Paperclipped (#@!*)

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

Postby Guest » 09/29/02 12:13 PM

I've developed a new variation on Jay Sankey's "Paperclipped," which is the card trick in which a folded-up card is in plain view the entire trick, and then you solicit a signature on a chosen card from a deck. When you open the folded card, it bears the exact same signature that they just put on the card from the deck.

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Does anyone know any other published or unpublished versions of this trick?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?
Guest
 

Postby Adam Brooks » 09/29/02 12:49 PM

The psychology the "dirty work" has been used in other tricks, way before Sankey, I think Sankey was the first to apply it to a card trick.

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.

My buddy in Australia has a great version where the audience names a card, he opens the card box which has been in view the entire time, and he dumps out one card, folded and held with a bulldog clip. You can guess the rest.

-Adam
Adam Brooks
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03/13/08 08:57 AM
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Bill McFadden » 09/29/02 08:38 PM

Carl Andrews performed it for me and my wife when we were in Maui in February, 2001. A killer. Pat-trick credited Carl when I saw him demonstrate the same effect and handling during his lecture at Darwin's Magic Club (Vegas)in November of that year. I'll admit that learning an improved version of Sankey's trick was worth all that travelling. ;)
Bill McFadden
 
Posts: 617
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Villesville-on-the-Chesapeake

Postby Guest » 09/29/02 09:43 PM

Hello David, Bill and Adam,

Thanks for the kind words Adam! The handling mentioned by Adam can be found in my lecture notes The Ends. "(#@!*& Revisited" is the name. Its presented differently and the method is much different from Sankey's. Very devious though.

I'm a big fan of Sankey and I obviously love the effect. 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.

Best,

Nathan

The Ends
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 09/30/02 12:02 AM

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. ;)
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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 09/30/02 12:12 AM

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
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"?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 09/30/02 12:30 AM

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.
I've been performing this trick as my lead card trick for the past year or two. And it kills.

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.

I present it as something that I saw in a dream. That is, "I had a dream last night, and there was a card with a mark in it. This morning, I woke up and made that exact same mark on this [folded-up] card...."

Pat-Trick and Darwin Ortiz present it in the same way.

Some of my magician friends consider this to be a major flaw with the trick.

Do the versions of the trick that you've seen solve this problem?
Guest
 

Postby Gary Freed » 09/30/02 08:15 AM

I have the clip inside a folded bill from the outset. I explain that I got this money clip for my x-wife....best trade I ever made..The card is not showing....At the end of my ambitious routine, the clip is pulled from the bill and the folded card seen....At this point, quite often they don't even care if I open the card!..I have to bring their attention back so I can switch in the original.
This is by far my favorite Sankey item
Gary Freed
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Endicott, NY

Postby Pete McCabe » 09/30/02 02:06 PM

David Groves says:
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.
What's the problem, exactly? This sounds like the best possible outcome to this trick.

If you like, you can ask the person who signed the card how many they signed? The answer is just one. You nod and smile warmly and say "That must be it."

This may help the rest of your audience understand what the spectator is asking (otherwise they might think you had your helper sign another card earlier, etc.) Just be extra gentle when you ask this, please. A spectator asking this question is probably feeling very unsure and if you answer in a snotty way you may lose the whole audience at once.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Guest » 09/30/02 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
David Groves says:
What's the problem, exactly? This sounds like the best possible outcome to this trick.

Here's the problem:

At the beginning, I say that I had a dream and there was a signed card in it. I woke up this morning and put a signature on this card, which is folded up.

Then they sign a card. I [supposedly] place it in the middle of the deck and it is lost.

I then grab the folded card and unfold it, and the signature matches exactly.

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:

"Oh, you just switched it! That's not magic!"

Of course, you can come back with lots of remarks:

"Yes, but HOW did I switch it?"

"How did it end up folded?"

"This card was in plain view the entire time!"

And so on. However, to some people, that takes all the magic out of the trick. Trust me, I've performed this trick hundreds of times in the past year.
Guest
 

Postby Bill Duncan » 09/30/02 06:47 PM

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:
Let's not forget that the card they're looking at is their original card so of course you can show it.

If the problem is that your presentation is telling them that the card in the paperclip isn't the card they selected then perhaps you need to complete that idea by showing them what happened to the card you put into the deck. Perhaps you could tell them you wrote a prediction on a JOKER and folded it up. The selected card ends up in the paperclip and the JOKER with "I predict you'll be as puzzled as I am." written on it ends up in the deck (face up?). Then there's a closure to the idea that the card might still be in the deck. It clearly has changed places with the "prediction" card and even taken on some of it's characteristics.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Jeff Haas » 09/30/02 06:55 PM

I've had a similar response to the Mullica Wallet routine I do (Eugene Burger's.) Sometimes, the person who signed the card doesn't believe that it's really their card in the wallet. They ask to look through the deck -- which I let them do. (As David says, if you refuse, they think their suspicion is correct.)

The rest of the audience is usually amused, because they accept I did it...but the one person who should know better turns out to be the biggest skeptic, and is only convinced after they look through the deck and see that there is no duplicate card with their signature on it.

I think this has to do with the personality of the spectator...the control freak/skeptic who isn't going to let you "get away" with something is usually who asks to see the deck. This also tends to occur before you've established your credentials. If someone assumes that magic is for kids, or is always somehow trivial, then when you do an effect that hits them hard, they may refuse to accept it. (And when I "convert" one of these people, it's a sweeet feeling.)

I also think that the basic structure of some effects leads people to this sort of conclusion. I've never done the Sankey effect, but I can see how if it was well performed, it looks like you couldn't possibly have gotten their card into the clip...so it's obviously not their card. You must have some way of duplicating their signature and transferring it onto another card. (Haven't magicians been able to do this for years?) ;)

Jeff
Jeff Haas
 
Posts: 919
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: San Mateo, CA

Postby Lance Pierce » 09/30/02 07:47 PM

It seems that the problem David is experiencing is a psychological/presentational one, and it shouldn't be too hard to overcome. I think it's because after the spectator signs the card, it's simply being placed in the deck, so when it appears in an impossible location later, they want to see if it's still in the deck.

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. Then, when they look at the folded card (which was in plain view the entire time) and find that it's theirs, there's no place to look for the original card because it doesn't exist there any longer. Therefore, the card they're looking at MUST be the same card, even if they're forced to admit it must have been in two places at once.

Try it and let me know if it makes a difference.

:D

Lance
User avatar
Lance Pierce
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 02/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby Guest » 09/30/02 09:01 PM

David,

I'm not sure the title of the Vallarino notes, I would check with H&R. The Tom Stone routine can be found in his Warpsmith series, check out his site. As for the Brother John work see his book The Secrets of Brother John.....

Feel free to e-mail me if you have any specific questions.

Best,

Nathan

www.nathankranzo.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/01/02 01:57 AM

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.
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.
Guest
 

Postby Lance Pierce » 10/01/02 07:43 AM

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?
Conceptually, wasn't Elmsley the first (Between Your Palms)? Where's Racherbaumer when you need him?

Lance
User avatar
Lance Pierce
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 02/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby Guest » 10/01/02 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Lance Pierce:
Conceptually, wasn't Elmsley the first (Between Your Palms)? Where's Racherbaumer when you need him?[/QB]
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.

I performed that trick for a few months, too, but found another problem with it:

The spectator has three cards between his palms. You fake removing one card but end up removing another. Sometimes, spectators are aware of which card is where in the stack, and know that you're taking out the middle card instead of, say, the top card.

That's why I stopped doing that trick, great as it may be. In fact, Paperclipped is a significant improvement on that trick.
Guest
 

Postby Lance Pierce » 10/01/02 12:08 PM

And then there was the effect (my gosh, the performer's name escapes me now) where a bulldog clip was hung from a chain around the performer's neck. A card was folded and held in the clip. As the performer reached up to get the card, it was pulled inside the clip and he came away with the signed card that was folded and in his hand. Great illusion!

What was the name? Anyone? Anyone?

Lance
User avatar
Lance Pierce
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 02/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby Guest » 10/01/02 02:03 PM

Hi Lance,

I just recently read an effect that used the same method you mentioned (with the bulldog clip) but instead of a playing card it was a billet.

I think it was in one of the old Linking Ring's i've been going thru.

I know that Allan Hayden has some interesting work the bulldog clips, maybe he's the one your thinging of.

Best,

Nathan

www.nathankranzo.com
Guest
 

Postby Lance Pierce » 10/01/02 02:08 PM

Yes, I believe he is, Nathan. Thank you!

L-
User avatar
Lance Pierce
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 02/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby Pete McCabe » 10/01/02 04:07 PM

David:

Perhaps, after the spectator has signed their card but before any magic has happened, you can ask the spectator to verify that this is the only card they have signed, you didn't ask them before the show to sign another, etc. When they agree, you can say "So this is the only three of diamonds with your signature on it in the entire world."

I wouldn't overdo this, of course. But if it's an important conditionand it seems to bethen it can't hurt to establish it clearly up front.

That way, if the spectator says "where's the card I put in the deck," you can answer "this is the only three of diamonds with your signature on it in the entire world."

The callback to the earlier line should suffice.

Alternately you can have more than one person sign the card. I used to use a color-changing back climax for the ambitious card (using the Dark Card from the Camirand Academy), and found that having the card signed by different people (at various spots during the routine) magnified this aspect of the effect (and also provided for lots of humor as I kept asking each additional person to sign the card).

But if you don't mind my saying so, all of these solutions are attacking the wrong end of the problem. If the spectators are concerned with your methods, then almost by definition you have not done a sufficient job of providing an interesting and compelling presentation.

If what you are doing commands the audience's attention, questions of method will not arise until it is far too lateand when they do, they will be (relatively) unimportant in comparison to the effect.

So without having seen your performance, it sounds like maybe you are not making the effect clear enough. How did the card get from the deck to folded up inside the paper clip? If the audience can't comprehend what specific magic is supposed to happen all that's left for them to fix on is how you did it.

Hope this doesn't seem to critical but I do think it is important.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Joe M. Turner » 10/01/02 07:20 PM

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."

It's always their signature, never my mark or anything I've done to it. All I did was bring it to the table.

JMT
Joe M. Turner
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Lance Pierce » 10/01/02 07:22 PM

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. Would it hurt to spread the deck and show the card's not there before the folded card is revealed to be the selection? Isn't it usually better to cancel out theories before they arise?

Lance
User avatar
Lance Pierce
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 02/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby Guest » 10/01/02 09:41 PM

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."
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?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/01/02 09:45 PM

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
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.

My new method, however, solves all those problems.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/03/02 04:08 PM

Someone had mentioned the bulldog clip. I believe that Alex McLittle marketed a similar effect recently called the Shameless Open Prediction. Does anyone know how it is?

DJM
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/05/02 02:13 PM

I don't know if this will be helpful, David, but...

I perform Carl Andrew's routine and the presentational angle I use (adapted from Carl's) is this: I stare curiously at one of the spectators and comment that they look very familiar to me and that "I'm beginning to think that they were in the weird dream that I had last night. I ask them their name and act even more intrigued when I hear it. I then say, "What made this dream especially spooky was that when I woke up this morning, THIS was next to my pillow."

I show everyone the folded RED-backed card and explain that I put it in this clip, and brought it with me tonight, thinking it might be "an omen" of some kind.

(I allow a 2nd spectator on my right to hold the clipped card from the beginning. This keeps it in everyone's sight and emphasizes the "hands off" aspect of the whole thing.)

I then ask the spectator "from my dream" to choose a card from a BLUE deck. (The card is forced and is actually a red-backer, it's back disguised with a double-lift.) I make no reference whatsoever to the color of deck, but I do comment that the card they just chose is the same one they chose in the dream, and that their signature looks "awfully familiar," too.

I won't go into the whole routine, but bottom-line, the presentation makes it clear that the folded card in the clip is a mysterious object that essentially "flowed" right out of my dream and onto my pillow. The spectator who signs the card is being told, every step of the way, that I'm attempting to re-enact everything that he/she did in my dream. It's only at the end of the routine that I casually mention that, "Of course, in my dream, I was using a RED deck." I call attention again to the spectator with the paper-clipped card (as I do my Mercury fold), then take the card from them, do the Sankey switch, and hand the red card to the spectator.

I'm not saying that people actually believe my story about the dream, but certainly no one ever asks to see "their" card or the deck it came from. I believe this is because of two important aspects of the routine:

1) The folded RED card ending up with their signature is so impossible that the spectator never considers a "switch". After all, the card he/she signed was clearly a BLUE-backer.

2) My request that the spectator help me by choosing a card and signing it, etc., is not presented as an excuse to do a card trick, but as an attempt to "re-create" the dream and, thus, solve the mystery of the folded card.

Great trick, great use of the Sankey paper-clip switch.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/06/02 12:33 PM

You have developed a fascinating presentation, as has Joe Turner, in which you simply find a card next to your pillow this morning, and wonder how it got there. That makes it even more mysterious and spooky.

I believe that none of the instructions that I've read and seen by Jay Sankey (#@!*, aka Paperclipped), Darwin Ortiz (Dream Card), and Pat-Trick (Sweet Dreams of You) have presented it in this way. Bravo.

I've always viewed this trick as, in some ways, a hybrid of mentalism and magic. After all, if you wrote it down on a card after having a dream, it displays your skills of premonitiion. If, on the other hand, it appeared by your pillow, it's a more magical effect, but it's still an act of premonition.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/06/02 01:30 PM

David,
Since the forum mentioned Elmsley's "Between your palms" and Hamman's "Your signed card". I wanted to bring your attention that Gary Kurtz also has a version called "Hypothetical Possibilities" using a wallet. Similiar plot, a card is selected 'before' a card is signed. The originally selected card (the unknown future)turns out to be the signed selection (the present moment). As I said similiar but different.

The question regarding the effect as you present it is "How do I alleviate my spectators wanting to look for the card they originally signed?" To me the answer is one of presentation.
You are telling them straight away that it isn't their card in the clip, it is one YOU signed. Obviously their card has to be somewhere. You either have to produce the card in the deck (because that's where it was in the beginning) or find a reason in the presentation why it wouldn't be there. The solution seems to be to vanish the selection (as already offered by Lance Pierce) or change the presentation because as it stands the presentation and the effect don't match (IMHO).
Guest
 

Postby Joe M. Turner » 10/06/02 08:47 PM

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]
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.

The version I perform is 90% Carl Andrews' "Deja Vu." Without delving into my basement to get out the tape, I can't say whether he says he found the card on his pillow, or where exactly he says he found it. I say that I saw this piece of paper on the floor when I woke up, but I know it wasn't there when I went to sleep because I am compulsive about not sleeping in a messy room. So I was shocked to find a piece of garbage on the floor... and even more shocked when I saw what it was... and what was on it... etc. Paperclips seem to fit in with a slightly neurotic tendency to want to organize and file papers and generally tidy things up.

Basically, the signed card appeared in my life through mysterious events that even I don't know or understand. But here it is, and that's enough.

JMT
Joe M. Turner
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Doug Brewer » 10/07/02 10:39 AM

There are a couple of issues here that are being addressed rather indirectly. David opened this discussion with describing the effect to be that the signature (on the selected card) matches the card on the clip. The signatures match. This is a different presentation for the traditional effect of the signed, selected card BEING the card on the clip. David seems to acknowledge this when he asks Turner what happens when the specatators look for the signed selected card in the deck. To me, presenting this classic "card to impossible location" effect as a signature matching effect (as a prediction, premonition?) would only cause confusion. What's so impossible is, how the heck did the magician get my card on that clip when it was right in front of me the whole time? When it was there before I signed the card? How the hell does it have an odd back?

Ortiz has explored this idea quite at length with signatures and cards translocating. The Dream Card really is not a "transfer of a signature" effect. It's more of a "transformation" effect. Ortiz' "Signature Effect" is truly a signature transfer effect (it is nothing more than Chicago Opener with a signature rather than an odd back). The effect that really freaks people out is also from Ortiz' Cardshark book, where a signed card is placed in a wallet (openly). A card is again selected and turns out to be the signed card just put in the wallet. This card vanishes (between the spectators palms!) and is shown to still be in the wallet as originally shown. The title of this gem escapes me, but it is awesome, and kind of fits David's signature transfer theme.

I have also explored the idea of a signed, odd-backed card in my lecture notes (high impact card magic) using a credit card wallet and also the John Kennedy Mystery Box. 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. They are great for walk-around where you don't have much time, but want maximum impact. The odd back works great also for birthdays. If the odd backed card has "happy birthday" and the birthday girl signs a selected birthday card, and then it ends up in your wallet with an odd back that happens to say "happy birthday" well, you come out looking like a stud.

Another issue here is the "vanish" of the card. Most of the time the card is simply placed back into the deck then appears somewhere else. The issue of it's disappearance is never really touched upon. Ortiz does tackle this with two effects in Cardshark. The Psychotronic Card has an odd-backed card vanishing visually amongst 4 other cards, while the effect I referenced earlier (I wish I could remember it's name) also has the card vanish in a packet of cards. I use an effect (in my notes) to vanish a signed card (but not an odd-backed one). I think this area of the effect (the vanish) could be explored a lot further.
Doug Brewer
 
Posts: 120
Joined: 01/25/08 01:00 PM
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Doomo » 10/07/02 02:48 PM

I wrote up a (kind of ) similar idea several years ago. You tell the spectator that you collect autographs and you have the feeling he might do something that will make him famous.. So you remove your walet and remove a small packet of other signed blank cards with "celebrity" names on them. The spectator signs one, it is returned to the packet and the packet is returned to the wallet.
Later, a card is selected and signed. The card can not be found. In dejection you return the spectators autographed card to him... But when he turns it over it is his signed selected card.

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...
RFA Productions yeah... It is cool stuff.

www.rfaproductions.com
Doomo
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 03/13/08 03:23 PM

Postby Guest » 10/08/02 06:14 PM

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.
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.

In fact, I don't mean to provoke, but I believe that Ortiz's Dream Card is not a "transformation" effect, but is indeed intended as a premonition effect. I learned it from the Ortiz videotape and performed it for a year or two before dropping it once I saw Pat-Trick's Sweet Dreams of You, which I consider to be a far superior routine (leaner, meaner, no wallet required, no double backer required, no pinky count required, no triple-lifts required, and the card in view on the table the entire time).

I take it that you believe the Card to Impossible Location routine to be stronger. Hmmm. I suppose that depends on your view of mentalism. When you perform an effect as magic (Card to Imposs Location), it may have great impact, but you're not going to convince anyone that you transported the card by magic.

On the other hand, if you say you had a dream and had a premonition, a certain percentage of people will believe that maybe, just maybe, you did have a premonition. Isn't that stronger? In my mind, belief is stronger.

Even when I perform this trick as mentalism, I occasionally hear people say:

"I don't know how you did it, but you just found some way to switch in that card. I didn't see it, and I don't know how you changed the color of the back, but that's the exact way I just signed that card."

Isn't that the too-perfect theory in action? The volunteer believes that switching the card is a more plausible explanation than magic, and the details that we think of as convincers are dismissed? (I'm not an expert on the too-perfect theory, so don't take my word on the exact categorization of this way of thinking.)

I personally don't find a quick effect like this to be a problem, but that's a small quibble.

The only comment of yours that I don't understand is that the spectators find the effect "overwhelming." Can you expand on that?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/08/02 06:17 PM

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...
That's beautiful.

Can you tell me where this writeup is available? What's its name? Where might someone buy it?
Guest
 

Postby Pete McCabe » 10/08/02 10:48 PM

David Groves:

I don't understand how you are presenting this effect as a premonition. I could understand if the clipped card were not signed, as then it would simply be a match for the selection.

But how would the gift of premonition explain the paper-clipped card either 1) being the signed selection; or 2) having the spectator's signature on it?
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Doomo » 10/09/02 02:29 AM

David, The routine I described is one I created for the B*K*M Wallet instructions. I have since used the hell out of the routine... It is not too technically demanding and actually quite fun to do. If you want I will send you a write up of it or post it here...Whichever you want...
RFA Productions yeah... It is cool stuff.

www.rfaproductions.com
Doomo
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 03/13/08 03:23 PM

Postby Guest » 10/09/02 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
I don't understand how you are presenting this effect as a premonition.
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...."

The clipped card is placed on the volunteer's palm.

The magician has the volunteer sign another card, this one red-backed (supposedly). It is (supposedly) placed back into the deck.

When the clipped card is unfolded, it bears the same signature as the card the volunteer just signed.

So here's how it's a premonition: Last night, the magician had a dream showing the volunteer's signature, exactly as the volunteer signed it just now. That's a premonition.
Guest
 

Postby Pete McCabe » 10/09/02 11:51 PM

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...."
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?

I also understand completely that they want to know where their original signed card is. Where is it supposed to be, in your presentation? Why don't you show it to them at the climax? Why, indeed, do you do anything with it other than to leave it on the table, so it's identity and the signature can be compared with your "premonition" card?

I think this premonition plus duplication of handwriting effect is an extremely non-intuitive one that would be very difficult to communicate under the best of circumstances. However if that is the effect you're trying to create, I think the structure of Jay Sankey's "#@!*" trick is a very poor choice.

Imagine that you performed a standard card-to-wallet effect. But when you removed the card, you told the spectator that it is a card on which you predicted both the spectator's selection and their signature. The audience's response will immediately be "no you didn't -- that's the card I just signed." Any attempt to convince the audience that this is a premonition card will immediately be met with "well then where's the card I just signed?"

I think you may get a significantly better response to this trick with a much clearer presentation based on the card to impossible location effect.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Guest » 10/10/02 10:12 AM

I happen to agree with Pete, that presenting this effect as a dream/premonition/prediction can easily lead to confusion. I once did a version of the Mullica wallet with the Dream Become Reality angle, until a rather prim woman happened to say, If youre dreaming about cards, you need a life. Ouch.

As for Sankeys wonderful effect, I dont do this very often, but when I do I present it as a straight ahead challenge effect. (Yeah, I know. Challenge effects are bad. Im not convinced.) I plunk the clipped card in front of me with a pointed smile at one of my audience. They pick the card, sign it, return it and recap the pen. During this I dont say a word. Its not until Im just about to remove the clip do I say, You know whats going to happen next. The reaction has always been very, very strong.

One brief word on challenge effects. I happen to think of them as just another presentational framework, just like a story effect, or an I had a dream effect, or any of the thousands of angles that we as performers can take to make our magic interesting and meaningful. While all the usual caveats apply (dont be a jerk, dont overuse it, etc.) I think that a well placed and presented challenge effect can add richness and variety to a set.

Zech Johnson
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/10/02 11:48 AM

The back and forth on this effect has only strengthened my appreciation for "Deja Vu" (Carl Andrews) and other "Dream Card" routines that have the signature turn up on a stranger card. Anything else runs the risk of becoming confusing for the audience as to "what just happened?"

The use of a stranger card with the signature magically appearing on it also steers the trick away from being just another "impossible location", which is so often over-used (card to wallet, folded card to ring box, mint tin, what have you.)

However, clearly, this kind of plot and theme needs to be VERY carefully presented and structured and this topic thread has certainly got me thinking about how to present this sort of routine.

What that in mind, can someone direct me to the Pat-Trick routine mentioned in the earlier replies? Book, video, lecture notes, whatever. Thanks.
Guest
 

Next

Return to Magic History and Anecdotes