "several" double back cards?

Brad Henderson

[David Alexander]

Knowing a bit about researching and writing history I'll make this observation: I have no doubt that Glenn is telling the truth about his source of information. That his source was telling the truth is another matter. Glenn's source may have been telling the truth as he understood it - he was shown the routine by someone who claimed it was Leipzigshe may have said it to impress Glennor he may have been telling the truth and learned it directly from Leipzig. People say things and make claims all the time. Determining the truth of a claim can be extremely difficult.

I can envision several scenarios where Leipzig did an "all backs presentation." He may have wanted to play a joke on someone, or did an experiment in presentation, later finding that the routine didn't play as well as he thought (and haven't we all done that), and several others. This could be something that Leipzig did on certain occasions and not on others. There are a variety of ways to explain how this was credited as Leipzigs, some legitimate...some not so much.

Writing accurate history is difficult. I once read a statement in a magic book, attributed to a woman I knew well. The author, not knowing the woman at all, gave it a completely different spin from what I was certain the woman meant. She was a highly sarcastic individual and the statement I read sounded just like her, only in the book it was given a spin that was 180 degrees away from what she doubtless meant.

Absent context, all sorts of erroneous opinions can arise.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Brad, as best I recall, cheek to cheek starts with a face up face down shuffle, a selection from the face up cards is reversed back into the pack then the magical revelation. The Deland trick (and the mini version in feke cards) involves dealing the cards down alternating face up and face down instead of a shuffle.

[Brad Henderson]

But the decks are identical otherwise? I have been told Inverso was sold with and without the short cards. So the difference then is solely a matter of handling?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Cheek to Cheek uses stripper cards so you can reset. No Svengali so no display after.

[Brad Henderson]

I have never had a cheek to cheek deck that were stripped.

[Jonathan Townsend]

LOL it's been thirty years for me - and I also bought Wesley James "Wishuffle" back then so just maybe I'm wrong about that - it seems really strange to not strip those cards since most working performers need a practical reset.

Anyone have an antique set or the instructions?

[Richard Kaufman]

DeLand's "Inverto" involves holding the deck face down in dealing position and dealing it to the table in a pile one at a time, turning every other card face up. Then you snap your fingers and spread the deck to reveal that all the cards are face down. There is no selected card and no shuffling. The description in The Sphinx does not mention a Svengali-like situation where every other card is cut short. However, the instruction sheet included with the deck DOES explain that every other card is cut short.

[Brad Henderson]

So, the decks are the same. It's just the handling that is different?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Brad, Cheek to Cheek is not Svengali (as best I recall)

[Richard Kaufman]

It's possible the handlings are different, or that what Leipzig did was mis-remembered or mis-reported.

[Jonathan Townsend]

People play with lots of things that don't quite make it into the handling they use most often or put into print. But the all backs question does have merit - when did folks start playing with it?

Certainly it's possible that Leipzig used his pack to do such a display though I don't "feel" he'd go for a cheap laugh after finding someone's card in such a mysterious way. Seems less than "gentlemanly" IMHO.

[Glenn Bishop]

It's possible the handlings are different, or that what Leipzig did was mis-remembered or mis-reported.

Or just left out. I often wonder why the Malini cups and balls routine was left out of the Malini book. In my opinion adding the Malini cups and balls routine to the book would have made the book a lot more interesting. And better.

Just my opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Where is Malini's Cups and Balls routine published?

[Philippe Billot]

According to Potter's Index, nowhere!

[Kent Gunn]

Jon,

I'd look in Fulves Pallbearer Review Vol. 10, No. 8 for notes on Malini.

I never know if you really want an answer. When you ask questions. My rhetoric sensors are often mis-tuned.

I've also sent you the largest database on cups routines I know about.

Phillipe, my apologies to Mr. Potter.

KG

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thanks Kent,

I went and picked up a copy of Hatch's hardcover on Hofzinser for his cups routine - will go looking around for the Fulves item.

Wondering what sort of approach Malini took on the trick.

Jon

[Philippe Billot]

Potter's Index ends in 1964.
Pallbearers begins in 1965 and vol. 10 in 1974.
Page 974, we read : "The complete Malini Cup & Ball routine is in the possession of Charlie Miller..."
Charlie Miller dead in 1989.
And now ? Who have this underground routine ?

[Kent Gunn]

Phillipe,

I was enjoying a joke with Mr. Townsend. I've sent you a PM that, I hope will help you.

You have my apologies, for the obscure and admittedly worthless reference. I meant only to fence with Jon. I did not realize another had their own foil.

Je ne comprends rien,

KG

[Jonathan Townsend]

Sergeant Shultz I presume?

[Kent Gunn]

Jon,

Ich kann nicht gut Deutch gesprechen.

The only hope I know of on the Malini routine is with Thompson, in Vegas. If somebody really wants to know, call up Johnny.

I'll ask Byron Walker when I next foray across the Bay. He is a wealth of information. His pile of books, especially on the cups is mountainous.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Oddly, there's been not a great rush to take Andrew Galloway up on his mention of Ramsay's routine where he produced glasses of liquid as the loads.

Getting back to Triumph- the version using spilt gaff cards is starting to look like fun for a cheek to cheek type presentation. With so many ways to skin this cat you'd think folks would be more interested in finding ways to show the cat rather than having squables over who did what to whose cat.

[Jim Maloney]

Richard,

How is Reverso and Cheek to Cheek different? Is Cheek to Cheek really nothing more than a variation of Reverso?

This is from Whaley's:

The mechanical version (using 26 double-backer & 26 regular cards) of Vernon's pure sleight-of-hand Triumph effect of 1946. Invented by Arthur Finley (according to Vernon) and first marketed by 1948 by U.F. Grant. According to Waters it was invented by Finley, based on T.N. Downs' "Reverso", a provenance that Busby judges absurd because, unlike "Reverso", it uses several double-back cards. REF: Jeff Busby, Dominque Duvivier's The Deck That Shuffles Itself! (1996), 3-4; Waters (1988), 70.

This seems to raise two questions: One, what is Downs's connection to this, if any; and two, Is there another "Rerverso" that uses less than "several" double back cards?

Brad Henderson

I just came across an item in Greater Magic that, while certainly after DeLand's 1914 creation, may be somewhat relevant here. Unfortunately, the item (pg. 480 in the Kaufman edition) is uncredited, but does come shortly after a discussion of double backed cards which says "Some ten or twelve years ago* a little group of NY magicians, Messrs. Vernon, Finley and Horowitz, became interested in the possibilities of the double back principle and worked out some very effective tricks with which they completely bewildered their confreres in magic. ... The following tricks will serve to show the great possibilities of the double back principle and as an incentive to the invention of other tricks."

The very first trick described, entitled "The Self Reversing Cards" is, essentially, "Inverto" though done with just ten cards (5 double backers & 5 regular cards). It is even suggested that the double backers be cut short to allow for a riffled display of the faces.

-Jim

* This is still at least a decade after DeLand.

[Stan Willis]

Enter "The Dissolve Deck" currently being advertised by Hank Lee's Magic Factory as a simple, no sleights version of Dai Vernon's Triumph with an instantly repeatable version with moderate sleight of hand. What's up with this bit of business??

[Richard Kaufman]

ALL tricks with double-backed cards were inspired by DeLand's "Two Card Monte" and "Inverto." None of Hofzinser's material had been translated into English yet (and would not be for another decade).

I find it quite logical that Finley and Vernon looked at the gimmick found in DeLand's tricks and thought they could do some interesting things if they applied a double-backed card (or cards) to tricks with sleight of hand. It's important to remember that virtually NONE of DeLand's tricks required any sleight of hand. They relied entirely on the printed gimmicked cards and their ingenious application.

[Glenn Bishop]

Here is another quick video I did on the Triumph shuffle. In it I cull and stack four aces from a slug - after the Ed Marlo Simple Shift.

Before hearing the often flack that often happens when I post a video I would like to add - that if I were to use this technique in a game of cards - I wouldn't do it after the simple shift.

And I would not use it to cull and stack four aces. However I might find this info useful because the same technique can be used to cull and stack two or three good cards from the discards - or from the previous deal.

I like the technique and as I said before it has several advantages over all the culling and stacking methods that I have come across in magic - so far

http://www.mrhypnotist.org/video/Glennb ... lstack.wmv

Just my opinion and enjoy

[Eoin O'hare]

This is a parallel universe, right?

[Dustin Stinett]

And the Internet is the portal.

My evil twin looks good with a beard; it hides his double chin.

Dustin