Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #1 
I'm looking to get a clear description of an effect I've developed. Here's what I have so far. I'm interested in people's opinions regarding the strength of the effect based on this description.

Description:

A signed playing card is isolated in one half of the deck. That half of the deck is placed on the table face down with the signed selection out jogged.


From this point on, the magician never touches any of the cards.

A spectator selects a card from the other half of the deck while the cards are in his hand. That card is tabled face down without revealing it's identity and the other cards are put to the side.

You now have one half of the deck on the table face down with a signed selection out jogged AND an unknown isolated card face down across the table.

The signed selection is pushed flush by a spectator while the cards are in his hand.

The magician says the signed selection has vanished. The spectator runs through the cards and finds out that it has indeed vanished from the half-deck while he was holding the cards.


A spectator is told to turn the unknown face down card face up-- it is the signed selection.

No gaffs FASDIU.  Only a few common sleights are used.

__________________
 
0
Tom G

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 905
Reply with quote  #2 
Sounds really interesting.
0
Amazer

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 179
Reply with quote  #3 
Is the card signed on it's face?
The second selection is not revealed... Not revealed to the magician, or not even seen by the spectator? Based on the ending, I'm assuming nobody sees it, and in fact, it's really inconsequential.

The effect comes across as impossible, based on the description, and is really intriguing.

If you don't mind answering, are you evaluating the description because you're planning to market it or put it into a book?

__________________
- Ken

0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazer
Is the card signed on it's face?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazer
The second selection is not revealed... Not revealed to the magician, or not even seen by the spectator?

Not seen by anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazer
If you don't mind answering, are you evaluating the description because you're planning to market it or put it into a book?

I'm planning out a book.

__________________
 
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #5 
That's it? Seriously? I was hoping for more feedback than this... 
__________________
 
0
Axel

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #6 
I slightly missed the "From this point on, the magician never touches any of the cards." - part ... while figuring out a method during reading and thinking about a convincing Marlo move..

but that is, what I think, the key-info. I think that is what it makes different from similar effects!

Great, looking forward to it!
0
Bmat

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #7 
This is a two card transposition.  What makes it different from every other two card transposition, (I am not saying it isn't. I'm asking an honest question).
I am a fan of Gary Oullets Finger on Card.  Sure doesn't use the deck the way yours does but it happens more in the spectators hands from my reading of your description.

What I don't like, and that is just personal, is that the second card is never revealed.  I think it would be better if the second card was revealed, maybe signed by the magician, and then the two cards really do change places.  

What I do like, is that the chosen card is jogged out of the deck and in full view and the deck is not touched by the magician after that.  I can even think of a way to show the card once it is jogged into the deck (or in the process of).  And the spectator pushes the card flush.   

For me and just because of the style I subscribe too, I'd use that as a lead into card under glass.  The spectator pushes the card in.  Then it vanishes and of course it appears under a glass or what have you.  Never a need for that second card.  

Just an opinion/thought.  all the best on your undertaking.

__________________
bmat10@wordpress.com
0
Michaelblue

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,146
Reply with quote  #8 
Sounds awesome to me. i thought you were headed for a "do as i do" kind of thing. I was surprised
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmat
This is a two card transposition.

Nope-- that would require showing the face down card went to the half-deck that originally had the selection in it. The cards are not trading places, therefore it is not a transposition.

__________________
 
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,196
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

Nope-- that would require showing the face down card went to the half-deck that originally had the selection in it. The cards are not trading places, therefore it is not a transposition.


What category would this fall into? 

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tinoco
What category would this fall into? 

I believe it falls under translocation.

__________________
 
0
Bmat

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

Nope-- that would require showing the face down card went to the half-deck that originally had the selection in it. The cards are not trading places, therefore it is not a transposition.


I stand corrected.  Perhaps one day I shall learn to read. 

__________________
bmat10@wordpress.com
0
jim ferguson

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 92
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

I believe it falls under translocation.



I wouldn't call this a translocation. A translocation is essentially a movement of an object from one place to another. If the face down card appeared on the table or was suddenly just noticed, then it would be a translocation.

As described the effect falls into the category of the Paradox - from the spectators point of view the card must somehow have been both on the table, AND in the deck AT THE SAME TIME.

The basic effect is similar to Bro Hammans signed card, or even one of the clear box routines - without the box.


Jim


0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,073
Reply with quote  #14 
So, a mystery card effect? The business with the second selected affected by the spectator seems to preclude any force... Hmm. I'm puzzled.

I like the intriguing description, but have a question about the necessity of the mystery card. What's the motivation for having it selected? Especially by a second spectator? It seems extraneous unless you've omitted something from the description. Why not just have the initial signed selection appear in an impossible location? 

Av
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Vinson
Why not just have the initial signed selection appear in an impossible location? 


Because that's a different effect. Jim has the effect nailed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim ferguson
...from the spectators point of view the card must somehow have been both on the table, AND in the deck AT THE SAME TIME.

__________________
 
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,678
Reply with quote  #16 
Steven -

It seems that there are other interpretations e.g. The tabled card had to be an X card since we see the selection. Therefore the cards transposed i.e. the X card on the table became the selection as the X card then jumped back into the deck.

I think it's more likely interpreted this way than that the signed card existed simultaneously in two places.

It's very much like Brother Hamman's "The Signed Card." In Hamman, the card disappears from among the aces (literally - five cards end up as four) and then it is found to be the one previously set aside.

Mike
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
I think it's more likely interpreted this way than that the signed card existed simultaneously in two places.

Thanks for the feedback Mike, but knowing the presentation, I think I disagree.

__________________
 
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,678
Reply with quote  #18 
I re-read the initial post but I'm still having trouble seeing the "same card in two different places" scenario. Is there presentation that hasn't been disclosed yet?

It would be interesting to ask spectators who saw this to explain what their interpretation is. 

Mike

0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
I re-read the initial post but I'm still having trouble seeing the "same card in two different places" scenario.

That is exactly the type of feedback I'm looking for!

__________________
 
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,073
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
I re-read the initial post but I'm still having trouble seeing the "same card in two different places" scenario. Is there presentation that hasn't been disclosed yet?


Glad it's not just me. I went back and re-read the IP as well and am still puzzled. Despite Steven's assertion I cannot see it that way at all, nor I think would a spectator unless the presentation somehow covers it. That's why I asked the question about impossible location earlier; because that's how I interpreted the trick based on the description.

Steven, if you're able and willing, a video demo at some point would help clarify the effect, at least in my finite mind, ad perhaps others. Perhaps once the book is out?

I am definitely intrigued with how you accomplish the "thing." (Since we're not in the Session Room I'll equivocate.)

Av
0
Axel

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #21 
Mike:" I'm still having trouble seeing the "same card in two different places" scenario"

...hmm...to me that was clear, that´s why I was irritated by Steven´s first reaction and was then looking for something "special" (spectator chooses a card in his own hands).

As I understand it, the chosen and signed card never leaves sight, its back is seen all the time while sticking up jogged out of one half. Then the other half is taken by the spectator, he chooses a card from that packet in his own hands, without looking at it and puts it face down on the table. Then the signed card is pushed into its half. It vanishes from there and is, impossibly, the single card that was chosen afterwards etc.
 Am I getting it right?

Axel
0
DJ

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #22 
Axel, that is how i understand it too.  There is a face down card and half the deck with an outjogged signed card sticking out of it on the table.  The spec picks up the half with the outjogged card and pushes the card flush.  The spec immediately looks through the cards in hand to find that the signed selection is missing.  The card on the table turns out to be the signed selection.
__________________
Dan
0
Bmat

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #23 
I'm going to go out on a limb and I could be wrong, it has happened before (shocking I know!).  I think, for some of us the problem is two fold.  The rational of the second card, and more importantly why wasn't this cards identity known before.   Secondly, I for one, don't think the audience is going to think about or believe the card is in two places at once. I fear that as magicians, we tell ourselves what the spectator will think and proceed appropriately (or in appropriately)

I think the moment the spectator sees the cards, (one single card and their card sticking out of the tabled deck) they are simply going to think their card is going to vanish from the deck and be the singled out card.  And that is me assuming what the spectator will think.  

You wanted opinion.  

__________________
bmat10@wordpress.com
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,678
Reply with quote  #24 
No one has commented on the similarity with Bro. Hamman's "The Signed Card." Here a "mystery card" is placed aside FD. Then a selection is placed among the four aces. The five card packet i.e. four aces and signed selection is then seen to consist of only the four aces. It's clear that no card is hiding in there. There really are only four cards.

Finally, the card originally set aside is found to be the signed selection for the big ending. 

In Hamman, the magician has to handle the "mystery card." It sounds like in Steven's the spectator chooses the mystery card. It seems like it would have to be forced, though, if that's that's the case. Maybe a Cross Cut force or a Cut Deeper.

What's strong in Hamman is that you see that the signed selection goes into the ace packet. It really is there.

as Jon R says, "Onward....."

Mike
0
jim ferguson

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 92
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
No one has commented on the similarity with Bro. Hamman's "The Signed Card."



I did, in my post above.

The card will be seen as being in two places simultaneously - a "paradox" effect.
Steven has said his patter will dictate what the actual effect is, and how it will be perceived.

A theme with say, time travel for instance, could imply the card was both sticking out the deck, and on the table at the same time.

For those who think the effect won't be seen this way - how would you describe the effect in pieces like Sankeys Paperclipped, or one of those clear box routines (where a folded card is in view in the box throughout the trick) ?


Jim


0
Dorian Rhodell

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #26 
I almost view it as a combination of a "Mystery Card" type of effect and a "cards across" type effect...but with one card.
0
jim ferguson

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 92
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Rhodell
I almost view it as a combination of a "Mystery Card" type of effect and a "cards across" type effect...but with one card.



To be a card or cards across, the card would have to vanish from the packet and appear (magically) on the table (or in the box or whatever).
The card doesn't appear there, it is there all along.

Mystery card isn't really describing the effect. If I didn't know about mystery card, how would you describe the actual magical effect ?

Jim

0
Dorian Rhodell

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #28 
Agreed. That's why I mentioned it appeared to be a combination of sorts. 

I'm not convinced that we really need to classify this trick.  We already know the description and once performed, I'm pretty certain the audience will too.

I perform everyday and I have a pretty strong feeling that my audiences, for the most part, would ask, "how did you get it from here to there?"  If this happens, then I'm left with nothing but simple cause and effect.  I personally think this is going to come down to how the trick is presented instead of classified.

Best,

Dorian




0
Anders92

Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #29 
I am intrigued! It sounds like a killer effect - but of course it has to be as clean as described. The spectators should be ABSOLUTELY convinced that the card in the facedown packet is actually the signed card. But sounds like it could be a really strong effect!

Andy
http://cardtrickmaster.com
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,678
Reply with quote  #30 
Marlo's "Convincing Control" is one of the best ways to "convincingly" leave a card outjogged that is assumed to be the selection when, in reality, the selection has been secretly moved to the bottom of the deck. 

I've used this ploy with card to wallet. The bottom card is palmed in the LH via an Erdnase bottom palm. The card is loaded into a wallet in the right jacket pocket and the wallet is removed and tabled. Meanwhile the outjogged card continues to be thought to be the selection. So you can hand the wallet to a spec and then push the card flush....

Mike
0
jim ferguson

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 92
Reply with quote  #31 
David Regal also has a very nice handling of the Convincing Control, in Constant Fooling Vol.2

I'm not sure we should be discussing possible methods for Stevens trick though.


Jim

0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 799
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim ferguson
I'm not sure we should be discussing possible methods for Stevens trick though.

Thank you Jim-- I agree. I'm almost sorry I started this thread.

__________________
 
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,196
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

Thank you Jim-- I agree. I'm almost sorry I started this thread.


I can delete the thread or move it to the Session Room. Let me know what you want me to do, Steven.

Rudy

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.