The Genii Forum

I saw Penn & Teller on this morning's The Late Late Show with Drew Carey. From what I can tell they did the card trick, "Cheek to Cheek." I was surprised that they used such an old marketed trick, one I've used for over 25 years I believe, but they had a really awesome presentation. Teller had to grab the deck away at the end, as Drew started to grab for it!

http://www.cbs.com/shows/late-late-show ... -1-9-2015/

The magic sequence begins with a Jerry Camaro story at around 35:00

(If you are interested in more about Mr. Camaro, I would recommend hunting down Penn's eulogy of him.)

Terry_Holley wrote:I saw Penn & Teller on this morning's The Late Late Show with Drew Carey. From what I can tell they did the card trick, "Cheek to Cheek." I was surprised that they used such an old marketed trick, one I've used for over 25 years I believe, but they had a really awesome presentation. Teller had to grab the deck away at the end, as Drew started to grab for it!

Surprised to see them do such an old marketed trick? Why? You said yourself that you have been performing it for over 25 years. I assume that the reason you have been performing Cheek to Cheek for that length of time is because it gets a great reaction. It is one of my favorites as well. Laypeople could give a rats hindquarters on how old or new a trick is as long as they are entertained...you said it yourself regarding Penn and Tellers performance, "...they had a really awesome presentation". Remember these chestnuts...cups and balls, linking rings, egg bag? Magicians are still performing them today and like any "old" trick, if presented well the audience will be witness to some wonderful magic.

Forget about a tricks history being the foundation for performing it for the public, but instead recognize why a trick has withstood the test of time.

Grant's "Cheek to Cheek" is a rip-off of Theodore DeLand's trick "Inverto."

Date put on the market: 1914.

"Inverto" was the first trick known in the United States in which a double-backed card was used in combination with a deck of cards, and only the second trick in which a double-backed card was used (the first being DeLand's "Two-Card Monte").

The trick is just over a century old! Must be a damn good trick if people are still using it.

There are 2 excellent relatively recently released routines using the cheek to cheek principle--one of which fooled a whole lot of people (judging from the Ohhhhhhsss) at the recent IBM/SAM.

I enjoyed the P & T performance because the presentation (like all their presentations) fit them so well--couldn't picture anyone else doing it this way.

I would have reflexively flinched too when Carey went for a card, but it would have been so cool for Teller not to have reacted at all (since there was a 50/50 chance of Drew seeing nothing, and I doubt he would have busted them). It would have taken superhuman self-control not to though.

Well, it's not the "Cheek to Cheek" principle.
It's the "Inverto" principle.
And it was from "Inverto" that Vernon devised The Trick that Fooled Houdini.

Richard Kaufman wrote:Grant's "Cheek to Cheek" is a rip-off of Theodore DeLand's trick "Inverto."

Date put on the market: 1914.

"Inverto" was the first trick known in the United States in which a double-backed card was used in combination with a deck of cards, and only the second trick in which a double-backed card was used (the first being DeLand's "Two-Card Monte").

The trick is just over a century old! Must be a damn good trick if people are still using it.

Thank you for the history behind this effect Richard. A method like this needs to be respected from where it took root. Even my magic buddies who avoid any type of gaffed deck give props to what I will refer to from now on as, "Inverto".

Richard Kaufman wrote:Grant's "Cheek to Cheek" is a rip-off of Theodore DeLand's trick "Inverto."

Date put on the market: 1914.

"Inverto" was the first trick known in the United States in which a double-backed card was used in combination with a deck of cards, and only the second trick in which a double-backed card was used (the first being DeLand's "Two-Card Monte").

The trick is just over a century old! Must be a damn good trick if people are still using it.

Thank you for the history lesson, Richard. It looks like the following may be the newest marketed version of the effect:

http://www.magicmakersinc.com/p-68-triu ... g-dvd.aspx

They do give the following credit:

HISTORY:
This trick is an original creation of Theodore DeLand in 1914 titled INVERTO.
In 1918 DeLand sold the rights to his effects to the SS Adams Co. that is now owned and operated by MAGIC MAKERS, INC.

It is not known if DeLand sold the rights to Inverto to S.S. Adams in late 1918. Adams never put the trick on the market.

Dai Vernon emphatically credited Arthur Finley with this invention. In 1914, Finley was in his late teens -- which does not rule out the possibility.

Gee -- it would sure be nice to have Theodore DeLand's effects, and a bio, collectd in a book. Some day . . .

Matt Field

Max Maven wrote:Dai Vernon emphatically credited Arthur Finley with this invention. In 1914, Finley was in his late teens -- which does not rule out the possibility.

The turnover of a selected card? The shuffle rather than dealing? What's being claimed?

I was referring to the gimmicked deck known as "Inverto" or "Cheek to Cheek."

Pray tell, given the message to which I was responding, what was unclear?

Far more likely than DeLand stealing "Inverto" from Finley, would be that Finley bought one and then fooled Vernon with it.

I got fooled badly by a Cheek to Cheek deck. I was in Fantasma Magic Shop and David Roth performed a beautiful Triumph. I couldn't work out what sleights he was using--it seemed so moveless. Then it hit me--the deck!

Richard Kaufman wrote:Far more likely than DeLand stealing "Inverto" from Finley, would be that Finley bought one and then fooled Vernon with it.

Do you really imagine that Dai Vernon was not aware of the latest marketed card magic?

My assumption is that Finley told Vernon that he had come up with the idea prior to DeLand, but had no evidence. Given that all parties are long gone, there's no way to know, hence it is merely an assertion -- which is how I framed the reference, rather than proclaiming it as truth.