talkmagic.co.uk

Mark Chandaue wrote:Ok, I'd recommend learning a double that doesn't require a thumb count (which is essentially a break regardless of whether it is held). A breakless DL would not require using a thumb count to create a break between the top 2 cards and the rest of the deck.

Mark

I agree.

And as I imply with my earlier post, it's sometimes imperative that you obtain a DL almost instantly, which makes a thumb count almost impossible.

The suggestions for how you do this would probably be infinite. However, can I be blunt for one moment...

...a lot of magicians or hobbyists it seems are afraid to 'think outside the box'. I mean, just because a sleight is outlined in chapter and verse in RRTCM or on a DVD does not mean that it's the ONLY way.

By practicing and experimenting, you'll find there are HUNDREDS of variations of sleights. I have literally just sat and found 4 different ways to do a 'strike' DL, and at least five ways to hide a thumb count.

I am just implying here that you should just PRACTICE and PRACTICE and these things come by themselves.

It's been said SOOOOO many times, but before the Internet and 'magic shop' explosion, we were reliant on books and illustrations. Sleights were learned the HARD WAY, without the luxury of a top card magician showing you THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION.

I believe that if you watch two dextrous contemporary card men (i.e. Sankey, Daryl, Hollingworth, Sadowitz) and compare them to watching some of the more 'old school' greats like Vernon, Zarrow or Marlo, you will see definate variation on the basic techniques.

Possibly the most 'stylised' double lifts come from Sankey, who's 'quick-snap' style demands accuracy and retention of vision.

But, they are all a means to the same ends. Indulge yourselves in the luxury of experimentation and 'feel' the sleight. Learn the basic mechanics and then develop it so that your own hands and style fit around it. Adapt it to you.

You will probably even find that a thumb-count is TOTALLY unnecessary once you've got the basic handling down.

just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons..... Paul Daniels method of DL's is even more bizarre!

A really easy method for covering up getting a break under the top two cards is to spread the the pack a bit whilst saying something like "your card is lost somewhere in here" and then use your little finger to catch a break as you close the cards up.

It's a handy method to use for pressure situations as it's fumble-proof - good when you have shakey hands!

Neil..

That's the alternative I've been using..

Inly trouble is.. being a bit limited in knowledge I'm having trouble coming up with anything else that's as fluid.

If any of you have any other t4echniques you'd be willing to share it would be appreciated. That is how to get a 2C break quickly on the top of the pack ready for the DL.

PM me if this is not the place.

Thank you

Slippery

I use a thumb count as taught by Daryl on his ambitious card video / dvd and a snap double when i want it to be a bit flourishy but when i want it to look like casually turning the top card over (actually a DL) i use a pinky count to get the break. I learnt this from one of the Darwin Ortiz books (can't remember which one, will check and post), it was hard work but well worth it. I hate to see magicians using a fumbling get ready, it telegraphs to the layman "oh something is happening". A pinky count is clean and indetectable (eventually).

Al.

Hi SlipperyPenguin

I've tried loads of DL get-readies and non-count DL's. The non-count DLs often involve either a double pushover which, for me at present, isn't 100% reliable and hardly ever perfectly alligned, which is not good for moments where the pack is being burned. The other method (strike?) - ie catching the edge of the double and turning them over is easier but again only 99% reliable in my hands, and I think the turnovers often can be a little odd looking.

So I tend to think about the routine and presentaton as a whole and jig it so I can either do the spread-break thing or a simple thumbcount when the heat is off. A two handed thumbcount is invisible if you pull the deck down rather than the counted cards up but obviously you must cover it with some chat whilst your innocently hold the cards. This seems to be OK for most effects.

One handed thumb/pinky counts work well when you have a gap.

In the meantime I'm practicing my double pushover. I'm thinking that a DP and lift is the most natural since that is how any normal person would do it. I must stress - my DL isn't a thing of wonder!

BTW, I totally agree with Seige about learning sleights. It's so easy to think that you need to be shown the "correct" way by watching a zillion DVD's and reading books etc. People often post questions on how to do sleights on forums. But I suspect that there isn't a lot of point usually. Once you crack a move by just trying your own ideas you learn it 100% better. MOst qustions can most helpfully be answered with: just keep trying.

Neil wrote: BTW, I totally agree with Seige about learning sleights. It's so easy to think that you need to be shown the "correct" way by watching a zillion DVD's and reading books etc. People often post questions on how to do sleights on forums. But I suspect that there isn't a lot of point usually. Once you crack a move by just trying your own ideas you learn it 100% better. MOst qustions can most helpfully be answered with: just keep trying.

I don't think that's entirely what Seige was saying. It's not the fact that people get bogged down with the "correct" way it's just that they get bogged down with what they see as the "only" way.

Personally i can't think of a single sleight that doesn't have a correct way but also I can't think of a sleight that doesnt have another way.

I think it is important when learning sleights to understand the correct way of doing a sleight but we must see that as the only way of doing a sleight. If you do not understand the correct way of performing a sleight it is far to easy to fall into bad habits that may ultimately hinder your performance.

But if you learn a sleight correctly you can then go on to adapt it to your self.

It's the same as anything that involves a creative element: once you have the basics down then you can begin to learn the advanced stuff.

That's exactly right Goldfish.

If Lennart Green had access to books and dvd's then he would have never come up with all his 'quirky' handlings, there is very little that is conventional with Lennarts material. There are no 100% correct methods, if a sleight works for you how you do it, USE IT, don't try and relearn it 'the correct fashion'. The old books are very good reference sources but to think you have to have the third phlange(?) of the second finger 2/8 of an inch from the corner of the deck with the ball of the palm squeezed against the right inner corner and the second phlange of the little finger engaged against the base of the third fingers second joint, it's a little too restrictive.

Big Al Jnr wrote:The old books are very good reference sources but to think you have to have the third phlange(?)

Phalanx mate.

A term also used to describe the arrangement of Greco-Roman soldiers on the battle field. The Greeks traditionally used a pahlanx of 8 men deep but the Romans used much deeper.....

.....I digrese. Sorry

Thanks for correcting my spelling, i knew i was somewhere near ?

Al.