talkmagic.co.uk

Jordan C wrote:What about those times when you use a borrowed deck, no doubles or gaffs there yet the signed card still adds a big wow factor as it's double confirmation!!

You have people sign with a borrowed deck? Isn't that impolite? Even on the odd occasions when I have people sign a card from my own deck they are like "write on it? I don't want to ruin your cards!"

Always offer to replace the deck...

you rarely get asked to

I suppose it depends on the situation, but I certainly wouldn't ask a punter to mark a deck that wasn't mine. And just because they don't ask for a replacement doesn't mean they're alright with it.

erm... you're going slightly off the point here... i offered one scenario and to be honest you'd ask first anyway!!!

point is, if you have to question the significance of a signed card why are you doing card magic?

Because I personally find that it's unnecessary and adds little - if anything - to the performance. I love doing card magic, I simply find the marking of cards pointless and dull. I don't see why this should be a barrier between myself and card magic.

reformedarsonist wrote:Because I personally find that it's unnecessary and adds little - if anything - to the performance. I love doing card magic, I simply find the marking of cards pointless and dull. I don't see why this should be a barrier between myself and card magic.

Personally, I find it isn't uneccesarry and can add a lot. From a layperson's point of view, especially during effects where a card has been selected, the explenation that they usually have is "duplicates" (albeit among others). What better way is there to discount that explenation? It is truly "their" card- the signing/marking of a card is a standard "convincer" in card magic and it is so because it works. As for being "pointless and dull", perhaps that is partly down to you as a performer not filling in the small amount of "dead time" as the card is marked/signed?

What dead time? It takes two seconds to write on a card, and then all eyes are on the writer so there's no dead time. I don't dislike it because of the time it takes, because the time it takes is negligible. I've discussed my views on ways to blow the "duplicate" idea out of the water without resorting to writing on cards - and if the "laypeople" are to believe you can make cards move under impossible conditions, why is forging a signature on a duplicate a bridge too far? I don't think it satisfies either half of the audience - those who would suspect duplicate won't be assuaged by a signature, those who wouldn't suspect a duplicate don't need convincing anyway.

It may be a standard convincer - I have nothing against those who incorporate ambitious card routines into their repertoire, it's a time tested routine. I simply think there's better ways to convince the spec that their card is the only one of its kind in the deck. If you open with this and make it absolutely clear that their card is the only one of its sort in the deck, you don't need to keep reiterating it later, even when it's no longer necessarily true (heaven forfend we would lie to our punters).

This is just me though. I'm not having a go at anybody, this is just how I perceive magic.

reformedarsonist wrote:What dead time? It takes two seconds to write on a card, and then all eyes are on the writer so there's no dead time. I don't dislike it because of the time it takes, because the time it takes is negligible.

During a lecture I saw by David Penn, he said the opposite. Your job is to entertain as many people as possible, and there's a magnitude of tricks you can do for other people while the one person from a group of several is concentrating on something else. I mean, why not?

That's why when I'm searching for some cards in my deck, I've learned (thank you, Garcia) to use the line "Erm, anybody know any jokes?". Let somebody else do the bloody entertaining for a change... (for the record, I also do tell a deliberately bad joke once I'm done!). And with the right group (usually young males), it fills the gap like a treat. Even if it's only a few seconds.. which is a LOT longer than you realise

If you open with this and make it absolutely clear that their card is the only one of its sort in the deck

How do you do this? I hate making things clear, it's too cheap.

Well, an easy way is to spread them out on the table and get them to pick one out of the spread, and ask them to make sure there are no duplicates, no gimmicks etc. etc. and to allow them as much time as they like to select a card. This needn't be dead time - take a leaf from Canasta's book and insist that if they wish to change their mind, they can, and it makes no difference which card they select. I feel allowing them to inspect the spread at one point not only allows for a stronger performance but totally eliminates the need for signed selections.

Again, I don't use ambitious card and haven't for some time but if I were to return to it now, I certainly wouldn't use a signed card.

reformedarsonist wrote:What dead time? It takes two seconds to write on a card, and then all eyes are on the writer so there's no dead time.
. If you open with this and make it absolutely clear that their card is the only one of its sort in the deck, you don't need to keep reiterating it later...

Well there's more like 6-7 odd seconds, and that is a hell of a long time when nothing is going on and you have an audience (no matter how many) waiting around for something to happen. And I can understand making it clear that its the only card in the deck at the beginning, but this can- and does- have the opposite effect. it's the same principle as the old "and my hand is clearly empty" or whatever. Suddenly, by drawing attention to it, the audience is suspicious. Suddenly it's "well is it actually the only card in the deck?" By signing it, you're not explicitly telling them its the only card like that in the deck, but the inference is there. It's even possible to slip in the odd comparison to signatures being akin to fingerprints (I'm sure Darwin ortiz writes about this in strong magic), which satisfies the audience (even if its merely on a subconscious level) that the card is unique. I have to agree with kolm though that most of the time less is more.

I suppose it depends on your style of presentation.

reformedarsonist wrote:Well, an easy way is to spread them out on the table and get them to pick one out of the spread, and ask them to make sure there are no duplicates, no gimmicks etc. etc. and to allow them as much time as they like to select a card. This needn't be dead time - take a leaf from Canasta's book and insist that if they wish to change their mind, they can, and it makes no difference which card they select. I feel allowing them to inspect the spread at one point not only allows for a stronger performance but totally eliminates the need for signed selections.

Hm, as cymru says though, that screams out "I have a duplicate! Haha! G'wan, try and find it! I dares ya!"

And it's pretty pointless asking a spec they can change their mind as they're signing it

Anyone tried card on ceiling without a signed card?

I know people have come back to the bar with their friends to show them the card stuck to the ceiling time after time.

Not sure they'd do that as much without the card being signed.

I personally only do one card trick per "set" maybe at a push two and everyone of my tricks involves a signed card?

Why? only because their card will end up in my wallet(envelope), in a bottle or on the ceiling and I want them to keep it.

I think the signed card adds a little personal touch to the effect. Other than the fact that the know that only one card is used and to be honest I would never make a point of showing that there are no duplicate or trick cards because most of the time that'll just assume that the deck is normal anyway, all that's going to do is plant the possibility of gaffs in the specs mind.

Going back to the point about personalising the effect, with a signed card, that also get to see the magic happening with 'their' card, a card which they can take away afterwards.

reformedarsonist wrote:It's not something that we "know" and they don't, it's a matter of opinion. But the difference between professional magicians and amateurs isn't a bit of ink on a pasteboard - that's not what separates the hobbyist from the pro.

That doesn't approach an answer to the question.

At the Circle and the Castle I have seen, over the years, many of the greatest card men. When they do certain tricks (basically any card to 'location' ie mouth, wallet, ring box and ambitious card, anniv waltz etc), they have a card signed.

Why do you think they do this? What do you know about magic presentation that they have massively got wrong?