talkmagic.co.uk

flaw07 wrote:Side note, I bought 1800s intending to use them two months ago and After giving a quick run through the cards, I stuck them back in the box and only pull them out to show them off.

Yes as pretty as the 1800s look, they are far from practical. I don't know what material they used to make them but they don't fan - at all, even straight from the box - and are very strange to handle.

You can slip a card into your normal deck though, use it as a gaff card in a trick, im sure a story can be told using it.

Wow I never thought to do that, I may very well try that. Thank you sir

Mr_Grue wrote:Tally Ho and Bikes are pretty faultless as all-rounders but best avoided if you want to present something using cards, but as part of a mental act. This is an extension of the point Kolisar is making. Bikes certainly are perceived as "magician" cards in the UK which can be something of a problem.

I understand your point on this, but I disagree that the standard Bicycle cards are perceived as anything except normal playing cards by anyone except people interested in card back designs. IMHO, the vast majority don't recognise the designs on the backs of cards.

Regarding cards for magicians versus those for mentalists, surely the point is that both groups of performer want cards that appear to be natural, regular everyday items? Why use cards otherwise? The audience should never think that a deck of cards is dodgy in a straight act.

Using standard Bicycle cards (red/blue) also brings the advantage that gaffed cards, gaffed decks and gaffed boxes are all easily and cheaply available.

As for Tenko's use of Waddingtons, I could not agree more. Nothing wrong with those - I have two packs that I've been using for around 20 years and they still work (ie. the faces are still recognisable and they aren't too sticky). In some respects they have turned into natural marked decks

Ted.

Shrug, I just use Bikes.

A few years ago when I was younger, more naive and generally more excitable, I loved the Black Tiger deck - I still think they look beautiful.

The problem was, no matter what I did, their first suspicion was always the deck, however illogical.

It ended up just being too frustrating when you've been practising sleights until they're invisible, and carefully crafting routines to best use them, only to be told you're using a "funny" deck of cards.

Which you are, I suppose.

For purely mental stuff I'd be happy with supermarket-bought packs, but for me a set of Bikes is a happy medium, and no-one has any interest in what kind of cards are on sale over here anyway.

I recently got a deck of Tally Ho Vipers and I have to say, I'm not impressed. I found the cards were a little more difficult to handle for some reason and I was consitently dropping them all over the floor.

flaw07 wrote:I recently got a deck of Tally Ho Vipers and I have to say, I'm not impressed. I found the cards were a little more difficult to handle for some reason and I was consitently dropping them all over the floor.

I think if you're consistently dropping them, the problem is not likely to be the cards' quality of manufacture. That's like saying "This new Honda is terribly designed, I keep crashing it into walls!"

The very worst cards I have ever encountered are the ancient packs owned by my old father. They have been abused by generations of children and are dreadfully sticky. You can still use them, though, and even (just about) manage an Erdnase colour change, so new cards that are unworkable must be pretty shoddily-made!

Ted wrote:The very worst cards I have ever encountered are the ancient packs owned by my old father. They have been abused by generations of children and are dreadfully sticky. You can still use them, though, and even (just about) manage an Erdnase colour change, so new cards that are unworkable must be pretty shoddily-made!

They could be extremely useful for some things.

My personal favourite cards are the black Dr Leon decks (not very keen on the yellow kind). If they ever came out in red too, I'd be a happy chap.

Failing that, just your standard red Bicycles for me.

Having said that, the Heirloom Decks CardShark does are also jolly good and, in my opinion, much nicer than the 1800 Deck. I also have a soft spot for the Casino Royale decks.

I think that, so long as the cards either look fairly normal, or there is a good reason for an unusual looking pack (for example, that it's very old), the back design doesn't really matter. I have never had anyone query the choice of cards, but I steer clear of things like Black Tigers, although I have packs in what could laughingly be called my card collection.

I agree that nasty cards can make an effect extra-convincing (if that was what you meant). Also, I guess given time you could learn their backs and have a naturally-marked deck. I came across an interesting problem with one pack, though.

The solid, dark back design was flush with the edge i.e there was no white margin around the edge. This could cause a few potential issues, if you see what I mean. Certain moves had to be very accurate to be convincing, which is a challenge with cards that are so sticky they have a sort of natural roughing quality .

I personally like the look of ghost decks.

queen of clubs wrote:

flaw07 wrote:I recently got a deck of Tally Ho Vipers and I have to say, I'm not impressed. I found the cards were a little more difficult to handle for some reason and I was consitently dropping them all over the floor.

I think if you're consistently dropping them, the problem is not likely to be the cards' quality of manufacture. That's like saying "This new Honda is terribly designed, I keep crashing it into walls!"

I see what you're saying but I don't have this issue with Split Spades or regular Bikes

And the ghost decks are awesome. they are probably my favorite deck to perform with at the moment.

Has anyone ever used black tigers, I"m on the fence about getting some

When you use a deck with an interesting and very different design, such as the Ghost deck, do you find that your spectators are more than a little curious about whether or not the deck is 'normal'?

I've never used one of these, so I'm only speculating, but I'd assume that some might see a trick and think, "What a cleverly-designed pack of cards," rather than, "Wow, I don't know how he did that."

Of course you want the spec to just concentrate on the magic and follow your instruction. Be it to assist with the trick or if you're misdirecting.

Quite why you'd want to distract them with fancy decks is beyond me, but i know some who do and they've started making Invisible Decks for both the Ghost and Black Tiger decks. Of course it's been said before, but if a spec doesnt want to believe in your ' powers ', then they'll always find a reason not to. They could blame the deck, or the way the light was in the room, or your haircut or your desperate need of a haircut.

I buy fancy decks but never perform with them. It's like putting a go faster stripe on a Robin Reliant. Aesthetically pleasing, but it wont make it go any better.

phoenixv wrote:I personally like the look of ghost decks.

They do look pretty and very nice under UV.
I once went out to a gig with a deck of ghosts in my pocket. First trick in with them, just forced the 7 of Hearts, then when I revealed the odd backed 7oH from my pocket they said "close, i picked the seven of spades".
Never again will those cards be used for performance. They are for practise and showing off fancy cuts to jugglers under UV lights only.

Lawrence wrote:Never again will those cards be used for performance.

That is very interesting. I've never been tempted to use weird-looking cards, simply because I think cards should look as mundane as possible. I had never even considered that the design might actually confuse an audience.