"Problems" in magic

[Guest]

When I attended Fism in The Hague last year, I had the chance to watch John Carney lecturing.
When he explained his routine called Silver and Glass, he told us that Vernon had always encouraged him to experiment, to build on the work of past masters and to solve little problems that always exist in any routine.
The idea of finding "problems" to solve was a very exciting idea to me. So I started looking for "problems" and I would like to submit to you two of them from one routine which I think I have solved until someone of course finds that my solutions have problems to solve...
So here are the "problems" I suggest to you, hoping someone else will also post a problem to solve:
In Genii volume 65, number 6, Michael Vincent suggests to discover a Larry Jennings'trick called "Look-An Illusion". You can read this trick page 31 of "Larry Jennings on card & coin handling". Michael Vincent says in the article that to his knowledge "only three magicians perform this effect". So I read the description of the trick and realized how difficult it was to perform the trick properly. Moreover, you finished the trick not clean at all. So in fact to me, two "problems" to solve but at that time I forgot about the trick as I suspect many did. But a few days ago, a friend of mine came back with this trick and told me he had solve those two "problems". So I tried to solve them too.
Would you like to try to solve those two "problems"?
Here is a short description of the effect for those who do not have Jennings'book:
First you show you have a packet of four jokers and one ace of spades, then, you show you have a packet of four aces of spades and one Joker and then you show that you only have four kings.
I do not ask you to give me your solutions, I would rather have some other problems to solve.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
First you show you have a packet of four jokers and one ace of spades, then, you show you have a packet of four aces of spades and one Joker and then you show that you only have four kings.

Derek Dingle did a similar effect using the diminishing count display. Should be no problem to apply the count to the above situation. Losing the two extra cards at the end is not so much of a challenge. Is this supposed to be a Kicker for a 'Homing Card' type routine?

[Guest]

Jonathan,
I agree that Jennings'Multiple Lift Sequence could be used in this trick as Derek Dingle did in his version of Larry Jennings'Wild Card.
However, in "Look-An illusion", the flustration count is deliberately used to make "the audience starts smirking because they think they have the trick figured out." Then you show that you do not have either ace or joker but only Kings.
A good effect, nothing to do with a homing card.
By the way, are you working on a particular problem you could share with us?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
I do not ask you to give me your solutions, I would rather have some other problems to solve.

I like problems too Philippe. I actually wrote a small book about some of my solutions. Here are some of the "problems" that I found rewarding...

• In "The Last Trick Of Dr. Jacob Daley" how do you ensure that the audience knows which cards are where without resorting to a "test" of the their attention or patience?

• When performing "Spellbound" what's the motivation for changing the coin back to it's original state?

• When doing Roth's version of "The Hanging Coins" why don't you vanish the last coin?

• When doing "The Ultimate Rip Off" (best T&R EVER!) why don't you restore the last piece?

Two of these are my favorite tricks to perform for laymem. Spending a lot of time worrying about an effect makes it all the more enjoyable to perform when you finally solve all your worries.

cheers
bill

[Guest]

I am particularly interested in Bill Duncan's fourth problem regarding the last (not restored) piece of the card. I have a solution I have been using in the Le Paul T&R. Tommy Wonder and Tom Mullica have ways round also.

Is this thread just going to make statements like I just have or be more detailed, not necessarily with full explanations, i.e. "what" rather than "how"?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
...I do not ask you to give me your solutions, I would rather have some other problems to solve.

In the second phase of John Ramsay's Cylinder and Coins routine, the routine ends with the revelation of the bit of cork under the cylinder. That is just not such a strong moment when presented as 'missing cork found'. The coins appearing in are Okay, though somehow the transposition is a bit 'off' or not all that theatrical. There is a problem that's been bugging me. Any suggestions?

[Guest]

Thank you to everyone for sharing your magic "problems" with us.
Of course, I encourage more of us to share problems and solutions.

Bill,
Concerning "The Last Trick Of Dr. Jacob Daley", what about showing that you have four cards and four cards only but not showing the faces of those cards. Then to show that the first card(double lift) is a King of Clubs, turn the double down and deal it to the table, then that the last card of the packet(double lift from bottom)is a king of spades, turn the double down and deal it to the right of the first card on the table.
With the two cards left in your hands, rub on the two cards on the table and show that those two cards on the table have changed to King of Diamonds and King of Hearts. Then show King of Clubs and King of Spades in your hands.
No possible confusion because spectators have only seen black Kings before transposition.
Tell me what you think of this idea.

Jonathan,
What about in the second phase showing first that the cork is back under the cylinder then open your left hand and poor the coins on the table?
Tell me what you think of this idea.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
Jonathan,
What about in the second phase showing first that the cork is back under the cylinder then open your left hand and poor the coins on the table? Tell me what you think of this idea.

I will have to try this a few times. My sense is that it would somehow force a display of the cylinder, which is as we know... a bit compromised at that moment. Doing as you suggest does allow for a more dramatic revelation of all four coins at once though... which may play well. - thanks

[Guest]

Anthony,
Just an idea, what about changing LePaul's trick a little bit.
Begin without preparation.
Have a spectator pick a card and ask him to put his first name on the face.
As he is doing so turn secretely top card of the deck face up.
Take the signed card from the spectator and put it face up on the deck.
Turn both face up cards face down as one card, take first card in right hand, put deck on table and tear the card in pieces with back of card turned to the spectators.
Put pieces in face down deck, make the turn over Pass.
Deck is now face up. Put top card in middle of deck, put bottom card in middle of deck, snap right fingers and spread deck on table face up to show that the signed card is restored in middle of deck. Everything is examinable.
What do you think of this idea?

[Guest]

Gentlemen,
My solutions are presentational. I don't attempt to restore the last piece as all published methods are suboptimal. Rather, I create a situation where the restoration would be a bad idea (someone could die!) and so the audience doesn't feel it should occur.

Had I not already arrived at a solution of my own for Dr. Daley's trick I'm certain I'd adopt your idea Philippe. I would offer the suggestion that the "other" cards not be the same value as the two shown cards however as the more difference between the pairs the more obvious it is that something has occured. In my case I use eights and aces (which should give you some idea of the theme).

[Guest]

Thanks, Philippe, for a good idea. I would put the signed card, face up, on the face of the deck. Turnover the two, slide off the "non-selected" card face down as I turn the deck over. Then proceed as you describe and at the end spread the deck face up (it will be that way after the Turnover Pass) so the chosen card will show, face down, in the middle, and can be withdrawn and the face displayed.

However I will keep using the Le Paul routine because the jumping out is so strong and creates a different dimensional area for the magic. I will forget my fear of being challenged to restore the last piece because I never have been! Furthermore, any thoughts of this by the spectator are diverted by me when I tell her to keep the corner as a souvenir while I keep the rest. Latter is then set up for next performance.

Both routines are very strong, aren't they?

[Guest]

A while back I posted on this forum a method for restoring the last piece in Ultimate Rip Off, which garnered much praise from magicians much better than I am.

The basic idea: After the restoration of the three pieces, when you are removing the torn corner to show that it matches, you palm out a folded dupe.

Now do the final restoration from Guy Hollingworth's The Reformation to restore the card completely.

This is not to denigrate Bill Duncan's solution, which sounds very intriguing. I always love presentational solutions.

[Guest]

Anthony,
I entirely agree with you that LePaul's trick is perfect in itself.
About the idea to "put the signed card, face up, on the face of the deck.Turnover the two, slide off the "non-selected" card face down as you turn the deck over." I don't see which motivation could explain why you turn a card face down on a face up deck. Is it natural? Perhaps am I thinking too much. Sorry for that...

[Guest]

Any other magic "problems" to solve?

[Guest]

Philippe, I believe that the ploy of turning over two as one cards on a deck is frequently used, irrespective of the way up of the deck and would not be unnatural here. However I will stay with the Le Paul version and am working on JCWagner's Jumbo routine for some situations.