Which Triumph do you use??

[Sean Piper]

Just curious which version of Triumph you actually use in performance. More concerned with on the table variations rather than in the hands (ie. Slop Shuffle).

Personally, I do Vernon's routine almost verbatim from Stars of Magic. The only things I've added are Daryl's Six Packet Display and at the end I reverse the bottom card, just in case they ask to see it again. In that case I go into a self working version taught by Paul Cummins in his workshop.

Also... where do you guys position it in a routine?? Is it an opener, a closer, or an in the middle?

I tend to use it as the body of a routine, following it with something substantially stronger, such as Card in Orange or Travellers.

[Richard Morrell]

Sean,

Have you seen Jerry Sadowitz's 'Name a Card' Triumph? Its the one Darwin Ortiz mentions in Strong Magic, I think I agree in part with Darwin, I certainly prefer his alteration to the Sadowitz routine, now I just have to work on my Zarrow :) Also see Lee Asher's Cooking video for a good Zarrow Triumph that he explains briefly.

I know you weren't too interested for in-the-hands variations, but that is what I use all the time, namely John Bannon's 'Last Man Standing' which combines the Optical Reverse and the Goodwin/Jennings display to make a powerful routine. Also I use Jay Sankeys Back in Time.

On the topic of using it in the body of a routine, do you seem to get a good reaction from the deck righting itself, or do you think this is overshadowed by the selection climax? I tend to play each seperatley, spread through the deck ignoring the only face down card, to show all the cards have turned face up, then hopefully someone will mention the odd card, or I re-spread and notice it myself.

Thinking about it I might try a triumph version without the selection, I read one in the last few issues of Onyx, I think by Jason England but will need to check my library, also along a similar vain is Bob Farmers new Bammo Card Walloper which doesn't focus on a particular spectator selection.

Rich.

[Guest]

Last Man Standing Rocks

Noah Levine

[Mike Powers]

Hi Rich,

You might like my I.T.H. Triumph which was in one of the last issues of Onyx. It's a three phase routine:
1. When the "magic card" is turned face down, the mixed deck is completely face down.
2. When the "magic card" is turned face up, the entire deck follows (reversing from face down)
3. The "magic card" disappears into the deck and finds its mate. They are sandwiching the selection which is reversed.

Mike

[Denis Behr]

More than a year ago I once made (for no good reason) a list which trys to categorize the methods used in different Triumph routines. Now I am not completely happy anymore with some things in this list but perhaps this is a good place to copy it in.
It is far from being complete I guess so any comments are welcome which I can add to the word-file of this piece of card academic.
I hope it copies well...

Denis

A) unprepared deck
1. False Riffle Shuffle
I. on the table
- Vernon Triumph Shuffle (Stars of Magic)
- Strip out
- Push Through
- Zarrow with one card cover (not so good) or block cover (for example Ernest Earick, By Forces Unseen)
II. in the hands
- Vernon Triumph Shuffle Variation + added perpendicular display (Guy Hollingworth)
- Andrew Wimhurst's Strip out Triumph (Something Wicked)

2. Real Riffle Shuffle, cards are already in the same direction with cover card(s)
I. on the table
- standard handling with one half reversed under cover card before shuffle (See for Example Marlo without Tears, Jennings '67 (Truthfull Triumph), Cervon File (Simple Triumph))
- Tamariz handling with four packets (Sonata)
- Carney's Triumph Ripp-off (Carneycopia)
- see also: Vernon's own Versions in Chronicles Vol.1 pp.105ff.
II. in the hands
- for example Jennings (Outstanding Triumph in The Classic Magic of L.J. or handling on Thoughts on Cards tapes or Simply Shuffled in Semi-Automatic Card Tricks Vol.III)

3. Cards are really mixed face up-face down but turned over in the course of the trick
- using the Faro: Marlo's 76-76-67-67 Faro Notes ; Tamariz One Faro Triumph from Sonata; Vzquez' Un Gran Triunfo from Tamariz' Sinfonia en mnemonica mayor Vol.1
- Pit Hartling's version which is not published yet...
- Draun's Most Convincing Topsy-Turvy Aces (Secrets Draun from underground)
- using a cull or the Green Angle Separation
- Cards are mixed by spectator (Cervon in Hardboiled Myteries, not really Triumph Effect)

4. Cards are really mixed and never turned over because of a clever presentation
- Play it Straight (John Bannon)
- Cards are mixed by spectator, yet standard Triumph-effect achieved (Ackerman in Heres my Card, almost ungaffed)

5. Strange shuffles
- Slop Shuffle (A Tipsy Trick in Royal Road to Card Magic, Personal Slop from a shuffled deck in use or Lavands handling)
- True Triumph in from a shuffled deck in use

0. Displays/Convincers
- Daryl's 6 packet display (or 8 packet variation by ?), variation on Daryls 5 packet display in Cummins from a shuffled deck in use
- Goodwin/Jennings riffle convincer (Thoughts on Cards tape, Semi-Automatic Card Tricks Vol.III, Trapdoor)
- L.J. Display (see Outstanding Triumph in The Classic Magic of L.J.)
- Guy Hollingworth's Perpendicular Fan (Drawing Room Deceptions)
- Wimhurst's Angle Jog Fan (Something Wicked)
- Up the ladder Cut
- Paul Harris' Tilt Convincer

00. Effect Variations (Instead of finding chosen card)
- Topsy Turvy Aces (Marlo in Patented False Shuffle, Draun's Most Convincing..., Minch (Best of friends Vol.1 or Drawing Room Deceptions )
- Named Triumph (Jerry Sadowitz)
- Color Change kickers (see mainly Dingle's Publications, also Paul Harris)
- additional production of Royal Flush or sth. (Dingle's Roll over Aces (Complete Works of D.D.), Bannon's Play it straight)
- dealing a poker hand and all the cards are face up except the one the dealer recieves (Persi Diaconis' plot (?), a version is on a Marlo A1 tape)
- "The Un-Topsy-Turvy Deck" by William Goodwin (The Looking Glass, Spring 1996, pp. 73 75; version in which the cards are shuffled but not squared (kind of an incomplete faro situation) and the deck is spread in this condition and the moment the spread is started the one packet rights itself visibly.)
- transposition effect: one half is face up/face down, one half is all face down. The halfs change places (Classic Magic of Larry Jennings)
- combinations of the above (Greek Poker in Darwin Ortiz at the Card Table)
- Reverse Triumph ( Fulves Riffle Shuffle Technique, see also Ortiz' Blockbuster from Cardshark)
- gernerally strange plot variations (Daryl's Double Dazzling Triumph, P. Harris' Unshuffling Rebecca, Dingle (!!))

B) Gaffed up
1. Standard effect
- Cheek to Cheek (half a deck double backs or facers)
- half a deck with cards like the gaffs in Marlo's Ace Assembly out of M.I.N.T. or Kohler's Aces in your faces
- Stripper
- Rough and Smooth
- Rough and Smooth combined with stripper (Marlo, see www.marlophile.com)
- Spectator shuffles cards The Spectators Triumph in Heres my Card (almost ungaffed)

2. Not Standard Effect
- Super play it straight! (Son of Simon Says)

[CardFan]

I've done quite a few (ungaffed) versions of TRIUMPH through the years--and there are many great ones out there--but my love for the original (from Stars of Magic) has been rekindled...That's the only one I do these days.

[Guest]

I used Darwin Ortiz's and Jay Sankey's version. Both are in hands (more practical for me) and both have a storyline that makes sense.

Why do we shuffle the cards so drastically only to unshuffle them?

[Alpen]

I think its always good to know a few ways of performing a certain effect... it helps to cater an effect to certain situations (i.e. presence of a table, presence of fast company etc...)
Hollingworth's in the hands version is, in my opinion, a good in-the-hands version.
In addition, Dingle's Color Triumphant is fun to play around with, as is Kalush's version.

[Charlie Chang]

I normally use A Flippant Triumph found in Earick's book.

Sometimes I'll use Last Man Standing because I love the Goodwin-Jennings display. :cool:

[Pete McCabe]

Can someone tell me where Last Man Standing is in print?

[Pete Biro]

I have a theory.

Vernon, like Marlo, probably worked out maybe a dozen ways to do Triumph. (And the same on many of Vernon's other items).

And, after he finally figured out the BEST way to do it published it, and discarded the rest.

So, IMHO, the Stars of Magic version is the best and the ONLY ONE that I would consider doing.

I feel the "added laydowns and proving" only KILL the real effect.

How much does one have to prove?

You shuffle the cards face up and down, spread them on the table to show the mess, gather up the cards and re-spread showing all but one card has been righted, and it is turned over to reveal it is a selected card.

I usually use it following an Ambitious Card sequence. I like to have one card chosen and signed and keep using the same one. Saves a lot of work.

:p

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
I have a theory...how much does one have to prove? ... Saves a lot of work. :p

Pete, I find proofs very useful. There are so many things to prove, and a good few whose proofs to date are not as appealing as they might be.

Perhaps the folks who feel the need to prove something could apply the effort where it would be appreciated... Mathematics!

You can be famous in Mathematics for your clever proofs. Go for it!

[Brad Jeffers]

Of course, the method published in Stars of Magic is not the exact method that Vernon used himself. He used a push-through shuffle, rather than what has come to be known as the "Triumph" shuffle. The idea was that the Triumph shuffle, being easier to master, would make the effect more marketable - a dumb idea if you ask me. Anyway, I have a question for those who perform Triumph (any version) ... Do you spread the cards face up, with the selection being the only face down card, or do you do spread the cards face down, with the selection being the only face up card? I personally think that having the selection appear face up is much stronger, although I seem to see it done the other way more often than not. Which do you prefer?

[Guest]

"Last Man Standing" was a post by John Bannon on TSD Sept. 30, 2000. It supposedly is published in "Cardzilla is Coming" but I have never been able to find these notes.

[Sean Piper]

Originally posted by Brad Jeffers:
Do you spread the cards face up, with the selection being the only face down card, or do you do spread the cards face down, with the selection being the only face up card? I personally think that having the selection appear face up is much stronger, although I seem to see it done the other way more often than not. Which do you prefer?

I first spread face up (with a face down selection) presenting the spectators with the first climax. If you think about it, this is a VERY strong moment in their mind, so milk it for all it's worth!!

Only then do I draw attention to the sole face down card, and move through fairly hastily, otherwise they start to get ahead of you.

Cheers,

Sean Piper.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Sean Piper:
I tend to use it as the body of a routine, following it with something substantially stronger, such as Card in Orange or Travellers.

Your routining makes sense as a sort of adventure for a selected card. That is the idea behind the ambitious card.

Do you do this with a storyline of some variation of the mythic journey? Where does the hero (selected card) wind up at the end?

This could be played for comedy as if each phase required rescuing the card from worse and worse fates. Perhaps ending with a torn up deck of cards, some scotch tape and the selection being the onely one wrapped in tape?

[Pete McCabe]

I forget who I saw at a convention (had to be either MacWorld or CTIA) at Moscone Center in San Francisco, but he sidejogged the selection and spread the deck face up, showing all cards facing the same way. Then he squared the deck, and respread, showing a face down card had appeared. This was then shown to be the selection.

The Rule of Three: it's not just a good idea, it's a rule.

[Guest]

Go The Rule Of Three!

[Guest]

-On the topic of using it in the body of a routine, do you seem to get a good reaction from the deck righting itself, or do you think this is overshadowed by the selection climax? I tend to play each seperatley, spread through the deck ignoring the only face down card, to show all the cards have turned face up, then hopefully someone will mention the odd card, or I re-spread and notice it myself.

I do "outstanding triumph" from Jennings...when I spread at the end....i block spread(name?) the middle section so it appears all cards are facing the same way. Then I tell them that straightening the cards out didn't really help me find their card very well..so I'll have to resort to REAL magic. Slap the deck or whatever, spread face down...voila! Love it.

[Lance Pierce]

I've heard and read various arguments for the different approaches: Should the deck be spread face up? Face down? Should you reveal the selection first or second?

It all comes down to opinion. My experience has taught me that the righting of the cards is a much stronger effect than finding the selection. I've also observed that when you spread the deck face up, it takes slightly longer for the audience to perceive that one card is reversed. With all those faces and patterns in a face-up spread, there's just too much detail for them to quickly ascertain the situation, and so we have "a poor theater moment."

Because of these two reasons, once the sell has been made that the cards are hopelessly mixed face up and face down, the approach that's always worked best for me was to set the deck face down on the table and simply cut to the face-up card. This is quite an impressive feat in their eyes, since the deck is apparently completely screwed up, you found the card by simply cutting to it somehow, and there it is just staring them in the face. It's very clear and immediate, and considering the face-up, face-down shuffling, they didn't expect the solution to finding the card to be that clean and direct. It always catches them off guard.

Then I push the card forward so it's outjogged a bit and replace the top half of the deck so the card is sticking out from the middle. Only now do I address the problem of the condition of the deck. After making a gesture, I do a wide, face-down ribbon spread, showing that their card is the only face-up card in a face-down deck. The picture again is clean, immediate, and startling...far more so than if the spread were face up or if the selection/righting of the cards were done simultaneously.

This approach also helps with the problem of having the spectators get ahead of you on the climax. If we spread face-up to show one face-down card (which sometimes has to be pointed out because the audience may very well miss it if you don't), then the thought that it's their selected card is the first thing that comes to mind. It also presents the stronger effect first and the weaker effect second, which seems entirely backwards to me. Finding the card first in a face-down deck and then showing all the remaining cards face down puts the effects in what seems to be their proper order.

Thoughts?

LP

p.s. To facilitate the cutting of the lone face-up card, at the point in the routine where the card is on top of the deck and you're about to shuffle the face up ones into the face-down ones, riffle slightly harder on the face-down packet as you approach the top card (the selection). Let it fall last, just like you always do, but put a slight concave bend in the back of the card. This way, when it's the lone face-up card in a face-down deck, the work will make cutting to the card just about automatic.

[Guest]

My two favorite triumph effects are Daryl's "Double Dazzler Triumph" and Paul Harris' "Gambler vrs. mentalis vrs. magician". Both are excellent.
PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
http://www.stores.ebay.ca/ABstagecraft

[Jon Racherbaumer]

When I wrote ARCH TRIUMPHS in 1978, I listed 90 methods for performing Triumph-type effects and cited them in the Select Bibliography. The book itself explained 14 more methods, bringing the total to 104. Since then I've found, tracked, and filed 87 more methods, bringing the grand total to 191. I'm certain there are many more versions, published and unpublished.

In ARCH TRIUMPHS I also underscored a couple of key things: Confusion is not sophistication. Complication is not virtuosity.

Dai Vernon's presentation of Triumph was pure: direct, lucid, and MOTIVATED. The deck is given only ONE topsy-turvy shuffle. Additional shuffles do not further modify or enhance the topsy-turvy condition of face-up and face-down cards. In fact, additional shuffles may suggest (to lay people)that you are somehow "righting" the reversed cards with your extra shuffles and cuts.

Another key aspect of Vernon's routine is his narrative, which justifies the peculiar business of shuffling face-up and face-down cards together. This is frequently overlooked by Method Mavens.

When I worked regularly at a high-end restaurant in the 70s, I foisted almost every kind of Triumph on all kinds of lay persons. Almost every version evoked some kind of vital response.

However, to my shock and dismay, everytime I performed the lowly Slop Shuffle (without a selection) and ribbon-spread the deck to show the cards facing the same way, the responses were uniformly visceral. The whole demonstration took less than 20 seconds. Bidda-Bang!

This being said, I think that the most innovative addition to Triumph in 50 years is the Jennings-Goodwin subtlety.

By the way, six years ago I toyed with the notion of publishing a giant compilation of Triumph effects: 600 + pages -- a Glut-buster.

Happily, this daft whimsy passed...

Onward...

JR

[Guest]

Dear Jeffers, talking with Tamariz about face up down climax extension in triumph effect with him, years ago. He settled upon doing a SLOW face down extension of the deck, for public realizing that cards arranged face down, after spreading more o less 20, appears face up the selection, and afterwards the rest of the deck orderered (this second half od extension faster). That way the two efects, improve one the other. Good thinking of one master.

What's the original Vernon handling, if you prefer my private email is MCUESTA@teleline.es

[Kevin Baker]

Originally posted by Lance Pierce:
My experience has taught me that the righting of the cards is a much stronger effect than finding the selection....

Thoughts?

Mr Pierce,

Although I am not a frequent performer, your experience tallies with mine, and your structure is reminiscent of a version that I am quite partial to: a handling by Ernest Earick in which the selection visually pops out of the deck and then the cards are spread to show the unmixed condition.

I have also (in my infrequent performing experience) found that separating the revelations adds clarity and builds theatrically ("It was easy to find your card, because you see....").

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Kevin

PS I seem to recall a version in a book called "Imagication" that also followed this structure.

[Richard Kaufman]

Has Derek Dingle's legacy been so totally forgotten:
You want to kick people in the pants?
Read his "Color Triumphant" handling of Triumph in Dingle's Deceptions or on the video I did.

[Pete Biro]

Richard... what's the effect of Dingle's CT?

[Guest]

I second that on Dingles "Color Triumphant". I remember getting that whomp in the head at the end. One questtion I have always had though...
Is the sequence where he cuts the deck into 3 separate pakets on the table, his? The reason I ask is my late friend Paul Swinford did a version of triumph and he did the exact sequence as in Derek's version albeit without the odd color cards. Can someone shed some light here? Also Homer Liwag had a version that was an idea of Mendoza's I believe. Any way my .02 there.
Jay

[Ed Oschmann]

If table space allows I use Two Shuffles Harry by Bro. Hamman.
For a really nice In the hands version that's short and sweet is by doing Karl Hein's shuffle and use Mr. Earicks surprising ending.

[Curtis Kam]

My, my, quite a quandry:

Lance, I agree that the righting of the cards is not only the stronger effect, it's the Defining one. Without it, you're just finding the selected card, like in all the other tricks.

But in agreeing with that, how does one explain Mr. Racherbaumer's observation that the righting alone, in his experience, got much less of a reaction?

My own experience has been otherwise. I perform the slop shuffle as an effect in itself. No selection. I have added one little convincer, but mainly it's just been a matter of takng the slop shufle action seriously. It can be very convincing. I understand that it was in Slydini's hands. I find the addition of the selected card does not improve reactions significantly.

If you have a table, try previous poster Jonathan Townsend's "Waving in Triumph" (from Best of Friends 2?) for a pure "righting" effect based on the Zarrow shuffle, which should be comparable to whatever triumph handling you're using.

In fact, the task of having to remember the card may actually make it more difficult for the selecter to get involved in the rest of your presentation.

Second quandry: There is an additional effect inherent in the fact that the selected card has not only been found, but it has somehow been controlled into an unique orientation.

If that's true, then what of Jon's observation regarding the number of shuffles? The fact that the selection has been mysteriously controlled to be the only face up card would seem to be enhanced by more shuffling, and greater randomness. Consider Simon Aronson's "Shufflebored". (Or your favorite variation)Would it be better with just one shuffle?

Finally, if you're going to use the selection, reveal it the way Lance has described. It's the way Allen Okawa taught me to do it years ago, and as he said, "that's the way it was meant to be."

Of course, Allen has a great line that sets the whole thing up in the minds of the spectators, and really emphasizes the cutting to the card. The theory is that if you make cutting to the card a satisfying effect in itself, the righting will come as a complete surprise. I don't think he'll mind if I tip it here. He says, "With all that shuffling, it would be impossible to know which card is yours. However, while I was shuffling, I was watching. And even though they're all mixed up, if you name your card, I can tell you whether it's face up or face down. The Three of Spades? That's...face up...twenty...three from the top of the deck, which should be here."

Doesn't Michael Skinner do this on the Munari tapes?

Oh, and if any of you are thinking of combining Triumph and Shufflebored into a routine where the magician shuffles and finds a selection the first time, and then the spectators shuffle and all sorts of magic results in the second, just remember that you heard it here, first.

BTW, if you do that routine, it does work better if the selection in the first phase and the final predicted card in the second are the same card. It serves as a valuable callback.

[Pete McCabe]

I really like Lance's presentation. It has such a clear point and structure. Sometimes I think having a clear point and structure is more important than what that point and structure are.

Here's one little bit I came up with (reinvented?) recently. I do an in-the-hands Triumph that puts the deck face up, the selection face down in the middle, and a single random card face down on top. Now I say I'm going to wave my hand over the top card, which is face down, and it turns face up. This line is accompanied by Houdini's Erdnase First Transformation, which when accompanied by this script seems to produce a reversal rather than a change.

Then I go on that not only has the top card turned face up, but so have all the face down cards, as I begin spreading through the deck (pushing over the top three or four to hide the face down card). Except for one card, I say, as we see the face down face which is then shown to be the selection.

This seems to provide a pleasant, three-effect structure, but mostly it gives the magical moment a physical reality that seems lacking from most Triumph routines I've seen. Of course, I haven't seen all 191 of Jon's methods.

Speaking of which, wouldn't the Triumph Omnibus be a great idea for an e-book? Jon might even be able to break even on that if he created and distributed it electronically.

[Lance Pierce]

As always, Curtis and Pete present great thoughts.

Curtis writes:

... how does one explain Mr. Racherbaumer's observation that the righting alone, in his experience, got much less of a reaction?

We may have to ask Mr. Racherbaumer, but he used the word "visceral" to describe the reactions of his audiences, and that can mean either "profound" or "instinctive." I took it to mean that he found the slop shuffle was just as effective in garnering a reaction as any version that SHOULD have been more satisfying for him to perform.

I find the addition of the selected card does not improve reactions significantly.

Well, sometimes we can get into problems when trying to analyze the premise or plot of an effect apart from its theater. What adding the selection does is provide an opportunity for another level of conflict. That's what was so great about Vernon's original presentation. His challenge was not to right the deck, but to make right his performance and reputation by finding the selection under suddenly adverse circumstances. Will he be able to do it? Can he overcome the jerk who set him up? What the --? Holy cow, he DID find the card!

Protagonist. Antagonist. Drama. Resolution. In a small two-minute act, it's all there.

Second quandry: There is an additional effect inherent in the fact that the selected card has not only been found, but it has somehow been controlled into an unique orientation.

Quite true, and this is seldom played up. Perhaps it's one of those things that we don't need to play up, because it can be part of the mystery...as in, "Okay, the coin disappeared, but HOW did it disappear?" We don't need to explain that part of it, so we don't. "Okay, the card somehow got to a specific place and specifically face up or face down, but HOW?" We don't need to explain that, either, so we don't.

If that's true, then what of Jon's observation regarding the number of shuffles? The fact that the selection has been mysteriously controlled to be the only face up card would seem to be enhanced by more shuffling, and greater randomness.

I think that sometimes (and I could be wrong about this, as about anything else) perfectly sound and logical reasoning is not the path that observers take. The path they often take is the one that feels the best under the given circumstance. Perhaps five shuffles to us seems to be more appropriate to losing the card, but five shuffles to them may seem like overproving the face-up/face-down condition. We may think of it as making it more impossible to control a selection, but it may seem to them that we're merely exercising control over the card to bring them all face-up or face-down (at least, they may call on this later to explain the righting of the deck). At the very least, I think it would feel like a few moments totally devoid of dramatic interest.

Earlier, I wrote about how cutting to the selection and then spreading the deck presented much clearer pictures. Pictures can also be made clearer over time (as in spread over several moments). To me, one face-up/face-down shuffle is enough, and it's a clear picture. Adding more doesn't make the situation any clearer, so there's little benefit in doing it.

Consider Simon Aronson's "Shufflebored". (Or your favorite variation)Would it be better with just one shuffle?

Good question, but it's a different effect. Since in Shufflebored, the performer is trying to predict the number of face-up or face-down cards, additional shuffles can make this more impossible.

The theory is that if you make cutting to the card a satisfying effect in itself, the righting will come as a complete surprise.

Yes! I buy into this wholeheartedly. I've always felt that many performers, either through their actions, attitude, or by outright saying so, tip their intent to straighten out the deck. It seems that all attention should instead be placed on how difficult it is to find the card under these circumstances. The same type of intrigue that Vernon used should come into play. Will he be able to do it? How could possibly be done? How can anyone pull this off? What the --? Holy cow, he did it!

Then, the righting of the deck -- the much stronger kicker effect -- comes as the extra surprise, one that they might not have expected, but one that's theatrically consistent all the same (in other words, it just makes sense).

I don't think he'll mind if I tip it here. He says, "With all that shuffling, it would be impossible to know which card is yours. However, while I was shuffling, I was watching. And even though they're all mixed up, if you name your card, I can tell you whether it's face up or face down. The Three of Spades? That's...face up...twenty...three from the top of the deck, which should be here."

Excellent! I remember seeing Michael do this, and I thought it was very good.

Thanks so much, Curtis! You've given me quite a bit to ponder...

Cheers,

Lance

[Bill Duncan]

Like Lance, I believe that having the deck face up complicates the visual effect. I think it's clear that face down makes for a visual that's easier for a spectator to "read". I think that revealing the selection before the Triumph effect is the way to go too but I'm not as certain that it's the only way to go. I think that the script decides that part.

Most of the time, when doing Triumph with a selection, I perform a revelation where the card pivots out of the pack face up, or I use an Infinity crimp to cut to the card.

Here's my question:
How many do a Triumph effect without a selected card? I do this more often than the selected card version but that's because I like my script better for the non-selection handling.

[Curtis Kam]

Bill, I go sans selection more often, for the same reason that you give. Next most likely, I do Paul Harris' "Joker Poker" from "The Magic of Paul Harris", becuse it kills. It also doesn't exactly have a selected card.

[Lance Pierce]

I'm with you, Bill. I'd never say any particular approach is the only way to go, but this is just what's worked best for me.

So far. ;)

Warmly,

Lance

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:
Here's my question:
How many do a Triumph effect without a selected card?

I liked the face-up / face-down shuffle as a premise for doing an Oil and Water effect with the full deck. I believe this was published in Apocalypse back in 1982. It makes very direct use of a Zarrow shuffle and the Tabled Palm to effect the almost visual 'sort' of the cards in packets. This did get quite a reaction from audiences.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Sean Piper:
Just curious which version of Triumph you actually use in performance.

Hi Folks,

This thread has touched upon the basic plot and motivations for the Triumph effect a few times now. Maybe we could look into this some more.

Perhaps it is a more impressive feat to cut to a card after the deck has been shuffled more than one time. How would an audience react to the magician shuffling the deck after each cut that misses their card? How would they react to the magician shuffling the cards face up into face down by mistake?

How would they react to the magician then cutting to the wrong card... then replacing the packet on the tabled rest (talon?)... then turning over the deck to reveal the selected card at the bottom.... then spreading the cards to show all are face up below that card?

What are your thoughts?

[Brad Jeffers]

Interesting thoughts from everyone. As I said, I think a face down spread creates a much stronger impact (for all the reasons given in Lance's post). I would agree with all Lance said, except I don't particularly like the idea of seperating the revelation of the selection and the righting of the deck into two sequental effects. After all, it's a rare thing, to be able to execute two effects at the same time, and also have both of those effects register simultaneously in the mind of the spectator. That's a powerful thing! I think it's best to hit them with both barrels, and leave it at that. But any way you present it, it's still one of the strongest effects around. You gotta love the Professor!

[Jonathan Levey]

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:
Here's my question:
How many do a Triumph effect without a selected card? I do this more often than the selected card version but that's because I like my script better for the non-selection handling.

Bill,
One of my favourite versions of this effect, requires no selection to be made. Which is "Mayhew Poker"... It is in Alan Ackerman's false dealing tape of the card control series...
To give you the basic idea of it; imagaine a center dealing demonstration crossed between a truimph and a four of a kind production....
Regards,
Jonathan :)

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Jonathan Rubel:
... imagaine a center dealing demonstration crossed between a truimph and a four of a kind production...

Does the deck change color too? Or how about ...

I hope the audience finds the plot direct.

[Guest]

The only problem with the mayhew thing is that while it is very cool it is NOT a magic trick, it is a bluff demonstration of skill.

Noah Levine