THE HUNTER SHUFFLE.

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.

Postby Guest » 02/19/07 01:05 PM

i just saw a guy do a move he is calling the hunter shuffle, he is selling it with dvd. all i can say is rip off. it looks like a bad zarrow shuffle to me,or am i missing something? anybody seen this?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/19/07 03:30 PM

Well, if it looks like a BAD version of a FALSE shuffle then I think you have answered your own question.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/19/07 04:49 PM

bill,

my point was beware, there looks like a rip off artist at work. someone new to magic may be conned.

cheers, brian.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/20/07 12:59 AM

It's actually a variant of the Shank Shuffle, which is not quite the same thing as the Zarrow. It seems to have impressed Rob Stiff , but he's easily impressed.

Also, I see Martini is quoted as saying that the demo clip doesn't do it justice, which is probably true--I shouldn't be able to look at it and say "Shank Shuffle," and I'm fairly sure that Rudy Hunter usually does it better than that.

However, that's the fault of whoever chose and put up the clip.
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/20/07 05:59 AM

I've watched this several times and it sure looks like a Shank Shuffle to me -- and I use a Shank Shuffle all the time.

The real test as to whether this is deceptive is seeing it at table level. The demo is shot looking down and any false shuffle looks good at that angle.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/20/07 09:45 AM

There is no such thing as a Shank Shuffle. The shuffle itself (which is what we can, in retrospect, call a Zarrow Shuffle with no cover) can clearly be found in Erdnase. There is a short sentence after the explanation which notes that the deck can be turned and the cards shuffled end into end--the way we normally riffle shuffle on the table.

The entire Shank Shuffle debacle was simply one of Ed Marlo's schemes to direct any credit away from Herb Zarrow for his invention of the Zarrow Shuffle. This is a well known story and every time someone uses the term "Shank Shuffle" they are helping to carry out Marlo's scheme long after he's dead and simultaneously doing a diservice to Herb Zarrow.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/20/07 02:07 PM

Logically, if a Zarrow Shuffle with no cover is the shuffle in Erdnase then it is the Erdnase Shuffle (a/k/a the Shank Shuffle), not the Zarrow Shuffle.

I think the cover mechanism is what makes the Zarrow the Zarrow.

What's the page number in Erdnase so I can look this up and obsess about this even more?

P.S. An Epiphone Les Paul is not a real Les Paul. Calling it a Les Paul is simply wrong.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/20/07 02:30 PM

I've looked this up in THE ANNOTATED ERDNASE.

According to the annotator at annotation 210, pp. 185-186, it is the Second Method under the heading BLIND SHUFFLES RETAINING ENTIRE ORDER which predates the Zarrow (i.e., without cover).
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/20/07 02:32 PM

Thanks Bob, I'll pass that on to Mr. Kaufman.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Guest » 02/20/07 03:07 PM

Bob:

They are many differences between the shuffle recorded in Erdnase and the Zarrow shuffle, enough to warrant a separate classification. All will hopefully become clear later this year when Herb's book of magic is released to the community. I have written quite an extensive description of the shuffle and Herb's variants and there will be over forty photos on the shuffle alone. I believe this will be the first time that it will have been described accurately in print.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/20/07 03:25 PM

It might be worth mentioning at this point that the shuffle in Erdnase played no part in the development of Herb's shuffle. Herb's shuffle was inspired a cutting sequence, not a shuffle sequence.

A close read of the Erdnase shuffle sets out many differences, the most obvious being that the Erdnase shuffle is an 'in the hands' shuffle. It was not designed to be performed on a table surface.

On another note, I never knew the LePaul made guitars. I always thought he was a card manipulator.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/20/07 06:29 PM

Actually, i'm pretty sure that all Le(s)Paul guitars are manufactured by (Walter B.) Gibson. That Epiphone thing, that's just a pseudonym.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/20/07 07:22 PM

Gibson bought Epiphone about 60 years ago. Most Epiphone's actually have the Gibson name stamped on them somewhere, usually the truss rod cover.

They use cheaper woods and electrics on the Epiphone models so they tend to get microphonic at high volumes.
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/21/07 08:59 AM

Boy, this is a strange, strange group.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Bob Farmer » 02/21/07 09:04 AM

I used to do a Zarrow Shuffle but I replaced it with the Shank/Zarrow With No Cover/Erdnase 2nd Method.

Also, I replaced the pickups and all of the elctronics on my Epiphone Le(s)Paul Standard Plus with (Walter) Gibson original parts and this has solved the microphonics problem.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Ryan Matney » 02/21/07 09:50 AM

Mr. Ben,
What led to the incorrect Zarrow shuffle description in the Vernon Inner secrets books?
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 10:02 AM

A strange group, indeed.

Bob: is it true that even when you claim to be using a genuine Gibson, you're actually playing an Epiphone...?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 11:24 AM

Ryan, there are so many factors at work. Ganson was not one for nuance. This is not entirely his fault as few magic books, now or then, express the sort of nuance required to really master technique. Further, that was perhaps Vernon's interpretation of the shuffle at that particular time period, and not what Herb, himself, actually did. The best description of the shuffle so far is perhaps the first description of it in The New Phoenix, No. 346, although the illustration is, if not wrong, misleading. The description in Epilogue is not too bad, but still misses some fine points. The way that I learned the shuffle, before running it by Herb for his comments and corrections, was to listen to the DVD, Zarrow on the Zarrow. The reason I say, "listen" to the DVD is because at the very beginning of the DVD, Herb states that although he can no longer really do the shuffle, he knows what needs to be done, and can teach it. So, I decided then and there to learn it from his words, rather than from the visual representation. It made a huge difference. The good news is that we are nearing completion of Herb's book and it will have a very detailed description of the shuffle, its nuances and variations.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 12:06 PM

good to hear dben, that is where i learned the shuffle, well the way i do the shuffle.

i like to take the cards from the middle, no cover needed. as for the hunter/shank shuffle it dosent look good to me.it's a bad zarrow.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 12:38 PM

The (?non-existant?) Shank can actually look very good in the right hands. I have a friend who was taught by Mr______ and he does this shuffle deceptively.

There are politics, and then there are shuffles.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 12:51 PM

My friend Roger Crosthwaite once showed me the differences between the Shank & Zarrow. It's a chore to tell them apart...but, obviously - there are differences. Both look good...but, if performed 1% off-key - they look like nothing on earth. MOST I've seen performed LOOK like cards simply sliding apart!

Anyway, my point is that the BEST I've SEEN live is Bob Irons's handling. NO tell-tale 'getinto' at all; lovely! There is an OLD video of him somewhere...maybe Trik-A-Tape or Inner Sanctum. Not sure!

PG
Guest
 

Postby George Olson » 02/21/07 01:23 PM

Don't forget Gary Plants handling of the Zarrow...

GO
George Olson
 
Posts: 980
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Tigard, OR

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 05:44 PM

I thought the Hunter Shuffle was the overhand shuffle where you chop off a block, run four cards, injog and throw the rest. Then you form a break at the injog, throw all the cards above the break, run five cards, then throw the rest. I think this is in Greater Magic.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/21/07 06:26 PM

I believe that is the G.W. Hunter false shuffle.
Guest
 

Postby Ryan Matney » 02/22/07 08:04 AM

Mr. Ben, Thanks for the reply. Interesting stuff. I believe there are several items described incorrectly in the Inner Card Series.

I first tried to learn the shuffle from the Vernon/Ganson book when I was about 15/16 and I gave up pretty quickly. Later I learned it from Johnny Thompson's DVD where he states the correct way is to use a single card cover.

For awhile I practiced the Roy Walton idea of sighting a key card and shuffling under it. This took me a lot of diligent practice just to be able to do it consistently.

I'm still not really comfortable with the shuffle so I'm looking forward to Zarrow's book very much.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Guest » 02/25/07 10:04 AM

David,

You said "The description in Epilogue is not too bad, but still misses some fine points." This is interesting since Herb told me personally that this was the best description of the shuffle since he (Herb) wrote it up himself.

Gary
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/25/07 10:32 AM

Yes, Herb worked on that particular write-up and there are some nuances in it that make it a worthwhile read. (I believe, however, that Karl Fulves also had a hand in it.) I suppose it is all a question of detail. My current description of the shuffle, for example, is nine pages of text and 43 photographs. There is a lot to know if one wants to understand how to do it and why it works. As you know, Herb is so mild mannered, he does not note flaws, be they character or technical, in anyone or anyone's work. One of the goals for Herb's book is to provide the last word - or at least, Herb's last word - on the shuffle.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 02/25/07 03:50 PM

Thanks David. I am anxiously awaiting Herb's book.
Guest
 

Postby Harvey Rosenthal » 03/19/07 12:16 AM

The finest Zarrow Shuffle I have seen since seeing Herb Zarrow do it in his prime at the time he taught me the shuffle something like 50+ years ago, is the shuffle handling of Steve Reynolds of Pennsylvania. Herb has seen Steve's work on the shuffle and told me in November, 2001 that he was extremely impressed with it. It is the most efficient shuffle handling I have seen.

I understand that Gary Plants does a superb Zarrow Shuffle and recently obtainted a copy of his book on the Shuffle. I have also heard from friends in New York City that Doug Edwards also does the Shuffle beautifully. :) :) :)
Harvey Rosenthal
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Montgomery Village, MD—USA

Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/19/07 08:22 AM

Those who've never seen Herb himself do the shuffle would be shocked at how quickly he does it, and the rapid shoving together of the supposedly interlaced halves of the deck after the riffle. There is none of the false resistance supposedly created by the halves binding as they are pushed together.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Harry Lorayne » 03/19/07 09:03 AM

I don't particularly use the Zarrow Shuffle too often. In any case, I'd like to hear what some of you experts think of the "Old Reliable" shuffle (supposedly used by gamblers for years) that Tony Mulle showed me decades ago. I teach it in RIM SHOTS, bottom of page 34.
I haven't seen those mentioned above do the Zarrow, but I have seen Doug Edwards do it numerous times. I can't see how it ca be done any better. And, if you have BEST OF FRIENDS 3, check out his variation wherein the cards are SEEN to interlace. Best - HARRY LORAYNE.
Harry Lorayne
 
Posts: 953
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: NY

Postby Steve Bryant » 03/19/07 10:07 AM

I've always found it strange that virtually no one does (or at least owns up to doing so) the Triumph shuffle, which I always thought looked quite good. (Exception: I believe Ron Wilson used it when DOING Triumph.) Are there strong reasons for its disfavor?
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Jeff Eline » 03/19/07 11:23 AM

Peter Studebaker does a really nice, 'in the hands' zarrow that, I believe, was taught to him by Hank Miller.
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Guest » 03/19/07 07:54 PM

I have seen Rudy Hunter perform his version of the Zarrow Shuffle (called the Hunter Shuffle) many times and I can assure you that it is very deceptive.
While there is nothing wrong with the Zarrow Shuffle, the Hunter Shuffle is easier to do and just as deceptive.
I purchased the DVD at one of Rudy's lectures and was very impressed by the quality of the instruction. Besides teaching the move in great depth, he includes all the finer points that many DVDs leave out.
While it is certainly acceptable to criticize someone's DVD, it is probably adviseable to actually view it first.
Guest
 

Postby Grant McSorley » 03/19/07 10:08 PM

Sorry Terry, but the Hunter Shuffle (if we can even call it that) is not as deceptive as the Zarrow shuffle because it has a major tell: the exaggerated pushing over of the top cards. If you want to learn to do a no-cover Zarrow properly, buy Gary Plants' manuscript and learn his handling, it's beautiful. I have to admit that I'm basing my opinion on the preview on Penguin's site, but if that isn't what the shuffle actually looks like then why did they post that clip?

Grant
Grant McSorley
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Montreal

Postby Guest » 03/25/07 01:16 AM

Well, this is my first post on this board. I'm looking forward to some healthy back-and-forth.

This is one of my favorite subjects: False Shuffles; particularly the Zarrow Shuffle, and all the tangled roots and branches around (and through) it.

To Mr. Kaufman:

It has been established IN PRINT (even by you) that the elements of the Zarrow Shuffle (i.e. the center cut dynamic, the unweave dynamic, the riding block under a cover card)have been around prior to Herb Zarrow's contribution. What Mr. Zarrow deserves credit for is the combination and application of these established forms into a wholey deceptive technique. No problem there.

And he does get credit; his name is well associated with all of these things.

You suggest that the Shank Shuffle does not exist. O.K. You are intitled to your own interpretation.

However, I question your citation in regard to Erdnase. In no part of the second method in the "Magic Section" is it written that the shuffle can be executed by the ends and on the table as you suggest.

Can you clarify this? Please.

Steve Reynolds
Lansdale, PA
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 03/26/07 10:12 AM

In fact the cards are HELD by the ends not SHUFFLED by them. If you rotate your hands, so that the thumb ends are towards you, you can shuffle the CORNERS. As this is done in the HANDS, this is a far cry from what some call the SHANK SHUFFLE.

So, if the TABLED RIFFLE SHUFFLE handling (that we have recently seen in the mis-named Hunter Shuffle) exsists, and it is not what is in ERDNASE, how can you say that the Shank Shuffle which has clearly been recorded (not in Erdnase as you suggest) does not exist?

It is there. What is your reasoning behind the statement: there is no such thing as the shank shuffle.

Does the Zarrow Shuffle square ACROSS the bottom portion and under NO cover cards? That's not a Zarrow Shuffle.

That's the Shank Shuffle; but you say there is no Shank Shuffle. The shuffle that is refered to as the Shank is in Erdnase. But when you actually compare what is in Erdnase to what is considered a Shank Shuffle, there is a big difference.

????????

Is there anybody out there in the Anti-Shank League that can shed some light on this?

Don't take a breath, I've got tons more.

Here's another question. Do most people that have voiced there stance on this issue done their OWN research.

Have they compaired the Fulves/Racherbaumer Documents?

Mr. Ben?

This is for Historical reasons, folks. These questions need asking.

In my experience (limited as it has been), most people do NOT do there own research, but listen to their closest pundit. These are the guys that still claim Marlo stole TILT! Which he did...until of course you ACTUALLY READ the Introduction to the Tilt booklet. But that's another story. Let's keep Shuffling On.

I'll never Shuffle Off.

Steve Reynolds
267-664-3781

Lansdale, PA
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 03/27/07 08:40 AM

Mr. Reynolds,

I'm not sure what you are asking for exactly.

Do I do my own research? Yes. Have I had access to documents that perhaps Fulves, Racherbaumer, you and others have not had access to? Perhaps.

Have I voiced an opinion in this forum on the differences between the Zarrow Shuffle and other shuffles? Not really.

So, again, your question is?

Respectfully,

David Ben
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 03/27/07 01:19 PM

Thank you Mr. Ben for the response.

Let me be more specific.

Have you read Karl Fulves's SHUFFLE OFF and Jon Racherbaumer's ON FULVES' SHUFFLE OFF (from MARLO'S MAGAZINE VOLUME 5)?

There are technical and historical elements that a full description of the "Zarrow Shuffle" and its history needs.

It is my understanding that Mr. Zarrow is unaware of the contents of Racherbaumer's rebuttle to the Fulves response (to the Shank Shuffle book). This is a FIRST HAND FACT. No one can read everything, that's understandable.

Have you looked seriously at BOTH sides of the debate, Mr. Ben (and all that are reading)?

If you're looking strictly from the Zarrow/Fulves perspective; I'm sorry, Fulves is a blind fold on the eyes of the researcher in this case, on a few critical points. He "Likes a rigged game."

I've researched the Work (both sides) for over fifteen years. I can't sit still on this.

It is a major responsibility to straighten out the MESS.

I'm not pointing a finger at you, Mr. Ben. I just am airing a few misgivings about the original voice of the Zarrow/Shank Debate, and the Fulvian perspective should be considered, but not as the groundwork or framework of the historical aspects.

Find Racherbaumer's On Fulves' Shuffle Off if you havn't already. Please.

I understand the difficulty of setting these things straight.

Thank You, Mr. Ben.

Now it's Mr. Kaufman's turn to respond.

How could you misquote Erdnase? If you did, then you should reconsider the notion of the Shank Shuffle existing; since that was the basis of your argument. If you still think it does not exist, tell me WHY it doesn't exist? But you're not allowed to recoil into Erdnase, that doesn't hold up. Or maybe it does. Please explain.

Let's get down to business here. It's 2007.

Historically Yours,

Steve Reynolds
267-664-3781

Lansdale, PA
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 03/27/07 01:59 PM

Wasn't this "Shank owns Zarrow" thing flogged to death over on the TSD forums?
Guest
 

Next

Return to Close-Up Magic