talkmagic.co.uk

I posted this in the secrets section but then thought - s*d it - if Queenie can post a tutorial on the pass in here, surely I can post a video to start some discussion on this sleight.

I won't write out my post again - if you're bothered check it out in the secrets area, but the video is pretty self-explanatory.

Looksee!

I will say that I forgot the 4th version I know of, where the card is held by the corner and angled out... more of a "swivel", if you know what I mean...

I'll be honest, the second version is my favourite, but the first one is also a great move. Any of them are excellent, but I feel, from a spectators point of view, the most important thing is getting the "tabled" card, squared up on top of the deck again as soon as possible.

They all looked good to me - they all had a "weight" to them as if you felt that the card was there, which is what you're after.

The second was my favourite, and I think the most convincing.

It's also probably what I'll use from now on - I believe the expression is "yoink"

I love the thinking with the third version, but I think the move is a little too unnatural to pull off. This, of course, is simply from my perspective, I imagine if your close-up was more "high-energy" or fast paced then that wouldn't stand out - but it would just look odd for me.

In terms of deceptiveness, I'd probably place them 2-1-3.

In terms of handling, 2 is certainly easier, and I think 3 edges out just ahead of 1 - the card's movement is covered better with 3.

Good stuff, thank you.

Cheers for the feedback guys.

Dominic - I think maybe I'll do another video soon! In retrospect number 3 is a little forceful - the difference between 1 and 3 in my mind is not so much the dropping from a height, but that in 1, the left hand stays more still and the right hand does more of a side to side wipe, whereas in 3 both hands move and the card is "grabbed". They can both be done just above table level, I don't know why I engaged in so much vigorous table banging in the video (straight to the I.B. thread!)

Might do another video of those two along with number 4 if I get chance.

Edit: also interesting that you both preferred number 2, which in some ways is the least classical and easiest version!

Very good i liked all, but i think the first was my favourite looked very natural,

Good work.

I thought they all worked in different ways. But the first one was the most convincing for me.

Also deeply impressed by the giant scissors in the foreground. Massive!!!

Farlsborough wrote:but then thought - s*d it - if Queenie can post a tutorial on the pass in here, surely I can post a video to start some discussion on this sleight.

Eat your heart out, posh boy! And makes sure to use the correct fork.

If you want my opinion then the first one is the best- because you must look at it from the spectator's point of view. The third example, where you almost slam the card down, leaves too much scope for a spec to assume trickery.

A smooth, un-rushed vanish is best. Which is why the classic rub-a-dub is best. And your angles were perfect.

I noticed that your reveal of the vanish is a bit cliched though. You rub and then lift all fingers except your middle finger, which you leave on the table and sort of snake with. Instead of this, why not rub and then splay all fingers apart at once, and then lift the hand and turn it palm up. That's what I do, therefore I assume it's better

I posted my reply in the restricted area.

What a rebel.

queen of clubs wrote:I noticed that your reveal of the vanish is a bit cliched though.

...which is of course the first thing the specs will say

Good point though - to be honest I was so busy fretting about the first bit I didn't think about the reveal. It is a bit cr@p. The one you suggest is what I often use for the ego change... makes sense I suppose.

i recently began learning and using this vanish and I'm just glad that i was able to watch this vid cause i can't access the restricted forums.

nonetheless i enjoyed the vid and found it a little helpful. thanks
and it just occured to me the time difference between america and the uk. it's only 1130 here and almost sunrise there.

the first looked better from this side, the third looked too suspicious from the viewers side. I use the first, or classic, as a card switch to swap a chosen card for an indifferent.

All three looked good but the third looked too suspicious and so least convincing in my opinion. Not much to choose between 1 and 2 both looked good. Mind you, don't trust my opinion - I like the tent vanish and you hate it

Craig.

i think 3 will work well if you get a dupe under a table cloth or something, and you rub away the card through an object of some description...

anyway - number two will look best if you slow it down just a little, whether you were aware of it or not, you have a nice sound convincer going on...aurally i mean...the loose snap of the card on both occassions would add to the overall kosherness (new word) of it all...

cragglecat wrote:All three looked good but the third looked too suspicious and so least convincing in my opinion. Not much to choose between 1 and 2 both looked good. Mind you, don't trust my opinion - I like the tent vanish and you hate it

Craig.

Funny you say that Craig - I've realised that the "grabbing the card" effect I'm going for in number 3 is actually similar to the tent vanish! It's that *snap* - and the card's not there - so where must it be? logic that I want to encourage.

There's a nice subtlety that Derren Brown does in his 3 card routine (as taught on Devil's Picture Book) where once he has his hand on the table over what the audience assumes is the card, he lifts his hand in an awkward overly-flat way, as if suggesting the card is palmed badly in his hand. He then presses it down to the table again and does the vanish from there. It's a lovely "convincer" because the audience thinks "Well it's clearly hidden underneath his hand" which makes the ending all the more surprising, and adds a bit of time misdirection to cover the actual move.