talkmagic.co.uk

Actually the routine is a variation of Hofzinsers Everywhere and Nowhere Routine. Darwins and every modern version is based on that original routine. In the original routine a card is selected and put back in the deck. Another 3 cards are selected (without showing their faces) and the magician proceeds to show that every card is the selected card, Then all three turn out to be different ones in the end. Considering it was first published in 1931 you could call it a classic.

Hippie wrote:Actually the routine is a variation of Hofzinsers Everywhere and Nowhere Routine. Darwins and every modern version is based on that original routine. In the original routine a card is selected and put back in the deck. Another 3 cards are selected (without showing their faces) and the magician proceeds to show that every card is the selected card, Then all three turn out to be different ones in the end. Considering it was first published in 1931 you could call it a classic.

I don't want to be a spoil sport but I would have to disagree with this as I am aware of Everywhere and Nowhere and also Jumping Gemini. Although I do agree that Everywhere and Nowhere should be conisdered a classic it is nothing like Jumping Gemini which is the trick in the original post and clip!

For a start in E & N, three duplicates of the same card are used, and one of these is "chosen" by a spectator, you then proceed to show an indifferent card 3 times to the spectators and each time the spectator says its not his card, you change the wrong card for the chosen card as you make your way back to the table where the three cards are displayed in a small stand in full view of the audience.

You then pretend to hypnotise the audience to make them think the wrong cards are the chosen card and as you put them on the table after showing them to "look" like the chosen card, you again change them to indifferent cards again.

You then proceed to show some of the cards in the deck are first indifferent cards and then the indifferent cards become the chosen card. and then you proceed to show there is none of the chosen cards in the deck as it was apparently in your pocket from the beginning!

I fail to see how this is anything like Jumping Gemini:

In J G no duplicates are used, you begin and end with only a packet of 4 cards, no cards are chosen by the spectators, you show the top card and then claim that all the cards are the same as this card (which is the opposite of E & N) and then you show another card and then claim that all the cards match this new card and then for a kicker you show all the cards to be the 4 kings!

Basically E & N centres round one card, whereas J G has the cards changing first to one card, then a different card, and then the 4 kings for a kicker!

jbmagic wrote:

Hippie wrote:Actually the routine is a variation of Hofzinsers Everywhere and Nowhere Routine. Darwins and every modern version is based on that original routine. In the original routine a card is selected and put back in the deck. Another 3 cards are selected (without showing their faces) and the magician proceeds to show that every card is the selected card, Then all three turn out to be different ones in the end. Considering it was first published in 1931 you could call it a classic.

I don't want to be a spoil sport but I would have to disagree with this as I am aware of Everywhere and Nowhere and also Jumping Gemini. Although I do agree that Everywhere and Nowhere should be conisdered a classic it is nothing like Jumping Gemini which is the trick in the original post and clip!

For a start in E & N, three duplicates of the same card are used, and one of these is "chosen" by a spectator, you then proceed to show an indifferent card 3 times to the spectators and each time the spectator says its not his card, you change the wrong card for the chosen card as you make your way back to the table where the three cards are displayed in a small stand in full view of the audience.

You then pretend to hypnotise the audience to make them think the wrong cards are the chosen card and as you put them on the table after showing them to "look" like the chosen card, you again change them to indifferent cards again.

You then proceed to show some of the cards in the deck are first indifferent cards and then the indifferent cards become the chosen card. and then you proceed to show there is none of the chosen cards in the deck as it was apparently in your pocket from the beginning!

I fail to see how this is anything like Jumping Gemini:

In J G no duplicates are used, you begin and end with only a packet of 4 cards, no cards are chosen by the spectators, you show the top card and then claim that all the cards are the same as this card (which is the opposite of E & N) and then you show another card and then claim that all the cards match this new card and then for a kicker you show all the cards to be the 4 kings!

Basically E & N centres round one card, whereas J G has the cards changing first to one card, then a different card, and then the 4 kings for a kicker!

JB your right about Everywhere and Nowhere but the premise was set by it. I do Everywhere and Nowhere variation exactly as I discribed (which would be quite different from Hofzinser"s) but Everywhere and Nowhere was the original routine that inspired my variation. Alot of greats have varied it in such a manner. If I took away the chosen card and threw in 1 extra card I would end up with Jumpin Gemini. So you see Everywhere and Nowhere is the starting point. Just as Invincible is the starting point for Travellers but everyone overlooks it for Open Travellers. But if you go back to Larry's original book (Larry 67) you'd see he mentions it as starting point.

Also JB as the name says it all Everywhere and Nowhere. That set off alot of magicians thinkin about a card being everywhere and then nowhere (same card and then it's none of the cards). This routine (jumpin Gemini) has the same premise one 1 card everywhere and then nowhere. The only difference is instead of one card being everywhere, 2 cards are everywhere then nowhere.

JB I'm not trying to nail you but if you need further proof as to how Hofzinsers inspired most of these routine with a card being everywhere then nowhere check out "Backward Everywhere and Nowhere" by Bill Miesel or John Thompson's "Hofzinser's All-Backed".

Or Dingle's everywhere and Nowhere In The Air. All variations but inspired by the same routine which would look nothing like the original.

Yeh, but you can's say it's a variation if its a completely different trick! Everywhere and Nowhere uses lots of different slights which I won't name here but you know what I am talking about!

It also involves spectators selecting cards, also E & N is a stage trick as it is important that the spectators choosing the cards are in different parts of the audience.

J G is a close-up trick.....E & N uses duplicates and changes indifferent cards into these duplicates and then back! J G shows the cards are all the same....that alone makes it a different effect altogether!

Also J G has a kicker ending of showing the cards to be yet different cards again! E & N's kicker ending if you like, shows the chosen cards to not be in the pack but in the pocket! Is that the same or similar to J G, I would say its a totally different trick!

Also remember E & N is a full deck trick made for the stage, J G is a packet trick made for close-up! .......I rest my case!

So you haven't nailed me, I think you should quit while your down!

JB Dingles, Miesel and Thompson everywhere and nowhere are all close up versions and secondly you think because you add an extra kicker or handling it changes the fact that the original inspired that variation? Do you even know what the tricks I'm talkin bout look like? Do you do them have you seen them? Some use plain cards (no dups or gimmicked). Because Gemini has an extra step in the process to you changes where it's origins are from? Because it uses different sleights that means the original is not it's starting point? If thats the case then all the different versions of effects that use different sleights or add an extra step should claim there totally original and give no credits to anyone else. You may be right in your thinkin I'm just old fashioned. I come from the time that giving credit was important in magic now everyone claims it's original and never bothers to check who invented the wheel before them.

And if that were not enough Jumpin Gemini is a variation of The Pinochle Trick by Bro Hamman. And if you examine Pinochle trick (which by the way isn't much different from jumpin Gemini but you'd probably call it a new trick) it is a Everywhere and Nowhere effect. Go look up Pinochle and tell me if Jumpin Gemini is much different.

Why do these sort of debates always seem to be agressive? Can no-one remeber how to express an opinion and remember that it is only an opinion and not written in stone? If this conversation does not become more civilised it will become locked.

Hippie wrote: You may be right in your thinkin I'm just old fashioned. I come from the time that giving credit was important in magic now everyone claims it's original and never bothers to check who invented the wheel before them.

Hippie, my original post stated that I disagreed with you, on the point that I thought that Jumping Gemini is a different trick to Everywhere and Nowhere........I don't know what Darwin Ortiz was thinking when he created Jumping Gemini, and unless your a mind reader, neither do you!

I have my opinions and you have yours, what I don't expect is to be judged by you on other points such as I apparently don't think giving credit is important.....how you jumped to this conclusion baffles me!

I happen to think its very important to give credit to people's original ideas but I refer to what I said above, do you know for certain that Darwin Ortiz was inspired by Everywhere and Nowhere when he created Jumping Gemini.....to me it's a different as the two tricks are nothing like each other.........I say lets agree to disagree.

If everyone on here was to react the way you did when someone disagrees with them then whats the point in being a member of this forum and I for one will have to watch what I say in case I happen to disagree with someone!....maybe I should just keep my opinions to myself and not bother!

Let me ask you this.........if fruit were artificial and someone made them! By your thinking......an orange is a variation on an apple because its the same shape....thats the only thing its got going for that argument! The fact that its from a completely different tree doesnt count?

Nickj, I think you should lock this subject as I never expected to be insulted by just expessing my opinion!

lets agree to disagree

Sounds good to me so let's just lock it and leave it for the time being.