The Eidetic Change

[Guest]

In Charlie Miller's "Magicana" (New Series, No. 86) in the May 1972 issue of GENII (Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 223-225) appears a color change by Mathew Corin, entitled "A Novel Card Discovery." The change is accomplished by lapping the top card of a face up double card on the table, as the hands wave over. The same month, a color change called "The Eidetic Change" appeared in THE KABBALA (Vol. 1, No. 9). As far as I can ascertain, the changes are identical. I do not, however, have the write-up from THE KABBALA, so I cannot be sure of technical details.

I am hoping somebody can shed some light on this subject. Are the two changes the same, and, if so, who receives credit? Is it a coindidence that they appeared the same month in two different periodicals?

Thanks,
Cameron Roat
roatc@comcast.net

[Richard Kaufman]

The moves are identical.
This also happened with the "Cannibal Card" routine. Matt Corin published it in one place (I think a rag of Rock's) and Wesley James published it in another (I think a rag of Fulves'). Both descriptions were quite close.

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Cameron writes:

In Charlie Miller's "Magicana" (New Series, No. 86) in the May 1972 issue of GENII (Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 223-225) appears a color change by Mathew Corin, entitled "A Novel Card Discovery"...The same month, a color change called "The Eidetic Change" appeared in THE KABBALA (Vol. 1, No. 9). As far as I can ascertain, the changes are identical."

Yes, the two tabled transformations are identical. Although this is an example of almost simultaneous publication of a similar effect, plus the reinvention phenomenon, scholars always try to track the time delay of each publication, as well. Corin had to be doing his change some time BEFORE it was published and he certainly submitted it months before Genii got around to printing it. Marlo showed me his change almost a year prior to me publishing it in Kabbala. He also did it on a film that was shot five or six years earlier.

I asked around to find out if Corin and Marlo sessioned together before the publications and whether each knew or heward about the other's move. I found no connection.

Marlo always abided by the Published Record. Although both changes appeared (coincidentally) the same month, questions always arise and the blush is off the rose. Neither contributor receives the thunder they may have hoped to receive.

Either way, students get a good transformation to add to their repertoire.

There was another change that three magicians (Father Cyprian, Daryl, and Al Smith) simultaneously devised and published in separate journals. They are identical. Who gets the credit? I credit all three.

So it goes...

Onward...

[Ryan Matney]

Awhile back right here on the Genii Forum Pete Biro said something about the Eidetic change. I may be mistaken but I think he said that Matt Corin did show Marlo the move.

Pete, what was it exactly that you said about this?

[Joe Pecore]

Pete's previous post is at: Click here

[Ryan Matney]

Thanks, Joe! There you go, proof that Matt Corin and Marlo sessioned together.

Did you see this before, Mr. Racherbaumer? If Corin was showing Marlo something Marlo had already invented, I would think Marlo would have said so. Anyone would, I think.

[Richard Kaufman]

That old post of Pete's tells you something about Wesley James as well.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Richard,
I don't know what Wes ever did to you to warrant your unprovoked attacks of him on this board. That topic has been discussed before, and you are only perpetuating incorrect information. I suggest you get over whatever personal problems you may have with Wes and look at the actual record.

For reference, go here .

-Jim

[Guest]

And just what does it tell us about Wesley James? Are there cases of non-related independent creation as you yourself stated but in the case of Wesley James it isn't? I've heard that you have issues with Wesley and also have heard rumblings from the DC area from magicians that, for some odd reason, suddenly question the validity of Wesley James. Might be the lead in the water there or may be someone talking about the guy. Don't mumble out of the side of your mouth, if you have a comment to make about Wesley then why not make it or, better yet, go see Wesley and tell him your thoughts?
Steve V

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Marlo never said anything to ME about sessioning with Corin. This doesn't mean that such a session did NOT happen. The clincher for me was seeing the change done on film, which validated its existence prior to the time the simultaneous changes occurred in print. Still, Marlo published what he was doing. Corin published his.

What now?
Creditors can fight it out.

100 years from now, if there are any researchers interested enough to sort out the citations and then speculate based on existing evidence, most of these controversies will still be moot and uninteresting to the masses.

Re Wesley James:

In person I've found Wesley to be a dedicated, serious student of the pasteboards, who has studied and experimented and taken detailed notes. I also know that he has been involved in various spats and contentious battles regarding provenance. I've noted what has been made public. Much of the rest was waged behind the scenes. The buzz always flits across the radar.

I'm sure Wesley can ably answer his critics.
If he is wrong about something, the Published Record will reveal it. If he is right, the same test applies.

Onward...

[Guest]

I knew Matt Corin EXTREMELY well, and Ed Marlo to some small degree. So, in response to Ryan, yes, it is concievable to me, in fact likely, that Ed would not mention that Matt had re-invented something of Ed's. In fact, Ed would not "tip his mitt" so to speak, so that he could go to print with the material without having to worry about Matt rushing to do the same thing. Ed always held that the published record spoke. And Matt, not knowing that Ed had already developed the change, would go ahead and print his version, as he did.

Matt was, to the best of my knowledge and experience, scrupulously honest about crediting, and would have made note of any influence Marlo might have had on his development of his "Novel Slieght".

And then, we have Pete's testament to the facts as he knows them. All-in-all, a curious collision of invention, demonstration, and publication that can be interpreted in any of several ways. We may never have the facts in correct chronological order, since the principals are no longer here to verify them. As Rocky said, we have the change, and the magic world MAY be the better for it. Or maybe not...

Best, PSC

P.S. It's a card trick, guys! I doubt that there was any hidden agenda on anyone's part, and unless you knew the principals you might want to refrain from allusions to thier character, since they're not here to defend themselves. Others, like me, can testify to thier behavior as we knew it, but even that is anecdotal at best, and serves only to prolong the argument. That said, I'll refrain from further commentary...

[Richard Kaufman]

You guys crack me up.
All of us who are now the "old timers" from New York City are just shaking our heads.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Who is "all of us"? You?

RE: Ascanio Spread & Cannibals
The fact remains that Wes has provided specific dates and mentions specific people (who are still around) who saw the routine and can verify those dates. The only thing that I've seen contrary to this so far is Pete's recollection of a train ride with Matt Corin -- no dates, and no one else to verify that Matt's routine existed before he saw Wes's.

The "rags" you refer to are Racherbaumer's manuscript "The Ascanio Spread" and Karl Fulves's "Epilogue Special #4", both of which were published in 1976.

In regards to "The Ascanio Spread" manuscript, Wes makes this note in his "Stop Fooling Us!" notes (pg. 9): Ken Beale, who was editing the manuscript circa 1973-1976, informed Racherbaumer that the routine had been shown to him, by me, years earlier. Either Racherbaumer or Lloyd Jones (publisher of 'The Ascanio Spread' manuscript) didn't care enough to check it out or change it. Instead, they gave me a half-hearted acknowledgment of claim (as if to suggest my claim was unsubstantiated.)

Shake your head all you want, those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. All I ask is that if you're going to make insinuations about a person or their character that you have something to back it up.

-Jim

[Steve V]

Just in case anyone is wondering, 1793 to 1976 IS a very long time to edit, it was done carefully.
Steve V <---believes he is as much an old timer as Richard, just not from NYC.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Doh! Thanks Steve -- I've corrected my post.

-Jim

[Jon Racherbaumer]

For the Record: After I sent the Ascanio Spread manuscript to Lloyd Jones, my communications with him were minimal (about THAT mss.) I only met Ken Beale twice and we shared a few letters when he lived in the NY area. I checked his letter to me. Nothing in them mentioned credits or the "Cannibal Cards." He never said anything to me. I'm reasonable sure he said something to Lloyd Jones. Beale, who was usually conscientious about credits, had a golden opportunity to "right" the "record" when he posted "Some Late Notes" in THE ASCANIO SPREAD (1976). There is no mention of Wesley James, except on p. 17, where it is noted that Pete Biro disclaims credit and Wesley James CLAIMS credit. This is said parenthetically. No evidence is submitted.

Lloyd and Ken, alas, are now deceased.
I was out of THAT loop.

I guess it's now up to the last men standing? Although, it's a tad late in the game for restating claims and gathering defenders and deflecting critics.

Onward...

[Guest]

Only one thing left, ask John Edward to contact the 'other world'.
Steve V

[Ryan Matney]

Thanks for the responses, Jon and Paul. For my record, I'm not defending either's credit to the move. I was just curious as to whether JR had seen Pete's old post.

Mr. Racherbaumer, The masses don't really care about this but what the hell else can we talk about? It's more interesting than another version of three-fly or a "best card tricks' poll. :-)