Which Double Lift is best

[Guest]

By that I mean which is most effective and natural looking. Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated... also where to locate the DL would also help...

Thanks

[Guest]

Dingle and Krenzel have double lifts are similar and look great. Derek Dingle is the only person who has ever fooled me with a double lift.
He does a double lift followed by the D'Amico change that really looks like only one card is being handled.

I just pinky count and do a turnover that's similar to Dingle's. I'm never 100% sure I only have two cards with the Dingle third finger technique.

[Sean Piper]

I'm no authority on the subject, but here's my thoughts anyhow.

I believe there are two main components to any double turnover (I presume you are actually turning over and not lifting). The first is the get-ready, second is the turn-down.

The get-ready must look natural, no matter which technique you'll be using to actually flip the card/s over. While pinky counting seems popular, it exerts a great deal of unnecessary pressure on the deck. Without sufficient misdirection, this can tip that something is going on. Personally, I prefer to simply remove the single top card while pushing off the second and obtaining a break, then replacing the single card. I believe this is a Vernon idea. Obviously this requires some sort of justification within context of the routine, but overall gives a very natural and easy look.

As for turning the card down, normally you don't need to convince the audience too much that the face down card you are removing from the deck is the same card they just saw. They shouldn't be given any reason to think otherwise. There are however many convincers which involves keeping the card/s slightly removed from the deck at all times. I'm currently using an idea of Tamariz for this, but I'm afraid I can't cite a source.

Most importantly, as I'm sure others will attest, use a technique that is consistent with the rest of your card magic. Try to keep your doubles and triples looking identical to your singles.

Good Luck!

[Guest]

There are some great handlings and there are some not so great handlings.

Dai Vernon has a method that is very convincing (2 card push off or something like that). I really like the stud double turnover and the Stuart Gordon double turnover is a great convincer.

One that I found to be very disarming is the one handed double lift that is performed by Andrew Wimhurst on his A-1 video. (I think he said it was Roger Klause's move.

[Brad Jeffers]

Which double lift is best? ... An often asked question. Here is the answer. If you perform a double lift and your audience truely believes that you have been handling a single card, then my friend, you have done the best double lift possible. It matters not, which of the dozens (mabey hundreds?) of techniques you choose to use. That choice will be guided by your own sense of what is right for you. Each individual technique, when done properly, can be deceptive - therefore, no one particular method can be singled out as "the best".

[Kendrix]

I remember Gary Ouellet turning over three cards from my Bicycle deck and spinning them down my pool table from one end to the other. He then turned over each card and spread them and they were all doubles. He had a great double lift.

[Guest]

Ackerman's "Spooky Double" is quite good. Also Hamman's technique for acquiring a double is often overlooked in these discussions.
Mr. Piper nails it though, your technique must be consistent. Remember they should not detect let alone suspect......
Jay

[Michel Huot]

I'm with Brad,

reread what he wrote
each person should turn over a card and DUPLICATE what he did. In other words, your double lift shoulh look EXACTLY like the turn over of one card.
If you turn over one card like a book and you turn over two cards like you are dooing a contest on sleight of hand...it's wrong. People won't see the 2 cards but they will feel something different. You will put them in thinking mode and that is no good. ;)

[Guest]

Originally posted by Brad Jeffers:
Which double lift is best? ... An often asked question. Here is the answer. If you perform a double lift and your audience truely believes that you have been handling a single card, then my friend, you have done the best double lift possible. .

Very true. since I have never been busted on a double lift I have made no real effort to learn any others. However, I think when holding the double card as one (as opposed to just turning it over) it is nice to have a convincer to sell the double (a flick etc.)

David Acer's sliding double lift looks very nice.

[Guest]

Martin Nash's "Knock-out Double Lift" is the best and his first two books not only cover the actual lift but the one part that many forget about - the replacement. While there is a bit of a knack to getting it just right, it is well worth the effort as it appears as it should, you deal a card into your hand to display it and then replace it.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
http://www.stores.ebay.ca/Abstagecraft

[NCMarsh]

Sean,

The "Tamariz" replacement you describe (which has since been credited to multiple sources) appears on page 57 of Sonata. Micheal Close has a nice touch on it on page 46 of Workers 4 It's a wonderful technique that I use...

All,

The double I use is a combination of "bits" that I've picked up from multiple sources...and I think this is the process we all ought to go through...read a lot, practice a lot, and combine techniques in the way that is most natural to you...

nate.

[Pete McCabe]

A few years ago I decided to see if I could learn to just push off two cards and turn them over as one. Turns out I could.

It wasn't really that difficult. Basically the thumb pushes off a card until the ball of the thumb can contact the card underneath it and push that one off too.

The key point in making this possible is that the cards do not push off square. Not at all. Well, sometimes they do, but I don't care in the least. They fall square as they turn over, but they don't push off as one (unless I'm turning them back down, in which case the back-to-back break makes this move almost automatic).

I've never been busted on this by anyone. Partly this is because of a slight wrist turn as the left hand moves towards the right, tilting the back of the deck away from the audience.

However the real secret, as far as I'm concerned, is a sentence from The Secrets of Brother John Hamman. I'm paraphrasing, but it's basically, casualness of action is what fools, not careful perfect alignment.

This technique requires good direction of the audience's attention, so that you're talking while you begin the turnover and look down as the card is coming into view. It's less desirable when strong attention is focused on the card before it is turned over, but I've always found it easy to get a break in those situations and do the standard fake-thumb-push variation.

Since getting this technique up to speed I don't even bother reading descriptions of new double lifts. With the time I save I work on my Topping the Deck palm, a tradeoff I cannot too highly recommend.

[Guest]

Is it a worry that very few real people would turn over a card onto the top of the deck and even fewer would place a card onto the top of the deck before tabling it?

[Steve Hook]

Originally posted by Nicholas J. Johnson:
1) Is it a worry that very few real people would turn over a card onto the top of the deck and 2) even fewer would place a card onto the top of the deck before tabling it?

1) No. I know what you're suggesting, Nicholas, but <no>.

2) Possibly, but most experienced cardmen, if perceiving that as a problem in a certain situation, would cover it with justification.

Steve H

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by Nicholas J. Johnson:
Is it a worry that very few real people would turn over a card onto the top of the deck and even fewer would place a card onto the top of the deck before tabling it?

That's why I prefer a "bookleaf" style turnover. I don't really do a double "lift" much. A two card turnover does the trick to get the face of the card seen and if you simply flip the card over and it falls flush with the top of the deck there's nothing unnatural about it. It's a very reasonable way to display a card, especially if you gesture with the other hand as you talk.

The D'Amico unload handles the second problem. The card isn't (apparently) placed face down on the deck before the card is tabled.

Since the question seems to ask for specific handlings I'd recommend two that I like a lot:
Richard Kaufman's double/triple lift from CARDMAGIC (which I do from the opposite corners but otherwise just as written) and Steve Draun's (A Heavenly Turnover) from Secrets Draun From Underground.

The best work on the double lift I've ever read is in Andrew Galloway's book Diverting Card Magic. It amounts to less than a page but it asks the right question. What Pete has written above pretty much sums it up.

[Guest]

The double lift that looked the best to me was one I saw Joshua Jay do. Basically, he pushed over a double with his thumb like you would for a 2nd deal (but you take both cards). What amazed me was he did doubles, tripples, etc. this way, and it looked very natural.

-- Frank

[Pete Biro]

I came up with a "replacement" many moons ago, fiddling with the cards... then later read the Tamiriz thing, and they be the same... It happens.

I believe the Stanley Collins to be a great get ready, which Larry Jennings mofified with the "click" (sticing a finger under the two cards)... this can be seen and learned on Daryl's Ambitious card video.

Not having "chops" like many, this is the one I use.

The get ready, in my case, is usually done on the off, way early.

Side story: Race drivers of world class, have great eyesight. I was doing the ambitious for Dan Gurney, and later he said, "What amazed me was how the card changed thickness from time to time."

:D :D :D

Ever since then, I don't show card end views, angle the deck downward gang...

Practice, practice, practice...

Had I, one wonders how good I might have been. :p

[Guest]

I have a number of different double lifts that I use from time to time.
The one I use the most would be the Vernon Double Lift which is natural and unaffected.
I sometimes use the Paul Le Paul method which is very similar but without the bend.
I also use the other Paul Le Paul method that has the wonderful advantage that no get ready is necessary. You can look up both methods in the Paul Le Paul book which every card magician should have anyway.
An overlooked but quite wonderful Double lift is the Nate Leipzig method. There is a wonderful little noise to it. Look it up in the Ganson book on Leipzig. Lately, I have been combining Harry Loraynes (if it is Harry's) technique of a kick double lift with the Leipzig method. It works great.

[Pepka]

I was sort of surprised no one mentioned Steranko's Simplex Double Lift, from his book Steranko on Cards. It looks almost identical to the Daley strike double, but I think it's is much easier. This combined with the Tamariz replacement, which I first found on Greg Wilson's tape Double-Take, and since then in several other sources, including Card College. These 2 combined make for a beautiful lift.
Pepka

[Pete McCabe]

Originally posted by Nicholas J. Johnson:
1) Is it a worry that very few real people would turn over a card onto the top of the deck and 2) even fewer would place a card onto the top of the deck before tabling it?

Magicians tend to think that natural means familiar, i.e. if I do something the audience has never seen themselves do, they will be suspicious.

But let's say I carefully grasp the top card of the deck using just the tips of my first finger and thumb, held at the very edge of the card with no flesh overlapping to the front. Then I just as carefully lift the card into the air and display its face.

The motivation for this is obviously to show complete fairness and reveal the entire face of the card. This motivation is immediately apparent even if you've never seen anyone do this before in your life.

As long as the audience knows why you're doing something, it will not seem suspicious. If they do not, anything you do can and will arouse suspicion.

So if you are holding a double face up on the deck, and take it with the right hand, then turn it over onto the deck as your right hand moves to brush some dust off the table surface before picking up the card again and depositing it on the table, the otherwise unmotivated replacement of the card onto the deck will not be noticed.

This is why I abhor the double-undercut: because there is never a reason to cut a deck of cards twice.

[Guest]

Originally posted by the completely foolish Pete McCabe:
This is why I abhor the double-undercut: because there is never a reason to cut a deck of cards twice.

Hold on there, little buddy!

This is cutting a little too close to home.

--Dr. DUK

[Guest]

It is true that there is never a reason to cut a deck of cards twice. It is also true that there is never a reason not to.

Oh very well, if you require a reason how about "toying with the deck"

It should come off as a little bit of absentmindedness, nothing more.

At least it is a far better mannerism that the constant riffling of the deck by the inexperienced
(experienced too, unfortunately) performer.

Don't get me started on mindless flipping, flourishing and spinning of poor hapless playing cards that have done nothing to deserve it.

These irritating mannerisms and gestures make the double undercut seem quite harmless by comparison.

[Pete McCabe]

Card Trickster:

I think there's a great reason not to cut the deck: it hurts the audience's grasp of the pre-magic condition. If I put your selection in the middle of the deck, you know where it is. If I do that and then cut the deck, you don't know where it is. If the trick will involve the card's location in any way, the effectiveness of the trick will depend heavily on the audience's conviction that they know where it is before the magic happens.

I completely agree with your assessment of unnecessary riffles of the deck. I've seen magicians who regularly riffle the deck, so that when they do a pass it's not suspicious. To me every riffle is suspicious, and doing them frequently just makes me constantly suspicious. I've seen many magicians who try to motivate a required action with something even more suspicious that requires (but never has) its own motivation.

Toying with the deck falls into this category for me. What exactly would be the reason for toying with the deck during a card trick?

Pete

[Guest]

The reason for toying with the deck is that you are toying with the deck.

The deck doesn't mind so neither should you. I have had a word with the cards and they say that you shouldn't fret on their behalf.

To unsettle you even more not only do I believe that the deck can be double cut I believe after a card has been selected the deck should be SHUFFLED.

I expect, even though you do not say it, that you control the card by the pass and you believe as many do that there is no necessity for the cards to be moved about in any way since the card is where it is supposed to be.

I shall wait to see if you confirm that you are indeed a pass person before I pontificate further.
If I am going to talk nonsense at least it should be informed nonsense.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by steiner1000:
...By that I mean which is most effective and natural looking.

A long time ago David Roth passed on this advice to me. Here it is for you: "...catch yourself being natural...try going through a trick as if it was done by magic... and see what that would look like"

There is about all you need to know about what to look for. And from there, what to ask about. Let us know if you have specific questions after you have seen what you need in the mirror.

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
If the trick will involve the card's location in any way, the effectiveness of the trick will depend heavily on the audience's conviction that they know where it is before the magic happens.

I almost agree. If the effect at hand involves locating the card then the belief that the card is lost may be enhanced by a shuffle which begins exactly as the card is returned. If the effect involves some magical event such as card under glass or in an "impossible" location then knowledge of the supposed location of the card will certainly add to the impact.

[Guest]

Actually this double undercut thing depends on the context in which the double undercut is used. I suppose the only thing I use it for is the Vernon "cutting the Aces" where it is never questioned. It makes sense in the context of the patter story.

The only other place I use it is when I am learning new card tricks that I never get around to doing.

I admit that as a control it is not the best. Still, the logic to it is that if you cut the deck once, the spectator may suspect that you have cut the card to the top. If you cut a second time he relaxes and thinks "Oh, I suppose he didn't"

How we got from double lifts to double undercuts I am not quite sure.

It is hardly an earth shattering matter anyway. I am sure the world will continue to operate,(more or less, anyway) whether we choose to double undercut or not.

[Pete McCabe]

Card trickster:

I expect, even though you do not say it, that you control the card by the pass and you believe as many do that there is no necessity for the cards to be moved about in any way since the card is where it is supposed to be.

I shall wait to see if you confirm that you are indeed a pass person before I pontificate further. If I am going to talk nonsense at least it should be informed nonsense.

Card Trickster:
I don't want to overdo this, especially if you consider this level of analysis unimportant.

But no, I don't do the pass. I use Steve Draun's Midnight Shift as a visible rise during the Ambitious Card, but I don't do any kind of pass as a control. For that I use the spread cull almost exclusively, usually from a face-up deck.

I've seen performers who like to shuffle the deck to reinforce the idea that the card is lost in the pack, and in many cases it works very well. For some reason very few card tricks in my repertoire seem to benefit from this.

By the way please don't worry about unsettling me. It seems pretty obvious from this thread and the one about Strong Magic that we have very nearly opposite opinions on several fundamental aspects of magic. (If you like the Too Perfect Theory our disagreements will be complete :-)

This is good. Maybe I can learn something from your perspective.

With that in mind, when you toy with the deck, what does your audience think you are doing? In my experience when a performer does this the audience attributes the magic to sleight of hand, which is not my desire. Does this happen to you? Is this the result you desire?

Pete

[Guest]

Midnight shift? Spread Culls? I must confess that I have no idea what these exotic things are.

Please bear in mind that I have never read a magic book written after 1954. I did make an exception with Strong Magic.

Furthermore I have no idea what the "too perfect" theory actually is. I suspect neither do the authors of the various articles about it.

I couldn't make head or tail of the various long winded theories so I haven't made any decisions on the matter. Anyway, I have a living to make so I don't care that much.

I don't know what you said about Strong Magic or even if you said anything. I must go back and take a look.

Despite my defence of the double undercut ( a sleight I have heard of since it has been written up before 1954) I never really use it.

Regarding toying with the deck and what the audience think of me doing it you would really have to see me work.
You would see what appears to be an absent minded eccentric toying with the deck. Oh, and talking a lot.
I usually do this when I am setting up the deck openly in front of people.
If you are not an absent minded eccentric who toys with the deck and talks a lot while openly setting up a stack then we are moving in two different worlds.
You will probably be better off doing things the way you are doing them now.

Actually, we may not be that different. I try to hide my skill. I am of the school that believes in the art that hides art.
I don't always succeed because I get tempted to show off by doing Notis Cascades and suchlike monstrosities to show what a clever bastard I am.

Now that I think of it, I am not sure that I do "toy with the deck" except when setting it up.
Perhaps I should set the deck up before the show. It might save some trouble. The trouble is I usually forget.

Since you seem curious about my philosophy of magic I will give it to you. Not that anyone else cares of course.

I will use ANY method to get an effect. I don't care if it entails a double face card, a stacked deck, a mathematical principle or if it needs, as it sometimes does intricate sleight of hand. In my case, usually simple sleight of hand. I know many sleights (providing they have been written up before 1954) but I only use about 5.

I believe that audacity and bluff are a very useful asset for a performer. I further believe that it is more important to be a shrewd psychologist when performing than it is to be a clever methodologist.

The most important thing I believe is that the magician has to be an entertainer however you define it. There is more than one way to acheive this goal. "more than one way to skin a cat"

"the result I desire" as you put it is simply this. I desire the people that watch me to be amused and amazed. And most important for the cheque not to bounce.

I consider technique just a means to an end. double lift how you want, double undercut or not, Midnight shift or Hoffelrimmer pass as much as you desire.

The key thing is what comes out of the other end of the sausage machine. The audience reaction.
Oh and the money too, of course.

If you are not a pro then forget the last line. I am just being cynical.

If people think I am long winded it is Pete's fault for setting me off.
So there.

[Pete McCabe]

Sorry to set you off. Perhaps we do not see things so differently. I tend to agree with most of what you wrote here, although I have very few pre-1954 books in my library. I learn all my magic from pre-1954 videos and DVDs.

I'd love to see you work. What's your name? Perhaps I already have.

[Guest]

I have found that knowing a person's identity can affect the perception of what they have to say. I rather suspect this applies to Darwin Ortiz.

I would prefer people to focus on my message, such as it is, rather than my persona.

It's not that hard to figure out anyway.I expect half the people here have done that already.

With regard to seeing me work very few magicians will have done that. My material is not suited for such audiences. It is very, very simple stuff that you would find in a beginners book. Nothing original either. I have never invented a trick in my life. Move along everybody. Nothing to see here.

If you insist, I will send you a computer video clip upon receipt of a private message requesting such. Nothing special to see though, I warn you.
No midnight shifts. Just a card trick invented pre 1954. 1909 to be exact.

A REAL beginners trick. It is in the same class as the 21 card trick or the 4 burglars. In fact it is a trick that nearly everyone here probably did when they were a kid. I haven't advanced much. I am still doing it. I am too embarrassed to tell you what it is.

[Pete McCabe]

"I would prefer people to focus on my message, such as it is, rather than my persona."
-- Card Trickster

"The medium is the message"
-- Marshall McLuhan

I've found that knowing a person's identity definitely affects the perception of what they have to say. I've also found that not knowing has the same effect.

I insist on nothing. However I'd love to see a clip of you performing a trick from 1909. It sounds special to me.

Can't send you a private message, though, as your email address is not viewable on the forum. If you'd like, you can send one to me at pjmccabe@pacbell.net and I will be in your debt.

[Guest]

My e-mail address is not here? I don't understand modern technology. I am not even 100% sure what e-mail is either.
I have a vague idea though ,so I will investigate the matter.

[Guest]

There we are. Is that better?

[Dennis Kyriakos]

I havn't read the all the posts ...yet... to the question on "Which double lift is best?" But here's something to think about...and forgive me if it's been said...

In all the theorizing and philosophizing on which double is best we forget what we are trying to accomplish. We are turning over TWO CARDS AS ONE. If those two cards look like two cards, the illusion of magic is never achieved.

We could have the most convincing double. But we are creating an illusion that we are turning over ONE CARD. How hard is it to turn over ONE CARD?

-Mr. Magician: "And the top card of the deck is..."
-Mrs. Spectator: "Why is he showing us that card in such a funny way?"
-Mr. Spectator: "He's a magician, honey."
-Mrs. Spectator: "Oh. Right."

John Carney lectured here in July and offered an intresting experiment about deciding(?) on a double lift/turnover.

Ok, maybe it won't help you decide, but it will certainly help you make an informed desicion.

It's working for me.

Hand the deck to someone (on your day off, this is an experiment)...a friend, lover, husabnd, wife...whomever. Ask them to shuffle the cards and tell you what the top card is by turning it over. Simply pay attention to how they do that.

You'd be surprised at the results...I was.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Dennis Kyriakos:
...Ask them to shuffle the cards and tell you what the top card is by turning it over. Simply pay attention to how they do that.

I agree in principle though asked a slightly different question. asked them to;

Show the top card
a) to us
b) to everyone

The toughest part was accepting the plain common sense of The Celebrated Man in the Streets as pertinant.

Do your participants just thumb over the card, pick it up from the side (fingers underneath and thumb on top) and either show the card face out or turn their hand over and show the card face?

Watching folks give change or count change onto a counter is also instructive.

[Guest]

Isn't it sad that after years of playing with cards, we have forgotten how to do it normally?

[Brad Jeffers]

What is normal? I disagree with the idea of observing how a layman turns over the top card of the deck and then trying to emulate thier actions. I don't believe that this is what Vernon had in mind when he said "be natural". What is natural for someone who rarely handles a deck of cards and what is natural for someone who makes his living with them, should not be expected to be the same. That's only ... well ... natural! Anyway, do all laymen handle cards in exactly the same manner. Unless they do, which one do you choose to emulate?

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Brad Jeffers:
What is natural for someone who rarely handles a deck of cards and what is natural for someone who makes his living with them, should not be expected to be the same. That's only ... well ... natural!

My thoughts exactly...

Although I don't make a living doing magic, the people I perform for know that I handle cards constantly, so I think it might be expected that I'd handle cards a bit more efficiently than most.

Perhaps that's what we should say instead of "be natural." "Be efficient." After all, if this is what we do all the time, wouldn't we figure out the most efficient way to turn over a card or shuffle cards, or whatever? Thoughts?

-Jim

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
...Perhaps that's what we should say instead of "be natural." "Be efficient." ...way to turn over a card or shuffle cards, or whatever? Thoughts?

No one will disagree with your concern of card handling becoming ungainly. The issue raised was our ability to find new options based upon what we observe in the semi-normal behavior of our neighbors. The issue raised is empirical.

It is 'normal' to explore. It is 'normal' to comapare our patterns against those performed by non-magicians. It is 'expected' in acting and mime that one learn from the actions of others and one's own unguarded moments. To ignore these resources is wastful. The trap of the solipsist is deep and dark. Most on this forum have tomes to refer to for details and inspiration. Let's explore options.

If you do the experiment, let us know your findings. Of the folks who were somewhat adept handling cards (ie not dropping any) how did they inspect the top card of the deck? Show it to others? Show it to all in the room?