talkmagic.co.uk

Is it better to get a spectator to sign a card? Is there any point? What are the pros and cons?

Are you for real with this type of question?

It's a MASSIVE PLUS!!! It can ONLY be their card they "saw" go "wherever" but it clearly wasn't as it's now in it's "reveal" location!!

How strong a clincher that real magic just happened do you need?

My thinking was if you do an ambitious card routien without having the card signed, it does give you that wonderful moment when the spectator will say "let me see those cards you must have a duplicate"!

jhmagic1 wrote:My thinking was if you do an ambitious card routien without having the card signed, it does give you that wonderful moment when the spectator will say "let me see those cards you must have a duplicate"!

I question if that is a 'wonderful moment'.

Think about it from the spec's POV.

You do your routine. They think there is more than one of the card. All the way through they have a solution to the method. You finish. They ask to see the deck.

Or...

They sign the card. You do your routine. They *know* there is only one card signed like that, so have no solution to the method. You finish. They are fooled and hopefully entertained.

There are times when obviously an unsigned card is a must but being able to have a spec sign a card and then take it away with them (with your phone number on if she's fit) is a big plus.

jhmagic1 wrote:it does give you that wonderful moment when the spectator will say "let me see those cards you must have a duplicate"!

That's why it's signed: you'll have that wonderful moment where they think "you must have a duplicate" but you also have that wonderful moment where they think "...but it can't be a duplicate..."

Often making things subtle (flashing an apparently empty hand) is more powerful than making things obvious ("And as you can see there's nothing in my hand"), because they get to see/realise it for themselves. Psychology, see

I'm not really a fan of "signed cards" - well, I'm not a fan of the ambitious card routine on its own anyway, but I think if you introduce the idea of a signed card it brings with it the idea that you must be relying on gimmicks the rest of time when you're not using signed cards. You can eliminate the idea of a duplicate by doing it once and then turning over the top handful of cards for inspection. Or using The Velvet Turnover, where they can turn the card over themselves.

I think as soon as you introduce the idea that a spectator should sign a card to prove its not a gimmick, they'll wonder why you felt the need to do that. Just my two cents.

Would an ambitious card effect have more of an impact if they think all the way through that you have a duplicate, and then when they examine the deck they find there is only one of their card?

jhmagic1 wrote:Would an ambitious card effect have more of an impact if they think all the way through that you have a duplicate, and then when they examine the deck they find there is only one of their card?

Is this a real question? This is a vary pointless thread I think... I think signing the card from the start is a better idea. Think about it, if they think that your using a duplicate card and when they go through and don't find it, what if they think you've done away with the duplicate? I mean, think about it, you are a magician.

jhmagic1 wrote:Would an ambitious card effect have more of an impact if they think all the way through that you have a duplicate, and then when they examine the deck they find there is only one of their card?

Depends. Here's how I used to do the ambitious card.

1. Ask them to pick a card (I force one on them). I ask them to put it on top, face up (I necessitate this by saying "and just put it there face up so we can all see it"). That's their card, X.
2. I turn X over (that way they remember putting it there themselves), put X in the middle. Strike me down, it's back on top.
3. At this point (with X in their hand) I turn over the whole deck and fan them out - I don't explicitly say that this is for inspection, but I know this is what they'll be looking for, so I do it anyway. I ask them to pick a place for their card to go. They put it in. I collate the cards back together, wahey, it's back on top.
4. I do this one more time, except I get it to the bottom using Mike's Move (Urban Magik) And then ask them to hold onto it.
5. I turn the whole deck over again and voila, all the cards are blank except theirs.

I'm not sure exactly how much I can say without giving it away - or indeed how much I really should be saying on a public forum - but it obviously needs a table and a jacket. If I don't have either I simply eliminate the deck switch. You can show there's no duplicates without scribbling all over your cards. And besides, audiences will not be convinced by a signed card - if they're smart enough to assume you're using gimmicks and duplicates they won't arbitrarily decide that a forged signature is a line you wouldn't dare cross; on the other hand, if they wouldn't assume a duplicate was in play, the signature is unnecessary.
But that's just me. I'm remarkably against marking cards, I feel it invites unwarranted suspicion. The only time I've seen it done positively is with a signed back, but even then it can be sidestepped by having the card face up.

Ian the Mental-Ian wrote:

jhmagic1 wrote:Would an ambitious card effect have more of an impact if they think all the way through that you have a duplicate, and then when they examine the deck they find there is only one of their card?

Is this a real question? This is a vary pointless thread I think... I think signing the card from the start is a better idea. Think about it, if they think that your using a duplicate card and when they go through and don't find it, what if they think you've done away with the duplicate? I mean, think about it, you are a magician.

I think it's worth discussing - if they think you've done away with a duplicate, why couldn't you fake a rough signature on a duplicate?

And what's possibly more interesting is why the signature-on-the-card is almost always used with ambitious card routines and not with others. Of all the effects I've seen where the magicians whips out a feather and inkwell and insists the young lady writes her name on the pasteboard, 99% of the time it's ambitious card. Why not card-under-the-box? It's the same effect, but why does one need an arbitrary squiggle and the other doesn't?

The argument for using a signiture is that the spectator will feel that the ambitious card routien is more personnal to them when they sign the card.

I do see your point, and if you're the kind of person who is compelled to hand out souvenirs after each set then that's a nice way of doing it, but I don't think it adds anything to the trick, and personally I don't feel it adds any kind of personal touch. It might simplify matters when he's telling the story anecdotally in years to come - "I signed the card, he put it in the middle it came to the top/appeared in his jacket/ruptured my kidney" or whatever - but I personally have seen absolutely no benefit from having the card marked. Apart from souvenir value or whatever.

Perhaps I'm not one to comment on this issue as A) I find destruction/marking of cards to be a needless exercise and B) I think the ambitious card routine is intrinsically low on the entertainment scale no matter what garnish is put upon it. I've seen dozens of magicians do it and, with the possible exception of Tommy Wonder's take on it, I don't think it's that good a trick. And even then I think it was more Tommy than the trick that I found mesmerizing.

I generally don't have my ACR card suspected as being a double as I hand the spec the deck, ask them to shuffle it and then look through the faces and choose any card they fancy. The selection is so fair that they don't suspect a double.

there is a time and place for signed cards. AC is apparantly hit or miss with most people, but take something like the anniversary waltz and do it without people signing the card and I can assure while the reactions will be good, they wont be as good because of how personal that trick is. So really you have to judge the situation, but if possible, I would say let them sign it.

A huge plus I would like to add is that if you allow them to sign a card, when the trick is done and they've had time to reflect on it and tell their friends what happened, people tend to exaggerate and make you seem greater than you are, and when they show thier mates the card with the name on it, it gives you more credibility if you ever perform for them again