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.
Cugel seems to believe that whats important is how difficult the sleight of hand is while performing the effect
Richard Kaufman wrote:No, Jonathan, we discuss method here with NO problem. We are not ruining anyone's fun.
Glenn Bishop wrote:Hi Jim here is the story on Reverso as I remember it.
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?
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.
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.
Ric Carpenter wrote: Is an angel male or female?
Ric Carpenter wrote: Is an angel male or female?
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.
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.
Jane, you ignorant slut
-Dan Akroyd
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".
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.
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.
Richard Kaufman wrote:Dustin does have a very full life.
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.
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:
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.
Dustin Stinett wrote:Dai Vernon released an amazing card trick called Tiumph. It utilizes a new false shuffle with many possibilities
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.
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.)
Dustin Stinett wrote:Thats just plain ol [censored] Glenn. (Hey Cugel, was that folksy enough fer ya?
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.)
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.
Richard Kaufman wrote:Or I can lock the damn thread and STOP THE SUFFERING.