talkmagic.co.uk

Has anyone (during an ambitious card routien) ever placed a signed card on the bottom of the deck, then have it rise to the top, and then have the spectator grab the deck to check the bottom card?

jhmagic1 wrote:Has anyone (during an ambitious card routien) ever placed a signed card on the bottom of the deck, then have it rise to the top, and then have the spectator grab the deck to check the bottom card?

How could anyone answer that question? Unless they were God (or a God, or the God, or The God)?

Yep, I've had that. I've also had real sweethearts who - in an effort to work around a force - end up vehemently insisting on the bottom card in a hand-to-hand spread, which is of course the card they'd have had anyway.

reformedarsonist - if the card is signed, and they know for sure that it is the only card that they have signed, why do YOU think they feel the need to check the bottom card?

Well:

1 - It may be the only card they've signed, there's nothing to say it's the only card with writing on it. Not difficult to duplicate a signature. And...
2 - If the last place they saw their card was on the bottom, it's only natural that they'll mentally backtrack if something has happened between then and the sudden revelation that the card has moved under seemingly impossible conditions. It's a natural human response and should come as no surprise.

reformedarsonist wrote:Of all the effects I've seen where the magicians whips out a feather and inkwell and insists the young lady writes her name on the pasteboard, 99% of the time it's ambitious card. Why not card-under-the-box? It's the same effect, but why does one need an arbitrary squiggle and the other doesn't?

Not really, I've seen a number of routines use signed cards. Usually card-to-random place, but it can be used for all sorts of tricks where the spectator chooses "their card" (it quite literally becomes their card, which as said plenty of times before makes the trick more personal). And how are you meant to forge a signature anyway? You're too busy making a card rise to the top of the deck...

jhmagic1 wrote:Has anyone (during an ambitious card routien) ever placed a signed card on the bottom of the deck, then have it rise to the top, and then have the spectator grab the deck to check the bottom card?

Won't a short flash of the bottom card solve this problem?

reformedarsonist wrote:I've also had real sweethearts who - in an effort to work around a force - end up vehemently insisting on the bottom card in a hand-to-hand spread, which is of course the card they'd have had anyway

I've had smart arses wait until the very very end to yell stop in a riffle force. If I see this happen I just quickly run through the rest of the deck and say "...any time you want to..". It's never happened a second time, not unless they want me to make them look a fool again

kolm wrote:I've had smart arses wait until the very very end to yell stop in a riffle force. If I see this happen I just quickly run through the rest of the deck and say "...any time you want to..". It's never happened a second time, not unless they want me to make them look a fool again

There's a solution to that - either an early or a late call during the riffle force. You tilt the top of the deck into their direct eye-line and undercut at your break, offering them their card from the top of the deck.

I always thought the idea of using a signature to make a card more unique is a bit of an odd one. Surely the whole point of the deck of cards is that they are all individual? Else you might as well do your routines with a blank deck of cards, and get one signed - (actually that could be interesting to try...)

I just never mention the concept of having more than one of a card, or having special cards, or anything like that. If a spectator suggests some sort of double of gimmick, I just respond as if that would be a terribly complicated and impractical way of doing it (I do this whether or not I've used a gimmick).

The one time I use a signed card is in my card to wallet routine, because my presentation is based on a story about my first performance, which happened to involve someone with the same name as the person I'm performing for. That way it is both the card and the name that are important, and I'm working off the premise that the card in my wallet is one I carry around with me always, and not that a card has magically appeared in my wallet.

queen of clubs wrote:

kolm wrote:I've had smart arses wait until the very very end to yell stop in a riffle force. If I see this happen I just quickly run through the rest of the deck and say "...any time you want to..". It's never happened a second time, not unless they want me to make them look a fool again

There's a solution to that - either an early or a late call during the riffle force. You tilt the top of the deck into their direct eye-line and undercut at your break, offering them their card from the top of the deck.

Nice stuff, will give that a go. Thanks

Why do almost all the top (pro and am) magicians get the cards signed do you guys think?

What do you guys know that they don't?

mrgoat wrote:Why do almost all the top (pro and am) magicians get the cards signed do you guys think?

What do you guys know that they don't?

So you know the routines of "almost all the top magicians"? Or are you just making a hyperbolic assumption fuelled by your own opinion?

In my limited experience I've never found a signed card to play stronger than a regular selection. If you present yourself correctly it shouldn't even come up, surely?

At last a true cardy backing me up!!

If you feel that people are questioning your usage of doubles etc and you haven't found a way to deal with it such as for one example SF then should you be doing card magic? What about those times when you use a borrowed deck, no doubles or gaffs there yet the signed card still adds a big wow factor as it's double confirmation!!

It's not something that we "know" and they don't, it's a matter of opinion. But the difference between professional magicians and amateurs isn't a bit of ink on a pasteboard - that's not what separates the hobbyist from the pro.

reformedarsonist wrote:It's not something that we "know" and they don't, it's a matter of opinion. But the difference between professional magicians and amateurs isn't a bit of ink on a pasteboard - that's not what separates the hobbyist from the pro.

RFA - what's your experience exactly?

If it matters, just the occasional performance back in Cardiff in local clubs - not much since I moved here admittedly, I've been mostly working with other magicians trying to find a niche. Why?