GoldFish wrote:Probably because traditionally the wand has always been seen as a power or authority symbol ie the catalyst that makes the magic happen rather than the medium through which the magic happens e.g. a deck of cards.
Is it just my impression or is the wand just out of fashion at the moment?
There are countless people doing cut-and-restored ropes, card tricks, coin moves and Balducci levitations. Even thimbles and cigarettes are found in some repertoires.
But do you recall any contemporary magician who is famous for wand work?
GoldFish wrote:However, there are a variety of gimmicked wands available which are consturcted in order to perform certain effects.
What exactly are you looking for when you say "wand sleights"?
Well, there are gimmicked cards, coins, etc. Almost every item can be obtained with some gimmick.
But there are still people who do one-handed cuts, card spreads, coin rolls etc. I was just curious if there are similar moves or even routines for wands.
I cannot say that I am interested in just a single sleight. If I had a book in front of me I would browse through the selection of available moves and start with the simple ones. Then if I like them I would venture into the intermediate ones etc. And eventually try to incorporate them into a standard routine.
Regarding the video I have quoted in my previous message: At the moment I am not able to judge how difficult e.g. the wand vanish actually is or how to get the wand hidden without moving the left hand unnaturally strong and fast. Given that I can hardly hold the wand stable in the hidden position, I believe that such a move is far beyond my skills at the moment. But then, reverse engineering moves from low-res demonstration videos is not the most effective way to learn them efficiently.
But you see, paying about 50-60 Euros for two DVDs and Balls and Cups which only contain limited info on what I am just casually starting to look into is probably not a good investment. I am still hoping there is some resource available which is addressing my question directly.
Thanks nonetheless for the info!