Linking cards - Immaculate Connection by PH

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.

Postby Vraagaard » 04/12/05 12:50 AM

With the linking card effects getting a sort of a renaissance at the moment, I turned back to the father of pieces of strange to unleash, Paul Harris, who also happens to be the father of linking cards. Im working on the Immaculate Connection trying to get it smooth, and it happens to me that playing around with this effect and getting it down, it sorts of looses the magic it seems suddenly non-magical. When I look in the mirror it just looks to plain simple, but still I believe that it should be great visual magic. I havent tested it out yet, because its still not smooth enough. So before I put an additional 40 hours into training this piece of magic, I would like to ask a question to those of you who performs the Immaculate Connection, Whats your experience, whats the spectator reaction and should I throw in another 40-50 hours of practice to fine tune the handling, flow and patter?

I've got some great advice from other magicians to either make the tabled link happen in the spectators hands, or to hold the card in the mouth and make it link from there - nice variations that you might find use for.

I am only talking about the PH effect, I am familiar with Sixten Beme's, Sean Fields, Lorraynes and other handling, but I would like specific reactions to Immaculate Connection.
Vraagaard
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 04/22/08 04:27 AM

Postby Steve Bryant » 04/12/05 04:37 AM

I don't do it myself, but I recall my own reaction when David Copperfield first did it on tv. I was stunned. It was much better than the Statue of Liberty vanish on the same special.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Guest » 04/12/05 05:49 AM

"The Immaculate Connection" was the first pricey piece of magic I invested in; 10 bucks for the instructions to one effect was a heavy duty commitment for a 15 year old (I had to bag groceries over four hours to make that cash.) Being a Paul Harris junky (I had everything he released at that point) I knew I had to have it.

After filling eight grocery bags (the brown paper variety; plastic was not in vogue) with torn cards, I went out to show off my new miracle...

It was 10 bucks well spent.
The effect was part of my working repetoire for over a decade (and I still do it from time to time today... Though, as I get older, I'm less interested in destroying cards.)

Thoughts:

Paul's 'Marked Cards' patter is perfect.

Re: Tabled Link
I gave that phase the heave ho. It's risky and IMO, it doesn't add that much to the effect.

Have faith in this effect
& it will serve you well.
Guest
 

Postby Vraagaard » 04/12/05 07:27 AM

Thanks a lot for your kind advice.

Yes the tabled link seems risky, however the blow off un-link is beautifull, and then you need a link to get back into it.

Any others with experiences performing the Immaculate Connection
Vraagaard
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 04/22/08 04:27 AM

Postby Guest » 04/12/05 07:46 AM

I've been doing it for years and will continue for years to come. I too gave the table linking phrase the boot. Looked to cheesey for me. My patter involves 3 'underground methods' for marking a card: The Gamblers crimp (the fold), The Reno Notch (the tear), and the Las Vegas Link (the link). I end the routine by switching out the center torn cards (as I'm folding them to presumable put away or throw away) for duplicate miniature ones. I simply finger palm the minis in my pocket while they're looking at the torn ones. If you'll fold 3 minis in half and fold the three torn ones in quarters you'll see a resemblance that allows for a very good and simple switch. Forcing 1 of 3 cards at the beginning of the effect is easy enough and it brings the effect back to the beginning. My patter here is that I don't "have enough of the cards left over put back in my deck"...(switch)..."but I can always use what I do have to make little ones"....and then I hand those out. I met PH at a convention and he graciously autographed the manuscript for me. He liked my ending, or at least he was nice enough not to laugh in my face....keep at it...it's worth it!
Guest
 

Postby Tabman » 04/12/05 08:24 AM

If you're doing the Paul Harris setup now, then Don England's clincher to Harry L's version isn't much of a stretch.

-=tabman
User avatar
Tabman
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 03/17/09 02:25 PM
Location: TC and KOZ at the Funny Bone

Postby Guest » 04/12/05 08:56 AM

In all honesty, my only trouble with performing this effect is, . . . .


Tearing the three cards at once :(
Guest
 

Postby Ryan Matney » 04/12/05 12:08 PM

Am I the only one here that thinks this is a terrible trick? Its method is sadly obvious. I remember seeing it over ten years ago on video when I was fairly new to magic and thinking to myself (even as a kid) "Man, that's obviously just folded cards, look how he has to hold them."

Not to mention the fact that they start out back to back and then link face to face.

I like some Paul Harris but this is not one of them. Cardboard Connection and many others beat this one hands down.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Vraagaard » 04/13/05 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Charlie Justice:
I end the routine by switching out the center torn cards (as I'm folding them to presumable put away or throw away) for duplicate miniature ones.

I met PH at a convention and he graciously autographed the manuscript for me. He liked my ending, or at least he was nice enough not to laugh in my face....keep at it...it's worth it!
I really like your ending. It's the same as switching a small coin for a Jumbo coin - it never fails to amaze people. I can see that you can play you switch to mini cards, and get a great hand out souvenir. Good thinking. Maybe you should even fold and tear the small cards as well - and make a clean diminishing card ending.

Pesonally I plan to go into this effect using PH's the bizarre twist, and then moving into IC by linking the odd colored card of the three cards.
Vraagaard
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 04/22/08 04:27 AM

Postby mago » 04/13/05 02:16 AM

Some years ago, I was in Mexico City with a friend of mine at Wolf's Ruvinskii's supper club.
I was considering returning to work there.

Wolf came over to our table and sat down to inquire if I would return to work for him.

I did a few magic routines that he had not seen before and finished with Paul's wonderful/incredible linking routine.

Wolf's eyes amost popped out when he saw it and was most impressed.

To make a long story short, he asked what I wanted to return to work for him and I asked a higher price.

He said that he would think about it.

My Mexican friend that traveled with me told me that "I was asking too much. This is Mexico, he said"

When the floor show was over, Wolf returned to our table sat down and told me he would give me All that I asked for.

Ruvinskii also was a magician and really got turned on by Paul's routine.

Thank you Paul!!!

Go forth and amaze.

Tom Wolf
mago
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 09/07/08 05:25 PM

Postby Vraagaard » 04/25/05 04:29 AM

Just some thoughts on my progress.

After having finished my studies and rehearsal of PHs Immaculate Connection, and having studied Sixten Bemes one card link and Sean Fields Linkage, I finally went all the way back and studied PHs Cardboard Connection and that was a real shocker. I started with Immaculate Connection because it was described as an improvement of Cardboard Connection, but going back in history I actually discovered that the original seems to be far more magical and impossible (IMHO).

What a feat the Carboard Connection is yes I realize the card can not be left hanging loosely dangling in the link which compared to Immaculate, Sixteen Beme and Sean Fields bonus routine on Linkage is a minus. However, its not necessary since the display is flat on your palm, and it can be left hanging in that position. Moreover it can be done totally impromptu and the two card rings can be handed out and given away as souvenirs - and I find the 2 card linkage much more impossible from a magic point of view than Immaculates 3 card set-up. Thats why its recommendable to tuck them away or tear at least one ring apart when handing them out in the Immaculate routine. So, why was the Immaculate Connection considered as an improvement to cardboard connection? Because of the freely dangling card and no palming needed? I wonder? I will go out and perform them both and see what the spectator reactions are to these but from where I am right now Cardboard Connection seems to be the stronger of the two Im pretty sure they will both receive monstrous responses.

Its funny studying these methods and ending up resorting to the original. What are your thoughts on these two wonderfull effects.
Vraagaard
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 04/22/08 04:27 AM

Postby Steve Bryant » 04/25/05 04:41 AM

Check out Andrew Mayne's new version. It also looks pretty cool and is impromptu, with just two cards.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Richard Kaufman » 04/25/05 08:59 AM

The Andrew Mayne version received a qualified positive review in a recent issue of Genii. It apparently cannot be done in bright light, or when you are very close to the spectators.
Just FYI.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20951
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC


Return to Close-Up Magic