talkmagic.co.uk

i wonder if people who use eric mason's invention should pass their hands out for examination?

where does it end?

and would you have to have two shows, one to perform, and the other to have everything examined?

The idea is to suggest a prop is examinable even if it isn't, I guess. A borrowed object is switched with a gimmick, and switched back before being returned. A participant is asked to shuffle a gimmicked deck of cards; they are in his hands for only a few seconds, but those seconds are enough to suggest the cards' authenticity. Kenton's work Indirection is quite good on this sort of thing, the subtleties that are introduced to rule out the method, so the audience would not feel the need to examine anything.

Pointless, if I've followed the method correctly, is wonderful in that whenever the pen (the power of the familiar object) is in the hands of the spectator, the dirty business has already happened, and they are left with an innocent pen.

kolm wrote:No, they don't have to be examinable. Have you even read the thread I pointed out to you?

The thread in the magicians only area? Thats a bit of a tease isn't it?

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:

kolm wrote:No, they don't have to be examinable. Have you even read the thread I pointed out to you?

The thread in the magicians only area? Thats a bit of a tease isn't it?

this made me LOL.

i think the main thing is, if thr routine is strong enough, on the right type of audience (Not my mate i mentioned before) then there is no reason to offer anything out to be examined.

If you need everything to be examinable then you should probably avoid gimmicks. Although that approach is obviously completely over the top (I agree with everyone on this thread so far apart from the obvious person) it is possible. Naked Mentalism, Switchcraft and the forthcoming ESPsycrets (*plug plug*) all make it possible to perform without using gimmicks.
T.

Yes Steven DOES need to have the coin examined, as so far everyone who has seen it has picked up the coin and discovered the gimmick, except for one time where I beat them to it and switched it out myself.

There are certain things and certain times where things should be examinable, for example:

A blindfold for a publicity stunt
A ring for linking finger rings
Anything the audiance must hold

Things that you should NOT ever get them to inspect:

Playing cards
ESP cards
Etc




It all depends on the situation. John Archer for example hands out the two coins he uses to blindfold himself, to prove they are solid.

Eshly wrote:John Archer for example hands out the two coins he uses to blindfold himself, to prove they are solid.

Presumably because they *are* solid.

The point is that you only hand out the ungimmicked items for inspection. The gimmicked tools are not suspect, and therefore do not have to be examined, due to your misdirection.

Tell you what people, here's one...

I have 357 which uses cards sealed inside envelopes and basically I work out which way the cards are facing, up or down.

Now under THOSE circumstances, should I tell them to inspect the envelopes and cards?? They are all unmarked and normal.

No, I don't think so. It makes the effect drag.

Oh for god's sake

Hand out a gimmick. Hand out a non-gimmick. Use an envelope. Use a gimmicked enveloped

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter

With the right audience management you can hand out an envelope with the words "THIS IS A GIMMICK" scrawled across it in sharpie ink and they won't realise it's not a normal envelope

It doesn't matter what you do. As long as you create the magical moment. The more you worry about the audience finding out how you did it, the more likely they are to find out

That's where you're going wrong

well, in the act of turning the card end for end, that negates any need...as all the cards and envelopes are out in the open...

you're missing the point too by the way, its within a certain context, if you've ever bothered to read the myriad of methods for Q&A, you'll not find any that say "part 32 - give out all the envelopes and let them be examined"...because that is not within the nature of Q&A.

there are some that CAN let you do that, but just because you can doesn't mean that you should...

if i've just tested a pen out on a pad and left a little squiggle on it (as it natural/normal to do) and then hand the pen to a person and ask them to make a mark in a book, with the book behind their back - should i then offer them to re-examine the pen? maybe run a magnet across it too?

no...because its been indirectly "proven", they've just seen me squiggle it on a pad (phnar)...

I see two points of view on this.

1. Magicians tend to think that it will make everything look fair and PURE magical. Like they REALLY did change the dollar into a 20 or make the card appear in their wallet.

2. Because a lot of performers suffer from OCD and other problems.


My thinking on this is that it really shouldn't be an issue unless the prop is unusual. Like an amulet or something. If it's your wallet. Why would they want to see a wallet? They seem them every day, plus you can get rid of that "suspicion" just by handing them the wallet and acting normal. The same goes for envelopes. Why would you want them to examine an envelope? People have envelopes lying around their house, there is nothing unusual about them.

But with anything, there are certain ways to get around the whole having them constantly examine said props. Such as simply handing it to them and trusting that they won't want to examine it because it's a ordinary item (in their mind.)

Apologies in advance if this comes over too harsh or seems rude, it's not meant that way and neither is at directed an any individual(s). Also, I'm speaking from a mentalist's viewpoint, I can't really speak for props used in coin or rope magic for example.

Let's start with defining 'examinable'. To many people this means to be put under close scrutiny, obviously something we want to avoid with most gimmicks.
To others, such as Iain (and myself), it means 'appears to be normal and its normality proven or implied' - Iain's dry pen being a perfect example.

The only reason something really needs to be able to be put under close scrutiny is if your performance is utter... rubbish. To quote a man far better qualified than us here...

Magicians do tricks with pieces of paper. Mentalists read minds.

Your performance, the drama, the emotion etc etc should be so utterly convincing that the clear plastic bag you had a volunteer pick a pay envelope from is completely forgotten before you've even finished the effect.

If, in Eshly's recent Q&A example you cannot find suitable gimmicked envelopes to peek into then either don't use envelopes or don't peek them. Problem solved. Everything is perfectly hunky dory.

Hopefully I don't need to elaborate any further

Randy wrote:you can get rid of that "suspicion" just by handing them the wallet and acting normal. The same goes for envelopes.

I agree with you, except for handing out the wallet specifically. It's a rare person who would hand their wallet to a stranger. Wallets are, in my opinion, sacrosanct, which makes them ideal tools for mentalists. When in use they should be invisible i.e. not seen as a prop. That pretty much goes for a lot of mentalism kit - which is why you'd rarely hand out anything to be "examined".

There have been plenty of good examples in this thread, but here's another:

Say you have three envelopes and one is regular and two are gaffed. Handing one (the regular one) to a spectator to open is enough to 'prove' that all are regular. You would never say that - it's implied.

It seems that some people believe a performance should stand up to a CSI-style scrutiny at any stage. That sort of view rather misses the point of this type of work/hobby. As someone once typed into their signature (in a rare moment of wisdom), "magic is not real"*.

T.

* I paraphrase slightly, to make it read better

Well the wallet thing was more or less just either setting it on the table in front of you after the dirty work is done or whatever. I don't mean that you'll actually hand it to them.

I'd honestly think some thing was up if somebody constantly wanted me to examine their props or cards or whatever. Plus it completely slows down the entire effect and removes any of the impact of it.