talkmagic.co.uk

hds02115 wrote:I'm going to jump in here and say my bit. I do think that the pass is one of the moves people overly concern themselves with rather then practicing other sleights, but I do believe it to be a useful move and one not to be excluded. I feel much the same as you do about the DL, but with the pass, it's not the same.

Firstly, the example of controling is only one thing you can do with a pass and I would probably agree with you that there are other more effective ways to control a card however that doesn't mean you should right the sleight off for that. Also with your comment on your pass being spotted, it shouldn't be if you're performance is decent. This sleight isn't ment to be done in veiw, it's done while you're talking/gesturing/moving. The list goes on. This leads me to my issue with the move. Like I said, I wouldn't get rid of this move from my bag of tricks, but I do believe people put way too much enphasis on "learning an invisible pass". Your post here kind of makes me think that because you haven't been able to perfect an invisible pass you're giving up on it. This sleight isn't ever going to be perfectly invisible because like I said before, misdirection misdirection misdirection.

Anyway, I'm not trying to pass jugment on your abilities by this reply, how could I without seeing you perform. I was just droping in my opinion after reading this topic.

V.E. Day wrote:If you secretly crimp the card when the spectator puts it back in the middle of the deck you can hand the cards to the spectator for shuffling and then bring the chosen card to the top by riffle shuffling them when he returns them to you. Just make sure you hand the cards to him with the crimp towards the floor as you hand them to him so that he doesn't spot the crimp.

jim

jim ferguson wrote:Handing the cards out to be shuffled only to take them back and further shuffle them yourself, totally negates the point of the spectator shuffle.

jim

hds02115 wrote:Well if I hand the card out to be shuffled I don't then take them back and shuffle them.

I know you dont. My response was to the post above yours

jim ferguson wrote:Handing the cards out to be shuffled only to take them back and further shuffle them yourself, totally negates the point of the spectator shuffle.

jim

V.E. Day wrote:

jim ferguson wrote:Handing the cards out to be shuffled only to take them back and further shuffle them yourself, totally negates the point of the spectator shuffle.

jim

No it doesn't.

V.E. Day wrote:Shuffling mixes the cards up. If two people shuffle them then they are mixed up twice as much.
Isn't that obvious?

I see where you're coming from but you are looking at it the wrong way. If two spectators were to mix the cards it would be seen as a good mixing. When one of them is the magician, and the magician shuffles AFTER the spectator then that puts a different spin on things. To the spectator the cards ARE well mixed, after all they've just shuffled them - why then would the magician need to shuffle them further ? Usually to do something sneaky. Which is exactly what any intellegent spectator is going to think. Laypeople are far more intellegent than many of us give them credit for (sometimes ). They know fine well we're manipulating the cards.
Usually the point of the spectator shuffle is to prove without saying so that the cards arent prearranged, or that a selection really is lost at a position unknown to the performer. To then change the positions of the cards yourself afterwards negates (as i said above) the point of the spectator shuffle. You are no longer doing something from a spectator shuffled deck, you are doing something from a deck that YOU shuffled. Rather than being seen as an extra shuffle and the cards being well mixed, it will be seen as you doing something which is necessary for the effect you're about to perform.

jim