The Genii Forum

I got some great feedback here a while ago.

I've whipped up a new handling. Even if you watched the other one, the technical refinements are worth a watch.

A big shout-out to my pal Steve Dobson, who I forgot to mention in the video. His work is directly responsible for this new version.

I do realize one reference should've been to "Dingle's Deceptions"

Homage - Triumph II


KG

As ever, wonderful stuff.

I guess we will just take your word for it that it was the same card... I'm sure it was, you just never showed it.

It was the same card, my bad.

KG

Of course it was the same card, it was the only one with a red back!

Kent: Great handling, and thanks for showing my Classic Collection volumes. Of course, many don't listen. You clearly said that I'd be coming out with The Classic Collection, Vol. 3 soon - which is true; figuring sometime in Jan. or Feb. But, I've received a number of calls and emails asking to order the book NOW. Well you can, I AM taking orders to RESERVE your copy, which might be a good idea for those who are interested, because I'm printing fewer copies than I usually do - running out of storage space. Best - Harry L.

Harry,

If you can't tell my "presentations" or lack therof are pretty much off the cuff.

I can't believe I said the routine that inspired me was in "My Favorite Card Tricks". Pretty sure it's in "Dingle's Deceptions".

I will be ordering CC 3. Gotta keep those big, fat Lorayne books in complete sets.

I'm off to your site to reserve away.

Thanks for noticing my stuff, means a lot to this old, fat amateur.

KG

Hi Kent: You're right, I wrote up that routine in Dingle's Deception and, yes, that book is being re-written, updated, etc., for TCC, Vol. 3. Can't reserve your copy at my magic site - have to do it via my personal email address (harrylorayne@earthlink.net). Thanks again, Kent. Best - Harry.

nicely done Kent - good work!

Good stuff, Kent!

You fooled my poor sorry butt, rather tidily. Got to get out those books and try to catch up.

Michael,

I tend to give disingenuous information in my videos. The closest version of anything that's in print on that routine is Jared Kopf's "A Open Display of Triumph". If you're a Genii subscriber you can find it pretty quickly in the 2007 . . . November issue, I believe.

I was inspired by the sources I mention in the video. I tend to walk to the beat of a different drummer though. The other important hint is that a Mr. Deland is probably responsible for the other half of the trick that isn't in Mr. Kopf's fine routine.

I still highly recommend both "Dingle's Deceptions"; Lorayne and "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle"; Kaufman. There's more good card magic in the big Dingle book than most other sources. I still can bust out a fair rendition of Color Triumphant to this day.



KG

KG

Ha ha, well once again you fooled me :-)

I was just realizing that there are reasons I cannot keep up with all this stuff (apart from lack of talent), i.e., lack of time. When I retire in a few years (gw) I definitely plan to catch up.

I love the feeling of being totally floored, as I was the first time I watched your video. Thanks Kent. You do nice work.

Kent I have no idea just why you mentioned my name in another video. My choice of what magic I do - and the way that I do magic is very different - and I think that my choice of magic and the way that I choose to do it is also very different from the other people that responded in this thread. But it may also hold true as to the other members on this message board.

My goal is to do magic for people - not magicians.

Everything that I work out - my use of the triumph shuffle - punch work - ace cutting - cups and balls - shellgame - chain of chance - ring on stick - stack of coins and other things.

It is all worked out to solve some kind of a performance problem that I had at one time or another - over the years that I had when I was doing a show - at one time or another.

Anyway - that is my goal.

Perhaps - that is why I am different. Please don't take this the wrong way - but the trick on the video - not my cup of tea.

Cheers!

Glenn,

I referred to you as "The greatest living exponent of the Triumph Shuffle,"

That was a compliment. I'm sorry if it offended you. I'm pretty certain it offended some other people too. I will be more careful in the future.

Magicians are people too, regardless of your opinion. A smart layperson and your average magician have similar sensibilities, except for the smart part. I actually can't tell the difference. They're both people though, I'm certain of that part.

I'm sorry you have had so many performance issues. I'm glad you've resolved them though.

I take the fact that you didn't care for the trick as a compliment though. If you don't like it, I'm probably on the right track, for me.

I will not mention you, by name in any more videos. I was trying to pay you a compliment. You have done that shuffle more than anyone else on earth, I wager. You've found many, many applications for the shuffle. In an odd way you inspired me to work on my own triumph routines.

Kent

OMFG! ROTFLMFAO!

Thank you, Kent. I am truly in awe.

JMD

John M. Dale wrote:OMFG! ROTFLMFAO! JMD

WDTM?

Signed: Ze Frog

Glenn Bishop wrote:Kent I have no idea just why you mentioned my name in another video. My choice of what magic I do - and the way that I do magic is very different - and I think that my choice of magic and the way that I choose to do it is also very different from the other people that responded in this thread. But it may also hold true as to the other members on this message board.

My goal is to do magic for people - not magicians.

Everything that I work out - my use of the triumph shuffle - punch work - ace cutting - cups and balls - shellgame - chain of chance - ring on stick - stack of coins and other things.

It is all worked out to solve some kind of a performance problem that I had at one time or another - over the years that I had when I was doing a show - at one time or another.

Anyway - that is my goal.

Perhaps - that is why I am different. Please don't take this the wrong way - but the trick on the video - not my cup of tea.

Cheers!

Kent - I am not upset or mad or offended in any way. I wondered why because - the way that I look at triumph is that it breaks down into two different applications.

One is the application of using the false shuffle as a way to accomplish the face up face down trick - effect with the selected card or cards.

The second is to use it as a false riffle shuffle - that can also be used for culling, stacking etc. A few things that have found a place in my own work because it has problem solved as I mentioned above.

When I do the face up face down triumph I just do the Dai Vernon routine. Or the flip flop shuffle. I have played around with ether routines using gambling theme but they don't seem to find a way into my show.

When I do card work in my show it is broken down into two sections magic and card shark. I don't do card shark routines that look like magic in the card shark segment. And I don't do magic routines that have a card shark theme in the magic part.

The two different theme's are split into two different parts of the close up show and the bridge that gets me from magic to card shark is the shellgame. Anyway - that works for me and has worked for years.

I am glad I had all the performance problems I have had just because they are an opportunity to be creative. The punch deal was worked out just because I needed a method to do the Jimmy Cards Molinari cull - jog shuffle cull face down. Then after a while I worked out quite a lot of stuff using the idea in different ways - that worked out for me - better for me than the classic way of using the punch with a bridge deal - like Jack Pyle used to do in his act - and showed me.

I liked the trick you did.

Cheers!

I suppose I should also respond to mrgoat.

I take the jet photo as a compliment. I shall explain why? Goat my goals in magic are to perform magic shows for money. I work with clients agents and perform for an audience.

None of them care if I cull with a Stevens cull or the Triumph cull - just as long as the show I do entertains the audience. If I choose to do a cull that evening that is.

I explained this before to you as well - I most often would not choose a something that I would call a complicated routine to do in a magic show. Just because I like to have my attention on the audience.

I remember one of my mentors - Buddy Farnan talked about Dingle and how magicians were in awe of him and how he would do a routine holding ten breaks with his fingers and two more with his knees and blowing them away - then when he did a show for the lay audience he would do card on forehead.

That story changed the way I think about magic mrgoat - you might want to post a picture of the space shuttle because the story might be over your head.

Cheers!

Glenn, Kent's video is for magicians only - and makes no claim on the routine being for lay audiences.

IMHO he was complimenting you on your extensive exploration of the Triumph shuffle - nothing backhanded or even underhanded in pointing out that he was not attemting to do what you do when he shuffled the cards.

Glenn,

I'm glad we're able to communicate without the silliness of the past.

I do admire your ability to work through tricks and improve them for you audiences. The attitude that one can always make the show better and better is awesome.

I suspect many people are a bit jealous of your storied family and all the opportunities to know and session with the greats like Jack Pyle, Don Alan and your own father. That may be where some of the rancor originates.

I know I'm a bit jealous that you've been able to make a living as a full-time performer. I often dreamed of being a magician as a boy. It just never worked out for me. You're living the dream! I can't imagine how much fun it must be. You get to be a small business man and a larger than life magician simultaneously!

I'll keep working on my rendition of Color Triumphant. I think Dingle had a great routine. I still perform it, exactly as written up in "Dingle's Deceptions". I just like to experiment with old ideas. Many magicians have color-changing endings they do. I've seen a very popular British magician . . . Michael Vincent . . . do a very clever handling of the Dingle routine. He's a full-time pro, sort of like you.

I hope you might consider expanding your view of what's available within the Triumph arena.

One form of improvement is to stretch our pre-conceived notions of the magic we do.

It's all about getting better.


Thanks for your feedback and understanding Glenn. I'm glad we can have these nearly adult conversations!!!

Kent

Hi Kent - I loved the book "Dingle's Deceptions" and the book Richard did on Dingle.

I also admire the hard work and skill you have and that you put into the video's that you do Kent.

I never met Dingle but Buddy Farnan my mentor did. He used to know Eddie Fechter. And used to go to Eddie's place and learned magic back in those days. Buddy spent a lot of time teaching me and the way I work is more like him than anyone.

I would not call my life as living a dream - it is more like a nightmare. I am just a small business man as you say looking and working toward larger goals and opportunities.

I agree with what you are saying about expanding - however if I may add - I look at magic through the context of an act or show.

Adding any new routine into the act or show is not easy. Often anything that is added is a gag - a line or a new bit of business. I am one of those guys that will look at something like a monte routine and say to myself - hey I already do three card monte and it is going over - what I need is a bowl routine and then go work on that.

See what I am getting at?

It is all about the act and show. And then the selling of the act and show.

I do love and enjoy magic - but to me it is also a job.

Cheers!

Kent Gunn wrote:Glenn,

I'll keep working on my rendition of Color Triumphant. I think Dingle had a great routine. I still perform it, exactly as written up in "Dingle's Deceptions". I just like to experiment with old ideas. Many magicians have color-changing endings they do. I've seen a very popular British magician . . . Michael Vincent . . . do a very clever handling of the Dingle routine. He's a full-time pro, sort of like you.

I hope you might consider expanding your view of what's available within the Triumph arena.

I used to do color triumph and roll over aces - Cervon's routine and I worked out my own roll over aces but instead of rolling the deck over I used a cutting technique - Cutting to the aces - then spread the piles and did the royal flush ending.

However today I would not choose to do this kind of a trick just because it doesn't fit into the way I like to work.

Kent Gunn wrote:One form of improvement is to stretch our pre-conceived notions of the magic we do.

It's all about getting better.


Thanks for your feedback and understanding Glenn. I'm glad we can have these nearly adult conversations!!!

Kent

I agree I learned a lot working on the two routines that I just mentioned as I did with the triumph shuffle. First culling - then stacking - then cull stacking on the fly - then from a slug - then cull stacking from a slug up to eight cards.

And I must say the techniques have been worth the road trip to work out and learn.

Cheers and Merry Christmas!

Glenn Bishop wrote:I suppose I should also respond to mrgoat.

I take... money. I work with clients ...for an audience.

None of them care...

I like the audience.

I remember ...magician..... on...his knees and b******** them...

That story changed the way I think about magic mrgoat... head.

Cheers!

Thanks! So, your opinion is that technique is meaningless to a lay audience? I agree.

Whenever I perform what idiots call Triumph and you brilliantly call The Face Up Face Down Trick, I always do the slop shuffle version right out of royal road. It's in the hands, it's natural, it's brilliant. Why bother doing loads of technical stuff a regular audience wouldn't care less about? Imagine doing loads and loads of shuffles in a row for an audience LOL How boring LOL!

So thanks for responding to my picture of a plane.

Just *my* opinion.

Damian

mrgoat wrote: Thanks! So, your opinion is that technique is meaningless to a lay audience? I agree.

In my opinion technique for magic most of the time should be invisible (from the point of view of the audience) - and for card shark demonstrations technique can be visible - invisible - or it can be visible and used to shade a secondary technique that the performer might want hide from the audience and be invisible.

I would also add - it also depends on the performer and how they choose to work - the performers skill - what the performer is doing and the performing situation.

mrgoat wrote:Whenever I perform what idiots call Triumph and you brilliantly call The Face Up Face Down Trick, I always do the slop shuffle version right out of royal road. It's in the hands, it's natural, it's brilliant. Why bother doing loads of technical stuff a regular audience wouldn't care less about? Imagine doing loads and loads of shuffles in a row for an audience LOL How boring LOL!

So thanks for responding to my picture of a plane.

Just *my* opinion.

Damian

I call Vernons routine the trick that has become known as Triumph. I still use it and the flop shuffle. I also can do several triumph poker deals and other triumph routines that are 4 ace triumphs.

mrgoat wrote:Whenever I perform what idiots call Triumph...

Over the years Triumph has become the name of an effect, just as Out of this World and Ambitious Card have become the names of their respective effects (as have many others, regardless of technique, routine structure, etc.). A book has been written about the effect known as Triumph. A book has been written about the effect known as Out of this World. Anyone who believes otherwise has not been paying attention. Or perhaps they are just idiots.

Dustin

Dustin, perhaps you should reread goat's post with the implied sarcasm. He was referring to Glenn's new name for "triumph" i.e. "face up face down trick".

I'm sick and tired of Damian's sarcasm. It's all he seems to know how to do these days.

I agree with both of Dustin's posts.

And if I may add I also do not agree that technique is lost or meaningless to the lay audience. In my opinion there are many people in the lay audience that watch magic "just" to see if they "can" catch the magician's technique.

Meaningless is not a word I would choose. But then what do I know I have only been performing magic for more than 35 years and have been doing magic for about 47 years.

by the way Merry Christmas Dustin.

Cheers!