Is "The Sympathetic Clubs" stolen?

Discuss the historical aspects of magic, including memories, or favorite stories.

Postby Guest » 07/20/04 02:56 PM

I was reading the correspondance between Carl Jones and Nate Leipzig in the Kaufman edition of Greater Magic. Carl Jones asks Leipzig for the routine to be published in Greater Magic, but Leipzig declines...as it was something from his professional act.

Jean Hugard offers to get the trick for Carl Jones "...somehow, without approaching Leipzig, [and] get the full details."

Is this a case where Leipzig was ripped off by Jean Hugard, or did Leipzig eventually agree to publish his method in Greater Magic?
Guest
 

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 07/20/04 05:36 PM

My understanding was that permission was not given. Also note that Leipzig was willing to contribute some of his other items, which were no longer in his working repertoire. Still, Hugard seemed to want the material that was originally discussed.

It's not the only time Hugard published material without permission. Ask Paul Chosse about the material in Expert Card Technique.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 07/20/04 06:02 PM

The trick wasn't Liepzig's to begin with. In fact, Liepzig could never really "put the trick over". Read "An Evening With Charlie Miller" for some interesting background on this trick. It was originally a British magicians', Herbert Milton, if my memory serves. Charlie liked the trick, and spent years analyzing it. The results of this analysis, and his solution, are in the aforementioned "Evening With.."

I have done the trick as Charlie did it, and it does seem to play well. I can see why Liepzig would have had trouble with his version.

Charlie's "fixes" are primarily theatrical, so don't expect startling slieght of hand, though there is some required, or new methodology. The effect IS a lesson in analysis and routining though, and is worth the price of the book. I have recommended this book many times, for many reasons. Virtually everything in it is wonderful. Charlie's "Lesson in Magic", the "Sun and the Moon" is great, his Hats and Mugs is wonderful, the card magic is superb. All said this is one of the most underrated books of the 20th century! Sorry to have gone so far afield...

Best, PSC
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/20/04 08:09 PM

Thanks for the input thus far. I had kinda suspected that the routine may have been stolen, if only because the description of the effect (on page 562) is kinda sketchy. Maybe it would be better descibed as "glorified bare bones."

Paul--

I'm glad you brought "An Evening with Charlie Miller" up, as that is one of the few gaping holes in my library. I'll be on the lookout.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/21/04 07:01 AM

Here are some other sources for information on this trick: Try "The Jinx",No.53, February, 1939 or "The Phoenix", No.218, December, 1950. Again, Orville Meyer has a version that appeared in "The Phoenix", No.224, March, 1951.

Obviously, the first description is the one you mention in Greater Magic, fully credited to Liepzig, which appears to be correct since he had "secured" the rights from Milton. Yes, it was Herbert Milton who invented 'The Sympathetic Clubs". By the way, Charlie calls his version "Imitative Cards".

Liepzig himself told Dr. Jacob Daley "he somehow had never been able to make the effect click as it should with a lay audience."

Charlie devoted much time to trying to determine why the impact of such a magical happening was so weak. He believed the problem was in the handling of the climax. There is a four-step analysis of this problem, and an outline of Charlie's proposed solution, in the description of Charlie's version, then 7 pages devoted to describing the performance in great detail. This is the version I've performed - it DOES go over quite well - as you'll see if you try it.

One last thing - if I'm lucky, times haven't changed much - you see, way back when Liepzig was talking to Daley, Daley commented that so far as he knew, no other professional performer used the trick!

Happy Hunting,
PSC
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/25/04 06:37 PM

Well, they say that that the begining of knowledge is to admit that you don't know anything, so that being said, - What is the effect of the "Sympathetic Clubs"?

I'm guessing from the title, cards across?, cards up the sleeve?, cards across in glasses?

Kindest regards,

Pete
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/25/04 07:35 PM

Pete--

The effect is something like this:

The performer shows 13 clubs and arranges them Ace to King. The cards are rubber banded and placed in a glass. 13 clubs from a different deck are shuffled by the spectator and one of the cards is reversed. This second packet is placed into a second goblet. Removing the cards from each goblet one by one, the magician shows that the first packet has mysteriously rearranged itself to match the shuffled order of the second packet...this includes the reversed card.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 07/26/04 09:14 AM

The best version of this trick that I have seen actually performed is Derek Dingle's, from his book. It uses a slew of double-faced cards, but the method is simple as pie and people are genuinely shocked by the result.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20939
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 07/26/04 12:36 PM

Another excellent version by Joerg Alexander of the Flicking Fingers group is in THE BOOK (or Don't Forget to Point), a Kaufman and Company publication.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/26/04 03:01 PM

Let's not forget Marlo's version called, "Leipzig Would Have Really Loved This!" It is in one of the MARLO MAGAZINES. I do one called "Parallexis" that fools those who know most versions--and, yes, the cards in both packets are cleanly shown front and back.

Onward...
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 07/26/04 06:57 PM

Yes, the Marlo handling IS very good--but wasn't it in "Marlo Without Tears?"
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20939
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 07/26/04 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Yes, the Marlo handling IS very good--but wasn't it in "Marlo Without Tears?"
Yes, it is.

Wesley James also has a version in Enchantments, called Sympathetic Blacks (because he uses the clubs and spades, not two sets of clubs, therefore it can be done with a regular deck). No gaffs required, either, just good sleight of hand.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 07/27/04 09:46 AM

The first Marlo version was in the TEARS book, titled "Leipzig Would Have Loved This." The follow-up version was "Leipzig Would Have REALLY Loved This."

Onward...
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/27/04 10:17 AM

Any comments about the trick CID that Ken Brooke used to sell?
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 07/27/04 02:43 PM

Ken Brooke's CID trick came with a most excellent switching device which I still have. It allows an instantaneous switch of one packet of cards for another. t's a great idea.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Q. Kumber » 12/01/13 07:38 PM

The trick "CID", as sold by Ken Brooke was Barry Stevenson's and he was credited in the ad and the instructions.
User avatar
Q. Kumber
 
Posts: 996
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Manchester, England

Postby erdnasephile » 12/01/13 09:10 PM

Richard Kaufman wrote:The best version of this trick that I have seen actually performed is Derek Dingle's, from his book. It uses a slew of double-faced cards, but the method is simple as pie and people are genuinely shocked by the result.


Richard:

This is probably a dumb question, but did Derek Dingle use the force as described in his book or did he have other alternative methods? (It's the only part of the routine that feels a little unnatural, IMHO)
User avatar
erdnasephile
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM

Postby Bill Mullins » 12/01/13 10:07 PM

On the "Paris Super Session" tape, he doesn't force the odd card -- he simply chooses it himself. Works fine -- the trick is still great.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby Philippe Billot » 12/02/13 03:33 AM

Sympathetic Suit by Herbert Milton was described in The Jinx no. 53, February 1939, page 380.

Marlo described his first version in The Cardician (1953) under the title Impromptu Leipzig.
Philippe Billot
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: PARIS - FRANCE

Postby Steve Bryant » 12/02/13 10:01 AM

My vote for the best trick of this genre is Caleb Wiles' 26! ("26 factorial"). A shuffled deck is cut in half, and spec reshuffles one of the halves. The cards in the two halves are shown to match, all the way through. Ordinary cards are used.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Richard Kaufman » 12/02/13 12:51 PM

Dingle didn't force the card on the Paris video because he was simply doing the expedient thing at that moment and taking the card out himself. Knowing him, frankly he probably couldn't be bothered to force the card.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20939
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bill Mullins » 12/02/13 02:49 PM

But is the force necessary? The OP is right -- for some selections by a spectator, the force seems contrived.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby erdnasephile » 12/02/13 06:55 PM

Steve Bryant wrote:My vote for the best trick of this genre is Caleb Wiles' 26! ("26 factorial"). A shuffled deck is cut in half, and spec reshuffles one of the halves. The cards in the two halves are shown to match, all the way through. Ordinary cards are used.


I am intrigued by this routine, but as I watched it, it just seemed way too long for my particular style of performing. YMMV, of course.


User avatar
erdnasephile
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM

Postby Steve Bryant » 12/02/13 11:06 PM

Too long for me too, the way it was done above. You can start the trick when the spec shuffles half the deck. The prelude to that was not necessary. It would be interesting to see the thinking behind this version.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Mergel Funsky » 12/03/13 01:06 AM

And don't forget Bill Malone's version (from his Malone Meets Marlo DVD series) which simplifies the Marlo handling and adds some great misdirection (and a historical reference). It's done with regular cards and can be seen on this You Tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXj4Ztpkb_s

Mergel Funsky
Just because something's imaginary, doesn't mean it isn't real.
User avatar
Mergel Funsky
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 02/20/11 07:02 PM
Location: Chicago

Postby Richard Kaufman » 12/03/13 01:34 AM

Yes, now that you bring it up, I remember that Marlo had an excellent handling in "Marlo Without Tears." It was very very good.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20939
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby J Christensen » 12/06/13 08:47 AM

I can't testify too much about the impact of Dingle's Sympathetic Clubs, but I have performed it as a stand-up piece several times. Back in the 1970s I bought a jumbo-card version of the trick, complete with houlettes. A very nice effect that seemed to be well received.
J Christensen
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 05/12/11 08:08 AM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/06/13 09:35 AM

About as far as I got was turning the shuffled packet face down and dealing them to face up and keeping the "sympathetic" packet covered between reveals of the facing card which gets removed. As a packet - it just seemed to me that the correct thing to do would be spread for an all-at-once display. The idea behind the trick is fun - just no great ideas on how to make each card into a reveal instead of a chore. For example - asking them to deal the cards face down and stop where they like between reveals - then turning up that card would make the next reveal of the face card of the other packet a reveal.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6764
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby erdnasephile » 12/06/13 11:37 AM

I just watched DD do his routine on the "Dingle's Delights" DVD. It was in a magician's lecture situation, but as Bill noted, he just said something like: "To make it more interesting, let's turn a card around".

Second, JT is correct, if you simply remove the cards one at a time, after the first 5 cards match, the audience gets the point and you're just killing time. It would make a lot more sense to show the first few one at a time, and then dump the remaining cards out and spread, building to the climax, which is that ALL the cards match in total. If it's perceived solely as a monotonous, unchanging one by one reveal, the trick has no climax. (J. Alexander talks about this concept in the Flicking Fingers book.)

I wonder if it would be possible to do something like this: One packet is in A-Q order in a glass. Spectator shuffles the other packet himself. A card is reversed in that packet, and it is placed in another glass. The ordered cards are briefly covered with a handkerchief, and the face card of the ordered packet now matches the shuffled packet. Both face cards are removed, and the Ace in the ordered packet and the new (non-matching) face card of the shuffled packet show. The effect is repeated, and as the new matching cards are removed, the Ace in the ordered packet and new shuffled face card show. Finally, the handkerchief is just flicked in front of the ordered packet, and the Ace instantly changes to match the card at the face of the shuffled packet. However, that's not all: the magician says that the cards decided to really impress you, and then shows that every single remaining card matches, including the reversed card (which is positioned towards the rear of the packet).

It ain't great, but at least in the scenario above, the effect changes and builds a little bit before the final reveal.
Last edited by erdnasephile on 12/06/13 01:18 PM, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
erdnasephile
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM

Postby Brad Jeffers » 12/06/13 01:00 PM

In Charlie Miller's version there are several improvements, some minor and some major. Among the minor details ... Only ten cards are used, the court cards are eliminated. Spades are used, "for best visibility". Two decks with identical backs are used - "Since the effect involves no transference of cards from one packet to another, no improvement whatever would result from the use of decks with contrasting backs."

And among the more important improvements is this ... "The reversed card appears next to the last in each packet. Some kind of symmetrical compulsion impelled those who worked previously with the trick to put the reversed card in the center. This, more than any other factor, may have conspired to kill the effect, since the sympathetic reversal provides the real punch. After that, showing six more pairs of cards blurs the whole point and sacrifices the logical applause cue."

If you have any doubt as to the validity of this point, just watch the Dingle performance on the Paris Sessions tape. The biggest reaction is at the reversed card. The remaining six pairs are rendered anticlimactic and do indeed step on the logical applause cue.

Miller's version uses regular cards. This is necessary due to the fact that he has both packets held by spectators. If you were to use two glasses ala Dingle (which I like), then the use of double faced cards is very good. I would however, incorporate the various improvements suggested by Miller.
User avatar
Brad Jeffers
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 04/11/08 05:52 PM
Location: Savannah, GA

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/06/13 01:38 PM

Bob's mention of CID got me thinking about the principle of marked cards - so you could let them handle the cards and shuffle between card selections and yet (with suitable switch or control) have the card they "select" be the facing card of the sympathetic packet. The last two being one reversed card and one not seems a winner. Kudos to whoever thought that one up.

Imagine the "sympathetic" packet displayed only one card at a time and only after a volunteer makes a selection from their packet. Even if it means putting a paper tube around the glass holding the packet - the idea is to make sure they only see one reveal at a time for those first few. Maybe a "take two" after the first few.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6764
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Brad Jeffers » 12/06/13 02:17 PM

Jonathan, I have read and reread your last two post on this subject, and try as I have (and believe me I have tried) - I have as yet, been unable to understand what you are talking about.
User avatar
Brad Jeffers
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 04/11/08 05:52 PM
Location: Savannah, GA

Postby Brad Jeffers » 12/06/13 02:44 PM

Mergel Funsky wrote:And don't forget Bill Malone's version (from his Malone Meets Marlo DVD series) which simplifies the Marlo handling and adds some great misdirection (and a historical reference). It's done with regular cards and can be seen on this You Tube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXj4Ztpkb_s
Mergel Funsky


Did anyone notice, and think it odd, that Mergel Funsky of Chicago, who joined this forum on 2/20/2011, has waited almost three years to make his first post, and that being a link to the above video? :)
Mr. Funsky, your patience and timing rival that of the great Max Malini.
User avatar
Brad Jeffers
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 04/11/08 05:52 PM
Location: Savannah, GA

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/06/13 05:17 PM

Brad Jeffers wrote:Jonathan, I have read and reread your last two post on this subject, and try as I have (and believe me I have tried) - I have as yet, been unable to understand what you are talking about.


The packet that's in the elastic (Lepizig/Dingle version) is face up. There's no surprise when you pull away one card - as the next is facing the audience.

IIRC the 10S was the facing card in the Dingle version. So they turn over their packet and find a 10S at the face - you show... well it's facing them the whole time. You move the 10s at the face of the packet out of the way and put their 10S next to it to show the match. Okay... but in doing so you've also shown the next card in the sympathetic packet. I'm suggesting you stage the props so that each time they see the face card of that packet it is a reveal. Whether you put them into an opaque cup or use a cover or a tube to lift over the glass - make it a reveal.

The idea of letting them keep shuffling and picking from the openly displayed cards each time setting their selection aside is clear - I hope.

Jon
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6764
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Brad Jeffers » 12/08/13 04:31 PM

Jonathan Townsend wrote: I'm suggesting you stage the props so that each time they see the face card of that packet it is a reveal.
Jon


The props are so staged.

It seems that you may not be taking into account that both packets are facing the audience. Dingle replaces the strange elastic bands used by Leipzig, with a joker at the face of each packet. With each packet in it's separate glass, the jokers are removed simultaneously, revealing a ten of clubs at the face of each packet. The two tens are removed simultaneously, to reveal the next pair of matching cards, and so on.

You seem to be making suggestions designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
User avatar
Brad Jeffers
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 04/11/08 05:52 PM
Location: Savannah, GA

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/08/13 08:22 PM

I've tried the trick as written, and also dealing one packet face down... the problem(s) are real. The abstract idea is good. The one-at-a-time revelation seems to drag. Spreading both packets almost solves the problem. Have a go at it and see how it works for you.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6764
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY


Return to Magic History and Anecdotes