talkmagic.co.uk

by **rcarlsen** » Jun 12th, '05, 11:58

I agree with Demitri. In a MCD routine, you can infact let the spectator find the 4 aces for you, no questions asked, it's soo slick.

by **stevebo** » Jun 12th, '05, 12:47

I don't know about the McDonald Aces because I don't have it, but the beauty of The Ultimate Ace Assembly is that in the end, the spectator clearly sees that there is only 3 aces and a wild card. They put their hand over it and the after the colour change, the specatator will probably be like "No way, it can't just jump to my hand because I just saw there were 3 aces!" Then boom! There are the four aces.

by **rcarlsen** » Jun 12th, '05, 13:09

Yes I know the routine, but knowing the "moves" and "secrets", I prefer MCD, since you have just about the same effect. You can show there's only 4 aces in the deck at the start as well, and if you want, you can do it at the end as well.

by **dat8962** » Jun 12th, '05, 13:10

firstly, just to clarify so that people don't jump to the wrong conclusion, in the Ultimate Aces Assembly it's not a colour change at the end - it's a 'transposition' to the final ace that happens under the specs hand.

It think that I'm right in saying that you can duplicate this in most, if not all aces assembly routines and as Rune has said, the joy of his routine is that you can get the spec to find all of the aces if you choose this approach.

With the use of the 'ardvark', or four of them in the Oz routine, I wouldn't be comfortable performing this as the it's too easy in my opinion for the cards to not be aligned etc. (if you see what I mean).

As a number of people have highlighted other Ace Assembly routines without the use of an 'ardvark', i'd recommend one of these.

by **maRk tHE mAGicK** » Jun 27th, '05, 11:26

Hi everyone

Ultimate ace assembly, and Red hot mamacita, what can I say :shock:

I beg you to please, please realise the potential of these tricks. I dont like gaffed cards, but UAA is astounding. The key in this, and Red Hot Mamacita, is to bold, cheeky, let people touch the cards, wave it around right under their noses, throw the card, catch the cards, slap it off their foreheads... ok not the last bit, but they dont know what they're looking for and they wont spot it. Its like the TT, it could be bright pink in many cases (you know what I mean) and people STILL wont see it, as they dont know what the hell is happening.

If your nervous with this trick or havnt practiced, they will wonder, but just be confident, like all magic, the patter IS 90% of the magic

I left these tricks for a while, then I decided to give them a go, I practised till I knew them inside out, then I took them to a performance. They are astounding, the initial set up is slightly time consuming, but so easy to prepare again.

Use a deck switcher, or put the normal deck in your pocket instanly bringing out the set deck, saying, Oh! I forgot to show you this one etc etc

And the best advice I can give, Use 3M mount spray, it doesnt talk, and you can put it on all four corners using a template from a joker, so there is no obvious signs of being two cards, its so quiet using this. but firm.

I urge you to see the power of this trick, the reactions I got are phenomenal, well so's my other magic ;-)

but seriously, take it out to the real world and you'll see

Even to a magician, doing a false elmsey on the first vanish, they'd think, yaeah yeah, but then BAM, it really is gone!!!! I've actually got a reaction from this from a magi.

Hope this has given you some new found inspiration for these tricks, the other versions ARE just as great, but I find these more direct, more visual, more... WOW thats IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Regards
Mark

by **Demitri** » Jun 27th, '05, 16:43

Ultimate Ace Assembly does have a nice touch, in that you can reveal SOME of the aces have travelled in the middle of the trick. However, that minor touch doesn't justify the extra gimmicks, in my opinion.

As for Mamacita - the effect is IDENTICAL to Chicago Opener, but the situations surrounding it aren't as good in Oz's version.

First - the appearance of the red card BEFORE the trick begins, almost destroys the effect. In the original, the card appears AFTER the selection has been made and returned.

But what makes the effect less powerful, is that at NO time, can the spectator handle either of the cards. You mentioned allowing the specs to touch the cards - in this instance, allowing them to just TOUCH the card would raise quite a bit of suspicion. Why can they touch, but not hold the card? Also - bear in mind the old principle - if you keep drawing attention to the "fact" that there's ONLY ONE CARD - your audience will instantly begin to think about where the second one is hiding. Too much convincing is sometimes just as bad as showing it outright.

The effects work, and they work well. However, the extra gimmick work spoils it for me. They are both great, visual tricks - but I would recommend you look at the original versions of both. You won't be disappointed. After that - trying looking into an ungimmicked version of an ace assembly.

by **maRk tHE mAGicK** » Jun 28th, '05, 05:40

Hi Demitri

I know what you mean, and of course we all have our opinions, and I guess its what works best for the performer. With red hot mamacita though, I have let the spectator pick up the card, but generally, you throw it from the deck on the table and you're not holding it awkwardly so people have no reason to believe theres more than one.

I never say, theres just one card, why state the obvious, its kind of pshycological with a lot of my tricks, i'll put suggestions into peoples heads so I get my own way, hard to explain but sure you get my drift??

I do like the other ace assembly's out there, and I dont normally use gimmicked cards like this, but its just the reactions I get, I cant NOT use it, not a problem so far anyways.... fingers crossed

This is one of those where our opinions differ I think, call it lazy on my behalf using the gimmicks... I dunno??

Still love and do the thumb-busting tricks though, 95% of my card magic is with a straight deck.... yes the whole 3 tricks

(kidding)

Mark

by **Gary3911** » Jun 28th, '05, 12:09

I get the idea that some people here haven't actually seen a great deal of magic.

If your idea of a slick magician is Oz Pearlman, I think it's time to stop buying tricks, and invest in some footage of international close-up competitions, especially in the US. If you're impressed by people like Pearlman, then the likes of Ammar, Close, Harris and Williamson would probably give you a heart attack.

On the subject of this, and of Ace Assembly, I clearly remember Michael Weber in a London Close-up Competition explaining why Ace Assembly is bogus - the physical challenge of moving a card is not great, and you haven't really achieved anything at the end. He then proceeded to perform an assembly with a block of wood, by hammering nails into it and using that for assembly. It was basically "Matrix" but using nails (hammered into the wood) instead of coins and coffee cups instead of cards.

Amazingly, he didn't even win that competition - he came second.

by **katrielalex** » Jun 28th, '05, 16:19

Gary3911 wrote:I get the idea that some people here haven't actually seen a great deal of magic.

I know this may be your style but please try to be somewhat polite in your posts. I realize you may have a point, both in this thread and the "Apology" one, but does that mean you have to be rude about it?

If you reread your message I think that you'll see how blunt it is. Why not just rephrase it - what have you got to lose?!

If your idea of a slick magician is Oz Pearlman, I think it's time to stop buying tricks, and invest in some footage of international close-up competitions, especially in the US. If you're impressed by people like Pearlman, then the likes of Ammar, Close, Harris and Williamson would probably give you a heart attack.

I'd like to disagree here. To the spectator, I don't think that there would be any difference between Pearlman and Ammar - they both can do tricks that will fry a layman (AC routine for instance). Just because Ammar knows more sleights or can hide them from other magicians doesn't mean he's automatically better.

In fact, I have seen videos of both of them performing and I strongly dislike the way Ammar performs. His patter seems stilted and his laugh just gets on my nerves. I find that Pearlman comes over as much more casual and relaxed.

I'm sure I'm going to get attacked for this, and remember - this is just my personal view. I haven't seen any of the other magicians that you mention, so I can't comment on them.

by **Gary3911** » Jun 28th, '05, 18:44

I'm past the point at which I care about whether or not you think that is a rude statement. Like it or not, it's the truth, not opinion.

We have got to the stage where there are a great many people setting themselves out as students of magic, and treating mediocre magic as though it's actual miracle material (sorry, Michael Kaminskas).

I think there's even a thread somewhere asking if Oz Pearlman is the best magician out there today. Things have become silly.

We have people trawling the internet looking for effects to buy, and are using advertising clips as evidence of how good a magician is.

You have to see these people at their best, performing their best effects (ie the ones they DON'T want to sell you) to seperate the sheep from the goats. I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

Props to Pearlman, he earns a living and is probably a better magician than I'll ever be - but it is just alien to try and put him up there with the modern greats.

Katriealex: A little while before you were born, Ammar, Daryl and Paul Harris were termed "The Magic Hedonists" and toured the world doing crazy magic that is now legend. After they settled, and had proved themselves beyond reproach as performers, they went about writing their books, recording their videos and selling their tricks. Oz Pearlman, on the other hand, is simply a very skilled demonstrator of magic tricks. He is not in the same category as these other men, and I think he'd be either very flattered or very embarassed that you think he is.

by **Gary3911** » Jun 28th, '05, 18:47

katrielalex wrote:I'd like to disagree here. To the spectator, I don't think that there would be any difference between Pearlman and Ammar - they both can do tricks that will fry a layman (AC routine for instance). Just because Ammar knows more sleights or can hide them from other magicians doesn't mean he's automatically better.

I think you might need to re-think what you think a magician is. You say that Ammar knows more, and does it better. We know that Ammar has been in the business at the highest level for a loooong time - clearly the laymen like him. That doesn't really leave much else.

by **maRk tHE mAGicK** » Jun 28th, '05, 19:10

Gary Gary Gary.....

You have to understand that people use this forum to express opinions, what you did say WAS a little harsh, but it is your opinion, and you are freely entitled to it, but don't forget, so is everyone else, and its wrong to say their opinion is wrong the way you did. Re-phrasing it would help, and would seem as aggressive

But, in my opinion, anyone who has the ability, skill and nerve to go out and perform in front of people, AND get a reaction, is a great performer in my eyes. Whether 2 months or 20 years, there are many people who too afraid and not self confident enough.

Oz may not have been doing it long, but he has a great way to get the message across to the audience and learners alike.

Take 'Unripped' by a guy called Gared. He performs the trick very well, but he is soooooo boring to listen to his explanation.

Its not fair to say that Oz is less greater than Ammar, after all, Ammar does stand for Another Magicians Magic And Routines :p

but whos tricks ARN'T someone elses? The foundations for most tricks have already been laid by the late and greats.

If they teach the trick well, and the trick works for the audience, whats wrong with that? I know I certainly dont go out to try and fool magicians, it wouldnt work, we all know and can see the moves when they're happening.

I HAVE seen a great deal of magic, but that doesnt mean I cant like a trick and the way its done, speak to my audiences and see what they think, Ultimate Ace Assembly involves the audience, they get to touch and they love. No-ones ever said, aaah thats obvious how you do it, not even close friends whom endure my constant practise, therefore, its a good trick and it works

Mark

P.S are you in the same position as Oz? Have I seen you on t.v? Or a mgic site demming hundreds of tricks?

by **maRk tHE mAGicK** » Jun 28th, '05, 19:14

Gary3911 wrote:We have got to the stage where there are a great many people setting themselves out as students of magic, and treating mediocre magic as though it's actual miracle material .

The simplest "mediocre" magic, CAN appear as miracles, if performed well, thats the way it is, you my friend clearly don't understand this, and in your words, thats fact, not opinion blah blah. Although you have seen 'loads' of magic, i believe you are not a performer. Sorry.

Mark

by **Tenko** » Jun 29th, '05, 00:37

Gary,

This forum is for us all to express our own opinions and views. My opinions will be different to yours. If it wasn't, we'd all be driving round in little red Ford Fiesta's.

While I may like one magician and you may like another, its personal preferences.

It would be totally wrong of me to critisise your own preference. If you like Ammar and I like Daniels then that's our choice.

Whilst you are quite right to have your own views, you are wrong to criticise other peoples views.

Enter into discussion about different magicians, living or not, but don't criticise another persons right to their opinion.

by **katrielalex** » Jun 29th, '05, 07:43

Gary wrote:Oz Pearlman, on the other hand, is simply a very skilled demonstrator of magic tricks. He is not in the same category as these other men, and I think he'd be either very flattered or very embarassed that you think he is.

This is actually not true. A lot of people think that all Oz does is demonstrate magic tricks for Polar Bird, but actually he is a skilled working pro. Polar Bird has tarnished his reputation but even without it he'd be a magician.

Gary wrote:I think you might need to re-think what you think a magician is. You say that Ammar knows more, and does it better. We know that Ammar has been in the business at the highest level for a loooong time - clearly the laymen like him. That doesn't really leave much else.

I never said that Oz was better than Ammar - just that there was no difference to a layman. I know perfectly well that Ammar is supposed to be at a higher level that Oz, but unfortunately, to a layman they will both be amazing. As Mark said,

Mark wrote:The simplest "mediocre" magic CAN appear as miracles, if performed well.

Kati

talkmagic.co.uk

Ultimate Ace Assembly

Who is online