talkmagic.co.uk

I was reminded last night what a fantastic effect Dai Vernons 'The Trick That Can't Be Explained' is.

I saw a guy perform it last night, to a table of magicians, and completely floor them! Brilliant!

If you don't know it, look it up and learn it!!

For me right now, this sort of thing is worse than CUPS! There are already too few hours in the day as it is. Now I have to go and look this up too or risk missing something interesting! Grrr...

It is worth looking up. It is a very "naked" effect.

Argh! I had to look it up.

I see now. Very interesting. I like the use of a subjective, reactive method. You could perform it several times a night and it'd be different each time.

And I think its on Dai Vernons Revelations Volume 7

Any video link hand a look around and cant find a vid.
You've interested me now!!!!

It can be really amazing if it happens right, if you see what I mean. If I remember there are three phases? If the second or first phase work then you've get a belter

There is a great version of this effect in 'The complete Boris Wild marked deck' book,entitled,'Inexplicable'. The original can be found in'Dai Vernon's Inner card trilogy' by Lewis Ganson.

I have been doing this for years and years. It works well.

The idea of an impromptu method is a very seductive one.

Eric Mead has quite a comprehensive 'method' for this trick in 'Tangled Web' great book by the way.

I saw a guy perform it last night, to a table of magicians, and completely floor them! Brilliant!

My problem with this effect is that it seems to be an effect that is aimed (or at least appreciated) by magicians rather than the lay person. It stops a magician reverse engineering the method, though it should be slightly different for non magicians. The actual effect, to me anyway, is not usually any better (and I would say, usually worse) than a well thought out and structured routine. Yes, it leaves the audience with no explanation for what they see, but any effect should produce this reaction shouldn't it.
As mentioned, if you are interested in the effect, there is an in depth discussion on this in tangled web, though I found the book a bit underwhelming.

I agree that it can descend into a trick for magicians rather than a trick for laymen and if you are not careful you can end up boring everyone to death with it.
Over the years I have a certain procedure and refuse to go beyond it. Once you get into convoluted spelling and counting the effect becomes diluted and underwhelming.
This is my procedure:
I start in the normal way peeking the top card after the deck is shuffled and of course checking the bottom card too. Then I have the deck cut just as in the usual procedure. That gives me 4 chances
Then I just spread them face up in an overlapping row and make sure the selected card is in the middle somewhere. I grab a pencil and move it along the row with the spectator holding onto my wrist. I ask him to stop when he wants and ten to one he stops at the prediction.

The mechanics for this is in Harry Lorayne's Close Up Card Magic under the title "The Moving Pencil" which is a pretty fantastic trick in itself.
Steward James also had a method (no pencil required) where you get a spectator to point to a card and by certain psychological means you induce him to point to the right card.

You can use either of these methods. On the rare occasion that they fail I don't faffle about any more. I simply put the chosen card face up on the table but get the prediction card to the bottom of the deck. When the spectator reads the prediction it seems that I have got it wrong. I look forlorn and turn the card face down but use the Paul Curry turnover change. I then make all sorts of strange mystic signs and when the card is turned over it shows that I got it right after all.

I rarely have to use this out but it is there when I need it. The moving pencil technique works a treat.

I have read the above wondering if it constitutes an expose but I am pretty certain that it doesn't since no casual layman reading this will know what the hell I am talking about.

Come to think of it neither do I half the time. However I can assure you the above procedure works well and stops you getting tempted into convoluted counting and spelling and boring the c*** (not the best) out of everyone.

There's a very simple version of this effect, called Dai's trick that can be explained, on one of Simon Lovell's DVD's.

I can't remember which one now though