I've studied Pat-Trick's version, which is called "Sweet Dreams of You," and I believe it is a significant improvement. Pat-Trick is a wonderful magician.Originally posted by Bill McFadden:
Pat-trick credited Carl Andrews when I saw him demonstrate the same effect and handling during his lecture at Darwin's Magic Club (Vegas)in November of that year. ;)
Do you have any further information about Vallarino's and Stone's versions? Also, in which source did you discover Brother John's "Signed Card"?Originally posted by Nathan W. Kranzo:
....The names Tom Stone and Jean-Pierre Vallarino also come to mind. Vallarino's uses a Sharpie as well....
The idea of introducing a card before an effect and then having it turn out to be the actual SIGNED selection is very old. Then you add conditions like the card being odd backed, folded etc. thats where it gets real interesting. Brother John's "Signed Card" comes to mind, but i don't know who was the first. The Ends
I've been performing this trick as my lead card trick for the past year or two. And it kills.Originally posted by Adam Brooks:
One version, to which I am partial, is Nate Kranzo's version, where you can actually let the spectator remove the card from the clip and unfold it.
What's the problem, exactly? This sounds like the best possible outcome to this trick.However, I've found that there's a built-in problem with the trick. Once the paperclipped card is unfolded and the spectators see that the signature or picture is the exact same, some people request to see the original card that they signed.
That, however, is impossible, because they're looking at it.
Here's the problem:Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
David Groves says:
What's the problem, exactly? This sounds like the best possible outcome to this trick.
Let's not forget that the card they're looking at is their original card so of course you can show it.Originally posted by David Groves:
Here's the problem:
Sometimes, the spectator wants to look at their original card, but I can't show it. If they get the whiff that I can't show it, they get suspicious and there's a smart-ass response that can ruin the entire routine:
Yes, that would be a good solution, but I've come up with a solution that I believe to be even better than that. But before I write it up, I want to look up the history of the effect, make sure it hasn't been done before, and scrutinize all the angles. That's why I originally started this thread.Originally posted by Lance Pierce:
A better presentational angle would be to take the card after it's signed and make it disappear. It probably doesn't matter too much if you use the Rubaway Vanish or the Tent Vanish or any kind of ploy to make the card actually be gone rather than just losing it in the deck.
Conceptually, wasn't Elmsley the first (Between Your Palms)? Where's Racherbaumer when you need him?Originally posted by David Groves:
Before I write up this new version, I want to make sure that it's original.
I know of two other versions of this trick:
1. Darwin Ortiz's Dream Card
2. Pat-Trick's Sweet Dreams of You
Does anyone know any other published or unpublished versions of this trick? Does anyone know where it originally comes from?
Oh God yes, I forgot about that. As I recall, Elmsley conceptualized that trick while he was sitting in foxholes in WWII. That takes us back quite a ways.Originally posted by Lance Pierce:
Conceptually, wasn't Elmsley the first (Between Your Palms)? Where's Racherbaumer when you need him?[/QB]
That's a fascinating wrinkle, Joe. What happens when they find the three of diamonds in the deck without their signature? Or when they don't find the three of diamonds in the deck?Originally posted by Joe M. Turner:
I perform this trick and instead of saying, "I woke up and put a mark on this card" I close by saying "I woke up and found this card and brought it with me... I thought it might have some importance... because in my dream, you also wrote your name on it."
Sometimes they still want to look through the deck, so I let them. That's their card... the one they signed "in my dream."
I'd say maybe one in 15 people ask to see the card they signed. And out of those people, I'd say maybe half of them want to see their signed card because they want to compare their signature or picture to this new card's signature. It's not like they have a theory.Originally posted by Lance Pierce:
I don't know...if they want to look through the deck, it seems like they're still investigating possible avenues, and I don't particularly want them doing that at the conclusion of an effect
They don't find it because it's not there... and they don't understand at all. The card in the paperclip has a red back, and the card they signed had a blue back... according to their memory. They know they signed a blue card, so when it's gone, they are just fried. They have no idea, but they examine the folded red card very very closely.Originally posted by David Groves:That's a fascinating wrinkle, Joe. What happens when they find the three of diamonds in the deck without their signature? Or when they don't find the three of diamonds in the deck?[/QB]
I am beginning to realize that my original education on this effect was deficient. I was only dimly aware that some magicians performed the effect as a Card to Impossible Location effect.Originally posted by Doug Brewer:
To me, presenting this classic "card to impossible location" effect as a signature matching effect (as a prediction, premonition?) would only cause confusion....Ortiz has explored this idea quite at length....The Dream Card really is not a "transfer of a signature" effect. It's more of a "transformation" effect. ....What the problem is with these effects, in a theatrical sense, is that the revelation IS the effect. A card is signed and then shown to be somewhere else with an odd back. Not that this is bad, wrong or weak magic. It's just that the magic is over rather quickly. I have found, however, that these effects are very overwhelming for audiences.
That's beautiful.Originally posted by Doomo:
It just makes use of a mullica wallet. In the beginning the signed autographed card is returned to the mullica wallet and actually stolen out of the wallet and added to the deck.. The rest is simple...
The magician says:Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
I don't understand how you are presenting this effect as a premonition.
Sorry to be critical, If this is how you do it then I can't say I'm surprised the audience is confused. I don't think I even understand the effect in your version myself. Even if you saw the spectator's signature on their card, how are you able to duplicate it exactly, in their handwriting?The magician says:
"Last night, I had a dream, and you were in it. You were signing a playing card. This morning, I woke up and made a mark on this card to match the mark in my dream. I don't want to show it to you right now, because it might freak you out...."