LePaul's, from his book, is simple and direct and very effective, not a piece by piece.
What if you had to choose a piece by piece restoration?
I suggest you search this and other forums as topic frequently raised over the years.
Yes, I did, prior to creating this thread, but I found it only added to the confusion by mentioning increasing numbers of effects that all seemed to achieve roughly the same thing with different handlings and none of the threads seemed to address the question of which was best overall, most seemed to be commentaries on individual effects.
One thing I've found as well is that effects that, seemingly should be prominent (for example the work of Wesley James "Pristine", if only due to his reputation) were not discussed at all. Another example that intrigued me, and I've ordered the book in this case, is Peter Grandt's effect, but it seems not to have been discussed much.
Thus, I was interested in opinions that reflected the collective tide of new material.
I like Father Cyprian's "Nostalgia Torn & Restored Card."
I'm not familiar with that, how does it differ from most of the others?
I'm not a big fan of Paul Harris' Torn & Restored because of the ending. You're using a torn piece as a receipt when you're supposed to be restoring the card.
I agree, personally I think the rationale for not fully restoring the card is typically pretty bad and greatly weakens the effect. Though, as a thought, you could play off an old idea of incompatibility as follows. I remember an all backs routine being performed where a card is selected, and tabled, then, as the card is about to be returned to the deck, the deck is shown only to contain backs. This goes on with the typical displays etc. Followed by the restoration to original condition. The performer is about to continue saying "ok, now where were we", but then comments, oh that's right, I can't perform the effect because your card isn't compatible with this deck, at which point the selected card is revealed to have an odd back. (It's worked into the routine a little better than that, but you get the idea.)
Technically you could play with that concept and combine another effect to show how the last piece is not compatible with the rest of the card. It would, at the least, make for an interesting plot and almost tolerable explanation.
However, as you say, generally I greatly dislike an incomplete restoration.
Just a minor point, but if you agree that the popularity of the effect is justifiable, I would point out that it is not "overdone." An effect is "overdone" when its popularity exceeds its intrinsic merits and "staying power" with the public.
I tend to disagree for the following reason. While I don't believe it's over performed, I think the creation of methods that all do essentially the same thing are overdone. In my mind, you should only create a new method if it is justifiably superior to previous methods, particularly when it comes to releasing the method. The rationale for releasing an inferior method is something that simply doesn't make sense to me. Now the reality is I've seen probably half a dozen or so piece and piece signed torn and restored card effects that all look pretty much the same to the spectator and there are many I haven't seen. Granted, there are differences. I've been informed for example that "Torn" is considerably easier than "The Reformation". There are thoughts on the need for gaffs and the amount of set up required. For example, "unripped" has too much set up in the estimation of many, at least considering similar offerings from the competition. There are of course slight differences in effect, like the "ironing out" of the card and signature removals (I hate signature removals by the way, I think they weaken the overall impact of the effect). But largely the effects appear the same and the handling is often very similar. I'm really not sure that slight handling changes merit a new release.
Anyway, to sum my the reply to your comment, the effect hasn't been over performed in my view, the number of similar effect releases have simply been overdone in my view. Mind you, that seems somewhat typical of the magic community and I suppose, on the bright side, more releases by more people mean that eventually someone will hit the mark.
Is the cups and balls "overdone?"
I'm afraid I study primarily cards, so I couldn't answer that.
And of course if you want to bring fire into it, there are other versions that deal with that as well.
Of course, hence the original question of the thread.
The perception is that Reformation is very difficult, but I have a suspicion it is merely because Hollingworth's rather verbose writing style, and the difficulty of describing certain moves, meant that his written description of the effect was something like 40 pages long.
Personally I love Hollingworth's writing style, Drawing Room Deceptions easily ranks as my favorite magic book.
One other version that I would mention that is also a favorite of mine, and not on your list, is the routine in Hugard's Expert Card Technique, in the chapter on stranger card routines.
Yes, I didn't list any non piece by piece restorations or I would have been here all night considering numerous performers have numerous handlings and there are a lot of such performers. Generally I think a visual restoration just has a totally different appeal as well. Though one very interesting thing is to examine ways in which you can restore, or apparently restore a card and make it a totally different effect from a previous one.
Thanks for your thoughts.