Card To Wallet

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.
Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 25th, 2009, 2:20 am

NCMarsh wrote:Someone, and I wish I could cite them but have forgotten the source, said that the key to narrative writing was to surprise the audience in a predictable way

Which is why David Regal's Cups and Balls and Cups and Balls is both a commercial effect, and a brilliantly artistic creation. Just as Picasso's Bull's Head from a bicycle seat is obvious after the fact, it took an artist to see it, and to show it to us.

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 25th, 2009, 2:30 am

David Alexander wrote: Fail to surprise an audience and you fail in your role as a magician.

Levitatitions are not surprising.
Mental effects are not generally suprising.
Restoration effects are seldom surprising.
Vanishes are seldom surprising.
A very large percentage of magic effects rely on repetition for their impact. Repetition is seldom surprising.

Which is guess is why we need to produce jumbo coins after doing something as mysterious and perfect as the original Matrix...

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 25th, 2009, 2:40 am

This is just another version of the art vs commerce argument with the artistes claiming authority over what is real or good while those who toil in the trenches actually doing the work are looked down upon for commercializing the art. It is a boring waste of time.

Im sorry if you misunderstood me David. It wasnt supposed to be a version of the art vs. commerce argument; it was the art vs. commerce argument. Bonus points for dragging the discussion down to street level by referring to me as an artiste. Was that meant to imply Im both effeminate, and pretentious?

As for claiming authority, well, Im just stating my opinions, which have only the authority of their own merit.

To be clear: I have the utmost admiration, and respect, for people who can commercialize art; people like David Acer, Mike Close, Max Maven, Darwin Ortiz, David Regal, and Tommy Wonder. I consider them artists on par with Dali, or Gaughin. There are others of course; Im just listing personal favorites. I have little interest in people who paint pictures of Elvis on velvet, or who sell sofa-sized paintings.

Making a living doing magic does not make someone better at magic, or at entertaining, than someone who earns their keep otherwise, and studies magic as an art first, without desire of selling its performance. McDonalds sells more food than Wolfgang Puck. Ive had both their cooking, and his. Ill take the artiste every day.

Given how low the expectations of most laymen are, and how qualified they are to judge magic (cf. your own posts about Americas Got Talent) I cant imagine that being commercial matters at all. The vast majority of people involved in magic are hobbyists who wont ever need to make a living performing so, it seems to me they might as well focus on the artistic side of things, since the only ones they need to please are themselves.
The true skill of the magician lies in the creation of the illusion of magic in the mind of the spectator.

Thats not skill, its competence... If you dont create the illusion of magic, youre not a magician. The degree of skill determines how deeply the illusion is felt, how lasting that impression is, and how the audience feels about the person who created that illusion.

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2507
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Ian Kendall » June 25th, 2009, 3:30 am

Quoth David: I can assure you that while it lacks the "logic" some amateurs demand, it stuns audiences.

Apart from apparantly lumping me in with the 'amateurs', I did not say that these effects did not make an impression. I only said that I did not care for them.

Malini's ice production is a classic example of this (and I knew it would come up somewhere along the line), and I put it in the same group as Gordon Bruce's brick production. Startling and memorable to the observers, but I would never perform magic like that. It's not me, or my style. I've never used sponge balls, either.

As for David's assertation that 'artistes' cannot be in the trenches (or even artists), I find that almost as obtuse as his 'street magic is pointless' thread from last year.

Take care, Ian

El Mystico
Posts: 1023
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby El Mystico » June 25th, 2009, 7:10 am

I think David has a good point that the climaxes do not need to be logical.
But I think there is more to it than this. A few weeks ago David wrote his deservedly much praised post on his approach to performance. David - you talked about performing Balls in the net, Hanky Panky, copper silver, filtration straight from Vernon, Hindu Yarn, the card stab, and Le Paul's cards to envelope. Superb material.

But - when you did balls in the net, did you end by changing them to giant balls? When you did Hanky Panky, did you change the cigarette into a block of ice? when you did copper silver, did you vanish the coins and produce them from your wallet? I won't go on. You get my point. I suspect you didn't (maybe i'm wrong?). And I suspect you had a good reason for not doing so.

So - there must be more to this than the idea that working professionals go for the bang to please the audience, while amateur technicians amuse themsleves.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8357
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Agnes comes to set things right all dressed in pangloss.

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 25th, 2009, 7:50 am

Just as some use a magic wand as a social crutch where simple good manners would suffice, we have some who can't sell a straight up routine and so seek other applause cues. It does not take long for the tyro to learn how a little distraction and an appearing giant non sequitor (Agnes) serves as applause cue in much the same way as the deus ex machina was used to resolve dramas in ancient Greek theater.

The arrival of Agnes, be it in the form of statues of gods, doves and puppies or a paperweight - it's the same thing folks a cue for the audience to know that the piece is over.

Thats not skill, its competence... If you dont create the illusion of magic, youre not a magician. The degree of skill determines how deeply the illusion is felt, how lasting that impression is, and how the audience feels about the person who created that illusion.


I suspect that the last part about "how the audience feels about [the performer]" is its own factor apart from how much they are affected by the magical effects.
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on June 25th, 2009, 8:00 am, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: Calling Doctor Bombay, Derwood bought a magic set.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 25th, 2009, 9:46 am

This is just another version of the art vs commerce argument with the artistes claiming authority over what is real or good while those who toil in the trenches actually doing the work are looked down upon for commercializing the art. It is a boring waste of time.

I agree with this with the exception that it is a boring waste of time.
To be clear: I have the utmost admiration, and respect, for people who can commercialize art; people like David Acer, Mike Close, Max Maven, Darwin Ortiz, David Regal, and Tommy Wonder. I consider them artists on par with Dali, or Gaughin. There are others of course; Im just listing personal favorites. I have little interest in people who paint pictures of Elvis on velvet, or who sell sofa-sized paintings.

My list would not include any of who are on your list. My list would be Billy Bishop, Jay Marshall, Jack Pyle, Don Alan, Tony Marks, Bev Bergeron, Mark Wilson, Billy McComb, Harry Lorayne, Marshall Brodien, Terry Veckey, Bill Malone, Bill Weimer, Glenn Haywood, John Shirley, Hebba Habba AL, And more!

Lets explore that for a moment.

Not only did the above make a living by performing magic they did magic very well and one could call them an artist.

Lets explore art for a moment. Art is subjective - that is in my opinion where one person might see art another might not see art.

See what I am getting at? As I remember Robert-Houdin what magicians do is perform and if they are good they create the illusion of magic in the mind of the audience. Some might say that without the audience - there is no magic only science. Or perhaps without the audience there is only magic of the craft but no "art of illusion".

In my opinion the "art" of magic is in the "performance" in front of the lay audience and a magician becomes an artist at the highest level (if they do it well that is) when they perform for a lay audience - in a way where there is illusion there is art.

Or perhaps where one might find illusion one might find art!

And if I may add - in my opinion - the "art of illusion" is also created in the mind of the "audience". Or perhaps in my opinion what I am saying that in my opinion without the audience magic isn't an art!

Just my opinion!

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 25th, 2009, 1:13 pm

To be clear: I have the utmost admiration, and respect, for people who can commercialize art; people like David Acer, Mike Close, Max Maven, Darwin Ortiz, David Regal, and Tommy Wonder. I consider them artists on par with Dali, or Gaughin. There are others of course; Im just listing personal favorites.


My list would not include any of who are on your list - and if I may add here the reason is that I have never seen - or it has not been my privilege to see any of these magicians perform live. There are a lot of magicians and magician artists that I have not been lucky enough to see perform live.

My list is a short list of magicians that I have seen perform live several times over time!

And I would also like to add this opinion speaking as a member of the magic audience. I have seen artist magicians that have performed magic in a pizza pub - like Bill Malone at Houdini's Pub.

To David Roth perform outstanding coin work in front of a room full of magicians and get a standing ovation.

In the world of art and illusion and in my opinion I think that there is room for a lot of different kinds of magic artists in the magic world. That is why I would like to add in my opinion that I do use all the points of view that have been talked about in this thread of card to wallet.

I use my dads method using the business card wallet and travelers in a formal magic close up show.

And I use the card to wallet as a single card to wallet in my ambitious card routine - and I also perform it as a single trick - signed card to wallet as a go back routine in a restaurant situation - when I am called back to a table I have already entertained at and want to perform one short strong card trick for them.

In my opinion they can all work. I am sorry if their are any misunderstandings in any of my opinions posted in this thread.

Just my opinion.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8357
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 25th, 2009, 4:21 pm

Glenn, if getting the last of the four travelers out of your wallet works for you - that's what counts.

Here's a real question: What if when you reached into your pants pocket for a card you first removed your keys and then went back in to fish out the card. Then when going for that last card you reach in - pull out your wallet and then go fishing for the card - and look puzzled for a moment as you don't seem to find it in your jacket pocket. After looking at the audience for a beat you pick up the wallet and squeeze it - and then register some understanding and surprise - and open the wallet to find what's inside there. Does that seem to make sense from a character and audience perspective?

Jon
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4242
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby mrgoat » June 25th, 2009, 5:33 pm

Glenn Bishop wrote:. Or perhaps in my opinion what I am saying that in my opinion without the audience magic isn't an art!

Just my opinion!


Probably the most 'my opinion' utterances in the shortest space of time yet.

A new Bish record.

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1259
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby AJM » June 25th, 2009, 5:41 pm

As somebody famous once said (I've no idea who): -

"Opinions are like buttocks; everyone has them but it's usually unwise to air them in public"

Just my opinion.

Murph the erm..Smurff
Corner-person Begrudger

David Alexander
Posts: 1549
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Aurora IL

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby David Alexander » June 25th, 2009, 6:18 pm

Bill Duncan wrote:
David Alexander wrote: Fail to surprise an audience and you fail in your role as a magician.

Levitatitions are not surprising.
Mental effects are not generally suprising.
Restoration effects are seldom surprising.
Vanishes are seldom surprising.
A very large percentage of magic effects rely on repetition for their impact. Repetition is seldom surprising.

Which is guess is why we need to produce jumbo coins after doing something as mysterious and perfect as the original Matrix...


Levitation with a surprise ending: Asrah

Mental effects with a surprise ending: see Derren Brown or David Berglas or Docc Hilford for material with multiple and surprising endings. I do a few myself.

Restoration with a surprising ending: Frakson's T&R Newspaper, appropriated by several performers over the years.

Vanish that is surprising: Vanishing Birdcage.

It also depends on how the set up for the effect is done with the audience expecting one thing and experiencing another.

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 25th, 2009, 10:47 pm

Glenn Bishop wrote:My list would not include any of who are on your list - and if I may add here the reason is that I have never seen - or it has not been my privilege to see any of these magicians perform live. There are a lot of magicians and magician artists that I have not been lucky enough to see perform live.

Glen,
I never had the chance to see Tommy Wonder live, but we do have his Visions of Wonder and a lecture DVD to remind us of how very good he was. It has been my experience that thought it may be true that some performers don't "translate" to video recording, if someone is a wonderful performer when seen on the small screen that they will not be a disappointment when you see them live.

If you haven't seen and don't own Visions of Wonder, you are really missing something. If you miss a chance to see any of the living gentlemen live, you're missing even more.

best,
bill

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 25th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Oh for Pete's sake David. Yes... there are versions of those effects that end in surprise. You can end Matrix with a surprise, but that doesn't mean you have to.

None of your examples changes the fact that your initial post was nonsense.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 26th, 2009, 10:37 am

Thanks for the tip Bill on Tommy Wonder's DVD.

On one hand I think that video is great and without it there are some magic performnaces and lectures that magicians of today might not have gotten a chance to see.

Having grown up in a show business family. I had the luck of seeing quite a few performers do their shows - live and many over and over again. And some of them were on my list and I would rather watch a performer live than on a DVD or video on the web.

However getting back to the card to wallet.

One of the bits Jack Pyle used to do was the card to pocket. When it came time to produce the card he would take all sorts of things out of his pocket and hand them to the spectator to hold.

Keys, rabbits foot, a yo yo and a handful of stuff and the last thing he would take out of his pocket was the selected card.

I have used the same gag for card to pocket - card to matchbook - and card to wallet.

I remember this from watching Jack Pyle perform live in front of a lay audience. And that was one of the ways I learned how to work with the audience.

Just my opinion

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 26th, 2009, 5:31 pm

Glenn Bishop wrote:However getting back to the card to wallet.

One of the bits Jack Pyle used to do was the card to pocket. When it came time to produce the card he would take all sorts of things out of his pocket and hand them to the spectator to hold.

Keys, rabbits foot, a yo yo and a handful of stuff and the last thing he would take out of his pocket was the selected card.

I have used the same gag for card to pocket - card to matchbook - and card to wallet.


Glenn, it's not just a gag. It's a conditional aspect [communicated as part of the presentation] that reinforces to the lay audience the impossibility of getting the card into the wallet. Again, not merely a case of "just shoving the card in the wallet".

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1600
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Bill Duncan » June 27th, 2009, 2:14 am

Glen,
I wonder if pulling a bunch of stuff out might lead folks to think you had lots of chances to stuff something in the wallet?

I like the comedy of unloading the pocket though. Perhaps it would be better to use the gag to load the indifferent card for The Homing Card. That way you'd be emptying the pocket before the card was selected.

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 27th, 2009, 2:32 am

Bill Duncan wrote:I wonder if pulling a bunch of stuff out might lead folks to think you had lots of chances to stuff something in the wallet?


Unbelievable.

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 27th, 2009, 3:29 am

Or to put it another way: load, come out with some keys, showing hand clearly empty. Go to pocket and pull another item out, showing hand empty. Return to pocket and pull the wallet out, showing hand empty.

"lead folks to think you had lots of chances..."

Try not to think like a magician.

erlandish
Posts: 58
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:18 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby erlandish » June 27th, 2009, 4:11 am

Actually, Bill's analysis feels right to me. And yeah, I do perform this for a living for real people. To me, the major selling point is the speed of the load versus the time it takes to reveal the card afterwards. It's all about the unclasping and the unzippering, and if the question they ask is "How the heck did it get in there?" then the last thing I want to let them think could have happened was that I has the opportunity to zipper and clasp the thing in my pocket. That'd be both the intuitive solution and a fair suspicion on their part -- a speedy load and production of the wallet doesn't even allow that suspicion a chance to arise. It's like rolling up your sleeves for a coin flurry even if you never planned on using sleeves in the first place.

For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing one from producing the wallet first in that bit of comedy business. That's the way I do it, and it still plays just as strong. The really good opportunities for the comedy come from the nature of the things you produce from your pocket anyways.

El Mystico
Posts: 1023
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby El Mystico » June 27th, 2009, 4:39 am

"Try not to think like a magician"?
Nathan, I don't think he was. Audiences don't think it is real magic.

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 27th, 2009, 10:16 am

erlandish wrote:For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing one from producing the wallet first in that bit of comedy business.


Huh?

That's the way I do it, and it still plays just as strong. The really good opportunities for the comedy come from the nature of the things you produce from your pocket anyways.


I don't believe you. But perhaps it's your magnetic personality. In which case, why bother with he magic?

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 27th, 2009, 10:16 am

El Mystico wrote:"Try not to think like a magician"?
Nathan, I don't think he was. Audiences don't think it is real magic.


Who said they do?

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 27th, 2009, 11:07 am

I try not to be married to any one way of doing things. In my opinion the card to wallet, envelope, matchbox, matchbook, pocket are very close to the same effect - speaking from the lay audience point of view in my opinion that is.

I may do my another look at rub a dub dub routine that is a double card to pocket with Vernon's rub a dub dub ideas.

Or I might do Harry Lorayne's Magician VS. the gambler.

Or I might use the ambitious card or the travelers as a lead in to the envelope or the business card wallet.

Or I may do it the LePaul way loading four or five cards into the envelope at the same time.

Back when I was a pro magician in my late 20's I went to see Dai Vernon perform his lecture in Iowa. At this convention I got my LePaul Wallet. I wanted one of these wallets for a very long time and this one was well made.

I got home and decided that this was one of my favorite magic tricks with cards and I worked out a routine with it that I thought would be a wonderful routine. I showed it to many people in the magic shop as I worked it out.

Then I showed it to Terry Veckey and he said I was working to hard. I can palm a card and stick it in my pocket - load it under a drink - or put it on my forehead - why not palm it and stick it in the wallet?

I considered that the same advice Ken Brooke gave on an audio tape - he said how he got a card to the top - he cut it to the top but it took him thirty years to learn that.

So what works with me today - twenty years later - palm it and stick it - while having fun with the audience.

If I may add if I were doing a show and working - doing a card to matchbook - forcing a duplicate card that was in the matchbook also works - as a friend of mine did for years at the New York Lounge. And I think that is how Malini might have done it - using a matching matchbook of some guest - or loading it ahead of time into some object that was around the home he was performing at.

I have no problem with any of the methods.

Just my opinion.

El Mystico
Posts: 1023
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby El Mystico » June 27th, 2009, 2:00 pm

Glenn;
I've got a lot of time for what you are saying here.

I think one aspect of this discussion which probably merits more discussion is - the nature of the audience. For reasons I find hard to explain, I have often found myself performing to doctors consultants and surgeons over the past twenty years. Intelligent, educated people, who are used to high quality entertainment.
Now, take card to wallet. I will generally load the card when I'm returning the pen to my pocket (can anyone tell me who came up with this wonderful dodge?). And I've learned that a proportion of my audience will appreciate the fact that when I get out the wallet to produce the card, my hand is empty.
On the other hand, for many audiences, particuarly after they've had a few drinks, this aspect is completely wasted on them.
Now because I know my routine inside out after twenty years, I always use the pen dodge, even when I know it is not necessary.
I also do Vernon's Topping the Deck palm, because to my mind it is the most perfect one card palm there is. I learned from Fred Robinson, whose misdirection was second to none; but so was his technique. As he said - even if the misdirection doesnt get them, the technique will so they don't stand a chance. So I learned to do "Topping" automatically. So I do it even when the audience is fried, and I might as well be grabbing the card from the pack. In a sense this is wasted skill; but because I do "Topping" as easily as a grab, it's not an issue. Plus, once in a whie, you get the person like I had earlier this year, who was drunk, but had made their mind up that they were not going to be misdirected, and were going to stare at the cards the whole time. And were still fried.

However, I still think that this is such a strong trick it does not need something like Travelers beforehand. I think Travelers does not add to it; and I think Card to Wallet is so strong, it makes people forget the Travelers strengths.

I'd also add that while I would perform Travelers for Consultants, I would not waste time performing it for drunks.

erlandish
Posts: 58
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:18 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby erlandish » June 27th, 2009, 4:47 pm

Nathan Muir wrote:
erlandish wrote:For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing one from producing the wallet first in that bit of comedy business.


Huh?

That's the way I do it, and it still plays just as strong. The really good opportunities for the comedy come from the nature of the things you produce from your pocket anyways.


I don't believe you. But perhaps it's your magnetic personality. In which case, why bother with he magic?


Let me try this again.

In my view, the real appeal of the sequence is the fact that a whole bunch of stuff is coming out of the pockets. The trouble in any card-to-pocket/wallet situation is motivating the trip to the pocket -- covering the retreat from the deck, as it were. One way is to take the Grippo/Carlyle route, and make the initial trip fair. By replacing the card in the pocket after you name it, you've motivated a reason to return to the pocket to reveal it. This helps to cover the method.

If, on the other hand, you're going to the pocket in order to do some bit of comedy business, then when you DO that comedy business, you've in essence provided justification for going to the pocket in the first place. Retroactively, it can be rationalized as being part of the show, and so long as it doesn't explain the magic itself, you're not in trouble.

In my case, I produce the wallet first because the card is supposed to be under the wallet in my back pocket. Instead, I pull something else out. Everybody's attention is on it, I make an apologetic joke, and it gets the laugh necessary. One could keep going with this as well. So long as the deck is out of play at this point, and the wallet remains in view, and the initial production of the wallet isn't belaboured, you lose nothing in conviction in the effect that you wouldn't already have if you'd just produced the wallet straight away.

However, if it were done differently, if I kept making trips to that back pocket in order to do the comedy, and then produced the wallet at the end of it, I believe the idea of having the comedy act as a cover for the technique would be much more obvious. All those trips could come across as fiddling around, and I really could be jamming a card in there, zipping it up and then clasping it shut. Heck, some enterprising magician would probably consider this a clever method and publish it.

Incidentally, Bill has a great idea for another rationale for going to the pocket to get the wallet in Tubthumping. I've used that as well, and it's played quite nicely.

If you're married to the idea of producing the wallet at the end, though, at the very least you can add an extra layer of deception to it. Go to the pocket to proudly announce that the card has jumped there, and when you produce a library card, sheepishly announce that it's in disguise. "No really! That's EXTRA magic!" Apologize, go back to the pocket, produce other things that either have inherent comedy value or else bank on the sheer volume of things to be the comedy value itself, and then finally re-steal the card, under cover of going to the other pocket with your other hand, and in the flurry go to the wallet in a completely different pocket, such as the inside jacket. At this point they'd be harder pressed to say that you could have assembled everything in your trips there.
Last edited by erlandish on June 27th, 2009, 4:52 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: typos

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 27th, 2009, 5:48 pm

I was quite surprised El Mystico with the quote that you said that was from the revelations video. Considering that my Dad said that he saw Vernon use the LePaul envelope mystery to climax the travelers routine. And that was the way he showed it at this lecture my Dad booked Vernon at.

I like the action palms like the shuffle palm. I also like to be very direct when using the LePaul Wallet.

I also like card tricks where lots of people pick a card and I find the card to envelope wallet as a very strong follow up routine in many situations - loading the same cards into the wallet after they are signed.

Yes - a lot of guys I have worked with like the pen in the pocket as an excuse to go to the pocket to load the wallet. I like to load and then take something out of the wallet and then set the wallet on the table.

Then I like to kill a lot of time before the cards are produced - but that is just me. I don't think I need to show my hand empty when reaching for the wallet with the palmed cards - I just do it and pull out the wallet and open and do a sight gag. Set the wallet on the table and later the cards are found in the wallet in the envelope.

However when working table to table I don't like the set up and most often do a card to pocket or a card to deck box.

I would like to find a nice wallet like the one Jack Pyle used with just a zippered side.

Later!

El Mystico
Posts: 1023
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby El Mystico » June 27th, 2009, 6:05 pm

Hi Glenn;
on the Vernon quote - you need to bear in mind that Vernon was always trying to improve his routines. So what he did in one lecture, he may well have discarded later. There are lots of examples of this, both in his books and on the Revelations DVDs.
I guess (against myself) it should be acknowledged that, when he did the Revelations series, while he was speaking from a lifetime's experience, he was many years past performing regularly for non-magicians.
It just so happens that here, I think he was right that, if you are going to do card to wallet, there is no benefit from preceeding it with Travelers.
I wonder if this is similar to the point that Terry Veckey was making to you?

Whatever; I do agree that your/Pyle's approach of putting the wallet on the table then returning to it later achieves the same end as the 'pen load' dodge.

I also appreciated Pyle's idea in your earlier post of having the card in wallet as a repeat discovery. I think this sort of presentational ploy is worth far more than many of the variants of tricks put in print today.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 27th, 2009, 6:33 pm

David Alexander wrote:This is just another version of the art vs commerce argument with the artistes claiming authority over what is real or good while those who toil in the trenches actually doing the work are looked down upon for commercializing the art. It is a boring waste of time.

There are a few who combine both art and commerce and do it beautifully and successfully. Don Alan was one. His act is worthy of study and the Racherbaumer book on Dons work is a fine learning tool to study his approach, especially his superb timing.

I would value the opinion of several people named when discussing technique but would give their opinions far less credit when it came to presentation and entertainment value as they primarily entertained amateur magicians, not lay audiences.

The true skill of the magician lies in the creation of the illusion of magic in the mind of the spectator. How this is accomplished a well-disguised self-working effecta mechanical deckadvanced sleight-of-hand is far less important than the creation of the illusion (the effect) and the entertainment derived from the presentation.


I just wanted to add that I agree with this above post. It takes me back to the old magic shop days.

And remembering the conversation that I had with Ed Marlo on the subject and speaking of magic - Ed Marlo's argument in those days was correct.

The production of a big object or one from left field - it can be argued that the lay audience would not remember the four coins jumping in a matrix routine - or the three balls passing in the cups and balls and then the big balls are produced.

And I have had this kind of a conversation before with many magician artist - purest - sleight of hand artist in magic that seems to want to make a case out of it. Speaking from a pure magic point of view I would agree that Ed Marlo was correct in his opinion.

However being a friend of Don Alan and speaking from the larger show business point of view I would say that Don Alan was correct in his opinion. Watching him all those years - the big loads he did - that is what his audiences were talking about. Now to talk about Don Alan and Ed Marlo and their different points of view - both of them had their own way and their own success in magic.

Ed Marlo like to use a large mat and do the spreads with cards and could entertain with only one deck of cards. Don Alan used a small mat and lots of props - and several decks of cards in his show - many of them trick decks.

Marlo liked to do "magic". Don Alan said that he did "tricks".

Ed Marlo said to me that the big production of a coin in the matrix routine wasn't even a trick - if you want to do a trick with a big coin take a small coin and (spellbound) turn it into a big coin.

As I remember that is a strong argument!

However Don Alan worked for the same kind of clients that I wanted to work for in the lay audience. And being a fan of Malini like Don Alan was - I liked the reaction of the big load from left field.

Even when I have seen Ed Marlo perform magic for the lay audience and they liked what he did. He was a warm person that had humor and did some great card stuff. He was not working for the lay audience in the same way Don Alan was. I would have the opinion that Ed Marlo was not in the trenches in the same way or even as often as Don Alan was.

I credit Malini as being the magician that took the body loads of the stage magician and made them practical for what we call the close up magician of today. And if I may add that from the show business point of view - the larger market place. Don Alan (my dad, Jay Marshall) really knew and lived show business!

By the way - I know more ways than I need to - to force a card however when I do the card duck in my stand up show - I use a svengali deck. Just the same way I might use a duplicate card and force the card - for a show - when doing the card to matchbook.

I have had one or two purest magicians ask me - why would I use the svengali deck when I can force a card? I asked them why would I need to force a card? He answered then I can have the deck examined before I do the trick.

I asked - why would I need to have the deck examined?

(The old Al Baker line fits in here - why run when no one is chasing you!)

And it went on from there. I wish David was there to say - "The true skill of the magician lies in the creation of the illusion of magic in the mind of the spectator. How this is accomplished a well-disguised self-working effecta mechanical deckadvanced sleight-of-hand is far less important than the creation of the illusion (the effect) and the entertainment derived from the presentation."

Because forcing a card and doing skill or technical things in that kind of a show is not the goal. However entertaining the audience - was.

Just my opinion.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 27th, 2009, 6:57 pm

El Mystico wrote:Hi Glenn;
on the Vernon quote - you need to bear in mind that Vernon was always trying to improve his routines. So what he did in one lecture, he may well have discarded later. There are lots of examples of this, both in his books and on the Revelations DVDs.
I guess (against myself) it should be acknowledged that, when he did the Revelations series, while he was speaking from a lifetime's experience, he was many years past performing regularly for non-magicians.


I think that your right and when my Dad saw Vernon it was just a few years after the stars of magic was published. And at the time the stuff was new. I think he was around 60 when my Dad saw him. Sometime late 40's before 1950 because my dad and mom moved to New York in 1950.

I think that people change with age and experience and opinion over time.

However I am a big fan of the book the stars of magic and I like a lot of Vernon's early work!

El Mystico wrote:
It just so happens that here, I think he was right that, if you are going to do card to wallet, there is no benefit from preceeding it with Travelers.
I wonder if this is similar to the point that Terry Veckey was making to you?

I agree with your point of view and Vernon's point of view speaking as a magician. But as a showman and working - I have no problem with my dads way of doing it. I have seen him blow away a roomful of people with the business card ending for the travlers as part of his formal close up card routine.

From a business - and showmanship - and an entertainment point of view I would say that my Dad was right too!

El Mystico wrote:
It just so happens that here, I think he was right that, if you are going to do card to wallet, there is no benefit from preceeding it with Travelers.
I wonder if this is similar to the point that Terry Veckey was making to you?

As I remember Terry Veckey liked the way my dad did the travelers and the business card idea. Terry Veckey is a great close up magician that is very commercial.

El Mystico wrote:
Whatever; I do agree that your/Pyle's approach of putting the wallet on the table then returning to it later achieves the same end as the 'pen load' dodge.

I also appreciated Pyle's idea in your earlier post of having the card in wallet as a repeat discovery. I think this sort of presentational ploy is worth far more than many of the variants of tricks put in print today.

I also like the Rolland Hamblin Jailed card idea using the plastic case and the rubber bands and I have been trying to work out a cool way of using that instead of the envelope.

Later!

Nathan Muir
Posts: 136
Joined: June 7th, 2009, 1:48 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Nathan Muir » June 27th, 2009, 9:25 pm

erlandish wrote:If you're married to the idea of producing the wallet at the end, though, at the very least you can add an extra layer of deception to it.


I wonder, do you get that the point of this idea of pulling several items out of the pocket before you get to the wallet is to demonstrate that the wallet was hard to reach and therefore to highlight the impossibility of the card appearing in the wallet?

Do you get that? It's not about the gags. If you are pulling odd things out of your pants after taking the wallet out then that is a separate presentational issue.

erlandish
Posts: 58
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:18 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby erlandish » June 28th, 2009, 3:49 am

Nathan Muir wrote:I wonder, do you get that the point of this idea of pulling several items out of the pocket before you get to the wallet is to demonstrate that the wallet was hard to reach and therefore to highlight the impossibility of the card appearing in the wallet?


For card to pocket? Yes.

For card to wallet? No. A wallet is a big fat thing that should be very easy to grab a hold of from your pocket, if your intent is to fetch it. And, if your intent is NOT to fetch the wallet, then it should make no appreciable difference logically if the wallet comes out of the pocket first or last -- unless the spectator has a chance to suspect that you're using all those multiple trips to the wallet's pocket to get the thing into place, which would be a reasonable suspicion upon revealing the card FROM the wallet. Every single time I do this effect, they know that there's a clasp and a zipper there. These things sell the effect -- you accused Bill of thinking like a magician, but thinking like a magician is to ignore the importance of those barriers.

I don't bother with the envelope myself, but I'm also willing to bet that the swift production of the wallet heightens the mystery of it being sealed in the envelope as well.

Also, if verisimilitude is important at all, then it makes no sense to stuff your wallet pocket with a bunch of other stuff, since that would make real-life dealings difficult -- you'd have to go through the same absurdity just to pay for a cup of coffee.

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 28th, 2009, 10:46 am

erlandish wrote:
For card to pocket? Yes.

For card to wallet? No.


For card to wallet - Yes!

The card or cards are signed - they go in the deck. The deck is shuffled by the audience. Three cards leave the deck into different pockets (as in the travelers) the last card the magician can't find it.

It must be somewhere so the magician starts to look for the last card in his pocket again and doesn't find it - as he searches several different pockets - implying sort of a where did I put it - absent minded sort of presentation almost as if the magician misplaced the last card and he cant remember where he put it.

And the last card - where is the last card?

So he looks in the deck (like he made a mistake) - in the deck box - under the close up mat then starts to look in his pockets.

And the last card - where is the last card?

After he searches through his pockets once he looks again and this time digs deeper and as he looks for the card again in several different pockets he starts to remove several different things from many pockets and hands then to the spectator to hold as he looks for the last card.

One of them is the wallet.

And the last card - where is the last card? (The line is a running gag).

After looking for the card and then he can't find it the magician pauses as if he is puzzled - almost as an afterthought - the magician remembers - look in the wallet - the last signed card is found.

In my opinion magic tricks or effects don't have to be logical. It's magic and a lot of different things can work. As for me - I like the build up to the routine and yes I did add some of Jack Pyles style into my dads ideas - in doing so it made me different from both of them.

However that is just one way and depending how I am working - a formal close up show or walk around I may choose to do it different that evening.

Just my opinion.

User avatar
Efendi Kwok
Posts: 44
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 9:22 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Efendi Kwok » June 28th, 2009, 12:02 pm

Glenn opinions above is different view with erlandish.

Glenn is discussing multiple pockets, before reaching the wallet, but the one erlandish mentioned is :

Nathan Muir wrote:I wonder, do you get that the point of this idea of pulling several items out of the pocket before you get to the wallet is to demonstrate that the wallet was hard to reach and therefore to highlight the impossibility of the card appearing in the wallet?


As for me, I never had a hard time to reach my wallet and pull it out. Even in my tight jeans :/
Too much browsing, too much reading, too much learning, yet NOT MUCH practice ! *sigh*

User avatar
Michael Kamen
Posts: 338
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Michael Kamen » June 28th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Erlandish makes a good point about the ease of finding the wallet. Ostensibly, you are looking for the card amongst the mess in your pocket. The wallet might be one of the first things you bring out, and hand to spectator, as you dig around for the card. Looking in the wallet is an afterthought, after failing to find the card in the pocket (mag in trouble).
Michael Kamen

erlandish
Posts: 58
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:18 pm

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby erlandish » June 28th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Glenn Bishop wrote:
erlandish wrote:
For card to pocket? Yes.

For card to wallet? No.


For card to wallet - Yes!

...snippity...

Just my opinion.


Glenn, you missed my point. I'm not saying that one cannot go searching through the pockets and pull out the wallet amongst a whole other bunch of stuff, and to reveal the card from the wallet as a last resort. I'm saying that nothing is lost by having the wallet be one of the first things pulled out -- and, in fact, if you do it that way, you don't have to deal with the suspicion that you're somehow packing the card into the wallet through the same route that you're going to reveal it. Again, it's like doing a coin flurry with your sleeves rolled down -- even if you don't use sleeving, it's a fair suspicion for your spectators to have.

In a card-to-pocket, it makes sense that the card could be under a whole bunch of stuff. In a card-to-wallet, how does it make sense that in the wallet's pocket, there's a whole bunch of stuff on top of it, making it hard for you to get at the wallet? Especially if you have to dig deep enough into that pocket to load the card in the first place?

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 28th, 2009, 8:37 pm

Efendi Kwok wrote:Glenn opinions above is different view with erlandish.

Glenn is discussing multiple pockets, before reaching the wallet


The gag of pulling lots of things from your pocket or pockets can be done with the Vernon Travelers routine - or just as a single card to wallet.

Or in a routine where a single signed card is classic forced and found in a different pocket - several times and then to end it - as a climax - the magician searches his pockets - then digs deeper and pulls lots of stuff from his pockets searching for the card - one of the things is his wallet.

Then as an afterthought the card is found in the wallet.

I use the re-Pete card to pocket and wallet the same way I do the card under the drink. The more I do it the funnier and more fun the routine gets.

I have spent about 30 years in the trenches performing close up magic and I do this kind of thing - lots of different ways.

Just my opinion.

User avatar
Efendi Kwok
Posts: 44
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 9:22 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Efendi Kwok » June 28th, 2009, 9:34 pm

Yes, Glenn, I do get your opinion ;)

But then again, please read the sentence I quoted from Nathan, in bold and italic ;)

Or .. as erlandish pointed out again:
erlandish wrote:In a card-to-wallet, how does it make sense that in the wallet's pocket, there's a whole bunch of stuff on top of it, making it hard for you to get at the wallet? Especially if you have to dig deep enough into that pocket to load the card in the first place?


See the bold and italic again :)

If you still don't get the point. Then maybe this questions will:

Out of all the things you pull out from the pocket, as a comedy routine, do you have any trouble pulling out the wallet ? Is it HARD to get the wallet and pull it out ?
Too much browsing, too much reading, too much learning, yet NOT MUCH practice ! *sigh*

Glenn Bishop
Posts: 650
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Glenn Bishop » June 29th, 2009, 12:17 am

Efendi Kwok wrote:Out of all the things you pull out from the pocket, as a comedy routine, do you have any trouble pulling out the wallet ? Is it HARD to get the wallet and pull it out ?

No I have no problem getting the wallet out of my pocket after pulling out several different things out of the same pocket and then the wallet.

And I have no problem loading the card as well.

And again I like to do this trick lots of different ways! As their are a lot of ways to do it.

Just my opinion!

User avatar
Efendi Kwok
Posts: 44
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 9:22 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Card To Wallet

Postby Efendi Kwok » June 29th, 2009, 12:29 am

Glenn Bishop wrote:No I have no problem getting the wallet out of my pocket after pulling out several different things out of the same pocket and then the wallet.


Then you're on the same view with erlandish now :) In the context of 'to demonstrate that the wallet was hard to reach' of course ;)

Which the answer is 'No' as well for me.
Too much browsing, too much reading, too much learning, yet NOT MUCH practice ! *sigh*


Return to “Close-Up Magic”