by hds02115 » Jul 19th, '11, 01:14
Ok, I've tried to do this kind of post before, and people still seemed to get the wrong end of the stick, even with my careful wording. So, I'm putting this out there strait away. This is me after a discution, either in private or on this thread, about a way to work a deck vanish into a routine I am working on. This is not me asking for methods on vanishing a deck! So, if you feel the urge to post something that tells me I shouldn't ask for secrets, just remember, I'm not, so don't bother posting it.
Anyway, enough with that. I'm sure you can understand that there are plently of people on here that'll jump on the chance to say "we don't give away secrets". Basicly, this is a close up routine which is based around the whole card under the box effect. I've put together a nice set, but have just had a thought for an ending and this is what I'm after some input on. As the effect goes, the card is of course lost and found under the card box a few times, ect. we all know the plot, but for the finish, I've been putting the deck into the card box, and then their selection still ending up under it. I've been thinking though, if there was a way to do this, but then have it so that a spectator can open up the box their card was under, that I had put the rest of the deck into, and find it empty. Missing the deck.
I know this is a slightly bad description, but I'm going to assume that if someone has some input they will contact me and we can descuss the machanics of the effect in more detail to come to a conclussion.
So, if anyone dose have any thoughts, please either post here and I'll contact you, you pm me yourself. I am more than happy to explain my routine in full with you, for one reason, so that we can come to an idea best, but for another, so you know that I'm not just fishing for secrets and that you know that I actually have knowledge of card machanics.
Once again, if you think I'm after all your secrets, I'm not, I'm hoping someone can help me with mine. So please, no negative comments.
Thanks,
Anthony