Invisible Touch

Discuss the tricks and sleights which appear in Genii.

Postby Guest » 11/30/06 06:01 PM

Invisible Touch by Patrick Kuffs in the December 2006 Genii requires a comment.

Since it is not credited, Kuffs should not be handed the credit for the breast pocket move with a Jaks-type business card wallet by default. Docc Hilford has been teaching this move in his lectures for at least 15 years. Mark Strivings developed the Sight Unseen Case partially as a way of taking advantage of the move.

I spoke with Docc this morning and he gave permission to describe the proper way to do the move, as opposed to the way it was written up.

You make the move to place the business card holder (Jaks Wallet, Sight Unseen Case, Window Envelope) in the breast pocket of your jacket, missing it twice and then without saying a word or otherwise calling attention to it, your left hand comes up and opens the pocket, which gives you the perfect reason to glance down.

The important difference is that you do not say anything as the move is completely natural, a throwaway and will pass unnoticed if you do not call attention to it. The whole operation should not take more than three seconds.

Kuffs is not the first person to assume that this is a standard move as Docc has heard of it being described in several other lectures.

Postby Guest » 12/04/06 12:18 AM

Hi Mr. Alexander,

I just want to say thank you for the information about the "peek" in the invisible touche routine publish in the last issue. I was not even aware is was publish...

I was not aware also at the time of the origine of this peek and wrongly assume like you mention to be now part of mentalism history.

I am glad you help me educated me on this subject.

I thank deeply Mr Hillford for the kind gesture of sharing the original handling of his move and I hope this small lack of knowledge from my part will not be taking to rude. It was certainely not my goal to appropriate a move I know was not mine.

Anyway, I am sure no where in the routine is it credit to ME!

In fact, if you check the routine I credited Banachek & Lior Manor for the inspiration for the routine. So I can assure you that if I had the info at the time I will have share it for sure.

My big thank to Mr.Hilford for me...

I will also try to contact him personally!

Read you soon


Pat Kuffs

Postby David Acer » 12/04/06 12:55 PM

Thanks David (and hi Pat),

Having written up the trick, I accept both the blame and responsibility for missing the credit to Docc Hilford. The subtleties devised and employed by mentalists are often uniquely difficult to trace, particularly ones that were divulged primarily (if not exclusively) at lectures. In the future, I will try to filter the occasional mental item we receive through someone more knowledgeable in that area than I. (does anyone have Ted Annemanns phone number?)
Now tweeting daily from @David_Acer
David Acer
Posts: 733
Joined: 02/09/08 01:00 PM
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby Mark Collier » 12/04/06 01:05 PM

Max Maven probably does. :)
Mark Collier
Posts: 397
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca

Postby Guest » 02/25/07 12:23 AM

Max would likely be tempted to respond that Theo's phone number is (212)570-0232. When asked why, he may plead the Fifth.


P.S. The phone number of Ted's manager (Carlton M. Hub) was Columbus 4231 * 4232. If you contact Ted, I expect we'll read about it in Genii.

Postby Guest » 03/09/07 01:10 AM

This excellent glimpse was also irresponsibly tipped without credit on the instructional video for the Stealth Assassin wallet. I mentioned this in my essay, "Making Introductions," in Issue #6 of Antinomy, and while I did not specify those responsible for the failed credit, I did provide the correct Hilford credit in a footnote.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/09/07 09:18 AM

I don't consider that it was "also irresponsibly tipped without credit" in Genii (which is implied in the statement).

Because of the enormous information overload today, with many things now available only in downloads, it's impossible to keep track of what belongs to who--which is a damn shame. That leaves us in the position of relying on the contributor for credits and, as was the case here, there's too much stuff floating around "out there" for anyone to keep things straight.

To say it's not like the old days would be an understatement.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22221
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Ian Kendall » 03/09/07 10:20 AM

I was discussing the Thought Transmitter with someone at Blackpool, who told me about this ploy. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was...

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
Posts: 2206
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Guest » 03/10/07 01:44 PM

Richard, it was not my intention to characterize the uncredited description in Genii as "irresponsible." Apologies for any confusion; perhaps I should have worded my posting:

"Also, this glimpse was irresponsibly tipped ..." etc.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/10/07 01:57 PM

Thank you.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22221
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 03/10/07 03:00 PM

I'm confused. Tipping the move without credit on the video was irresponsible, but tipping it without credit in Genii was a public service?

No offence, but that's the inference to be drawn from this exchange.


Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/10/07 03:38 PM

It's not a public service and I never said it was. Your inference is mistaken.
What I said was that there is so much [censored] coming out now, with idiotic downloads and e-books with ridiculous limitations on them (such as ltd to 50, or even 150) and it's impossible to keep up. Ditto for stuff taught at lectures, as Hilford apparently did with this idea.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22221
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 03/10/07 04:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification. My confused inference shows how imperfectly the internet communicates unwritten nuances.

What I said was that there is so much [censored] coming out now, with idiotic downloads and e-books with...
Never were truer words written.

I suppose, though, that what I was really getting at in questioning that exchange is the inference that Jamie Swiss holds one standard for the video maker and a different standard for his employer.

Thanks again,

Postby Guest » 03/10/07 08:38 PM

That does seem confusing, I admit. I certainly do not hold writers and video producers to different standards -- albeit that video producers have often held themselves to lower standards.

BUT ... Mr. Kuffs has made it clear he thought the glimpse to be something old and standard. It does have that kind of feel to it, which is a hard thing to pin one's finger on, and often an easy mistake to make. When I worked on Penn & Teller's "How To Play With Your Food," I almost made a similar faux pas with regard to the Blister Trick. At the last moment -- we were virtually in galley already -- I discovered the trick belonged to Jack Kent Tillar. Penn & Teller held the book up in order to contact Mr. Tillar and obtain permission. (Despite the fact that a columnist at the time took us to task for incomplete credits, the charge was woefully unjustified. I think we left out a credit for the Cross Cut Force!)

In this case, as Mr. Kuffs has pointed out, he provided other credits which indicate that his intentions to credit properly were sincere. And he has made it clear here that he made an error and is pleased to have the correction.

Regarding the video instructions I mentioned that tipped the Hilford glimpse, it's very clear if you watch the video that the producers are woefully unprepared, making it up as they go along, and when one of them happens to think of this glimpse on the spot, he simply tips it spontaneously on camera, says he's not sure who deserves credit, and never gives it a second thought. For $160 for for a wallet and an unwatchable accompanying video, the producers could have taken a bit of time and energy and either found the credit, or cut the uncredited mention. It's clear they simply did not care one way or the other.

So the context, in both cases, provides some evidence -- at least to me -- about the intentions of these various parties. It has nothing to do with applying different standards.

Postby Guest » 03/12/07 10:30 PM

It's my understanding the move was originated by Bob Cassidy.

Postby Guest » 03/12/07 11:00 PM

Please see my post, the first in this thread. The move was created by Docc Hilford and has been taught by him in his lectures for over 15 years.

Postby Fred Zimmerman » 03/15/07 08:40 AM

Of course, for what I'm about to say, I don't have specific the book/trick credit-that has been lost to the vagaries of time.

When I was in College in the late seventies, I was beginning to switch to Mental items. I learned a simple routine (simplistic?) where you had someone write a word on a card, slip the card into a pay envelope, and then slip the envelope into your breast pocket. You were instructed to perform the peek by missing the pocket and looking down and using the other hand to guide it in.

I remember clearly the instructions suggested that you trim the corners of the rectangular card so it would slip into the slit in the envelope more easily. It also suggested that the back of the card be printed with a pattern to avoid bleeding. I actually went to the trouble to have cards like this printed, and the corners trimmed.

This would have dated the move (not mine, certainly) to about 1978 or 1979. I remember doing the routine for my Mother at our kitchen table (and it actually went fairly well, but then again, she was my mother!)

So that certainly predates the Docc Hillford reference.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept a dual-invention explanation here - it's certainly not a rocket-science subtlety, but I can personally date it at LEAST back to the late 1970s.

Fred Zimmerman
Fred Zimmerman
Posts: 102
Joined: 02/02/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chicago

Postby Guest » 03/28/07 09:08 PM

Cassidy published it in the 60s, it's just that no one has received it yet. :)

Jack Shalom

Postby Guest » 04/03/07 08:21 PM

David (Alexander) - just wondering if you intend to reply to Mr. Zimmerman?

Postby Guest » 04/03/07 11:18 PM

Why is it necessary that I reply? If you can read you can see that Fred is citing nothing but an imperfect memory.

Apparently it is necessary for me to point out to you that Fred doesn't remember the name of the book, the effect, the author, but he does remember the instructions and when he performed it for his mother and the fact that he went to the trouble, he claims, to have have special cards printed for the effect. You would think with that much supporting memory, the trouble of having the cards specially printed, that the very least the memory of the creator of the effect would be associated with the move...but it isn't.

What Fred says isn't evidence of anything. Of the thousands of people who read this Forum no one has come forward with anything specific supporting his claim. And, frankly, I find his denigration of "this isn't rocket science" to be a bit patronizing, and yet he took the time to respond to my post making certain that Docc got the credit due him.

As far as I'm concerned, Docc came up with it first and has taught it in his lectures for over a decade and a half. I would be willing to concede dual creation if and when Fred comes up with a specific citation, but absent that, the move and the credit belongs to Docc.

Postby Guest » 04/04/07 08:33 AM

Quoting David Alexander: "Why is it necessary that I reply? If you can read you can see that Fred is citing nothing but an imperfect memory."

Absolutely. There's nothing more definitive in terms of crediting than "he's been teaching this move in his lectures."

Postby Guest » 04/04/07 04:22 PM

If you're going to quote me, Ben, do it correctly. Docc has been doing this in his lectures for at least 15 years, which is far more definitive than the way you chose to present it.

Postby Guest » 04/04/07 04:39 PM

That's true. We all make choices with how we present things.

Postby Guest » 04/04/07 07:55 PM

Patrick Kuffs has a watch routine in which two watches are spun at random and are seen to be spun to exactly the same time! However Max Maven credits a fellow by the name of Stan Alexander from an old Al Mann book for his "Synchrostic" routine in "NOTHING"

Just curious as to how these two routines differ..

Postby Guest » 04/05/07 03:35 PM

The technique whose paternity is under discussion is taught on Docc Hilford's video "It's Even Weerder Close-Up!"

Return to Magicana