Triumph

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » April 8th, 2009, 7:36 am

Cugel seems to believe that whats important is how difficult the sleight of hand is while performing the effect


Dustin surprises Cugel by completely misunderstanding the point.

Cugel changes his opinion about Dustin's level of perceptiveness.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 8th, 2009, 8:06 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:No, Jonathan, we discuss method here with NO problem. We are not ruining anyone's fun.


Dustin seems to add what is not there as regards Richard's stated opinion.

It's open season for methods on the Genii BBS.
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on April 8th, 2009, 8:07 am, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: Rabbit season!, Duck season!

Jim Maloney
Posts: 708
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Location: Central New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jim Maloney » April 8th, 2009, 10:23 am

Glenn Bishop wrote:Hi Jim here is the story on Reverso as I remember it.

Glenn,
Thanks for that info. Jay Marshall would certainly be a credible source -- he was around in Leipzig's lifetime and definitely had the contacts to have learned of the routine, if not from Leipzig himself, then from someone like Keating, Benson, Daley, or Vernon.

I'd definitely like to hear more from you if you do find the deck or any notes on the routine and work it out again.

Glenn also linked to another thread which provides at least a partial answer to a question Jon Townsend asked earlier:

Jonathan Townsend wrote: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?


In the other thread, David Ben wrote:

David Ben wrote:As for the double-undercut, that was most likely created by Vernon in the late teens, inspired by Erdnase, and Vernon certainly incorporated into his all-backs routine from late teens, early 1920s. In his correspondence from the 20s, Vernon described it as the 'Vernon Cut". So, it certainly was not created on the spur of the moment to simplify Cutting the Aces in the Stars of Magic.


So, although I'll admit to complete ignorance of the origins of the all-backs plot, it seems that Vernon at least was playing around with it in the '20s. It would certainly be reasonable to think that Leipzig may have as well...and this would have been around the time that he was working with the DeLand item.

-Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 10th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Glenn Bishop » April 8th, 2009, 10:48 am

Dustin Stinett wrote:
Dustin has an Internet version of apoplexy in trying to explain why Glenn is wrong and is forced to transcribe all the text that proves Glenn wrong.

I am very sorry Dustin but this "proves nothing". You completely left out the quote that I mentioned about Dr. Daley and what he said about the "shuffle".

And that the quote is "before" and "boxed" so it will stand out as an important part on the page.

Had the part of the text you mentioned came first - I might agree with you - but since it doesn't. I don't agree. And the other reason I do not agree is because my Dad talked about the "triumph shuffle" and the trick that was to become known as "triumph" - that face up and face down trick where the deck rights itself done with the slop shuffle - that was most likely "before" triumph.

I don't think that I called you "wrong" however I have a different opinion and based on what is posted here - I have not changed it.

I still agree with the quote of Dr. Daley about the shuffle he called it a "triumph" and I have written a book about it. I published a hard copy - now out of print - and a 7 non printable ebook version of the complete text. I just up-loaded it again on my web site www.bishmagic.org

I will keep it up there for a few days as my Easter Gift to the Genii Message board if they care to go there and download it for free...

Thanks again for being such warm hearted and wonderful people that it has been a pleasure talking magic with you all.

And one more thing - El Mysto

It is not about the technique - it is about the magician making it work under fire. In my experience most - if not all the magic technique that I have learned over the years had to be adapted to my performing style. Learning a technique is one thing and then learning to move with it and using it is a whole other education that must be learned - by doing it in front of an audience.

And just one more thing I want to mention about the shuffles and how many. I thought that this was one of the silliest things I have read in a long time. I imagine what Jack Pyle would have said if he showed me his bridge deal using the punch deck and I told him it was crap because he did to many second deals in the demonstration - and I could see some of them.

Imagine what he would have said?

Or if when I saw Jay Marshall show me what he called was Leipzigs Reverso and I told him he was wrong and that wasnt the trick that was in the Leipzig book. As I said before when the old school magicians took time with me and show me a trick and tell a story about who came up with it I tend to agree with them...

I just Imagine what he would have said if I did not agree?

And if I may add - Jim your welcome - If I can find my Reverso deck I will try to work out the routine - write it up and then e-mail it to you.

Happy Easter!

Just my opinion.

El Mystico
Posts: 1087
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby El Mystico » April 8th, 2009, 3:51 pm

Dustin;
You might be interested in some references I've found to Triumph.

The first is November 76 Vernon Touch column, where he talks about being on a TV programme called The Magic Shop. He describes Goshman doing his salt shaker routine, sponge balls etc, then Goshman gives Vernon the cards. "Well, eventually I did Triumph to everyone's apparent satisfaction".
I wonder if he performed the effect Triumph, or whether he demonstrated the false shuffle on TV?

In Dai Vernon's First California Lecture, 1947, Fitzkee records "He performed his recently published Triumph." I find it interesting that he uses the word 'performed' not 'demonstrated', don't you?

Finally, I thought it worth revisiting the Daley quote in Stars of Magic. What he actually says is "In this manuscript, Dai Vernon - the greatest living card expert - is releasing an amazing card trick utilizing this new simplified method for false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring."
So I think most people reading that first sentence would understand that even for Daley, Triumph was a trick which utilized a new false shuffle.
I think there is always a danger when quotes are taken out of context that they can get misunderstood.

El Mystico
Posts: 1087
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby El Mystico » April 8th, 2009, 4:41 pm

I've been going through the Leipzig section in the Roy Benson book; the Daley Notebooks, the Hilliard notebooks, the "extras" in Kaufman's edition of Greater Magic, the big Al Baker book - everything I have from that period. I can find no reference to using double backed cards to present an all-back routine. Of course, that doesn't prove Leipzig never did one, but I thought it would have been useful if I HAD found a reference.

However, there was a question earlier about whether Vernon invented the plot of having a selected card left reversed in a mixed pack that had been righted. Well, in Hilliard's Lost notebooks, Judah has precisely this effect, using a half deck of double backed cards. And that is dated 1929.

Ric Carpenter
Posts: 2
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 9:13 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Ric Carpenter » April 8th, 2009, 5:01 pm

Is an angel male or female?

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 8th, 2009, 5:54 pm

Ric Carpenter wrote: Is an angel male or female?


Why, has one been hitting on you? If you are faced with an angel that's probably the least of your problems.

User avatar
Joe Pecore
Posts: 1914
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Paul Harris
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Triumph

Postby Joe Pecore » April 8th, 2009, 6:16 pm

Ric Carpenter wrote: Is an angel male or female?

Criss is male, correct?
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 8th, 2009, 7:41 pm

El Mystico, can you please give me the page number for the Judah effect you cite? Thanks.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Jim Martin
Posts: 551
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Triumph

Postby Jim Martin » April 8th, 2009, 8:06 pm

El Mystico wrote: Well, in Hilliard's Lost notebooks, Judah has precisely this effect, using a half deck of double backed cards. And that is dated 1929.


Thanks El Mystico.

See Hilliard 'Lost Notebooks' p. 15 (dated May 1929): 'Second Effect', with marginalia of DeLand's Reverso Deck.(Also check out the other two on the same page 'First Effect' and 'Third Effect' which references 'Dave Vernon'.)

It is interesting to note a Ace of Spades Pointer trick, pp. 27 - 28 ('Judah's Clock Trick - with Ace of Spades as Pointer) dated January 1931.

Is that to late for a posthumous entry in the PH contest? ;)
Jim Martin
St. Louis MO

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 8th, 2009, 9:17 pm

It's interesting, for this discussion, that Hilliard refers to DeLand's "Inverto" incorrectly as "Reverso." That would indicate Hilliard might have learned of the trick from Leipzig.

David Ben would be the one to tell us when Vernon invented the original version of "Triumph," however it is not by any means impossible that Judah heard about a trick of Vernon's where a card was chosen, then the deck mixed face up and face down, only for all the cards to right themselves with the exception of the chosen card--and then use DeLand's "Inverto" deck to accomplish the effect without sleight of hand.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 8th, 2009, 9:33 pm

Here's a letter from Stewart James to John Braun (from Volume One of The James File):

Letter to John Braun, September 14, 1970: "The best thing for me [in the September Linking Ring] was your article on David [P.] Abbott don't think I ever heard what the P was for. . . maybe he spent too much time with that tea kettle. Did you ever hear of Theo Deland selling Chinese Paper Tearing?
In my files I have a typewritten copy and three pencil drawings. For what it is worth, here is one paragraph: I had been baffled with this trick and learned it in a peculiar way. Years ago I was having a confidential chat with Ching Ling Foo in New York and staggered him with my Inverto Card Trick. He agreed to reveal to me the paper tearing trick for mine with cards and
I promised him I would never expose it as long as I live.'" (Ching Ling Foo's Paper-Tearing Mystery was explained in that September, 1970 issue of the Linking Ring; Nate Leipzig's version of Deland's Inverto Card Trick may be found as Reverso in Dai Vernon 's Tribute To Nate Leipzig?)
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Glenn Bishop » April 8th, 2009, 10:30 pm

El Mystico wrote:Finally, I thought it worth revisiting the Daley quote in Stars of Magic. What he actually says is "In this manuscript, Dai Vernon - the greatest living card expert - is releasing an amazing card trick utilizing this new simplified method for false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring."

So I think many people reading that first sentence would guess that even for Daley, Triumph was a trick which utilized a new false shuffle.
I think there is always a danger when quotes are taken out of context that they can get misunderstood.


Sorry that is not the full quote from my copy of the stars of magic or from my Dads copy of his original manuscript.

The full Dr. Daley quote reads -

"False shuffles have been my prime interest for many years. Little did I dream that so difficult a manipulation could be made so easy to master. In this manuscript, Dai Vernon - the greatest living card expert - is releasing an amazing card trick utilizing this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring."

So in my opinion I think most people reading that first sentence would understand that even for Daley, Triumph was a "false shuffle" that you could also use to do the card trick which utilized this new false shuffle.

I think there is always a danger when quotes are taken out of context that they can get misunderstood. Especially when the full quote is not represented.

Over the past week I wondered if Dai Vernon called the shuffle triumph when he showed the shuffle and the trick that became known as triumph to my Dad - when my Dad booked him and saw Vernon lecture for the Portland SAM when he was on the booking committee - those many years ago.

That would be an interesting question because my Dad always called the triumph shuffle the triumph shuffle and the trick that he did with the triumph shuffle was called triumph only once or twice as I remember - most often he called it the trick that has become known as triumph.

Just as I call the cull I do with the triumph shuffle the triumph cull and the stacking method I do with the triumph shuffle the triumph stack. And when I use the triumph shuffle to cull and stack together - I call it the triumph cull stack.

Just my opinion and I agree with the Dr. Daley quote that starts off with the first two words FALSE SHUFFLES.

And If I May Add - Good news Jim I found my Reverso deck. I want to play around with it for a few weeks and then do it in my restaurant gig - before writing it up.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 8th, 2009, 10:31 pm

You say you found your "Reverso Deck." Is that just a deck with half double-backed cards or do you have a set of instructions to go with it?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Glenn Bishop » April 8th, 2009, 10:43 pm

No Richard - the only instruction I got for it was to use Jay Marshall's deck - and run through the routine several times with his deck with Jay telling me and showing me how to do it. As I said before later - I had someone later cut the cards for me and then used them to make the deck.

I call the deck the Reverso deck - however I have never seen the idea on the magic market like the Svengali deck was. And I don't think that the all backs kicker the way Jay did it - who said it was Leipzigs - was ever put in print.

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2009, 9:40 pm

Jane, you ignorant slut
-Dan Akroyd


That quote is aimed at no one in particular, its just that all the comebacks to my recap made me think of the old SNL line and the thought made me laugh. Hopefully it does the same for you.

Real life (in fact a little too real for my tastes) has prevented me from responding to those comebacks so far. But I cant let them go since one is just plain wrong, the other my mistake, another has me confused, and another is not worth discussing but I am compelled to at least acknowledge it.

So, where to start? Not at the beginning, thats for sure. I want my response to Glenn Bishop to be right up front; I dont want him missing anything.

Glenn Bishop wrote:I am very sorry Dustin but this "proves nothing". You completely left out the quote that I mentioned about Dr. Daley and what he said about the "shuffle".


Sorry Glenn, but I didnt leave it out. I said that you cite the text in the bullet point directly above the one you quote. The endorsement (the only part you ever cited, so what else could I be talking about?) is part of the text. In fact, its the most important part of the text according to you.

Of course, you are wrong because its just an endorsement, just like all the endorsements the tricks got in the first three series.

Glenn Bishop wrote:I think there is always a danger when quotes are taken out of context that they can get misunderstood. Especially when the full quote is not represented.


Really?!?

I will point out again that, the first time you cited it, you left out a key phrase from the quoteyou know, the one about the trick:

Glenn Bishop wrote:Stars Of Magic - Please read the quote that Dr. Daley wrote that starts with "False Shuffles have been a prime interest - and ends with - this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring.


I think its very clear that Daley was making nothing more than a play on words while talking about the entire manuscript. He was not naming anything. Its an endorsement! Its not some mystical introduction with a hidden meaning. If thats the case, why arent the other endorsements as meaningful? And if they were so important to these tricks, why did they disappear after the third series?

Furthermore, what is so special about Triumph that its endorsement holds extra-special meaning that contradicts what the rest of the text says? I will remind yousince you openly insist on dismissing itthat nowhere in the main text is the False Shuffle itself ever referred to as Triumph. However, throughout the text the trick is referred to as Triumph.

The key sentence in the endorsement is not Daleys fascination with false shuffles (even though you want it to be). The key sentence is this (as Im pretty sure Ive pointed out before):

In this manuscript, Dai Vernon - the greatest living card expert is releasing an amazing card trick utilizing this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities.

Dai Vernon released an amazing card trick called Tiumph. It utilizes a new false shuffle with many possibilities (which you have explored with my congratulations).

Note that Daleys quote does not say that Vernon released a shuffle and a nifty trick that can be done using it.

Ill say it another way:

The trick (Triumph) utilizes the (unnamed) false shuffle.

NOT the shuffle allows this trick to be done. Daleys quote says nothing of this sort.

Then comes what you seem to think is the big payoff:

Truly this is a Triumph for the lover of fine card conjuring.

This obviously refers to the entire manuscript and, again, Daley was making a clever play on words. To think otherwise requires one to completely ignoreand leave out as you originally didthe phrase about the trick in the key sentence.

Also, I do not recall ever saying that you said that I was wrong. It was I who said that you are wrong. In fact, Im pretty sure I wrote, absolutely wrong. Thats because, well, it is my contention that you are absolutely wrong about this, and all of the factual evidence is on my side. All of it. You just choose to dismiss it all because it doesnt fall into your paradigm.

Frankly Glenn I dont care what you recall your father telling you about Triumph. I only care what the creator of the trick said. Dai Vernon called the trick Triumph. I only care about decades of printed record referring to trick as Triumph. If Vernon and Daley both knew that the shuffle was called Triumph first, where are the subsequent comments stating this? (Other than yours of course; we know where they are.)

Are you trying to tell me that in 50 years Dai Vernon never wanted to set the record straight about the name of his shuffle?

Thats just plain ol [censored] Glenn. (Hey Cugel, was that folksy enough fer ya?!? ;) )

Again, I dont care what you want to call the shuffle. But please stop saying that the trick was named for the shuffle. If anything, its the other way around and all the evidenceexcept for your spin on the endorsement and your fatherly recollectionspoints in that direction. Im sorry, but your spin and fatherly recollections simply do not stand up to actual facts. (By the way, Ive discovered throughout the years that my late father was wrong about many things. Its a bummer, but it happens.)

Cugel.

Cugel, Cugel, Cugel.

Of the folks here who I thought had the thickest skin, I would have bet it all on you.

When one reads the post of yours to which I refer alone, I absolutely can be taken to task for reading more into it than was there. However, in my own defense, I was taking into consideration other sentiments of yours such as:

There is a key difference between a slop shuffle and a strip out shuffle when working for a lay audience. A difference that makes the strip out superior.

And:

But the methodology that follows to achieve the Triumph effect is one of the weakest.

And in particular:

So method is irrelevant? I think not.

Because you seem hung up on method and after reading Not too taxing, sleight-wise, I leapt to the conclusion thatfor youmethod and difficulty overlap.

Since I apparently came to the wrong conclusion, you have my apologies. But I hope you can see how I came to that conclusion.

Brad,

So what is the turd? Hopefully not the magicians who choose to do the Slop Shuffle (because that would include Jay Ose and I know you arent going there).

The way I read theres no point in setting a diamond in a turd (particularly in the context of this thread) is this way: The diamond is the effectTriumphand the turd is an inferior methodthe Slop Shuffle in this case.

Where did I go afoul?

Jon T: Im just going to ignore you on this one. :)


Richard Kaufman wrote:Dustin does have a very full life.


That might be nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. Thank you Richard.


My sincere thanks to all those who got the point of that whole exercise: It was not my intention to push any buttons. I just thought it would help lighten things up a bit.

We can get back to arguing now.

Dustin

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 10th, 2009, 9:44 pm

Or I can lock the damn thread and STOP THE SUFFERING.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 10th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Anyone trying out that routine with the allbacks and a color change as described by Glenn?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Glenn Bishop » April 10th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Dustin Stinett wrote:Of course, you are wrong because its just an endorsement, just like all the endorsements the tricks got in the first three series.

Sorry Dustin the quote still talks about the "false shuffle and just mentioned the trick that can be done with the false shuffle.

And the quote "still" comes way before the text you mentioned and it is boxed and Italicized to place it as important information ahead of the secondary information that goes into further advertising to sell the manuscript.

And as I said none of this makes me wrong - I only have a different opinion.

Glenn Bishop wrote:I think there is always a danger when quotes are taken out of context that they can get misunderstood. Especially when the full quote is not represented.


Dustin Stinett wrote:Really?!?

I will point out again that, the first time you cited it, you left out a key phrase from the quoteyou know, the one about the trick:

Yes Dustin - because I thought that you being such a historian that you would have the ability to look up the full quote on your own. However when El Mystico posted - not the quote that was in my Stars of magic - or my Dads old manuscript - I decided to post the full quote.

And I sill agree with it. Nothing has changed my opinion except that I do not agree with this snotty attitude displayed by you and other - just because we each have a different opinion.
Dustin Stinett wrote:The key sentence in the endorsement is not Daleys fascination with false shuffles (even though you want it to be). The key sentence is this (as Im pretty sure Ive pointed out before):

In this manuscript, Dai Vernon - the greatest living card expert is releasing an amazing card trick utilizing this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities.

Sorry Dustin I don't agree because I think that this amazing card trick I think was published before using the slop shuffle.

And what makes this way of doing it that was published in the stars of magic interesting and perhaps ground breaking for it's day was that Vernon worked out a way to do it with a simplified false shuffle that was in my opinion new and ground breaking at the time. And by the quote I would have the opinion that Dr. Daley thought that it was worth while.
Dustin Stinett wrote:Dai Vernon released an amazing card trick called Tiumph. It utilizes a new false shuffle with many possibilities


That is very nice Dustin however "still" that is not the way it reads in my stars of magic - and countless other books of stars of magic - and that is also not the way it reads in my dads original manuscript.

Dustin Stinett wrote:Also, I do not recall ever saying that you said that I was wrong. It was I who said that you are wrong. In fact, Im pretty sure I wrote, absolutely wrong. Thats because, well, it is my contention that you are absolutely wrong about this, and all of the factual evidence is on my side. All of it. You just choose to dismiss it all because it doesnt fall into your paradigm.

That is funny Dustin - do I have to add - that the Daley quote still is before the text that you mentioned. And it is boxed and in bold and italicized. And as I said above had the advertising text that you mentioned came first - I might agree with you. However "it doesn't".
Dustin Stinett wrote:Frankly Glenn I dont care what you recall your father telling you about Triumph. I only care what the creator of the trick said. Dai Vernon called the trick Triumph. I only care about decades of printed record referring to trick as Triumph. If Vernon and Daley both knew that the shuffle was called Triumph first, where are the subsequent comments stating this? (Other than yours of course; we know where they are.)

Ok Dustin - I wonder what you would tell him if he was the guy that showed you Triumph. And it was handed down to him from Vernon - Remember what I said about the old school magicians and when they show me a trick and then tell me the information that they know about the trick - and the part about - when this happened "I" take their word for it. And then to be backed up by the published quote of Dr Daley.

And plus - My Dad wan't just "any" magician - he performed in the top night spots of his day. Plus he knew just about every "great" performing magician that was "working" at the time.

Dustin Stinett wrote:Thats just plain ol [censored] Glenn. (Hey Cugel, was that folksy enough fer ya?

Oh really Dustin - does this make you right? Why don't you take a vote?
Dustin Stinett wrote:Again, I dont care what you want to call the shuffle. But please stop saying that the trick was named for the shuffle. If anything, its the other way around and all the evidenceexcept for your spin on the endorsement and your fatherly recollectionspoints in that direction. Im sorry, but your spin and fatherly recollections simply do not stand up to actual facts. (By the way, Ive discovered throughout the years that my late father was wrong about many things. Its a bummer, but it happens.)


Gee Dustin in my opinion the history of magic "was" mostly "fatherly recollections" - I suggest you read some of the Vernon Touch in Genii. Or some of the other Vernon stuff where he talks about his life in magic.

And if I may add - you did not know my Dad - I happen to have known him and quite a few other full time and respected full time performers of those days - I can tell you don't respect him or me by the tone of your above posts and the other posts in this and in other threads.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 10th, 2009, 10:37 pm

There's something about trying to be right in public (or even in private) with others that tends to put others off.

You can be right with yourself in public but when you try to be right with others you might wind up right by yourself.
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on April 10th, 2009, 10:39 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: that's doing the first half of triumph with words.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Glenn Bishop » April 10th, 2009, 10:41 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:You can be right with yourself in public but when you try to be right with others you might wind up right by yourself.


Very well said Jon - thanks for posting this.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 10th, 2009, 10:55 pm

That's essentially a quote from a friend. He's got a way with words that puts my attempts to shame.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5913
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Bill Mullins » April 10th, 2009, 11:09 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Or I can lock the damn thread and STOP THE SUFFERING.


Frank Costanza said it best: "SERENITY NOW!"

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 10th, 2009, 11:26 pm

Funny, given that Serenity (firefly) got canceled and George got stuck in a miniature version of Sartre's No Exit.

Anyway - do we have some feedback on triumph versus inverto or cheek to cheek for lay audience reaction?

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2009, 11:46 pm

Well Glenn, I guess this is another one we have to agree to disagree about (and passionately so). I suspectand hopethat one day we will find something upon which we can agree.

Dustin

PS: I do not disrespect you or your father. Im sorry to have given you that implication.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 10th, 2009, 11:49 pm

Is this supposed to be hysterical, historical or just traumatic?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2009, 11:51 pm

Yes

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 11th, 2009, 12:09 am

Done.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine


Return to “Close-Up Magic”