"Elmsley" Is A Magic Word

[Bob Farmer]

My two hobbies are music and magic: loud amplified guitar, screaming sax and too many card tricks. The world can be strange and now I've come to believe that "Elmsley" is the magic word connecting all my interests.

Alex Elmsley is one of the greatest magical inventors of all time and gave us what has to be the most valuable and useful sleight of all time, the Elmsley Count (at least in my repertoire).

I was born in Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada and my aunt lived on Elmsley Street. I asked Alex about this and he suggested it was probably named after one of his relatives who had moved to Canada after the American Revolution.

I just bought an Orange Super Crush 100 guitar amp invented by Ade Elmsley. For guitarists, this amp might be as game changing as the Elmsley Count because it is a solid-state (i.e., no tubes) analog amp that sounds like the holy grail, a tube amp . Previous attempts to do this over decades have been miserable audio failures, but this amp is frankly unbelievable (kinda like the Elmsley Count). This not what guitarists call a modelling amp, which is an emulation achieved by software (and which sounds, when playing live, at least to my ears, flaccid and unconvincing).

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niW32OS0iY0

So, my advice: if "Elmsley" is involved in anything, it has to be magical in many ways.

[Bob Farmer]

The E-Y-E Count is not the Elmsley Count and Victor did not invent the Elmsley Count. What Elmsley did was to combine a two-card push-off (as in the E-Y-E Count) with a one-card take-back, so there is no question that this was a new invention and a large leap forward and Elmsley gets the credit. You can't do Elmsley Count tricks with an E-Y-E Count.

[Paco Nagata]

Elmsley called his Count "The Ghost Count."
It's a good thing that the "magical comunity" re-named it as "Elmsley Count" to honour him and relate his family name with the card magician's world ^_^

[Bob Farmer]

When something is greater than the sum of its parts, as the Elmsley Count is, you honor the person who did the assembly, not the people who made the parts.

[Joe Mckay]

I met Alex Elmsley back in 1999. Back then - I was still new to the world of magic. And I assumed Alex Elmsley was overrated. I was so cynical that I assumed that any legend in British magic was a fake legend who was only promoted to that status by dint of the fact they were British. I was a bit too smart for my own good back then.

Of course - I realise now that Alex Elmsley may be well be the greatest genius in the history of card magic. But back then I just didn't have the knowledge to understand that.

Anyway - this was a day long lecture/hang out with Alex Elmsley that took place at The Magic Circle. I remember speaking to Elmsley to ask him of the differences he saw in Marlo and Vernon. Elmsley felt that Vernon was only concerned with what was good for magic. Whereas Marlo was more interested in promoting his own name and boosting his own ego.

This shows how stupid I was. I meet Alex Elmsley and the only thing that really impressed me about him was that he had met Marlo and Vernon!

[Joe Mckay]

I got to meet Lubor Fiedler once as well.

It is nice to think you have met the two greatest geniuses in the history of magic.

I remember my chat being interupted by Matthew Field wanting to take a photo of Lubor, Mark Setteducati and Angelo Carbone together in the same picture. I doubt so much creativity has ever before been captured in a single photo.

I met Roy Walton a few times as well. It is always a toss-up for me when it comes to him and Alex Elmsley as regards card magic. But I think Elmsley wins due to the number of major breakthroughs he had. I read once that he used to meet up with his friends each week in London when he was a young man. And each week he would have a new trick he had invented. And most of the time the trick itself was based on a brand new principle he had discovered that week.

[MagicbyAlfred]

When discussing issues such as "one of the greatest magical inventors of all time" (Bob says Elmsley qualifies for such a distinction), "the most valuable and useful sleight of all time" (Bob says it's the Elmsley Count), and "the greatest genius in the history of card magic" (Joe says "it may well be" Elmsley), there is inherently a huge element of subjectivity, as there is clearly no way to prove such opinions. I happen to agree with Bob that Elmsley is at least "one of" the greatest magical inventors of all time, although I part ways with him as to what is the most valuable and useful sleight of all time. In my opinion, palming (both cards and coins) and DLs are at least as valuable and useful as the Elmsley Count, if not more so, at least to me. Moreover, since Joe has opined that Elmsley "may well be the greatest genius in the history of card magic," I feel that, while Elmsley is the subject of this thread, the door has been opened to other opinions as to the greatest genius in the history of card magic. And I happen to have one of my own.

What comprises "genius" depends in great measure on how you define that term, so again subjectivity creeps into the discussion. In my own view, what constitutes genius in card magic goes well beyond how many tricks or sleights one has created and/or published, and even beyond the quality of those tricks and sleights. Whether one qualifies as a genius in card magic (again, in my own subjective opinion) is a holistic inquiry -- that is to say, one that implicates a profound mastery of a number of facets of the art, including creativity, technique, theory, scholarship, and, very importantly, performance (which, in turn, includes patter, presentation, misdirection and timing, subtlety, aesthetics, and the ability to entertain and connect with people).

There is only one magician that I know of who encompasses and exemplifies every one of these elements on a supremely high level, who ticks every one of those boxes in spades. And that is my friend, Bill Malone. Marlo doesn't; Vernon doesn't; Elmsley doesn't. Bill does. And I firmly believe that anyone who had the privilege of spending even a single evening with Bill watching him perform his magic live and dialoguing with him about magic, would realize that they had encountered the greatest genius in the history of card magic. Although Bill, being as humble as he is talented, would be quick to deny it.

[Tarotist]

Actually Elmsley WAS a good performer! I was taken aback a bit when I first saw him perform because I assumed wrongly that he would be as dull as most magicians are when performing card tricks. He could actually entertain very well and had good presentational skills.

As for the Elmsley count I have never liked the bloody move in the first place!

[MagicbyAlfred]

Elmsley called his Count "The Ghost Count."
It's a good thing that the "magical comunity" re-named it as "Elmsley Count" to honour him and relate his family name with the card magician's world ^_^

I like the name "Ghost count," and I may use it on Halloween to scare people.

[Ted M]

My favorite variant, the Human Elmsley Count:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Dq4pXcakY

[PressureFan]

I think he was using belly strippers.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Actually Elmsley WAS a good performer! I was taken aback a bit when I first saw him perform because I assumed wrongly that he would be as dull as most magicians are when performing card tricks. He could actually entertain very well and had good presentational skills.

As for the Elmsley count I have never liked the bloody move in the first place!

Oh yes, I absolutely agree that Elmsley was a good performer (very good, in fact), and I never intended to suggest otherwise. Here he is performing a lovely, entertaining, and mystifying routine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck9LFEfZRGI

*Certainly no question that Alex loved the bloody move...

[Joe Lyons]

Beautiful, love the patter.

[Leo Garet]

“Collected Works,” Volume [1] Chapter One, paragraph [2].

“I didn’t set my standards very high. I tried to attain competence.”

Would that all “magicians” did that.

[MagicbyAlfred]

“Collected Works,” Volume [1] Chapter One, paragraph [2].

“I didn’t set my standards very high. I tried to attain competence.”

Would that all “magicians” did that.

I daresay that he achieved far more than mere competence. Here's another great routine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su_JO7tRLxo

[Paco Nagata]

From Roberto Giobbi's Calendar (page 57), February 18 "Three Favourite Anecdotes" (the second one):

"When the four-volume set of DVDs by Alex Elmsley were released, a magician was overheard asking a friend, 'Did you see the four Elmsley videos?' To which came the answer, 'Yes,though I didn't see the third; but I saw the first one twice'."

[Joe Lyons]

[Ian Kendall]

L&L missed a trick by not simply duplicating volume 1 onto the volume 3 disc...

[Richard Kaufman]

Alex was an extremely modest fellow.

[Tarotist]

Somebody well versed in card magic told me that Elmsley first experimented with his count in the Now You See It card trick in the Royal Road to Card Magic. If you know the trick (I do it all the time) you will realise how and why he experimented with it. I think in the end he left the trick as it is (using the glide) but I can quite see the connection.

[Richard Kaufman]

I cannot recall how many decades it's been since I've seen a good cardworker use a Glide.

[Bob Farmer]

The Glide as normally done is terrible. The cards are turned face down, the fingers go under the cards and apparently pull out the bottom card.

Here is how to do it deceptively: the cards are face up. Place your fingers on the card you will apparently remove and only then do you turn the cards face down and remove the apparent bottom card.

It is all one smooth motion.

[Smurf]

I also like the Edward Victor variation of The Glide. With the deck face up, get a break under the top two face-up cards just like you would for a double lift. Slide the cards forward about an inch or two. You will find out what distance works best for you when you play around with it. When the deck is turned faced down perform a normal glide motion. You may need to adjust your normal glide grip to better reach outjogged pair. When the deck is face down, pull out the face down outjogged card and your switch is finished.

[Ian Kendall]

I thought that was the normal method?

I made a lesson a lifetime ago that detailed the use of the left little finger as a backstop, and a way to push the jogged card flush with ease.

Carney uses a glide type thing in Inscrutable, IIRC.

Edit: replying to Farmer on this one.

[Richard Kaufman]

Not the "normal" method. Prior to that, the cards were flush with the bottom of the deck when the Glide was performed.

[Tarotist]

I cannot recall how many decades it's been since I've seen a good cardworker use a Glide.

I use it frequently and always have. As for being a good cardworker I have always been enamoured of my own brilliance in these matters.

[Tarotist]

The Glide as normally done is terrible. The cards are turned face down, the fingers go under the cards and apparently pull out the bottom card.

Here is how to do it deceptively: the cards are face up. Place your fingers on the card you will apparently remove and only then do you turn the cards face down and remove the apparent bottom card.

It is all one smooth motion.

I have been doing it this way for decades ever since I read it in one of the Routined Manipulation books by Lewis Ganson. In fact I mentioned it in the Glide chapter to my most worthy "Annotated Royal Road to Card Magic". However, you only need to put one finger on the face of the deck, either the index or middle finger. I use the latter. There is a strong retention of vision element to it. As for the Edward Victor ruse I use it occasionally.

[Bob Farmer]

Mark is absolutely right--it is the retention of vision that makes the move.

The only downside to the move is that a few times in my magical life, a laymen has shown me a trick and used the terrible version of the Glide for the effect.

[Tarotist]

I think it was Dr Daley who said that only six magicians in America could do the glide properly! Probably an overstatement but there was probably some truth to the point he was making.

[magicfish]

I've worked on a smooth, dealers grip Elmsley Count for decades. I'm still looking for Vol. 2 of his Collected Works.

[Richard Kaufman]

The topic has veered into non-magic controversial territory, so some posts have been modified and/or removed.

[Brad Henderson]

I find myself preferring a necktie second deal (from the bottom) when needing to execute glide type maneuvers.

[Tarotist]

Oddly enough today I came across an amusing little item using the glide in Arthur Buckley's Card Control. I have had the book for ages but have never been able to read it with any enthusiasm because not only is the material very difficult to do it also seems to be badly described and hard to understand.

However, this morning I actually discovered something in the book which was easy to understand and even better easier to do. Not a great mystery but more of an amusing interlude. It uses the glide several times. If you have the book check it out. It is called "Do You See Red?" and is on page 153. I can see myself doing it.

[magicfish]

Do you have the black hardbound edition?

[Tarotist]

Nope. The paperback.

[El Mystico]

There is a wonderful Vernon handling of the glide in Cervon's Castle Notebooks. For me, in its own way, it is as beautiful as his top palm.

But, on topic, I was delighted when Alex sent me the Beta version of his Mouse Magic computer project; its cleverness blew me away. I guess The Chief Genii had a similar reaction. While it ended up as a 'game' on a couple of platforms, sadly, I think it is no longer available.

[Bob Farmer]

The Glide False Count works very well. I learned it in a Homing Card routine. It was in a little booklet by Hugard and Braue. The booklet also had an interesting Double Lift using the tip of a finger nail. See:

https://www.lybrary.com/show-stoppers-w ... -p-31.html

[Tarotist]

Yes. I have the book and learned a four ace routine using that double lift. Or at least the same principle anyway. I can't remember if the routine was in the book or not but I suppose it must have been. You actually cut to the four aces using the same idea. There is also something similar in Expert Card Technique by Luis Zingone but you cut at the sides rather than the ends.