Is Swiss in Error???

Discuss products and their reviews in Genii.

Postby Steve Vaught » 06/22/03 09:08 PM

Mr. Swiss, I love to read your very indepth reviews!! I was excited to hear in the most current article about Ed Marlo's book that the "Deliberate Side-Steal" is described in basic but unmistakable form in Downs' Art of Magic p 129. I have been wanting to learn another version of the side steal, so I quickly ran to my Art of Magic book. To my disappointment, I did not find it. Unless the handling was extremely hidden in the text, I did not see it. The book is discussing The Great Poker Trick. Could you clarify this for me...thank you

Steve
Steve Vaught
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 08/29/08 03:17 AM
Location: South Bend, IN

Postby Jamy Ian Swiss » 06/23/03 09:00 AM

See p.129, fig. 18. However, to learn the move, I would still recommend you consult RCT for detailed instructions.
Jamy Ian Swiss
 
Posts: 111
Joined: 03/11/08 06:14 PM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/23/03 09:04 AM

Swiss is not in error, since I gave him the credit. It's yet another example of Marlo stealing material, or in this case not crediting the basic source of his ideas.
For some reason it is widely believed that the Side Steal involved stealing a card into full palm before depositing it on top of the deck until Ed Marlo published his handling. This is completely wrong. The only change Marlo made in the handling explained in Downs' Art of Magic (and it's in question whether the Side Steal was originated by Downs or Leipzig) is to improve certain technical details and change the angle of the right hand from directly palm down to more of a slant.
In the Art of Magic the card is withdrawn (or slipped) from the center of the deck while at the thumb and fingertips, then the right hand reverses direction and deposits the card on top.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20604
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bob Coyne » 06/23/03 10:28 AM

Couldn't it be that Marlo either forgot or never read the Downs treatment and in fact independently come up with the same approach? Or is this a matter of guilt by association -- that he's known to have deliberately stolen enough stuff for sure that the benefit of the doubt goes against him? I'm just asking...it seems that there is more than one explanation.
Bob Coyne
 
Posts: 242
Joined: 01/26/08 01:00 PM
Location: Montclair, NJ

Postby Guest » 06/23/03 10:45 AM

"deliberately stolen" is this the deliberate side steal in past tense? Heheh

Noah Levine
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/23/03 01:56 PM

Richard:

Marlo may have, in fact, been one of the original 40 Thieves, but with respect to the Side Steal manuscript he sure didn't steal nor ignore credits:

From the opening paragraph: "We did not invent this sleight and there seems to be some doubt as to who actually did. The Art of Magic has T. Nelson Downs as the creator of the Side-Steal..." He goes on to further crediting issues.

Paragraph four: "Regardless of who invented it, the fact remains that Art of Magic is its first source. The method, if it is Downs', is interesting because the card is not actually palmed but merely or literally moved from the center to the top."

And the seventh 'graf: "While there are others who have experimented with various Side-steal methods, our own techniques differ from these in many respects due to independent research, thinking and experimentation from the basic inspirational sources already mentioned." [My emphasis.]

--Randy Campbell
Guest
 

Postby Steve Vaught » 06/24/03 11:04 AM

My topic starter was being a little facetious. After Mr. Swiss taking time out of his busy schedule, we found the information on page 144 Fig 18 for those with the "Dover" copy.

Thank you
Steve Vaught
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 08/29/08 03:17 AM
Location: South Bend, IN

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/24/03 12:12 PM

Sorry, I must've been thinking of one of the 1,000 other items Marlo swiped.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20604
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 06/24/03 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Sorry, I must've been thinking of one of the 1,000 other items Marlo swiped.
Don't hedge, Richard. Tell us how you really feel....

Geoff
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/24/03 09:52 PM

Pretty right on Richard; refreshingly stated.
MartyJ Kaplan
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/07/03 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Sorry, I must've been thinking of one of the 1,000 other items Marlo swiped.
History is written by the survivors. It's too bad the survivors aren't a tad more gracious.

You openly accused Marlo of a crime he demonstrably did not commit, yet the best you can manage by way of "apology" is another snide insult? Makes one question the credibility of the rest of your published works.

Burke
Guest
 

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 07/07/03 10:48 AM

Some of the most enthusiastic and persistent Marlo-bashers are esteemed colleagues of mine. (Hey! We all have our blind spots!)

Many jumped on the Fulvesian Bandwagon that spent an inordinate amount of time trying to build an indisputable case that Marlo was "the biggest, most egregious thief (of ideas)in the history of magic." To boot, he was also one of the most overrated technicians in the 20th century.

The same bashers are equally passionate supporters of the very magicians and cardmen that Marlo consistently criticized and demeaned.

Of course, all of this "playing the dozens" will sputter into silence once the "players" shuffle off this "muchly mortal coil."

In the meantime, I've amassed a large and impressive number of public credits (to other magicians) that Marlo posted over the years. The ratio far exceeds his compeers during the same time periods. I may post this someday.

Researchers, if they have the heart or stomach for it, will eventually sort out the facts from the factoids, the truth from the falsehoods.

Yes, Randy C. is right. (Thanks, BTW) Marlo did credit Downs. In fact, most of the stuff in the Revolutionary Card series was merely finesses and details; differences that make a difference. Marlo only desired credit for THESE things.

Passing Note: In the expanded version of EXPERT CARD TECHNIQUE, the stuff on the Side Steal (Daley) did not make much ado about Downs. Why not?

So it goes...
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 816
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans


Return to Light From the Lamp