Card size survey

[Tom Stone]

Nikola Arkane would like to hear your opinions regarding playing card sizes.
Please fill in her survey here:
https://arkaneshop.com/journal/here-i-go-again/

[MagicbyAlfred]

I took the survey and as I mentioned in the comments, I have come across quite a few magicians who have smaller than average hands, or that at least believe their hands are too small for palming effectively. So, Nikola's idea of producing bridge-size cards would, in all probability, have at least modest demand, and from what she has said, be important for her own use. I don't think most lay people would begin to notice that the bridge size was anything out of the ordinary.

I have a pretty sizable collection of "custom" or "designer" playing cards, most of which cost substantially more than Bicycle Standards or Rider Backs, and as attractive as those cards are, I almost always use the Bikes for performing. And it's not because I feel that I need to use cards that are widely "recognizable," but because there's not a deck out there (at least that I've seen) that handles as well as Bicycle, particularly the Rider Backs. As long as the cards don't get wet or really dirty, Bicycles, even when they have been used for a while, continue to have a great "feel," and to be great for fanning, spreads and turnovers, DL's, etc., whereas other decks (yes, even the pricey"custom" ones) disappointingly tend to clump up quickly and not give that lovely, even, consistent performance. It probably has to do with that "linoid finish," and maybe to some extent, the card stock the U.S. Playing Card Company uses on the Bicycles. I would highly recommend that if Nikola decides to proceed with the contemplated project, she have the stock and finish of her cards be as close as possible, if not identical, to the Bicycle Rider Backs. That's a lovely design you came up with for her, by the way, Tom - quite artistic, and the red color really pops.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Correction: I meant to say "air-cushion" finish for the Bicycle cards, not linoid. I believe it's the Tally Ho cards that have the linoid finish.

[Richard Kaufman]

I have small hands--the same size as Dai Vernon's. I use poker sized cards.

There was a time half a century ago when bridge sized cards were still common in households in the United States, but that time has long since passed.

Even with small hands, I can do pretty much any card sleight. Howard Schwarzman had tiny hands, and he was able to do everything in Erdnase extremely well. And also the Pass.

I see no need for bridge sized cards at this point unless you are a child and just learning.

[Tom Stone]

I have small hands--the same size as Dai Vernon's. I use poker sized cards.

There was a time half a century ago when bridge sized cards were still common in households in the United States, but that time has long since passed.

Even with small hands, I can do pretty much any card sleight. Howard Schwarzman had tiny hands, and he was able to do everything in Erdnase extremely well. And also the Pass.

I see no need for bridge sized cards at this point unless you are a child and just learning.

And Mahdi can do all sorts of sleights with no hands at all, so I guess that none of us should use our hands for sleights then, because Magic is supposed to be a macho competition?
Making things more difficult than necessary might be an alluring challenge for some, but my guess is that for most, it more likely leads to frustration and abandonment.

Then again, all opinions are valid. Put it in the survey!

[Richard Kaufman]

Tom, are you always in attack mode these days?

[Tom Stone]

Tom, are you always in attack mode these days?

No, I sleep occasionally.

[Michael Close]

I think I commented about this on Nikola's blog when she first posted about this subject.

I can only think of three sleights that cause difficulty if you have a very small hand: 1) palming a card into classic palm position; 2) one-handed shuffles and cuts; 3) the classic pass.

The simple solution for all but #2 is to switch to a different technique. A gambler's flat palm or a gambler's cop can be done deceptively with any size hand. A pass like the Black pass or Larry's Circle Shift doesn't need a big hand.

Sometimes, the solution is simply to not do a move. I can't do the one-handed shuffle any more. I could never do some of the one-handed cuts in Hugard and Braue's Card Manipulations. I cannot do a standard side steal in a way I think is deceptive. You adapt and figure a way around the problems.

Life is full of challenges like that. I'll never play Art Tatum solos convincingly because I can't reach the tenths. I can't hold a basketball with one hand. So, you do other things.

Because of the popularity of Texas Hold 'em, people are used to seeing poker-size cards. But if you used a bridge-size deck, I doubt any layman would care one way or another.

[Brad Jeffers]

Ironically, almost all poker rooms worldwide use bridge sized cards.

[Ariel Frailich]

A long as the audience doesn't suspect trick cards, I doubt very much that size matters. Use what's comfortable, be it bridge-, poker-, Tarot-size cards, or even Liliput or Jumbo sizes.

I read Nikola's blog post; there are alternatives to USPCC custom decks. Kardwell comes to mind, and I presume that there are European manufacturers as well. As for off-the-shelf decks, Aviators aren't bad, and Fako decks have lots of different kinds of gaffs. But I have no idea if these are still available.

British manufacturer Waddington no longer exists, but maybe it's possible to get the rights to use their designs, if it's of interest. A lot of gaffs were available (eg Edward Victor's E-Y-E trick to Devano decks, and even a Fako equivalent, if I remember well).

[Tom Stone]

Life is full of challenges like that. I'll never play Art Tatum solos convincingly because I can't reach the tenths. I can't hold a basketball with one hand.

So... if you have the desire to hold a ball with one hand, but can't hold a basketball, would you rather abandon your wish than to pick up a tennis ball with one hand? If you had access to a proper piano on which you could reach the tenths, you would still prefer to give up on jazz than to use it?

If you can hold a little finger break (or do a top change) comfortably with a bridge deck but not with a poker deck, it seems a bit odd to give up on it or replace the functional moves with less effective moves just because of... some reason...

As for off-the-shelf decks, Aviators aren't bad, and Fako decks have lots of different kinds of gaffs. But I have no idea if these are still available.

Aviator, Caravan, Pastime, Aristocrat... they are discontinued.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Yes, there are magicians with smaller than average hands that could deceptively palm poker sized cards, even though they believe they are unable to do so. But very few layman would ever notice that a magician is using bridge as opposed to poker size cards anyway, and even if they did, that's not going to weaken or discredit the magic. If someone will feel more secure and confident with bridge sized cards, what's the point of them trying to use poker cards, when there's simply no need to do so?

Truthfully, it would be very unfortunate if someone was dissuaded from using palming in their card work because they are worried they are going to flash. Palming is a HUGELY important and useful tool for a magician who does card magic. Sure, you could go your entire magical life without doing it and still do some strong card magic, but you would be giving up such a tremendous weapon in the magician's arsenal. It can increase the impact of an effect exponentially; I would cite Poker Player's Picnic as one, among innumerable examples - hand the deck out to shuffle while palming the 4 aces, then replace them and go into the routine. You can emphasize that they, themselves, shuffled and there's no possibility that there could be any set order or prearrangement. Then, an already strong routine becomes 10 times stronger. I've done it both ways and there's no comparison in the impact and reaction. Card on ceiling or ambitious card are other examples. Of course, palming is very valuable, if not indispensable, in Cards Across and/or Card to (zippered) Wallet, two of the strongest card routines you can do for a layman.

A lot of magicians are afraid of palming and let their fears or guilt dissuade them, but guess what? It's as easy as falling off a log if you do it at the right time, with good timing and misdirection. Avoid looking at your hands, and simply address a comment or question to someone. Relax, and unless you are super-careless or sloppy, you'll have no problem at all getting away with it. If sitting, you can casually fold your arms while they shuffle, or grip the edges of the table with your hands, or even pick up a beverage and take a sip while they are shuffling. If standing, once the card(s) is palmed off, drop your hand casually to the side naturally curved, and at an angle where the palmed card(s) won’t flash, and again say or ask somebody something and look at them while doing the replacement. Riffle the cards upward after the replacement to get rid of any tell-tale bend in the card(s). I'm not saying this to brag, but I never get caught, and it's a great feeling to pull it off. If I can do it, anyone can. Now, I do happen to have larger than average hands and use poker size cards because they fit the dimensions of my hands well, but IMHO bridge size cards are 100% fine. And if they are going to boost one's confidence, motivate them to palm when they would otherwise have not done so, and/or cut down on the chances of flashing, I say have at it!

[Jackpot]

This topic reminded me of something I had read by Charlie Miller years ago in Genii. Thanks to the archive and search feature I was able to find it without too much trouble. With all due respect to the participants in this discussion, I know that Mr. Miller was neither a child nor a beginner when he wrote this, and I also acknowledge that the issue came out 45 years ago ("July (published in August) 1975"). I find it interesting that his comments are about aesthetics rather than the issued raised here. But aesthetics seem appropriate since we are discussing art.

"One of the things that amazes me is how all of the magicians have to use a certain brand card. Personally, if I could give any advice I would tell every newcomer in magic who wants to do card tricks to use a bridge-size pack.

"I know, of course, that most professionals say that the quarter inch increase in width helps the card to be seen further. This is true. But who cares?

"How many know that the design of the bridge-size card approaches the Golden Ration more closely than does the poker-size card? Perhaps in the near future Jerry Andrus and I will write up a little article on the Golden Ration and how it applies to magic.

"If anybody wants to know just what the Golden Ratio is I'll give you an idea that is more or less, accurate. I might even say that it is a pleasing shape of a rectangle. There is a mathematical formula for it which I cannot find right at the moment. Anyway, a rectangle that conforms to the Golden Ration is pleasing to the eye.

"Years ago the magazine ABRACADABRA had it described just under that title—A PLEASING SHAPE. The writer gave a simple formula— not exactly the ratio of the Golden Formula but near enough for all practical purposes. Just add the successive numbers. Two by three — three and two make five, therefore the six would be three by five, or, continuing, five by eight. Get it? When boxes are made this shape they look good. They are pleasing to the eye. Some boxes are 'fat'.

"And so it is with playing cards. The bridge-size card is my preference. Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't follow this rule myself. The reason is that I have many, many packs of playing cards. They are all poker size. I have to use them."

[MagicbyAlfred]

Jackpot, that is fascinating. Charlie Miller may have really been on to something there with the Golden Ratio principle as applied to playing cards. The mathematics of it looks totally intimidating, but now I'm thinking there may be an actual reason why the bridge size cards always looked more pleasing to me than their poker size counterparts. Are our brains hard-wired in such a way that the mathematical proportions of various geometrical shapes translate into what is aesthetically pleasing? A simple Google search on the Golden Ratio reveals there have been a lot of very smart and talented people throughout history that have believed so (e.g. Pythagoras, Euclid, DaVinci, Dali). Art and mathematics might seem to be the antithesis of one another, but there may be more to the relationship than meets the eye. For example, there are a lot of mathematical aspects to music (rhythm and tempo, the vibrational frequencies and relative pitches in chords - which accounts for why they sound good to the human ear, the mathematical intervals of the notes in each scale or key, the relationship between major and minor chords, the "cycle of fifths," and on and on.

It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there's a lot of common ground in what humans perceive as beautiful. (Helen of Troy is said to have had "the face that launched a thousand ships" and who would dispute that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is a very beautiful work of architecture?). Is it beyond the realm of imagination that there is something in the biochemistry and/or programming of that unfathomably complex organ called the brain that accounts for the perceptions we share in common as to what is beautiful?

The only difference between bridge versus poker size cards is in the width. They are both 3 and 1/2 inches high, but poker are 2 and 1/2 inches wide, while bridge are 2 and 1/4 inches wide. Why would that small 1/4 inch difference in width make a difference in my perception of what looks better? Is it that the slightly more slender width in proportion to the same length sends a different signal to the brain than when I look at a poker size? Does the secret lie in a mathematical equation known as the Golden Ratio? Charlie Miller was convinced that that is the case. I don't know have the answer. Perhaps it's nothing different from my preference for chocolate over vanilla - although it wouldn't surprise me if there's a scientific reason for that, as well, such as the biochemistry of each individual’s taste buds.

Bottom line is that if you like bridge cards and they are going to enable you to do sleights you wouldn't be able to do (or at least that you believe you could not otherwise do), then why not? Bicycle makes superb quality bridge size decks. Maybe to some, they are not beautiful to behold and to others they may be. Nikola Arcane thinks that the colors on the backs of the bridge size Bikes are “less vibrant than their poker sized siblings," and that "they look cheap.” So perhaps this (plus the fact she wishes to use bridge size cards in her own work) will motivate her to produce a beautiful bridge size deck that handles as well as Bicycles. As I mentioned, I sure do like the design and colors Tom came up with for her, including the box. If they were made on comparable stock to the Bicycles and had the air cushion finish, I would buy several decks in a heartbeat. I hope Nikola goes forward with her contemplated project - it would fill a big void and probably benefit quite a few magicians, because at this point, 95% plus of the bridge size decks out there (and there are a ton of them) are plastic - and that translates into pure c _ _ p.

[MagicbyAlfred]

PS Just to clarify, when I mentioned that the mathematics of the Golden Ratio look totally intimidating, I wasn't referring to the formula Charlie Miller mentioned that he said was given in the magazine, Abracadabra. I was referring to this:

"Expressed algebraically, for quantities a and b with a > b > 0,

a + b
_____ = a + b = phi (where the Greek letter phi represents the Golden Ratio)
a

It is an irrational number that is a solution to the quadratic equation x squared - x = 0 with a value of
phi = 1 + the square root of 5 divided by 2 = 1.6180339887"

(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)

[Jackpot]

[quote="MagicbyAlfred"]PS Just to clarify, when I mentioned that the mathematics of the Golden Ratio look totally intimidating...."

Alfred, I understand your clarification. Mine own initial exposure to the Golden Ratio came in elementary school through this movie, Donald in Mathmagic Land. Here's the portion from Donald in Mathmagic Land which relates to the Golden Ratio. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5n6iT2AqrI[/youtube]

[Bill Duncan]

Perhaps the golden ratio is pleasing to the eye because it is so common in nature? Most folks take comfort in the familiar.

[Jackpot]

Perhaps the golden ratio is pleasing to the eye because it is so common in nature? Most folks take comfort in the familiar.

I tend to agree. I think we have become very familiar with poker sized cards. As a result, bridge sized cards make some of us uncomfortable.

[wirelesstkd]

I took the survey. A couple of thoughts: first, the difference in size between bridge and poker is only one quarter of one inch. A poker size card is 2.5" wide by 3.5 inches tall. A bridge card is 2.25" x 3.5". It may seem like a big difference, but it's really not.

Also -- and I put this in the comments of that survey -- you can buy customized playing cards by individual deck at www.makeplayingcards.com. Select the highest quality option that doesn't have a minimum order and the quality is very close to Bicycle. Not exact, no, but very good.

Of course it's expensive as heck - after shipping I think a deck runs around 20 bucks or so. But I've used them for custom decks I've needed for my kids shows and they've been awesome. Typically the decks I buy I end up roughing with a roughing stick and they work like a charm That's not an ad or anything, I make no money from them, but I just really love the service.

[Max Maven]

Oddly, in light of the Charlie Miller comments mentioned above, Dai Vernon (at least in his later years) said that Poker-sized cards were better than Bridge-sized because the former were closer to the Golden Ratio!

He was wrong. The Golden ratio proportions lie between those two standard card sizes. It’s a little closer to Bridge proportions, but that’s moot.

Bridge size was the most common for decades, because of the arrangement made in the early 1930s between John Snyder and the U.S. Playing Card Company. USPC agreed to print gaffs only using Aviator Bridge stock (known as Caravans in some other countries). For decades, that was the brand used by most magicians. Snyder packaged those gaffs in boxes branded “Fox Lake” (which was the lake behind his home). Audiences didn’t care.

Many pro magicians, following the lead of Vernon and others, started working with Poker size, but the balance didn’t tip until the 1970s, when USPC, having changed ownership more than once, began allowing gaffs to be produced using Poker-sized Bicycle Rider backs.

Many American magicians switched over, proclaiming that the Bicycle Rider was the most common card among lay people. In fact, at that time, the most common brand sold in New York City was Tally-Ho Circle. Audiences still didn't care.

South American, European, and Asian magicians started using Bikes, despite that style of card being virtually unknown in their countries. Audiences exceedingly didn’t care.

So, Nikola, use whatever size and style of cards you prefer. Your audiences will only care about the quality of the magic you do.

[Bill Mullins]

Golden Ratio = (approximately) 1.618
Bridge Size = 3.5/2.25 = (approximately) 1.556
Poker Size = 3.5/2.5 = 1.4

[Tom Stone]

So far, 104 people have done the survey. 72 men, 27 women and 5 other/not disclosed.
The results are a bit surprising.

The results of the survey will be posted on Monday. It would be nice if more people could do the survey before then.
https://arkaneshop.com/journal/here-i-go-again/

[John Bowden]

Forty plus years ago when I first ventured into the realms of card magic I used bridge sized cards as most packet tricks came only in bridge size.
Over time, poker size cards became more popular and magic dealers stocked more gaffs for them, and so I began using them and now find that I use them almost exclusively.
I would still use bridge sized for some effects if they were available.

Anyone here who thinks that audiences care which size card a magician uses either never works for an audience or is working only for magician friends.
I wish Nikola every success with the survey and any subsequent endeavour in the production of her bridge size cards.

[Q. Kumber]

Geoffrey Durham used Piatnik Cards in his theatre shows and would give the pack to the onstage helper at the end of the routine. HIs reasoning (from memory) was that brand new Piatnik decks are far easier to open than Bicycles, especially when the spectator is on the stage and under pressure. I'd imagine bridge cards would also be more familiar to a spectator.

One night after packing the show and leaving by the stage door he was greeted by his onstage helper that evening who handed him back the deck and said, "I'm a magician myself but I only use Bikes."

[Ian Kendall]

One night after packing the show and leaving by the stage door he was greeted by his onstage helper that evening who handed him back the deck and said, "I'm a magician myself but I only use Bikes."

I think the takeaway from that is all the other times the helpers were real people, and didn't care. QED.

[Leo Garet]

Being English, I was brought up on the local brew. Waddingtons No1, Alf Cooke and from a bit further away, Thomas De La Rue, all bridge size. I tried poker size as they became more available in the UK, but they’ve never felt right; the key factor. So I never switched to poker size. I don’t feel deprived and it’s too late now anyway, even if I felt like it. Which I don’t.

In the late 1970s, having saved up for 20 years or so, I bought six gross of Fox Lake bridge size cards from Geoff Maltby’s Repro Magic in London. Back then they were 25p per pack and buying so many brought some sort of discount.

They didn’t all arrive at once; Repro didn’t have that many in stock. They trickled through over a month or so. And they weren’t all Fox Lake; some were Aviator—same thing, of course, but in different boxes. Fox Lake cards came in unsealed Haines House Of Cards boxes. Aviators were sealed, as sold by regular retailers in the US. The latter few cartons came direct from Haines.

I’m still using them; though the supply is greatly diminished. I think I’ve got three or four dozen left.

If I’m working a nuts-and-bolts type of gig, Waddingtons are more than fine.

I use “cast-off” Waddingtons for my stand-up Six-Card Repeat routine. I cobbled together home-made forcing packs for general use, Tossed-Out Deck for one trick, and a few more odds and ends. This saves wear and tear on the Aviators. I have two dealer-bought Invisible Decks. One Aviator bridge, the other Bicycle poker.

I also used Pastime, which I later learned were issued in the States as Aristocrat or Aristoc; also Delesi, which were Aviators in all but name. The backs tended to have anything but the standard Aviator design, but the faces matched. I bought Pastime at Cole Brothers in Sheffield and Delesi from W.H. Smith, also in Sheffield. Delesi were exclusive to W.H. Smith.
I’ve seen photographs of some quite old Aristocrat cards and comparing them with the Pastime cards that I still have; they are different. The Pastime cards are not the mini-cards, sometimes called Pastime, sometimes called Playtime.

[Leo Garet]

For a couple of years, circa 1959 early sixties, Harry Stanley at his Unique Studio had a deal with Alf Cooke in Leeds. They made matching fakes. And the real beauty and novelty of this was that the cards were available in Woolworths.

In the 70s Ron MacMillan continued the trend with Waddingtons No1, though for some reason he allowed the words “Magic Studio” or some such on (I think) the ace of spades.

David Britland had a brief chunter about this in one of his excellent articles in Supreme’s “Magigram”.

[Leo Garet]

Some 20 or more years ago I worked a strolling gig at an eaterie in Leeds, and one of the groups of merrymakers was in town on some business jaunt. The make up of the citizenry ran a short gamut of Dutch, American, British in general and local Tykes. Some comment was made about the cards I was using. Were they trick cards, or as layfolk more often say (to me, anyway) “special cards”? I said not and mentioned that they were made in the US, adding, as an incidental, that they were bridge size, not the more usual poker size; usual for the States, that is.

No one had the faintest idea what I was talking about, which is nothing new, but here they meant the cards. They were familiar with cards, and encountered them from time to time, but they weren’t card players. Of particular interest was the US group. From somewhere in California, they had no idea whether the cards they encountered from time to time were bridge or poker. I said they would probably be poker size. They said they’d check when they got back home. Perhaps they did.

[Dave Le Fevre]

Being English, I was brought up on the local brew. Waddingtons No1, Alf Cooke ...

Likewise.

And after decades of applying fanning powder to decks, I discovered Bikes. They were sooo much nicer to handle. (Have never ever needed fanning powder since changing to bikes.)

And Bikes were primarily available in poker size, hence I started used poker size. Also all (or nearly all) Bike gaffs are poker size.

That's despite having slightly smaller than average hands. I don't palm cards, since I once broke a finger (on my dominant hand) and it didn't set quite straight, so a card would flash. I suspect that were I to palm cards, I'd prefer bridge size.

Interesting to see the mention of the golden ratio and its relevance to card sizes. These things obviously go in cycles - I mentioned it here in 2010.

[Tom Moore]

The argument that poker size card are more “visible” is nonsense- if you’re performing for any more than one single person you should be using large index cards (which come in both sizes) as that does so much more to improve visibility than making the card 1/4 inch wider.

[Ian Kendall]

if you’re performing for any more than one single person you should be using large index cards

Unless you are on stage, when they become a hindrance. [cf Maven, MAGIC magazine]

[Q. Kumber]

Back in 1973 the late Johnny Hoffman, a superb stand-up performer with a pack of cards mentioned in a lecture that on stage black spot cards are best used if cards are to be shown to a large audience, preferably low value ones. I think the only moves he knew were the pass, the bottom change, the palm and the classic force. Unfortunately he died in 1975, not long after I saw him at the Irish convention that year. If you saw him perform you'd understand how Leipzig and others could hold a large audience with just a pack of cards.

A couple of years ago I saw Max Maven perform a card routine which immediately brought Johnny Hoffman to mind because I got the exact same feeling I hadn't had since 1975.

[Ian Kendall]

That makes me feel good, because I've been saying the same thing for a while now

To delve further; from more than ten feet, picture cards all look basically the same. Also, as I found out the hard way, if you have any red gels in your lights, red spot cards become blank cards in a hurry.

I'm fairly sure this is part of the reason Penn and Teller use the Three of Clubs, but my preferred stage force card is the Five of Spades. Higher values, such as the seven, eight, nine or ten are not as instantly recognisable.

And while we're at it, if you are showing a card to a large group of people, for heaven's sake don't move it in an arc; people will have a harder time focusing on it. Show it stationary in sections of the audience, so people have time to see and register it...

[Bill Mullins]

And while we're at it, if you are showing a card to a large group of people, for heaven's sake don't move it in an arc; people will have a harder time focusing on it. Show it stationary in sections of the audience, so people have time to see and register it...

Same thing if you are showing that a tube or some other container is empty.

[Tom Stone]

The results of the survey have just been published:
https://arkaneshop.com/journal/bridge-cards-survey/

[Tom Moore]

if you’re performing for any more than one single person you should be using large index cards

Unless you are on stage, when they become a hindrance. [cf Maven, MAGIC magazine]

Ok I'll bite.... why are large index cards a hinderance on stage?

[Ian Kendall]

Well, you could read the article, but briefly;

At a distance of more than six to ten feet, people do not read cards by their indices, but by looking at the pattern of pips on the face. On large index cards, this image is smaller than normal, making it harder to read the card.

[Tom Moore]

Oddly I don't have a full set of Magic Magazine's sitting on my shelf and since I think Max has probably appeared in Magic Mag many times i don't think your citation would help me find the particular article you think i should read very easily?

Surely though what you're saying is effect not cause. From a distance people go by the shape of the pips BECAUSE they cannot easily read the index and so on a large index card it doesn't matter that they can't count the individual dots because they can see the index?
Aside from environments where you can force a card with suitable white space that the audience can read it from a distance surely large index cards are still the safest way to ensure freely selected cards are visible to the largest number of people? If your audience is at such a distance that they can't read the large index then they probably couldn't accurately count the number of dots on a regular size playing card accurately either and the whole issue becomes one of trusting your declared value of the card, all wrapped up in the question as to why one would be doing such a small trick (that requires the audience to recognise tiny details) on such a big stage?

[Ian Kendall]

A quick Google would have told you it's in the June 1994 Parallax column (albeit in a quote from me), and all MAGICs are available online to subscribers, but I take your point.

As to your second section, I mention this in The Lost Luggage Show book (as well as a couple of other places). On stage, I believe that you should stop doing card tricks, and instead use tricks with cards. By that I mean routines where the values of the cards are less important. For parlour, I would return to my earlier post on the thread (and elsewhere), that real people don't care what cards we use, and if jumbo index cards are your thing, then you do you. I would, however, take issue with your statement that people _should_ be using them.

[Q. Kumber]

Supreme Magic was internationally known for its tricks for children's entertainers, the best known of those being Farmyard Frolics. The cards used (about 8" x 10") were basic pictures of animals and were occasionally criticised as being too simple, the artwork old fashioned etc.

However the main reason for the simple artwork was so it could be seen from a distance. Each image had a thick black line outlining it. Ian Adair told me when Edwin was developing a new trick with artwork, they'd both go to a local hall and Ian would keep walking backwards to see how far he could go and still make out the image.

I would avoid large index cards anyway as the majority of people are not familiar with them. Even if you hand a deck of them to a regular card player who is onstage helping you, they will have to spread the cards wider than normal to see them, making them more nervous and likely to drop them or miss a card they are looking for.

A line given to me by Eric Sharp if using playing cards in a children's show. I used for the Last Card routine. A child has chosen a card: "Show the card to the audience and if you are not sure of its name, remember what it looks like." For children, best use Hearts as they know what shape they are.

When I used a Dippy Duck routine, I had a gag I would use with the smallest child at the party, preferably a three year-old. We've reached the stage where the cards are in the holder. I'd point to the smallest child and say, "Think of any card in the pack, any one at all." At which point a parent will be signalling that the child is too small to know any card. I ignored them. That was part of the set up.
Looking at the child, I'd say, as I nodded my head, "Are you thinking of one."
They always agreed.
The duck would pick a card. I'd show it to the child as I again nodded my head, "Is this it."
They always agreed.
Big laugh from the parents.