Paperclipped (#@!*)

[Doug Brewer]

Big Dave, I think even with your "mentalism" presentation, your audience is realizing that you somehow had them sign an odd-backed card. You stated a spectator once said:

"I don't know how you did it, but you just found some way to switch in that card. I didn't see it, and I don't know how you changed the color of the back, but that's the exact way I just signed that card."

I believe her first statement clairifies her perception. She's saying "Yes, that's my signature, and it's on a completely different card than the one I signed." Me thinks you are incorrectly interpreting her response as "Wow, somehow he wrote a prediction in my handwriting on a different-backed card."

In response to your question, "what is an overwhelming response?" Well, for me, I call an effect overwhelming for my audience when there's an immediate thunderclap of stoned-face silence, followed by "no way, that's impossible"-type responses. I don't call polite pitter-patter of applause or "that's nice, now could you please leave" responses "overwhelming". Of course, I don't mean women are swooning into my arms or men are jumping off balconies either (that's reserved for the sponge bunnies routine).

I do agree with Muscarella, this type of effect (particularly the odd-backed card) needs to be presented carefully to avoid confusion. It is, however, very satisfying to perform and really knocks their socks off (aka "overwhelming").

[Guest]

The card in paperclip is a very practical method but from the effect I think it is not so well, especially if the the card in the clip has a different back design. It is complete different effect when the card is in full sight on the table, or you have the revelation in a purse or box that nobody knows before. Than is the effect more the surprise revelation. By the way the routines metioned by Doug Brewer are great!
John Bannon had a great solution in one of his routines. He has a red prediction card on the table. A spectator selects a card from a blue backed deck and signs it.... At the end the prediction is matching the selected card but not perfect, the signature is missing so he moves the signature to the red prediction card!
This makes much more sense.
I think also about a transposition- put a card open in the clip like a joker, which you find later back in your deck and than the selected card is found in the clip.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Muscarella:
Can someone direct me to the Pat-Trick routine mentioned in the earlier replies? Book, video, lecture notes, whatever. Thanks.

The video is called PUNISHMENT, and it's produced and sold by Pat-Trick, who hails from Melbourne, Australia. Once a year or so, he does a US tour, during which time he may sell a few copies to local distributors or retail shops. Maybe there are some floating around here in the States. I used to sell them but I ran out. It's a fine video with no junk on it.

[Steve Hook]

I think Bill Duncan's idea from Sept. 30 nails the solution perfectly. Did anyone else read that?

Steve H

[Bill Duncan]

Thanks for the kind words Steve.
:)

[Bill Duncan]

Since we're on the topic can someone cite the effect in which the signed card in plain sight first appeared?

I can think of three versions of this effect off the top of my head. The type we're discussing where a card is shown and set aside and it turns out to be the signed card. A clearly impossible situation. Second the card that appears in plain sight away from the performer (Card under Drink for example) which entertains wildly but often fails to mystify and third the card in sealed container ala Kapps.

[Tim Trono]

FYI the folded card in clip plot has also been explored by Alexander DeCova (Treasures # 3 video) and by Todd Lamanske (Get Real Video, Vol. 1, Dream On).

I think the card to clip idea knocks them over but I have a few concerns. Not actually having USED this item for real audiences Id love to get some feedback/input:

1) The odd back question/concern I have seen several variations using an odd backed card in the paper clip (Andrews, Pat-Trick, etc.) but I wonder what an audience REALLY thinks. The odd back does offer the advantage that it takes the heat off the card during the switch (i.e. how could this odd back card be MY card) BUT does it CONFUSE an audience? Do they ask did my signature fly onto this duplicate card with a different back or did my card go there, fold up, AND change color? Im really torn on this. Are we using the odd back because we can (just because we can doesnt always mean that we should)? Does it make the effect stronger or just more confusing? Are we ruining the clarity of the effect by combining effects? This is a question Ive asked since originally reading Darwin Ortiz Dream Card. Darwin and a number of people who have USED this advise that it kills but I personally have the concerns noted above.

2) Is this (folded card in clip with no odd back) too perfect (we dont need to get into the Too Perfect Theory but) - I saw a performer who I consider a friend and one of the top bar/restaurant magicians do this effect. I was sitting at the bar next to the spectators watching. They did not know I was a magician. When my friend left to go onto another group, I heard one guy say he had to have switched the card, otherwise how could it have been there prior... Im not sure how he switched it but thats the only think that makes sense. Since then, Ive ease dropped on similar comments by lay audiences. I know of one performer who actually starts with the card in clip inside an envelope which is in plain sight it helps break up this Too Perfect Theory a bit.

So here are a few more thoughts. I have played with the signed card in paper clip quite a bit. Here are some ideas Ive had:

1) I tried combining this with Jim Swains Airmail Card. I used a red backed deck and red backed card in the clip. The card in the clip has a cancelled postage stamp on it and is addressed to me. I tell about receiving something very weird in the mail and put it on the table. I then use Mike Closes MC Double Lift to 1) force the card (which has a duplicate stamp and address on it it is also red back) and 2) to show the back as normal (the touched card backs the forced card if you are familiar with the move it will make sense). If you are not familiar with this move, look it up as it fits perfectly into this context. I then cut the card into the center of the deck using a straight cut. I fan/spread through once to show it is there as I talk about it, cull it out, fold it, and go on with the card in clip. By using the Airmail theme and the same color back it seems it would be a little less confusing???

2) Originally, before I worked with Simon Aronson on releasing his Side-Swiped effect, I had the cards made for myself and used the idea of an instruction card. I show an envelope from a magic dealer and dump out a folded clipped card. I unfold it and it says Worlds Greatest Card Trick on the back. I show the instructions and read through them (have card selected, have it signed, etc.). I put the card back in the clip folding it up as I do so. I recall that the last instruction was to magically produce the card. I act stumped and remove the instruction card. The card still reads Worlds Greatest Card Trick but the face is now their signed card. I should mention that if you have NOT purchased Simons effect you SHOULD do so. It is fabulous and is almost sleight of hand free making it LOOK extremely magical. With the version I have noted there is some work but Simons just looks like real magic.

3) I had a folded card clipped to a black and white picture of supposedly me as a small boy dressed up like a magicians. I talk about my first card trick and show the picture and the folded card clipped to it. I have the spectator select and sign the card. I advise them that they look so familiar then I apparently remember I pull the picture from the clip leaving the folded card. I then pull the card (apparently) from the clip showing it is the signed card as I advise its great to see you again. I think putting SOMETHING else that makes sense in the clip with the card. You could put a folded (in half) bill there as a wager, etc.

All of the above were ideas Ive played with but never actually used in my work. So another question is: does the spectator have to SEE that their card is gone (by looking through the deck) before you show the card in the clip? Obviously this is a huge tell but otherwise I think there is the confusion of did he just make my signature go or did he magically make that a duplicate of my signed card.

That is one of the real benefits of the Kaps Card in Box and the variations of it (Swiss, York, Wonder, Allen, Kennedy, Bannon, etc.) the card is hidden in the box so if you build it up right they anticipate the card in box and think no way. You then show the card (actually the duplicate) essentially showing they are correct in their assumption. Then they relax and you do the switch. It is VERY strong but not quite as portable as the card in clip. Any thoughts as to why YOU think one might be stronger than the other, etc.

Tim Trono

[Guest]

Tim Trono wrote:

That is one of the real benefits of the Kaps Card in Box and the variations of it – the card is hidden in the box – so if you build it up right they anticipate the card in box and think “no way”. You then show the card (actually the duplicate) essentially showing they are correct in their assumption. Then they relax and you do the switch. It is VERY strong but not quite as portable as the card in clip. Any thoughts as to why YOU think one might be stronger than the other, etc.

Going back to "Deja Vu" by Carl Andrews, I think the odd backed card serves ALMOST the same purpose as the Box. The audience doesn't anticipate that the odd-backed card is going to be anything but possibly (depending on your presentation) a "prediction" of some kind. When the magician mentions that the card in his dream was a RED CARD you have, essentially, the same psychological moment as when you show the audience the (duplicate) card in the Box. They anticipate the significance of the odd-backed card and say, "No way!". It is during the subsequent moment of relaxation that the Sankey switch is done.

Someone earlier suggested that the paper-clipped card could be found inside an envelope. If so, in terms of a magical "plot", you would simply be presenting Card in Box, only with an envelope.

In my view the crucial aspect of Card in Box or Card in Wallet, Card in Tin (etc.)is coming up with some logic for the fact that the card is in the Box/Wallet/Mint Tinbox at all. I see a lot of magicians use Card in Wallet to conclude their Ambitious Card routine, without offering the slightest explanation (even a silly one!) for the card appearing there instead of on top of the deck.

What I like about the odd-backed "Dream Card" is that the object can be introduced early without revealing it's full significance. This accomplishes two very important things -- the card is in full view for the whole routine AND the ending makes perfect sense to the audience, dramatically and logically. Like a good mystery novel, the clues are "hidden in plain sight", leaving the audience surprised at the climax, but NOT feeling cheated.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Darwin Ortiz:
Finally, some seem to think that The Dream Card is just another member of a family of such effect/presentations. It's not; it's the original and forefather of all the others. Every other version is either based on my effect and presentation or based on some other version which itself is based on mine.

Perhaps Mr. Ortiz could make his claims slightly more clear: is "The Dream Card" the father of "The Signed Card"? Very unlikely. The father of "Between you Palms"? Certainly not. The father of "#@!*"? Perhaps not. Presentation notwithstanding, "The Dream Card" unequivocally bears more than passing resemblance to each of these other effects.

So why should it come as a surprise that "some seem to think that The Dream Card is just another member of a family of such effects"?

Given that ' "The Dream Card" is the father of all versions of "The Dream Card" ' is tautological, I have no doubt that Mr. Ortiz has more in mind when he makes the above-quoted statement.

regards, Doug

[Tim Trono]

Thanks for the great post Darwin. It actually helped clear up or solidify some of my thoughts and why I was a little uncomfortable about combining your Dream Card with the paper clip item. Your explanations of what the effect was NOT truly helped. I think this is generally misunderstood so it was great to get your input on this. I typically see it done as the spectators selected card has somehow BECOMES this odd card and it never quite felt right to me personally. Thanks for your valuable input. BTW, as a side note you will definitely NOT want to miss Darwins upcoming book. This should be incredible.

One item I had not previously mentioned along the lines of this plot is by Andrew Pinard. Andrew has a brilliant routine that he will eventually be releasing so I wont give a lot of details as to the specific effect. Ill leave that to Andrew if he feels it is appropriate. I will say that it creates this same odd card out turns out to be their signed card type of thing but in an extremely clean, convincing, and weird manner. Cody Fisher had also done and released some work along these lines (Transposition Prediction) but Andrew has really maximized the effect on this. Ive seen him use it in his restaurant work, as an example, and it really leaves the spectators with a weird feeling. It was great to watch this.

Andrew also had a great suggestion when he and I talked about the card in clip idea. I had mentioned my idea of noted above of having another object in the clip (such as a bill) with the card. Why else would you really use a clip other than to hold multiple things together. Anyway, as I mentioned, I was removing the other object THEN the card. Andrew suggested apparently removing them BOTH from the clip together to create conformity after the switch. If you play with this for 10 or 15 minutes you will quickly see how only a slight adjustment in handling makes this possible. This is a GREAT idea. It reminds me of the brilliant idea by Jamy Ian Swiss of having other objects fall out of the box apparently along with the card to create a consistency from when the objects were in the box to when they were all supposedly dumped out of the box in the Kaps Card in Box. With Andrews suggestion you get the same thing apparently BOTH the folded card AND bill are pulled out together. Andrew advised this was went back to Harkeys money clip effect, Pocket Cache (a marketed item by David Harkey) but I do think Andrew should be given a nod for applying it to the paper clip as there ARE some differences.

Doc Dixon also had a great, clever folded card to money clip effect in his book. I dont have that right in front of me but it is worth checking out for those studying this effect.

I think one of the huge advantages of the paper clip effect is the portability which, if working in the real word, is a crucial factor.

Tim Trono

[Lance Pierce]

Originally posted by Darwin Ortiz:
Most of the plot changes suggested in this thread are attempts to answer these questions for the audience. In my view, this would be a great mistake. This trick is not about providing answers but about raising questions, not about dissipating the mystery, but about deepening it. The trick's open-endedness is precisely why, as with a haunting dream, spectators can't get it out of their heads.

I for one very, very, very much appreciate Darwin chiming in on this matter. It was a post full of great thoughts, but the paragraph I've quoted above was really the meat of it for me...it struck precisely to the heart of the matter.

Cheers,

Lance

[Guest]

Darwin,

It is obvious that you are a deep thinker and have much experience on this subject.

I performed Dream Card for a year or two as my lead card trick before switching to Paperclipped. I will go back and examine my methods to see the aspects that you mention.

Fascinating discussion.

[Doug Brewer]

I like the term "ambiguous" used by Darwin Ortiz to describe these effects. A lot of the mystery surrounding the Dream Card or similar plots is that the presentation or theatre around the climax of the effect bounces around in the spectator's head. This is different than, say, the cups and balls where the appearance of the final loads is shocking and obvious. I don't blame Mr. Ortiz for having a bit of ego over the Dream Card idea. It's a great plot, which can be applied to many other effects in magic. I happen to think Cardshark is one of best books on card magic to come out in years. As a result, I'm really looking forward to his next book which should be coming out soon.

[Matthew Field]

I'll chime in with thanks to Darwin Ortiz for his excellent post, and I am looking forward to his new book as well.

Actually, I perform the "Dream Card" type of effect sans wallet (semi-impromptu, except for deck with gaff), and I use the John Bannon "Tattoo You" handling, if anyone is interested.

As to Tim Trono's statement that Andrew Pinard's trick uses a variation of David Harkey's moneyclip gimmick in a paperclip situation (I'll wait while evryone, including me, stops to figure that last phrase out), the Harkey trick is, to me, just the old Bulldog Switch (usually involving billets) utilizing a moneyclip instead of the Bulldog Clip.

Matt Field

[sleightly]

Actually, I don't do 'nuttin wit no stinking money clip, I just provided the credit...

Tim was kind enough to mention my work and then also dip into our discussion about the finesse of removing the bills and card in one swell foop...

The rest I will leave 'til later...

ajp

[Guest]

Tim Trono mentioned the name earlier, but no one else has explained where this handling of a card switch with a clip really started.

Germany's Alexander DeCova was lecturing with this in Europe years before Sanky saw it for the first time directly from DeCova. DeCova originally used an ordinary spring-loaded wooden closepin. When Sankey put the method in print with no credit, DeCova went a little nuts out of frustration. Alexander knows where the idea came from, and now so do all of you.

[Jon Allen]

I have a version of the "odd backed card introduced at the beginning turns into the person's card" called 1 Trick 2 Names.

I have signed the back of a red card and lave the card on the table. I then have a blue card selected and compare the 2 signatures using alittle bit of graphology. Their card is replaced in the deck then shown to have vanished. They turn over the tabled card and it is their signed card.

While copmparing the signatures, I build up the person's personality and play down mine. Essentially we are total opposites. Hence, I ask them to se what is on the opposite side of my signature and it turns out to be theirs.

I think that unless you have some form of diffuser (odd backed card) for the extra card, people will assume it's got something to do with the card trick you're doing for them so..... it's going to be their card. This makes the switch even more difficult.

I don't think people believe you really had a premonition. They think it's part of presentation for a magic trick. If they want to check for their card after the effect, they want to satisfy themselves that, yep, you switched the cards.

As magicians, we have a problem. We think we know what goes on in people's heads but in reality, we don't. When someone removes their card from the Destination Box, they are gobsmacked. I wish I knew what people are thinking at that moment but I don't. We do our best to act as laymen would, to get inside their heads, but we can't switch off out magician minds totally.

I plan on hosting an evening where people are questioned after a performance to ask what they thought of the effects, the magic, the performer etc. to find out what they really do think about and whetehrt we get away with as much as we think. I'm hoping it will be a fascinating insight.