Best McDonald's Aces Routine

[Richard Kaufman]

The Collins Aces is not the same as MacDonald's Aces at all.

[Philippe Billot]

Yes, it's for that I wrote :

"his own version (not a McDo theme)" but may be my sentence is not correct. I want to say "He created his own version but it is not a McDonald Assembly"

[Bob Farmer]

MCDONALD’S ACES VANISHES

The following is the result of canvassing the literature, particularly the Dingle and Thompson routines, however, I’ve added my takes and handling and some counting alternatives that I think make the vanishes even more impossible than those. Notes on the various counts are at the end.

VANISH 1

1.1 Drop three face-down cards on face-up ace.

1.2 Busby/Jordan Count to show ace has vanished.

1.3 Do Rumba Count to show backs as cards are dealt to the table.

The Rumba Count is perfect here because after the Busby/Jordan Count the cards are in the perfect position, face down, to go into the Count.

VANISH 2

2.1 D/F ace on face of face-up packet.

2.2 Spread the packet slightly and take a break under the two face cards of the packet (D/F and X card).

2.3 Square the packet.

Right hand arches over packet in Biddle Grip, fingers at outer end, thumb at inner end and moves top two cards as one outwards about ½”.

2.4 Left thumb comes over on top of packet to grip so right hand can move away.

2.5 Right hand moves to outer right corner of two-cards held as one, and grips the corner, thumb above, fingers below.

2.6 Right hand lifts the double up and back, like a drawbridge coming down, and drops it square onto the other two cards.

2.7 Left hand immediately fans the packet and places it on the table to display three face-up cards and one face-down card (apparently the ace).

2.8 Pick up three face-up cards and hold them face up. Use Flushtration Count to show three backs and no aces. Deal last card under packet and drop packet face up on the table.

Turn over the face-down card to show ace has vanished.

After you get the break and square the packet, wait a few beats. The audience may have seen the card under the ace and you want them to forget that card because as you do the double turnover, a different card will appear.

VANISH 3

3.1 Ace on face of face-up packet.

3.2 Spread the packet slightly and take a break under the two face cards of the packet (D/F and X card).

3.3 Square the packet.

3.4 Hold the packet in a right hand Biddle Grip. Immediately, the left hand pulls the cards below the break to the side and face down and spreads them slightly.

3.5 The right hand inserts its two cards face-up between the two face-down cards in the left hand and the packet is squared.

3.6 Elmsley Count the packet to reveal the ace face up, second from the top.

3.7 Elmsley Count the packet to reveal the ace has turned into an X card.

Stop the Count as the X card appears.

Use it to flip the two cards in the other hand face up.

Then take the X card into the other hand so it can flip the remaining face-down card face up. Drop the X card on this card.

Now you have two face-up cards in each hand.

3.8 Use the Olram Subtlety to deal four cards to the table:

(a) Turn both hands palm down and then palm up. Deal a regular card from hand face-up to the table, then deal the double-facer from the other hand on top of it.

(b) Deal the last two cards in a similar fashion.

NOTES

The Busby/Jordan Count appears in Epilogue, pp. 207-208, Issue 22, November, 1974, as “Four As Four.” It has the same effect as the classic Jordan Count: it hides the bottom card; however, the handling is much more certain. Briefly:

1. On count 1, take the top card.

2. On count 2, load the first card under the packet as you take the second card.

3. On count 3, push off two cards as one and take them into the other hand.

4. On count 4, take the last card on top of the three cards in the other hand.

From the Conjuring Archive:

This count appeared, applied as a displacement, in “The Phantom Aces” within Charles Jordan’s Thirty Card Mysteries, 1919, p. 65. Karl Fulves named the sleight the “Jordan Count,” and Francis Haxton, Norm Houghton and Ed Marlo each independently rediscovered the dynamic in the context of a false display. Houghton was first to print, with “Modified Elmsley Count” in Hugard’s Magic Monthly, Vol. 21 No. 3, Nov. 1963, p. 18. Marlo, calling it the “Flexible Count,” followed a month later in New Tops, Vol. 3 No. 12, Dec. 1963, p. 22. Haxton enters the picture in Epilogue, No. 10, Nov. 1970, p. 75, with “Jordan’s 4-as-4 Count.” Also see “Card Problems” in Epilogue, No. 9, July 1970, p. 72; and “You Can’t Count on Jordan” in Sticks & Stones, No. 1, Jan. 1975, p. 3.

The late Norm Houghton was a good friend of mine and David Ben's and we had many great sessions with Norm, Howard Lyons and David Drake, all now sadly no longer sessioning on this planet.

Norm also invented the Flushtration Count. From Magipedia:

Back Count, is a method for showing that all the cards in a small packet are identical when in fact they can all be different. It was popularized by Brother John Hamman in his trick, Flushtration, marketed by Abbott's Magic in 1969. As such, it is commonly attributed to Hamman, but Canada's Norman Houghton published the count nearly 15 years before in Ibidem No. 1, June 1955.

Also, from Magipedia:

The Rumba Count (or Rhumba Count) is a false count with cards that is an elegant alternative to the Flushtration Count developed by Jean-Pierre Vallarino. It shows all faces of a small packet of cards to be the same while in reality only showing one. The packet begins face up in dealing position (rather than face down), then is grasped and revolved by the opposite hand as the count is executed in a flourishy manner.

It was published first in French in Arcane (France) magazine No. 67, july 1992, page 7, then in Gary Ouellet's column Fulminations in Genii 1992 November, Vol. 56, No. 1, page 74.

Ed Marlo’s first appeared in Olram Subtlety first appeared in The New Tops, Vol. 5, No. 11, November 1965.

OTHER COUNTS

Position the ace second from the top of the face-down packet. Now do an Elmsley count but use Marlo’s idea: take the first card off the bottom of the packet and then count normally. The ace vanishes and ends up hidden on the bottom of the packet.

[Bob Farmer]

Incidentally, you can also use the Rumba Count at the beginning of the effect to apparently show four aces with backs.

[Bob Farmer]

Question for Richard: didn't you put out a Stars of Magic version with blank cards?

[Bob Farmer]

Found it: The New Stars of Magic, The Ultimate Invisible Assembly by Richard Kaufman. This is not really a McDonald's Aces effect: the four aces change places with a single blank card, gathering in the center of the table where the blank card began.

Inspired by this, I just worked out the more traditional scenario with four aces and 12 blank cards and even my wife liked this trick. More later.

[Richard Kaufman]

I missed a credit to Fulves when I did my Stars of Magic.

[kkelly]

back in the mid '80's I performed a hofzinser act in the close-up room at the magic castle. in the act i used daryl's psychological assembly with piatnik blank cards and the multi-colored jokers ( i know, i know... "that's not a hofzinser method!)". it played very well. later i incorporated the rhumba count into the joker laydown after jon published it in MO #1 (1993). i held off on publishing it because Daryl's trick was a stand alone manuscript and he asked me to hold off on it. after he included it in the vanishing inc. reprint of "for your entertainment pleasure" he said he had no problem with my publishing my handling. it will be included in my upcoming book which should be out late fall, 2020.

[Roy M. McIlwee]

Bob, Thanks for the great work on the "McDonald's Aces". I've always preferred Derek Dingle's handling from the 2004 December issue. Your vanishes and displays flow smoothly and fit my style perfectlly. Thanks again.

[Richard Kaufman]

There is no handling of McDonald's Aces in that issue of Genii.

[Philippe Billot]

it's here:

https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.ph ... 4_December

[Richard Kaufman]

Aha!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Is the bit where you use the Stuart Gordon turnover and then steal out the card in print there?

[MagicbyAlfred]

I'm kind'a partial to this one. Everything he does is so smooth, elegant and graceful. Looks like pure magic...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6nznci

[Brad Jeffers]

Is the bit where you use the Stuart Gordon turnover and then steal out the card in print there?

Dingle doesn't use that vanish in the routine described in the Dec 2004 issue of Genii. He does however use it in his Slow Motion MacDonald's Aces, as written up in The Complete Works.

I would be interested to know who originated that particular vanish.

Ricky Jay was using it at least as early as 1976. The routine in Genii was said to have been shown to Bob White by Dingle sometime in the early 70's. That leads me to believe that Dingle learned it (or created it) sometime after that. Maybe he got it from Ricky Jay. Maybe visa versa.

I don't know.

I used to have a notebook full of different vanishes used in Mcdonald's Aces. That one was my favorite. I consider it to be the most elegant of all. In my notebook, I dubbed it the "gitchy gitchy goo" vanish - in homage to Ricky Jay.

[Bob Farmer]

Is that the vanish where the double is turned face down and placed under the packet as the double-facer is pulled left under the other two cards, leaving the single face-down card protruding on the right?

[Bob Farmer]

Here is something I noticed when performing the effect that is not apparent from just reading the description: the third vanish, the one used by Dingle, where the ace visibly changes into an indifferent card, is the climax of the routine. You just can't top that because it's so shocking. The kicker, or the anti-climax, is where you show the aces have assembled.

[Richard Kaufman]

It's not anti-climactic if you have the leader Ace packet under the spectator's hand. Garcia always did it that way and it really made the trick.

[MagicbyAlfred]

It's very under-handed, but the under-the-hand for the final revelation is IMO the only way to go. Laymen think and perceive very differently from the magi...

[Bob Farmer]

Good point that's the only way to top the vanish.

[Bob Farmer]

On the Dingle vanish under discussion, I think I know the rationale. If the double-faced ace is simply turned over with the regular card secretly underneath, then suddenly a new card appears that wasn't there before (i.e., the other side of the ace). However, handled the way Dingle does it, only that that new card's index peeks out of the left side of the fan when all the attention is on the face-down card (apparently the ace).

This also means that as the ace is first placed on the face-up packet, the face card of that packet must be in view for the shortest time possible. To do that, use the face-up ace to flip the packet face up sideways and then immediately place the ace on the face of the packet.

[Bob Farmer]

This is not meant to be a complete list of references to the trick, just a list of some advances that were made by various magicians. David Britland did the heavy lifting.


1857-01-01
“The Power of Faith,” Hofzinser’s Card Conjuring, Dover Edition, pp. 69-74; “The Four Kings,” ibid, pp. 75-80.
Magipedia notes:
https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.ph ... d%27s_Aces

“The plot was probably created by Hofzinser between 1857 and 1875 and was the finale of a trick called ‘The Power of Faith’ (or more correctly translated according to Magic Christian, ‘The Power of Belief’). Also, the use of similarly gaffed cards in a four of a kind routine was in the Hofzinser's Card Conjuring (1931) as ‘The Four Kings.’’’

1956-01-09
Magic Circular report on the meeting of Monday, 11th June.

“Alex Elmsley—armed with Erdnase 1902—showed us a four Queens effect. Not only was the trick good, but the period patter—which seemed to consist mainly of Edwardian tongue twisters—was highly entertaining.”

1956-06-23
Abracadabra, p. 367.
Magic Circle. On 11th June our show was entitled Classics of Magic, and Victor Hade, Herbert J. Collings, Alex Elmsley, Bobby Bernard. Stanley Thomas, Charlie Edwards, Horace King and Peter Warlock showed us a varied programme of effects. Some were old and looked it; others, equally old, seemed new; others again were as popular now as they were a generation ago: many were accompanied by their original patter. Alex Elmsley's Erdnase suited him admirably: the Edwardian tongue-twisters must have taken considerable time to memorise!

1961-01-01
The Gen, p. 199.
This is essentially Sweetman routine again using the Elmsley Count to vanish the double-facers. Lewis Ganson notes:

“The Elmsley count apparently really vanishes the face-up cards. In so many Four Ace routines the cards are vanished with unnatural movements, and the magical effect is spoilt. In this method, the effect is good especially when you show that the … [aces] … are no longer there.”

1961-07-01
“Mo’s Monthly Moan,” column, Abracadabra, p.23.
He writes:

“I recall Alex Elmsley performing, ‘The Exclusive Coterie,’ at a long-gone British Ring convention and he did it beautifully.”

1961-08-01
“Those Extra Touches,” by Ken Krenzel, M-U-M, pp. 108-109.
This would appear to be the first suggestion that the aces be vanished in different ways. Krenzel writes:

“In order to extract the fullest in subtlety from this hoary principle, I vanish the 3 bogus Aces in 3 different ways.”

The first vanish uses a double turnover of the double facer and a regular card to switch the double facer for a regular card. The second vanish uses the Elmsley Count and the third vanish is the one from the “McDonald’s $100 Routine,” More Inner Secrets of Card Magic.

1962-02-01
“A Vanish and Transposition,” by Dr. B. Sweetman, A.I.M.C. Magic Circular, pp. 74-75.
The double-facer is placed face up third from the top of the face-down packet. the Elmsley Count is used to show it has vanished.

[Leo Garet]

Wow, a mention of Maurice "Mo" Howarth. One of Magic's true gents. Thanks Mister Farmer.

[Zig Zagger]

I think it's an interesting point to ponder whether the three aces should rather vanish than turn into other cards.

From a purist's point of view, it would probably make more sense to see them go and then make them appear on top of or underneath the fourth ace. A somewhat logical reason for changing the aces could be to cover them with three jacks, queens, and kings (and jokers for the final ace).

However, I guess the main reason for usually making them change into random cards is that we have found more technical solutions for this than for a convincing vanish.

But maybe that matter is just magician's thinking and totally irrelevant to laymen as long as it fools and entertains them?

What do you think?

[Philippe Billot]

It remember me this:

VANISHING ACES THEORY

In almost every case where an Ace is supposed to vanish, the handling of the problem is such that the Ace actually does not vanish but rather a different card, other than the ace, takes its place. As an example, let us assume the ace is the bottom card of four cards. Now you deal the top three face up onto the table. The last card is now the ace. Suddenly the card is flipped face up and it is no longer the ace.
Therefore, obviously, a card has been substituted for the ace. If the last card were really the ace and it was to really vanish, the performer should wind up with absolutely no card at all.
Now let us get a little more illogical. Let us assume the ace is shown on the bottom of the packet of four cards. The hand is waved over the packet, then all four cards are spread out to show the ace is not among them. Again if the ace had actually vanished there should only be three cards left.
Two points in logically vanishing an ace, or any noted card, must be kept in mind. One, the supposed ace should never be left as the final card in a vanish no matter how convmcing the moves to prove this last card is the ace. Second there should always be less than the number of car& started with if the perfect illusion of a card having disappeared is to be maintained.
This brings us to dissecting our own effect of REAL GONE ACES, described in this issue.

It was written in april 1956.

[Bob Farmer]

So, this means you should show the supposed ace as an indifferent card, add it to the squared packet and only then show the squared packet as three cards.

For example: ace is face up on the bottom of three face-down cards. Take the top card, do a reverse push-off, take the bottom two cards as one onto the first card, take the third card (they see three face-down cards). Turn the packet face up and do the same moves to show three blank cards.

To make this logical, at the beginning you place the AS in the card case (in which there are secretly the other three regular aces). At the end, after all three aces have vanished, open the card case and reveal four aces.

[Bob Farmer]

Another thought: the illogicality of the aces vanishing but there are still four cards, can be overcome with the proper patter. For example, in the routine I'm working on, the presentation has nothing to do with cards changing places, but with time travel.

At the beginning of the routine, I point out where everything is: the indifferent cards are on my left in a pile and the four aces are in a packet in front of me.

I check my watch and announce the time (e.g., 2:30 p.m.)

Now the aces are spread apart and covered with the indifferent cards. As each ace vanishes, I don't say it has vanished, I say it is travelling back in time, back to 2:30 p.m. As each ace vanishes, the discards are placed in a pile in the same position they were at 2:30 p.m.

At the end, everything is where it was before the trick started, thus the cards have traveled back in time.

This is a lot more interesting than the usual gambling blather that, frankly, just sounds stupid.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Initially all four piles have one ace and three other cards. If they believe you put the four aces on the table and then added three cards to each you are set for the magic. Part of the fun of the trick is where you ask them to select a pile of cards. From there on how much you play up the position of the ace in each packet of cards is a matter of taste. Whether you let them change their mind about which pile to keep their hand on part way through the routine is also a matter of taste.

Changing the premise of the effect where they choose one of four basically identical piles of cards has consequences. Seeming to switch a card they know was there for some other card is impressive but that's also changing the effect.

Most audiences know that poker hands have five cards and that there are other hands which beat four aces. If you add a joker into the routine and proceed with five card hands it could parody a poker cheating demonstration. Again a matter of taste.

There's a Jack Carpenter assembly where rather then twelve other cards you only use three - and only have the aces on display at the end.

Okay, who started this thing where you set down the ace of spaces and call it the master ace?

[Bob Coyne]

Good question Jonathan! It feels so lame calling the Ace of Spaces the leader ace. I find myself doing it too, but it makes me cringe.

[Bill Duncan]

I think it's an interesting point to ponder whether the three aces should rather vanish than turn into other cards.

However, I guess the main reason for usually making them change into random cards is that we have found more technical solutions for this than for a convincing vanish.

What do you think?

For me, having the aces and indifferent cards transpose makes for a good effect, while having the indifferent cards on the leader ace vanish only to be replaced with aces that vanished from the other packets lacks clarity. In the later effect why are their indifferent card packets? Because the method requires it.

If the point is to vanish the aces and have them appear elsewhere, do the Invisible Palm Aces. There the effect is clear and direct.

[Denis Behr]

Is the bit where you use the Stuart Gordon turnover and then steal out the card in print there?

Dingle doesn't use that vanish in the routine described in the Dec 2004 issue of Genii. He does however use it in his Slow Motion MacDonald's Aces, as written up in The Complete Works.

I would be interested to know who originated that particular vanish.

Ricky Jay was using it at least as early as 1976. The routine in Genii was said to have been shown to Bob White by Dingle sometime in the early 70's. That leads me to believe that Dingle learned it (or created it) sometime after that. Maybe he got it from Ricky Jay. Maybe visa versa.

I don't know.

I used to have a notebook full of different vanishes used in Mcdonald's Aces. That one was my favorite. I consider it to be the most elegant of all. In my notebook, I dubbed it the "gitchy gitchy goo" vanish - in homage to Ricky Jay.

Might be related to this: https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/b ... light=2218

[Jonathan Townsend]

having the indifferent cards on the leader ace vanish only to be replaced with aces that vanished from the other packets lacks clarity. In the later effect why are their indifferent card packets? Because the method requires it.

If the point is to vanish the aces and have them appear elsewhere, do the Invisible Palm Aces. There the effect is clear and direct.

The original has a very clear effect. The volunteer chooses one of four essentially identical packets of cards, which is where the other three aces are later found. The reality of the situation changes because the magician wishes to please the volunteer and audience, rather than to demonstrate some skill at switching cards. The use of gaffs in the method is to make sure they know there is an ace (or King) in each packet so when they choose a packet there is a moment of comedy and much room for byplay as the packets are shown later. Of course you could play up the trick in other ways but again that is changing the effect. One such approach would be to talk about rumors that politicians use doubles for public appearances, people who vanish back into the security team while later on the news we find all of them were at a meeting elsewhere...

The invisible palm aces has a different effect, of openly demonstrating impossible ways of cheating. The moment at the end where a card drops from your hand onto the other three is a pretty good applause cue. In that trick it's the first card which has to sell the premise.

Recalling watching Dingle do the mimed card manipulations it occurred that after setting the aces on the table one could pretend to palm one - do all that mimed card sleight of hand and then seemingly deposit the ace face up onto the pack (actually doing a palming action of the top card to reveal that ace). Again just a thought and plenty of smart card guys have probably been doing this for many years and it's likely in a Marlo booklet, perhaps his Action Palm?

[Richard Kaufman]

In a traditional Ace Assembly, the Aces DO NOT VANISH. They transpose with the cards in the leader packet. If you think you are making Aces vanish, then fix your patter.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The trick branched into "participate" and "demonstrate" type routines. The "T" formation and then "Jazz Aces" evolved off the "demonstrate" branch.

Hi Richard, who started this "master ace" thing with the ace of spades?

[Richard Kaufman]

I'm not sure.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... the third vanish, the one used by Dingle, where the ace visibly changes into an indifferent card...

In the December 2004 issue, page 31 that's accomplished with two Elmsley counts. It probably does register as a visual change. Roy Walton's idea?

[Philippe Billot]

The trick branched into "participate" and "demonstrate" type routines. The "T" formation and then "Jazz Aces" evolved off the "demonstrate" branch.

Hi Richard, who started this "master ace" thing with the ace of spades?

It seems to refer to the highest card at Whist or Bridge

[Philippe Billot]

But in 1933, Ralph Hull wrote in More Eye-Openers, speaking about the ace of spades:

"Oh, we will just use this BIG ACE for a leader for the SPOT CARDS"

[Bob Farmer]

I've been watching various Youtube videos of McDonald's Aces and many of them suffer from the same two problems. First, the are too many physical moves. I don't mean the sleights, I mean the movements the audience has to follow. This is especially true in the machinations some go to in switching the regular aces for the gaffed aces (a completely unnecessary switch). Second, the vanishes are done at slightly less than the speed of light, as if the performer can hardly wait to get to the AS.

For the trick to be really effective, it must be done slowly and with a minimum of physical movement. That's why it's so good. Speed it up and you lose the magic and end up with the simple explanation: well, he was so fast, we didn't see him do it.

The switch is unnecessary because if you place four aces on the table from a deck the obvious audience conclusion is that these are four regular aces from a deck.

I also think that grubbing through the deck to remove the aces and the 12 cards makes no sense: in a few moments the audience will see a masterful piece of magic: if you had the power then, why before did you have to look through the deck like a common peasant to find the cards. Make the aces appear magically and deal off 12 cards. Enough already.

[Bill Mullins]

If an Ace "turns into" a blank card, that could be just as easily framed as a vanish.