In between Erdnase

Although Erdnase is regarded as the first text to provide meticulous detail, I am seeing more and more people unable to comprehend or appreciate the fine detail. I will use for example The Systems of Palming.

First, Erdnase specifically references them as systems, not moves, implying the necessity of transitions in and out. These transitions and contexts he provides, Method One, it is clearly noted that the cards are over hand shuffled to retain top stock. Then obtain a break during square up and the palm would remove a block of cards, a somewhat random albeit estimable number.
If you attempt this palm after an overhand shuffle, say Shuffle I to retain top stock or Shuffle II to retain top stock then immediately go into the palm. You will note the ease in which the palm is accomplished and the necessity of the deck to be turned in the hands before squaring (obtain break) then palming instantly before placing the cards down.
Erdnase provides perfect solutions for specific situations and after very particular sets of card play procedures have taken place. Nothing to scoff at and certainly anyone saying it is dated, is indirectly implying the rules of cards have changed or the procedures varied. I haven't found that to be true, but then again, who am I?

Light as a Feather

Vernon mentions playing cards being that of butterflies ready to take flight and as such should be handled accordingly. Erdnase is a book where that applies strongly! If a move needs a hard grip perhaps you should reconsider the move and the neccessity for the application. Personally I am finding the less pressure I put on the cards in any Erdnase situation the better they reward me, yes even the shifts, espeically the shifts!! If one is so inclined try this, go to somewhere in Erdnase and attempt the moves with the deck turned 90 degrees to where it should be. This won't matter so much for the longitudinal shift but try it for the second deal, the bottom deal, the palms, etc. It's quite interesting to see the results and you might be surprised at yourself!

Illusions- Not the big gawdy box types

I alluded to the idea of some moves or sleights in magic, rather, sequences lets say, of moves in magic that are so impossible you disregard them. This was with reference to dropping the deck a tiny bit after the top palm. In any case, there are many examples of technique where the 2 or 3 actions produce not only a perfect illusion but the illusion of comfort to the audience. I recall being burned badly by an exemplary executed Tenkai palm. The hands of this performer were so natural and slow as well as fingers spread that I was floored! This doesn't only apply to palming, anyone who has developed a fairly deceptive second deal, strike, push off, or one-handed will certainly be able to attest to this. If you have ever shown someone the top card, dealt down a bunch of cards then revealed the top card to be the same, you know the impact it has on someone. Leaving the card face up and then dealing once more, in which they usually reply they understand when they really have no idea. You turn the card down one more and begin dealing again before revealing the same top card, and surprise! The audience member is baffled but knows what happened, as odd as that sounds. That is an example of a technique being so good, it has the illusion of being what it is meant to simulate while still maintaining it's inherent impossibility as a maneuver in and of itself! False shuffles come to mind as well, a very well executed strip out, Shank or Zarrow shuffle can fool those 'in the know' especially when top cards start changing and following Erdnase's sequence of shuffle, shuffle, cuts, most are left baffled once you start doing a sequence of cuts. Vernon has wonderful work in Inner Card Trilogy on the 2 shuffle Zarrow sequence, aside from superior technique, by undercutting to your left and shuffling under the top card of the bottom packet (left) the top card changes, upon maintaining a break and shuffling once more as mentioned above, one will find the deck is as it was to begin with but it has been cut, all the while you are holding a break at this point, you may simply cut to the break or a sequence of run cuts can right the cards to how they begun, a wonderful sequence to keep people thinking you are playing fair.
On a side note, I don't know who or how much people are getting from these postings. So seeing as comments are available please post your thoughts, part of writing this is not only for my personal documentation but also for me to receive thought from others either for or against my statements and in the hopes that I may grow as a magician, which certainly helps when attempting to document individual thoughts on such seminal work!

"Dropping the Deck"

I believe on more than one occasion the idea of dropping the deck is mentioned in Erdnase. Now this statement seems unusual. Try one of the moves in Erdnase where a drop is mentioned (Systems of Palming is a good section to consider). Have you been able to drop the deck in what appears to be a natural way? I have, but not without difficulty in acquiring the knack, and of course I don't claim it is perfect. But one must consider the thoughts on placing a deck down with authority as is customary by so many card workers to date. Although the loud thud which accompanies what appears to be a brutal attack on the deck and the table is reassuring it certainly seems to go against Erdnase's thoughts on grace with the deck. That lovely pounding given to a pack of playing cards is an action suited to a bungler. So here we are with this dilemma of sorts. The way in which one places a deck of cards down gives you a great deal of information about an individual. The cards must move the same way the finished card expert does. If graceful then with grace, if bungling then with a thud or other equal odd action. What we do learn however in come capacity is how Erdnase likely handled cards, lightly with a hands off feel and a remarkable touch. Also the drop has tremendous advantages to it. The deception inherent in concealing a card or cards after one has lightly dropped a deck of cards to a surface is astounding. The hand appears to open and let all within fall, yet you may be holding out. Following the thought that anyone with any minute assumption of foul play at the table immediately means discontinuing any risky maneuvers this dropping action helps to reinforce legitimacy. Much like when one has acquired the ability to deal the second card of the deck. If you were to show someone the deal face down, it looks perfect, then you show the unmoved card, it's startling, now leaving it face up you continue to deal. The impact is even greater. Once more turned down and dealt in slow motion perhaps solidifies the notion that even the keenest observer can not detect the technique. I believe this inability to fathom that the second from top card is possible to take simulating the first parallels with Erdnase's dropping of the deck. Thus bringing the technique to a level of refinement prior to and after the initial means has been made. Truly an idea and concept that 'borders on the wonderful', we are forever in the debt of this man we will never truly know.

Improving Erdnase

In case you fair readers haven't noticed, I have a small obsession with Erdnase. Recently I have been approached or rather reprimanded for encouraging the use of "dated" techniques. The problem is those "improved" techniques are not improvements at all. They are garbage, disgusting excuses for technique. I quickly jumped to the realization that the techniques being shown or recommended to me are not improvements but rather they are easier to acquire proficiency in than those brilliant methods presented by Erdnase.
Those techniques associated with the bottom deal come to mind. There is little doubt in my mind that Erdnase was a bottom dealer. His praise for techniques related to the bottom deal, these include but are not limited to, the bottom palm, the replacement, the bottom deal itself, etc. coupled with his mention of flaw in other techniques or restrictions, such as the requirement of marked cards in utilizing the second deal all lead one to believe Erdnase enjoyed his dealing from the bottom of the deck. The bottom deal is for another post. The point being, the bottom deal has to be one of the most "improved" techniques or Erdnase's.
How and why would anyone dream of attempting to improve such a seminal text on a topic and technique which the author is clearly an expert, an innovator and a polished professional. Before people try to improve Erdnase, why not learn the techniques correctly, become as good as you can at them, then once you have reached a level of mastery that "borders on the wonderful" you can attempt (and that is all it will be, an attempt) to improve the masters work.
I don't think any artist in his right mind would improve Van Gogh's self-portrait, or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, perhaps a touch of realism in Monet's impressionist work? Or someone might want to correct Mona Lisa's smile. That is of course because you are an expert of such unmatched skill and care that you are greater than those who came before you, even if you can't do what they did, with lower quality tools.