talkmagic.co.uk

Gathering up all the cards without someone helping you or one being exposed with a table so big, and a spread potentially so wide would give me pause.

The m*rked deck / ID combo also allows for elaboration, say: three shots taken, those three cards left out while a spec collects up the rest (freely able to look at faces) then a final shot to pick the chosen card. Get out ID and reveal prediction before turning over the other two finalists, seeing they don't match and then asking anyone to put coins on table (ala reserving a game) before asking them to take cueball off their choice and turn over.

Hmmmm. In fact I think I'll do that one myself!

Jim, thanks for taking the time to write such a well justified reply. Being able to clearly see the reasoning behind another performers thoughts is a rare opportunity, and I can't say I disagree with any of your points.

I was instinctively drawn towards clearing the table of other cards because I quite liked the image of the selected card on its own on the much larger table, nicely framed. I liked your point about the spec wanting to turn over other cards though. I wouldn't want to draw attention to it, but I like the idea of having something left for people to check if they want to.

The MD/ID idea is very clever, but it seems a bit too contrived from a performance point of view. Why would you take a prediction (in that context) and turn it upside down in the pack? Just seems a bit too complex (not from a method point of view, just too much going on). MD and a NW would work better than an ID I would say.

I'd still be drawn towards a one way deck if I was to do it, but I can definitely see the advantages of Jim's idea with the index. I do like the spec being able to turn over other cards if they want to, but I guess all methods are just about deciding where to compromise...

Thank you for your reply.

I understand what you mean about the picture of the single card and ball on the empty table, its a good thought. Perhaps a compromise could be made by clearing the cards around the ball/card (just pushing them away). This would achieve a similar result and still allow the cards to remain on the table.

The point you made about the ma**ed deck/ID combination is interesting. Before reading your post (while thinking about this trick) I actually had a similar thought - I think you're correct. This combination would be exellent for impromptu work, or if presented in such a way that it appears the idea "just came to you" to try the effect. If you are performing this as a set effect or as a feature piece then the ID doesn't really make sense - in fact it may actually arouse suspicion in this context. In this case I would prefer the prediction to be seen as a single entity, such as a single card/billet in an envelope, pocket or box.

There are many effects which suggest a method, to anyone who thinks about them. What's worse is that sometimes the suggested method is actually the correct one. In these cases I feel it is important to address this - the obvious solution must be dispelled somehow. Take the standard floating bill for example (or any small to medium levitation) - the first solution a thinking spectator is likely come up with is the very method we are using. So we have moves and techniques which we can use to make this method seem impossible.

An example of this from my own repertoire is my approach to the "Pen through note" effect. To someone who is thinking about this the use of ma***ts will certainly be an option. So we should ideally have something which either dispels this thought completely, or makes the use of ma***ts seem impossible. One of the first things I thought of was how someone (non magician) would handle this prop if given it to play with, being told what it was for. So I let a few family members have a go. Every one of them did almost exactly the same thing to get it "through" the note and to get it back off - they awkwardly held one part underneath the note, one on top and stuck them together. To get it back off they all slid it across the note.
What this told me was that certain penetration and pull-out techniques would be best avoided, especially the popular "rip-through" effect - this duplicates exactly how the spectator would remove the pen and is exactly what they would expect you to do if their suspicions were correct.
So now I knew which techniques not to use I began to think what I should use. I went through my usual visionary process - I do this with every effect and did it with the pool table trick above. This is where I imagine, in 3D and technicolour, the ideal effect being played out, without compromise or considerations for the limitations of the prop. It is played with one thought in mind - If I could REALLY do what I am apparently claiming how would that look ? I saw myself holding a note and piercing it with a pen. The note wasn't folded - why should it be ?. I would simply hold it up in front of them and push the pen through the back and out the front. It would clearly be seen going through the note. I would then pull the pen back out - and massage the "hole" for the restoration - after all the magic part (the restoration) would surely require some work from me.

I mucked about with different techniques and came up with a couple of my own, trying to get it to look as close as possible to my vision, with as little compromise as possible. I finally arrived at a handling which comes pretty close. I decided to use my own technique for the penetration (based on a technique which is currently popular) and a variation of the visual pull-out, although mine isn't as visual as this is usually used (this is by design). The note is not folded and is held full face to the audience. The pen is pushed through from behind and is seen bursting through (towards them). At the end it is pulled back out, my fingers covering the tip, again with no folds and full face towards the spectators and the hole is "massaged" with the finger tip - very David Copperfield.

The way the effect is done makes the use of the true method seem impossible - the use of ma***ts does not logically explain what they have seen. As a testament to this - I have been using this for many years and have only ever had one person voice the correct method. I was performing at a party and was half way through the effect when some fool of a woman who had downed 3 wines too many decided to come over and shout "ma***ts" - which her two friends strongly denied, telling her "no its not" and "don't be stupid". Coming in half way she had missed half the subtleties which make the effect convincing and cancel the ma***ts theory. No-one who has seen the whole effect has said this..

I notice I have waffled a bit so apoligies.

Jim