talkmagic.co.uk

I have enhanced the effect in this way-

After passing the first two aces... I say lets see how were doing! I then pick up the assembly packet and show that the first two aces are in that packet along with one remaining indifferent card. I replace the packet on the table, vanish the last ace...then show all four aces in the assembly packet.. spread on the table.

I have been doing this for time, but have not seen anyone else do anything like it

I personally think this reduces the effect. If you are going to have a second climax, surely it has to be better than the first and not the same.
The simple act of having the spectator covering the cards with their hand until the end is simply enough until the climax at the end.

It's not a second climax.. it shows that there are indifferent cards in all piles!!!!

Then I've lost you. It sounds like you vanish the first two, show they have moved to the assembly pile (climax 1), then vanish the second two and show they have also moved to the assembly pile (climax 2).
If thats not it, then you need to expand a bit more.

By the way, it may be worth popping into the introduction and introducing yourself.

Frank Garcia must be rolling over in his grave right now!

mprof wrote:Frank Garcia must be rolling over in his grave right now!

Uh - why?

Andy is quite correct; unless I've also missed your point, you're 'semi-climaxing' half way through the routine.

When you're displaying the entire result, at the end, surely your specs are like, "Oh well - yeah...we were expecting that, 'cause you'd already pointed to what was going to happen"?

I am torn on this....I think I undestand what you are saying, but also completely agree with the previous posts about it being anticlimactic...could you post a vid of your performance so we can all agree that we are imagining the same thing! It would make everyones feedback more appropriate if we all know exactly what we are referencing

I'm of the same mind as the others - but it should also be pointed out that your approach is not exactly new. Oz Pearlman's variation of McDonald's Aces also shows the aces travelling in the middle of the effect, exactly the way you describe.

While I think Oz overcomplicates the handling (making it involve more than it needs to - tampering with perfection and all that), it is an interesting take on it.

Showing them in the middle of the effect can only serve to dampen the effect. As Rob said - they already know the other one is going there, so now it's more about waiting for it to happen, then watching and being surprised at the end.

Also, how do you deal with the fact that you cannot show all of the cards, only being able to show the two aces that have already travelled? Some spectators may want to know why you are only showing three of the four cards in the packet. Hunt down Oz's version (it's an instant download on penguinmagic.com, I think), and you'll see that he can show the aces travelling AND the indifferent card the still remains with the packet before vanishing and transposing the final ace.

Is the OZ version called "Ulitmate Ace assembly?"

robstanley1 wrote:[ you're 'semi-climaxing' half way through

I have this problem all too often...


... Oh wait

Is the OZ version called "Ulitmate Ace assembly?"

Yes - and there's nothing 'ultimate' about it!

The technique is awefull - it is far too risky to perform to a close up audience in my opinion as it relies on the 'sticky card' principle.

Looks great on camera and is no doubt why Penguin shift loads of these.

The way you describe the effect it sounds a lot like "Slo Motion Aces" with g**fs.

McD's Aces is perfect the way it is.

This is my strongest card trick. The key to it is to have the spectator cover the ace pile with his hand from the outset and keep it there until the denoument. For some reason magicians don't seem to do this. If they did they would double the effect of the trick.

With the version above of course you can't do this and that alone is one good reason not to do it that way.

Incidentally this trick had damn all to do with MacDonald in the first place. It is not a new trick. It was invented by Hofzinser in the century before last. He called it "Power of Faith"

Of course MacDonald was a magic pitchman. We all know how to lie cheat and steal. I have been doing it for years.

I am at the point where the cards are laid out on the table..

I do not do the force of the packet..

I say something to the effect.. Keep you eyes on the Aces, they have a tendacy to move about!

I vanish the first ace, then the second.. Did you see where they went?? Neither did I!

I then move to the packet where I am to vanish the last ace an show that the the packet still contains three indifferent cards and the ace.

I then move to the lead packet and show that the packet now contains the the two vanished aces, an indifferent card and the original ace. This is shown in a spread. (no sticky.. something new I found).

I say there they are!.. I replace the packet on the table as they were and ask the spectator to place their hand on the packet. (completely safe)

I vanish the last ace and ask the spectator to lift their hand and turn over the cards ahowing all four aces.

marco

My gut feeling is that you should not stop to show the ace packet. I could be wrong but I don't think so . To my mind it slows the trick down and you are overproving things. Keep in mind Al Baker's dictum "Don't run when nobody's chasing you"

Just in case I am wrong I suggest you try an experiment. Even if it works in your favour it will still be an educational exercise for you. Get a piece of notepaper and write down the numbers one to 6.

Perform the trick 6 times for a layman. But you alternate things. First you do it your way with the delay. Then you do it the standard way of not stopping but make sure they put their hands on the ace pile from the beginning.

After performing the trick each time make a note of the audience reaction thus "Fantastic-good- not bad-so,so-mediocre." note the appropriate reaction each time.

After performing it 6 times note the difference. Then make your decision. I think it will be to abandon the delay.