Triumph

[Glenn Bishop]

"Triumph" is not a false shuffle. "Triumph" is an effect. The proof is in the text.

Dustin

Sorry Dustin - I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that there is no such thing as the "triumph" shuffle?

As I said above the "trick" that has been come to be known as Triumph can be done with the Zarrow shuffle. It is OK with me if magicians want call all these variations including methods done with the slop shuffle or the flip flop shuffle triumph.

However they do not use the "Triumph" shuffle to do the trick and in my opinion - I wouldn't call them triumph. In my opinion they are only variations of the Vernon Triumph using the "Triumph shuffle".

However doing the trick - face up face down mix - right the deck - selected card is the only one face up using the slop shuffle method as Jay Ose performed it - might be older than Triumph. If it was published "first" - If so the trick might be - or perhaps - should it be called that name? And perhaps using the triumph shuffle might be just one more way to do that trick?

I agree with Dr. Daley about the Triumph shuffle that comes "before" what George Starke wrote the text reads (in my opinion) that way to "sell" the manuscript to magicians. I don't think that magicians would buy - in those days - a manuscript on a riffle shuffle without some kind of a trick to go with it.

Just my opinion

And as for Glenn's suggestion that Triumph is the name of the shuffle and not the effect; Dustin's covered what was written in Stars of Magic. Here is what Vernon himself has to say, on the Revelations DVDs.
"George Karger said, "Well, show me one of the tricks," and I did Triumph for him. Of course it didn't have any name at the time, and he said, "What can we call that trick?" and my little boy Derek, he was only 7 years old, he was standing watching the proceedings sand he said, "Dad, that's your triumph in't it, why don't you call it Triumph."
Dustin said it, I'll repeat it. Triumph is an effect.

Nice story - Vernon told lots of nice stories didn't he.

Sorry - Triumph has become known as a trick in my opinion - that can be done with "The Triumph shuffle" and the "effect" is the experience or the "effect of magic" that is "experienced" by the "performance of the trick for an "audience".

There are lots of coin assemblies in magic to - using coins and cards. Not all of them are called Matrix - and Matrix wasn't the first coin assembly using coins and cards - check out Bobo's coin book. However a "lot" of them are "called" matrix.

Just my opinion.

[Steve Bryant]

Vernon told me the same thing, in person, hence I agree that Triumph is, correctly, the name of the effect. But given that the shuffle was introduced in print by Vernon in the context of that effect, I also see nothing incorrect in calling the shuffle the Triumph shuffle. That wasn't quite Glenn's point, but I see no confusion in calling it that.

By the way, when Vernon told me the story, he mentioned that he didn't even know that his son knew the word "triumph," so the suggestion pleased him all the more.

And wow: Tom Stone's dueling magicians take on Triumph is brilliant. He is thinking on a higher plane than the rest of us.

[El Mystico]

The trouble is, Glenn, when, in your opinion, black is white, as is the case here here, it means people are going to pay less attention to your opinion on other matters

Just my opinion

[NCMarsh]

However doing the trick - face up face down mix - right the deck - selected card is the only one face up using the slop shuffle method as Jay Ose performed it - might be older than Triumph. If it was published "first" - If so the trick might be - or perhaps - should it be called that name? And perhaps using the triumph shuffle might be just one more way to do that trick?

A decent hunk of my library, including The Charlatan's Handbook, is in storage -- unfortunately. But I am fairly sure that the Slop Shuffle was Sid Lorraine's and that it came about after Stars of Magic. Can anyone confirm?

N.

[Philippe Billot]

The Slop Shuffle was published in 1937 and Triumph was published in 1946 but Inverto by DeLand was marketed in 1914 and Reversed Card by Jordan was published in 1920.

[NCMarsh]

Thank you Phillipe. I stand corrected. What was the effect of Deland's Inverto?

[Philippe Billot]

Pitch by Walter Gibson in Conjurers' Magazine, vol. 1, N 1, 1945

DeLand began by dealing a card face down on the table, then turning the next face up. another face down, face up, and so on until the whole pack had thus been dealt in overlapping fashion. The spread was then gathered and the pack squared; a simple riffle and the cards were spread again, revealing the fact that the turned up cards had reversed themselves, the entire pack now being face down!


The so-call Triumph Shuffle was the strip-out shuffle already explained in the XIX century but Vernon added a finesse which was a bloc transfer

[Jim Maloney]

There's also Leipzig's "Reverso" in there somewhere. I don't have an exact date, but it would, naturally, need to be prior to 1939.

-Jim

[Jim Maloney]

Philippe -- did the DeLand trick also include short cards in the manner of a Svengali Deck to allow a riffle display of the faces? What you described is essentially the Leipzig trick, though Leipzig's had the additional feature I mentioned.

-Jim

[Michael Kamen]

Well, this is very interesting and helpful. Thank you Mr. Bilot. Unless your chronology is challenged, I have been ascribing the "Triumph" effect to Mr. Vernon all these years. Clearly he gave it a great name, but only representing the theme he chose for the presentation. Mr. Bishop has a point then, that what Vernon added (apart from the theme) was a take on a method, which was virtually launched as the "Triumph" shuffle, creating an ambiguity that has confused many of us and worked to enhance Vernon's reputation.

Too cynical an interpretation perhaps, but I am having a late breakfast today.

[Philippe Billot]

We can say Vernon really created Triumph because he made a combination with Reversed Cards and a revelation. That is the only card which doesn't right itself is the choosen card.

[Michael Kamen]

Thanks for clarifying. I was assuming the early version you mentioned did that too. Mr. Vernon is redeemed in my eyes.

[Brad Henderson]

Brad,

You keep talking about which shuffle is the best randomizer, but in Triumph, the point of the shuffle is not to randomize the cards but merely to mix them face up and face down. How efficiently the shuffle randomizes is not a significant factor.

As I understand it, Cugel and Brad are convinced the riffle has an advantage over the slop shuffle in this effect, because it gives the impression of a more thorough mixing, and hence makes the unmixing seem even more impossible.
But if you follow that logic, why aren't they using the faro shuffle for this effect? Surely that represents a more thorough mixing than the riffle? You can point out that each and every card gets interleaved.
I suspect the answer is, that they feel it doesnt make a damn bit of difference whether it is a riffle or a faro.... which is how a lot of us feel about the slop v riffle debate...

Actually, no.

I do think the randomization process is part of the effect. A faro is not a random shuffle, it is a controlled shuffle. In my mind, part of the impressiveness of the condition is the fact that there is/was apparently no control over which cards are face up/face down and where they may be distributed. If you knew every other card was face up, straightening them out would be far less of an impressive task.

So, I do think the randomization factor - "He couldn't know what cards were where or how they were" - is important. And I completely understand how some people may find these issues irrelevant or uninteresting. To them I would suggest reading and posting on another thread.

I do think value can come out of these discussions.

Over-analysis may (and I stress "may") uncover ideas that have not been previously considered, but does not necessarily bring the discernment needed to determine what is practical, commercial, or worth spending the time learning to perform in a professional setting, especially if one loses sight of the reason for performing in the first place.

Of course, theory must be tested in practical performance. But one could easily throw up the straw man argument that "practice" MAY lead to improvement. It doesn't always. But it might.

The key is in practicing wisely. Likewise, analysis can get overblown and lead to impractical ideas, but isn't it better to have several ideas to try and test than none at all?

Finally, I meant to comment on this:

How it is objectively has little to do with an art that is all about imagination.

I guess it is possible to put a small coin on a table, then direct six high-energy lasers towards it, and with a short blast cause the coin to blink out of existence... But a simple false transfer would still be considered equally or more mindboggling, even though it, objectively, is inferior.

People will add the missing parts themselves, and once they've filled in the gaps, their beliefs will carry more conviction than anything else. That's how people work.

Tom is shifting the argument to how an effect is seemingly accomplished as opposed to the conditions of that effect under which it is accomplished. I think a false transfer, done smartly, can be just as convincing if not more so than the laser scenario.

(Having said that, I think if you pointed a laser at the closed fist, no one would believe for a moment the laser annihilated the coin. They would still be impressed at your skill. If you wanted them to believe the laser ACTUALLY accomplished the vanish, then I think you might need to have it visibly disintegrate OR allow me to conclude on my own that the laser was the motive force (more on that later). But even without the visible disintegration, you have a good and deceptive trick and your audiences will be amused with tale you tell. But I don't think anyone but a child will buy into the notion that the laser did it.)

And this is where theory and practice become important. There are times when a condition is too good - too perfect, dare I say - where it detracts from the impact of an effect.

Being convinced that a dollar bill is in an envelope that is on fire is probably better than setting the dollar bill aflame uncovered. Tom is right - people do add
missing parts - and when they do this on their own volition, those conclusions are the most powerful which we can build on.

By making something visible, they are not required to participate in the deception. It either "is" or it "isn't". And when the impossible occurs, they may conclude that it "wasn't" even if they saw that it "was". Because, afterall, that is the only possible explanation.

How much better then to set up a situation where their conclusions - which they drew themselves - reinforce the core beliefs on which the conditions are based. When they draw them on their own conclusion, they cannot backtrack and doubt them. They are working from a set of conditions which they have never had the chance to question - they created those conditions in their own mind. They have skewered themselves.

So, if you want me to believe that a laser made the coin disappear, you might actually need to show me. Of course, then I might attribute it to science and not magic.

But if you want me to believe the dollar is really burned, then you need to lead me to draw that conclusion on my own.

Brad Henderson

[Dustin Stinett]

Sorry Dustin - I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that there is no such thing as the "triumph" shuffle?

I will say this just one more time (and yes, I am shouting at the top of my lungs):

NOWHERE IN THE TEXT OF THE SHUFFLE OR THE TRICK IS THE SHUFFLE EVER REFERRED TO AS THE "TRIUMPH SHUFFLE."

[size:14pt][color:#990000]NOWHERE![/color][/size]

[size:17pt][color:#990000]EVER!!![/color][/size]

The sleight is called "Dai Vernon's False Shuffle." That's what I'm saying. That's what I've said. And that's what the written record supports. I'm not guessing or forming an opinion. I am stating an absolute unequivocal fact.

Of course, you can call it whatever you want. It's just that the text of the shuffle and the trick does not support your belief.

Dustin

PS: You're doing this to me on purpose aren't you? :/

[Jonathan Townsend]

Glenn, kindly refer to the trick as published in The Stars of Magic.

When Vernon wanted to publish "a coin vanish" he did so without the fuss of a trick or presentation to distract the reader (see Bobo's) - so if he wanted to publish a false shuffle for its own sake ...

The shuffle itself, "The Triumph Shuffle" as taught in that trick is not so much the subject here as we are discussing approaches to accomplishing and presenting the effect and Kent's offering in particular.

Sorry Dustin, that might be my bad - I was trying to accommodate another poster on this thread.

Did Vernon publish any other false shuffles? I'm asking as since you mentioned that the original writeup had the term capitalized it might be useful to call it something like Vernon's False Shuffle. From the way he let his handling of the retention pass into print in Bobo's Modern Coin Magic as "A Coin Vanish" we might want to respect his wishes on this matter of his shuffle.

[Dustin Stinett]

No Jonathan, Glenn has called it The Triumph Shuffle several times. And to the pointif Im reading him correctlythat any variation that uses another shuffle is not really Triumph. This, of course, is simply wrong because the trick is not named after the shuffle and nor is the shuffle named after the trick. The trick has a name: Triumph. It uses a false shuffle called Dai Vernons False Shuffle.

I have no problemat allthat Glenn or anyone else wants to call the shuffle The Triumph Shuffle. After all, how many of us are guilty of calling The Ghost Count the Elmsley Count? Of course, this has grown to be the accepted namethe same cannot be said for Vernons shuffle; at least not in the mainstream of magic.

But the disconnect here is that Glenn seems to think that the effect was named for the sleight, and that is just plain wrong. There is zero evidence to support this thought. In fact, all the evidence supports only the opposite. The effect is Triumph and it has many variants now.

Dustin

[Brad Henderson]

In Glenn's defense (though it does not make it right) I will mention that I have heard several well posted card men make a similar argument. I think this is of course undone by both common usage of the terms as well as the information shared by Dustin. But Glenn is not alone in holding those beliefs.

I so think it is important to consider the shuffle as a unique entity, and "Triumph shuffle" has become attached to the process. So, to distinguish between the Triumph shuffle and the Triumph effect may be a smart thing to do for clarity sake.

Brad

[Glenn Bishop]

No Jonathan, Glenn has called it The Triumph Shuffle several times. And to the pointif Im reading him correctlythat any variation that uses another shuffle is not really Triumph.

Well Dustin - that is sort of my opinion on Triumph. That the trick triumph in my opinion is only triumph if it uses the triumph shuffle. However there have been many variations of the trick called triumph that have been inspired by the Vernon classic - just as there have been a lot of coin assemblies with Matrix in the name that were inspired by Matrix.

However in my opinion - they are different and should be called in my opinion variations of the same idea.

And if I may add that "every" one of the older magicians that were into cards that I knew when I was growing up as a kid in magic - called the shuffle for triumph - the triumph shuffle. And had the same opinion as I do about the trick that has become known as Triumph.

Here is some interesting things that I have found in doing the triumph shuffle. With it is also some opinion that should be taken with a grain of salt because it is only hear-say.

The triumph shuffle the way Vernon did it in the book the stars of magic is what I would call a one card block transfer shuffle. In the classic manuscript there is a two shuffle false shuffle using the one card block transfer shuffle to false shuffle the deck (using two shuffles).

This one card block transfer to replace the push through for a false shuffle in my opinion is an innovation.

Later the manuscript is how to do a card trick where the deck is shuffled face up and face down - cards righted and the selected card is the only card face up. This is done also with a one card block transfer - at the right time to accomplish the trick.

Later on this became the root of a way that I published to stack four aces from the bottom using the table double cut and by using the triumph shuffle - and block transfer four cards instead of just one to accomplish the stacking of four aces from the bottom of the deck.

The bonus was that it was a false shuffle and I found that because it was a false shuffle It solved many problems of stacking deep that I have had with other riffle shuffle techniques.

Then I went on to work out many culling and stacking techniques using the same shuffle.

I think that the root of the shuffle could be based in the block transfer shuffle and culling and shuffle work - but the idea of blocking over one card instead of doing the push through - making the shuffle "simplified" was very ground breaking and an innovation in my opinion.

That is why I think that Dr. Daley was right in saying that in the way that I read his quote that the shuffle was a "triumph".

And yes Dustin - nowhere in the Stars of magic does it call the shuffle work - in the Triumph manuscript - a one card block transfer shuffle - but that is also my opinion.

Just my opinion.

[NCMarsh]

Interesting that, according to Johnny Thompson at least, Vernon did not use the "Triumph" shuffle when performing Triumph...

[Glenn Bishop]

Interesting that, according to Johnny Thompson at least, Vernon did not use the "Triumph" shuffle when performing Triumph...

Yes - that is a classic story that a lot of the older magicians told about Triumph - the written technique that was published in the "Stars of magic" was not complete.

According to my dad and most of his friends "Vernon did it different - and there were a few points of the shuffle that were missing in the manuscript.

Just as many say that the Steven's cull in the first book called Revelations is wrong. When tricks are explained on paper in publishing - sometimes little things can be left out.

If I remember right when I saw Johnny Thompson do the trick called triumph at a lecture - I think he did it the way my Dad did and a lot of the older magicians did.

Just my opinion.

[Dustin Stinett]

Starke convinced Vernon to change several things in Stars of Magic to make them "easier." Cutting the Aces is probably the best known of those since (if I recall correctly) Vernon speaks of it in the "Revelations" videos.

Dustin

[El Mystico]

Right again, Dustin. Vernon's actual handling was printed in the Lost Inner Secrets series.

[Philippe Billot]

Philippe -- did the DeLand trick also include short cards in the manner of a Svengali Deck to allow a riffle display of the faces? What you described is essentially the Leipzig trick, though Leipzig's had the additional feature I mentioned.

-Jim

Sorry for my late answer:

DeLand's trick is simply a tricked deck with twenty-six double back.

Regarding the Triumph Shuffle, what everybody think about that :

Quote from 1947.

"Ever Since Dai Vernon presented his effect of shuffling face up and face down cards into each other, I have been using this version of the effect on the Vernon followers and fooling the devil out of them, simply because they waited for the strip out shuffle which did not come."

[Glenn Bishop]

There's also Leipzig's "Reverso" in there somewhere. I don't have an exact date, but it would, naturally, need to be prior to 1939.

-Jim

I thought the Leipzig trick "Reverso" was an "all backs" routine using the sevengali deck principal.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Ah the days when you could take out a Fox Lake deck of bridge Aviators and not get a laugh.

Is "reverso" the one where you alternate dealing face up and face down cards or the one where you get a chosen card (from the top half) to suddenly appear reversed in the pack? Been a while on that stuff.

Okay- what's the big differnece between the False Shuffle as taught in The Stars of Magic and the way it was writen up later?

[Jim Maloney]

Thanks, Philippe. Sounds like Leipzig took the DeLand trick and modified it to get a better display at the end (spread to show all backs, then flip through to show the faces).

Glenn, Reverso is definitely in the "Triumph" genre. It's is definitely not an all-backs routine. As in the DeLand trick, you deal the cards alternately face up and face down, then you pick them up, respread, and they are all facing in the same direction. The Svengali principle was used to allow a display of the faces at the end.

-Jim

[Richard Kaufman]

The DeLand Trick was called "Inverto." It was the first time that a double-backed card was ever used within a deck of cards for a card trick in the US.

DeLand invented the double-backed card on his own and did not realize he had been preceeded by Hofzinser just over 50 years earlier. DeLand first used it in the Two-Card Monte and exposed it at the end! He didn't realize its power until he invented "Inverto," with which he fooled everyone because it never ocurred to anyone that you could use a double-backed card in a trick involving a deck. (This is about 1914.)

"Inverto" is described by DeLand in two ways (one in the instruction sheet, the other in The Sphinx): one in which every other card is short, like a Svengali, and one in which all the cards are the same length.

I am not sure if "Inverto" is the first self-righting deck. But it would be helpful if anyone found one prior to 1914.

[Jim Maloney]

Thanks Richard. From what you're saying, it doesn't seem as if Leipzig added much, if anything, to what DeLand had.

-Jim

[Glenn Bishop]

Glenn, Reverso is definitely in the "Triumph" genre. It's is definitely not an all-backs routine. As in the DeLand trick, you deal the cards alternately face up and face down, then you pick them up, respread, and they are all facing in the same direction. The Svengali principle was used to allow a display of the faces at the end.

-Jim

Sorry Jim I am talking about the "Reverso" that was published in the Vernon on Leipzig book. This is a routine that uses the svengali deck principal to do an "all backs" and "faces" kind of routine - I had a friend make me up a deck and I did it for a while in my restaurant work.

If I remember right there is no shuffle work involving face up and face down cards in the Reverso routine. I found it more like the blank deck or what was sold as the Mental Photo deck (without the rough smooth) - or the Marshall Brodien deck of Mystery cards - that was a svengali blank deck.

[Jim Maloney]

Glenn,
I am talking about the same routine as you. It is NOT an all-backs/all-faces routine. You may be doing something different with it, but what Leipzig did was most definitely in the Triumph genre. No, there was no shuffle involved, but it was still a "magical righting of face-up/face-down cards".

This is, as noted above, the DeLand trick from 1914.

-Jim

[David Alexander]

I have the Leipzig book on my desk. As described, a deck made up of twenty-six ordinary cards and 26 double-backed cards spaced alternately. As it was cut on the Svengali principle he could show the deck to appear to have faces.

Holding the deck back up in the left hand, the first card back up (double back) is delt back up, the second card turned over so it is face up and so on throughout the pack.

Spreading the back betwen the hands Leipzig was able to show alternating faces and back.

Leipzig would, according to the book, square the pack, then holding it in his left hand would slap it with his right. Turning it over he spread it between his hands to show that the cards had righted themsvles to show all backs. After squaring the pack Leipzig turned it with the faces to the specators and performed the Svengali move to show all faces. After that, it went into the case and into his pocket.

According to the book, Leipzig liked the trick and got a lot of effect out of it.

[Richard Kaufman]

It's DeLand's "Inverto," invented and marketed in 1914.

[Jim Maloney]

Yes, those are the correct details, David. And it is without question DeLand's creation. Leipzig appears to have used it exactly as DeLand described in his instructions. It's not the only marketed item he used in his repertoire, as Nate was also quite fond of "Albaka", a creation (naturally) of Al Baker's.

Vernon/Ganson appear to have dropped the ball in terms of crediting this.

-Jim

[Glenn Bishop]

Yes, those are the correct details, David. And it is without question DeLand's creation. Leipzig appears to have used it exactly as DeLand described in his instructions.
-Jim

Well Jim - it seems that sometimes people did not credit - for whatever reason. And often things are left out. This is only hear-say because the magician that told me this has left us.

After looking at the routine in the book last night - I would say that the routine was not complete the way that it was written for the book.

I would guess that the routine in the book might not be the complete routine that Leipzig used. Or perhaps the one I do that the magician that told me this story - showed me - perhaps this has an added kicker that Leipzig may have added later that he kept to himself - or that wasn't published.

You can call it a deck righting itself if you want to - but to me it is a very short and strong "all backs". Using the svengali deck principal. Where the deck rights itself after turning "all backs".

Just my opinion.

[Jim Maloney]

Glenn,
There is quite frankly no indication that Leipzig incorporated any kind of all backs phase into this routine. Period. There is also no reason to believe that anything is missing from the routine as described. Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise, any assertion that there might be is pure speculation.

The book is most definitely flawed and incomplete in many areas (including a number of other missed credits). However, nothing in my research so far has caused me to question what was recorded for "Reverso", aside from the fact that DeLand was not given any credit. As stated earlier, it was not unusual for Leipzig to use a marketed effect as-is: he did the same with "Albaka".

I'm glad that you're able to incorporate an all-backs phase to the routine, but there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Leipzig did the same.

-Jim

[Jonathan Townsend]

Jim, you'd think that Leipzig would have explored using his colorchange to announce the righting of the pack and also at least tried the allbacks as a sort of nickle-laugh right before he put the pack away. If the last card dealt was a face card card (and I believe you can do a riffle shuffle without messing up the pairs) then a colorchange to make a face appear - then turn over the pack to show all the backs aligned seems pretty strong.

Kinda tempting to see about putting a set together as OLD cards found in the bottom of the magic box and find out how it plays.

[Jim Maloney]

Is it possible that he experimented with alternative handlings? Sure. Is there any evidence to suggest such? No.

-Jim

[Glenn Bishop]

There is quite frankly no indication that Leipzig incorporated any kind of all backs phase into this routine. Period. There is also no reason to believe that anything is missing from the routine as described. Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise, any assertion that there might be is pure speculation.

Jim I don't care if you take my word for it or not. Period. As I said in the above post - the magician that showed me this routine has passed on. Period. - and in my case - I grew up around a lot of these old magicians that people like you tend to like to write about. Period.

I remember meeting David Charvet at the Chicago collectors convention quite a few years ago. I told him a story about Jack Gwynne about the temple and that Jack used it as a Doll house with the swords - then he started to do it more like the sword box - later on when he was working night clubs and in some night clubs - there is no place to load the girl.

He said - something like - I wish I had that story for the book.

Gwynne told me that story and I take his word for it - even when it wasn't written up in some book - so someone like you and Dustin can say it is a fact. Period!

Now the magician that showed me this Leipzig routine said that It was Leipzig's. I don't know if he was just saying that - but considering who he was - I took his word for it.

And he was one of the "many" magicians that I knew - when I was growing up in magic. And many of them - "should I name drop?" were performing and knew the "back-story" of what was being published - and like today - magicians talk - but I don't think that a lot of what they talked about was published!

The book is most definitely flawed and incomplete in many areas (including a number of other missed credits). However, nothing in my research so far has caused me to question what was recorded for "Reverso", aside from the fact that DeLand was not given any credit. As stated earlier, it was not unusual for Leipzig to use a marketed effect as-is: he did the same with "Albaka".

Yes. And I have been told that the Malini book was also "flawed". And if I may add - I suggest that you research the possibilities - before taking such a high stance of just saying NO. And then saying the ridicules statement below that I put the all - backs part into the routine.

I'm glad that you're able to incorporate an all-backs phase to the routine, but there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Leipzig did the same.

-Jim

I am sorry - but as I said above - I take no credit for the all-backs routine of Reverso and I did not come up with this routine - and the magician that showed me the routine also - took no credit - he said it was Leipzig's.

There was a time that I thought about putting the routine out through the magic shop - however since I was using it at the time I decided not to. I still have no desire to put the routine out - I only let you in on this because - in my opinion - Published works" are often flawed.

A lot of what many magicians claim as "fact" - from a lot of what is in publishing - to me is just another story.

By the way - I know some un-published work of other magicians as well - what you think about that - I don't care!

Just my opinion.

[El Mystico]

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.
So - why shouldn't he have some inside tips and handlings, from the people we respect?
I can think of many other magicians who, if they posted unpublished handlings by the masters, would command a huge amount of interest.
I sense and understand his frustration.

On the other hand, it's like I said a few post back - he was so adamant about Triumph being the name of the shuffle rather than the effect, despite ALL evidence to the contrary, he has just set himself up as being totally unreliable.

Second, there is a lot of doubt in my mind, since he seems reluctant to say who it was who told him this handling, when I can't see any good reason for withholding this detail.

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.

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


Oh, PS - the Leipzig and malini books are completely different things. I've written elsewhhere on this - while the Leipzig book says Vernon got the details from Leipzig himself, it is clear in the Malini book that Vernon was reconstructing things he saw.

[Jim Maloney]

Glenn,
I assure you, I have done quite a bit of research on Nate Leipzig. When I state something as fact, it's because I have evidence to back it up. Until other evidence to the contrary show up, that's what I'll stick with. But I am more than happy to reconsider my views when new evidence is presented.

You had not made it clear earlier that another magician had shown you the all-backs routine and credited it to Leipzig. That was why I assumed that part was your own interpretation of the routine. I don't think my statement was in any way "ridiculous".

Certainly oral history plays a part in documenting our past, though it can often be muddied, especially many years after the fact. I would, of course, be interested in knowing who your source is, despite the fact that he is no longer with us. Putting a name to the source can help to evaluate the veracity of the information provided. For example, a nugget of info from Dai Vernon would carry much more weight than some random magician that never even met Leipzig. Without knowing your source, I can't put any weight on the claim.

I want you to understand, I am very interested in anything Leipzig did, or may have done. I've spent a good deal of time following up on hints and teases about what might have been; some of which has been fruitful, and some has not. But in order to properly evaluate information, I have to consider the source. I would very much appreciate it if you could share the info on who showed this to you so that I might investigate the matter further if necessary.

Thanks,
Jim