talkmagic.co.uk

Hi all..

Does anyone know where I can get a replacement NFW bit without having to buy the whole trick again.

Thanks

Slippery

Depends which 'bit'.

If it's the whole card, then no.

If it's just the tack, then yes.

PM me for info...

You can get the card you need from here.
http://www.cards4magic.co.uk/acatalog/Bicycle_Gag_Cards_Poker_Size.html

I'm not going to say which one 'cause that'd be exposure. But you'll find it if you know how the trick works.

Thanks magic_evmeister

Been looking for ages.

Slippery

Go for a non-gimmicked-NFW instead.

Rune, I know you prefer to be clean at the end, but the gimmicked version LOOKS so much cleaner than any ungimmicked version I've seen. It's nice to have the skill to perform an ungimmicked version but for the insta-WOW factor you cannot overlook the much simpler gimmicked version.

Anyway, with good spectator management and a confident performance there shouldn't be a problem with the spectators wanting to inspect everything at the end.

I totally agree with magic_evmeister. The original gimmicked version of NFW looks more impressive. BTW, I have been performing it for quite a while and no one has ever asked to examine the cards. Some of the specs wanted to check my sleeves, though.

I know what you mean, but the ungimmicked version dos NOT require HUGE sleight or skills to be performed. So, why use a gimmick, when you can archieve the exact same thing without the gimmick?

I'm just saying that as far as performance goes with the gimmicked version you start with four jokers (and only four jokers) and you end with four aces (and only four aces). NOTHING else is in your hands at any point of the trick.

Also, whilst your ungimmicked version was excellent, I would rather do a performance with four jokers rather than four cards from the deck; such as the kings. I like using a line like this when I perform it: "Do you play many card games? You do! Well then you already know that in most card games Jokers are no good. However...these are very good" and then proceed to reveal the four aces. To do your ungimmicked version requiring the deck to be in your hands would make having four jokers in your deck very suspicious.

Also, using jokers makes sure there is no "inconsistencies" in the suits when counting the cards. I know spectators are not likely to notice this if you present it properly but the gimmicked version is a visually clean as any trick you will ever see with cards, as long as it is only set upon by the eyes. And besides if your spectators wished to inspect the cards after your ungimmicked version, wouldn't they find something a little suspicious in the top cards of the deck once they've waded through the aces?

I like your version of this trick and it's something that when I have more time to work on my magic I will consider learning properly. However, for the time being, my gimmicked version will continue to be in important part my arsenal of tricks and will be sitting in my packet trick wallet until I find something I deem worthy of replacing it.

rcarlsen,

Is the ungimmicked version available to buy as instructions or is this your own handling? I'm very interested in this.

Cheers,

Thing is, I agree with everybody else here that there's no point trying to do an ungimmicked version of NFW when the gimmicked version is so much cleaner. You simply can't do some of the changes in the gimmicked - and, if you start with a dupe ace, you can end clean by palming off the gimmick.

Kati

That's a good point.

That's a good point.

That's a good point.

Is there an echo in here