The Genii Forum

I didn't see an existing thread on this topic. (If there is one, perhaps the moderator could move this for me.)

I'm curious as to what recommendation this community would make for the best top-of-the-line wallet available for performing "card to wallet".

Specifically, I'd like one that's small and attractive enough to be used as an everyday wallet if I choose. (I recently bought the Heirloom/Shogun 2 wallet for use with the Heirloom effect. I'm having a blast performing it but....well, it's a pretty big wallet and not the prettiest thing I've ever carried my money in. :)

So...recommendations?

Thanks,
Tony

Ask Anthony Miller.

And there are likely LOTS of threads on this topic at the magic cafe.

Tony Miller sells the Hip Pocket Bombshell, Hip Pocket Mullica, Triple Threat Wallet and the Modifier.

For details, go to www.rfaproductions.com

It all depends on what the routine is. The wallet is just another impossible location.

What I've found most card guys do is get one of each type...envelope loading (LePaul), no envelope (I have one and I forget the name), no palming (Mullica) and then pick the one they need for the routine. It's like having a bunch of gimmicked cards, you pick the right tool for the effect you want.

Don't forget to take a look at the Modifier, it combines with a hip pocket wallet in a very clever way. Also David Regal's "Special Delivery" can be used in or with a wallet.

Jeff--the no envelope method is usually called the Kaps/Balducci wallet.

The most natural looking small wallet I use is the JOL Hip card to wallet. Avalible from any dealer with a murpheys account.

For any sealed envelope effects I recommend the JOL plus wallet

Steve Dela

A lot of card guys I know use "The Real Man's Wallet" by Steve Draun. I use it as my real, day-to-day wallet as well.

Just type "Real Man's Wallet" in google and you'll find the link. Highly Recommended!

The thing I don't like about the Jerry O'Connell wallets is the outside pocket -- I've never seen a (normal) wallet that had anything like that.

The Real Man's Wallet is great, as is the Modifier that Tony Miller makes (which converts any wallet into a CTW). Tony makes great stuff.

-Jim

I've been using Jerry's wallets since 1993 and have _never_ been called on the outside pocket. I have first editions of the large wallet and the billfold version.

I still think Jerry's wallets are the best available. Both double up as my everyday wallets, so I've been carrying them for over fifteen years and they are both still in excellent condition.

Take care, Ian

Randy Wakeman's Expert Card to Wallet is my favorite Balducci/Kaps type. Very low profile, very nice looking.

I know most guys don't use jacket-pocket wallets in real life, but there seems to be something about the fact that the wallet is located in what feels like the "middle of the picture frame" that makes the card transposition more impossible. When the empty hand reaches into the jacket and takes out the wallet in a very fair-looking manner, it makes a strong impression.

In my opinion, of course.

For the most part, it's irrelevant what type of wallet you use.

When Robert-Houdin was doing this 150 years ago, he used an ungimmicked wallet that had rubber bands (I think, but possibly string) all around it. You'll find it in "The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic."

It really doesn't matter: you palm the card out and stick it in whatever wallet you've got in your pocket, then bring out the wallet and open to reveal the card inside. People are amazed. Sure, if it's inside a zippered compartment they're slightly more amazed, and if it comes out of a sealed envelope they're slightly more amazed than that.

But a good performer doesn't need the fancy wallet or the envelope to make the trick a miracle. Your presentation and personality are what make the appearance of the card in your wallet a miracle--NOT the wallet.

That is an interesting view, Richard.

Are you saying the quality of the effect and the conditions have nothing to do with it? Just whether you have a winning personality?

Nathan Muir wrote:That is an interesting view, Richard.

Are you saying the quality of the effect and the conditions have nothing to do with it? Just whether you have a winning personality?

how did you get that from this? (quoted below)

Richard Kaufman wrote:...But a good performer doesn't need the fancy wallet or the envelope to make the trick a miracle. Your presentation and personality are what make the appearance of the card in your wallet a miracle--NOT the wallet.

IMHO it's not what they think so much as how they feel about the emotional moment they are led to by the performer.

Conditions don't mean so much to folks who are not enrolled and convinced of the process (and recall the too perfect theory caution on this). On the other side you already know what happens if you present the trick as an answered prayer or direct invocation of daemons (quantum, computational or otherwise) and the audience believes you.

I wrote nothing about a "winning" personality.

I wrote that your presentation and personality are what make the effect a miracle--it doesn't matter what wallet you use.

I know you didn't write that, it was an inference.

Okay, so it's presentation and personality but the quality of the effect (the methodology) is not a consideration?

I would say the performance (presentation and personality) is half the story. The wallet itself can be important, depending on conditions. For example a signed card you load from a deceptive palm under the right misdirection is going to be better than some method where you have an unsigned dupe in a wallet and force the card using maths.

The card doesn't have to be signed because it will no longer be in the deck.

The card doesn't have to be signed if you make sure your presentation emphasizes the free choice.

If you want to have the card signed, that's fine, too.

But it makes no difference what wallet you use. It's your presentation that makes the trick a miracle.

Richard Kaufman wrote:But it makes no difference what wallet you use. It's your presentation that makes the trick a miracle.

Look, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I just think this is an interesting discussion. So let me take your words and use them in a similar context, merely changing one word:

Richard Kaufman wrote:But it makes no difference what [color:#FF0000]method[/color] you use. It's your presentation that makes the trick a miracle.

Yes.

Think about it: how weak should the Mullica Wallet be?

VERY weak.

The wallet is in your hand on TOP OF THE DECK. duh.

But the fact is that it isn't weak because it doesn't matter what the method is, or what wallet you use.

It doesn't matter if you palm the card perfectly or just dump a wallet with a slit in the back on top of the deck in your hand.

It's your presentation that makes it a miracle.

Given a good wallet, competently loaded, Richard is right.

I use a Mullica wallet and the (unsigned) thought of card is under the spectator's hand (and they are absolutely certain of that fact), AFTER the card is loaded.

Since they know exactly where the card was before it is shown to have flown to the wallet, they don't have to go looking through the deck to be certain it's the same card.

Richard Kaufman wrote:Yes.

Think about it: how weak should the Mullica Wallet be?

VERY weak.

The wallet is in your hand on TOP OF THE DECK. duh.

Well, thinking about it, I seem to recall that the Mullica wallet uses a slit to load the card into a wallet within a wallet. The use of the inner wallet in the design of the Mullica wallet is the ingenious aspect that makes this design more baffling than simply loading a card through a slit in a wallet.

While I agree presentation is important, if the method is weak the miracle won't be quite as miraculous as you may suppose.

Bill Duncan wrote:Given a good wallet, competently loaded, Richard is right.

I agree.

Bill Duncan wrote:I use a Mullica wallet

Good choice.

Bill Duncan wrote: and the (unsigned) thought of card is under the spectator's hand (and they are absolutely certain of that fact), AFTER the card is loaded.

Since they know exactly where the card was before it is shown to have flown to the wallet, they don't have to go looking through the deck to be certain it's the same card.

So what you've just said is that the conditions as understood by the spectator, plus the use of a superior wallet design [Mullica] are important factors in your effect achieving maximum impact.

Then we are in agreement.

You don't need ANY of that. Just palm the card off and shove it into any wallet you have. It's the presentation that makes it a miracle.

I would agree with you that a method using a palm and load (inside the jacket) is superior.

That being the case, I agree, the presentation is the other 50% that makes it a miracle.

You don't understand my point at all. The presentation is 100% of what makes ANYTHING a MIRACLE. Otherwise it's just a card trick--and Card to Wallet is just a card trick the way most folks do it if they lack good presentation.

If presentation is 100% of any miracle, why do the trick at all? Put the deck down and start a religion.

John Scarne's performance for Tom Snyder would be an example of someone who was presenting the hell out of his Card to Wallet as a miracle, and who just palmed the card and shoved it in the wallet. Did he pull it off? Sure (eventually). Did he get a miracle? Not from what I saw.

As opposed to, say, Mike Skinner on the Tonight Show ending his Ambitious Card routine. Not a hell of a lot of presentation there ("I want you to watch something you're going to remember for quite a while"), but a lot of flawless technique, intelligent construction, a signed selection and a LePaul wallet with a wax-sealed envelope seemed to go a lot farther for him.

Just sayin'.

-T

Meanwhile, it appears that Tony Rush was asking about obtaining a quality prop, which he's entitled to do regardless of what kind of performer he may or may not be.

I use a Tony Miller Hip Shot, which is a nice quality wallet, more casual that the large pocket secretary style, and looks just as good coming out of my hip pocket as it does out of my inner jacket pocket. And it's my every day wallet.

I've also heard great things about the Draun Real Man's Wallet, but I don't own one.

-T

Francis Carlyle's "Homing Card," from Stars of Magic is a stunning effect, and doesn't require a wallet, or envelope. Bill Malone produces a selected card from an imaginary pocket. Hmmmm. It would appear that the key factors do not include a wallet per se, but rather the belief that the location of the selection, at the conclusion of the effect, is impossible. I have used all types of wallets, and the response to Card in Wallet has neither been enhanced nor diminished by the type of wallet I used. The choice actually breaks down to personal preferences. I would say, buy the wallet that appeals to you the most, for whatever reason, and know that it won't be your last purchase of Card to Wallet.

Scarne's performance on Tom Snyder was awful. I remember it well. Vernon was wise enough to refuse hundreds of requests to perform once he got to the point where he felt that he could no longer do things properly.

In my opinion one of the best card to wallet routines is the Vernon routine in the stars of magic - the 4 cards to pocket called the travelers.

My Dad booked Vernon to lecture for the Portland Or SAM. And If I remember the story right. Vernon climaxed the routine of the four cards to different pockets with the last card coming out of the LePaul sealed envelopes. As it was written up in the LePaul book the Card Magic Of LePaul.

My dad liked the idea and the routine and did it all his performing life. However being the kind of guy that liked to work with less set up. He pulled the last signed card out of a business card wallet and handed the un-gimmicked wallet to the spectator letting them open it - and the power punch of this was that when the small wallet was opened the signed card was seen under the plastic of the business card wallet.

And my Dads business cards were right there ready to be handed out in the second compartment of the wallet.

The business card wallet is one of those gems that my dad added to a routine as a performing magician. He used this in his close up work after his stage show - and when working small rooms as a formal close up stage magician in the smaller night clubs.

Glenn Bishop wrote:He pulled the last signed card out of a business card wallet and handed the un-gimmicked wallet to the spectator letting them open it - and the power punch of this was that when the small wallet was opened the signed card was seen under the plastic of the business card wallet.

And my Dads business cards were right there ready to be handed out in the second compartment of the wallet.

Your dad was obviously a smart guy, Glenn. Along with his marketing savvy and presentational skills, this story shows that he clearly understood that conditions matter to an audience. Otherwise he would never have bothered with letting them open the wallet to get the card (proving there was no slit or other gaff), or making the effort to load it behind the plastic compartment - a factor that would have added to the sense of impossibility.

Nathan Muir wrote:... Otherwise he would never have bothered with letting them open the wallet to get the card (proving there was no slit or other gaff), or making the effort to load it behind the plastic compartment - a factor that would have added to the sense of impossibility.

Isn't this called "Presentation". Presentation is not the same as patter. It's the way you present things. In the case above, he "present" a factor that would have added to the sense of impossibility.

Even when you do ACR, and your patter is just "Watch your card" then you "present" the routine, let's say you close with the bent card, this is where you "present" that there's a bent in the card.

Is it not ?

Yes - my dad was a smart guy that listened to his audience and their reaction. And over the years and after several thousand shows his magic became stronger with each performance.

And if I may add his opinion of the travelers routine as a card to pocket climaxed by the card to wallet. The routine built as each card was pulled from a different pocket - then the last card from the business card wallet - that the last guy got to open and remove his signed card.

That is part of why it made such a strong routine - and then there was the way my Dad did it.

Richard is absolutely correct. It is magicians who remember the size, color, construction of the wallet, forever looking for "the best" wallet.

Lay audiences just remember that you pulled the card out of an impossible place. As part of my restaurant work I ended with LePaul's Card in Sealed Envelope. I've done it hundreds of times and it never failed to stun as a sealed envelope is a common items that everyone was familiar with. The un-gimmicked envelope was left with the spectators as there was nothing to find.

Charlie Miller taught me a Card to Wallet with an ordinary, ungimmick walled where the chosen card ended up in one of the little plastic picture holders inside a folded wallet. The wallet was taken from the pocket and handed to the spectator who opened it themselves. It was quite strong. I don't know if it was ever published.

Card to Wallet Effect

Richard and David are absolutely correct. The effect is card to wallet not card to deluxe gimmicked wallet. The wallet itself is not necessarily gimmicked, a chute is not necessarily required for loading, and palming is not necessarily required for the effect.

Here is a method for performing the same effect using only some skill and a double backed card:

A deck is fairly shuffled and one card is freely selected. This card is signed on the face and returned to the deck. The deck is again shuffled and placed on the table before the performer.

Showing both hands empty, the performer reaches into the breast coat pocket and removes a wallet. The wallet is opened and inside is a sealed envelope. The end of the envelope is torn off and a face down playing card is removed. This card is fairly placed on top of the deck in front of the performer.

To keep grabby hands away while what has been done is recapped, the wallet is laid on the deck of cards. After the recap, the wallet is lifted off, the deck picked up, and the top card turned over. It is the signed card! This card may be given away as a souvenir.

This duplicates the card to wallet effect using only one double backed card, some card-to-top skill; and some double lift turn-over skill. The wallet was not some expensive gimmicked item. Hence, the type of wallet is not critical to the effect. It is the presentation that matters for an effect not the method.
Jim

Jim Riser wrote:Showing both hands empty, the performer reaches into the breast coat pocket and removes a wallet. The wallet is opened and inside is a sealed envelope. The end of the envelope is torn off and a face down playing card is removed. This card is fairly placed on top of the deck in front of the performer.

To keep grabby hands away while what has been done is recapped, the wallet is laid on the deck of cards. After the recap, the wallet is lifted off, the deck picked up, and the top card turned over. It is the signed card! This card may be given away as a souvenir.

This duplicates the card to wallet effect using only one double backed card, some card-to-top skill; and some double lift turn-over skill. The wallet was not some expensive gimmicked item. Hence, the type of wallet is not critical to the effect. It is the presentation that matters for an effect not the method.
Jim

(Italic emphasis mine)

That's not the same effect as what people saw Mike Skinner do on the Tonight Show. He was able to immediately hand the envelope over to a spectator and let them remove the card themselves, bypassing the suspicious shenanigans in italics.

So, to recap: the gentleman who publishes books full of new and "expert" methods says method doesn't matter, and the gentleman who manufactures high-end, high-price, high-quality props says fancy props don't matter. How do either of you make a living?

-T

Then again the card to wallet was a running gag when Jack Pyle performed. He did it several times and almost used it as an out when things went wrong. It was also almost a running gag in his close up show.

As I remember he produced a card from his wallet several times in his close up show. Using several different techniques to get to the same place.

As I saw Hebba Habba Al produced the card from under the drink several times in a row in a close up routine at the bar of the New York Lounge - for the same audience.

Jack Pyle got the same entertainment value with his card to wallet.

Me I like the card to deck box.

To each their own.

Some of the best theory and real world advice you can get is from Pat Page

http://www.llpub.com/zenshop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2145

For $12.95 not only do you get a great routine, but a lot of other tips to make this effect work.

Pat's experience with the effect revealed to him that adding an envelope to the wallet made no difference in the reaction of the audience. He has a very straight-forward approach to the wallet, shows you how to make it and tips the technique for proper misdirection.

I tend to agree with him regarding the envelope in the wallet. Either just do the envelope as originally described by LePaul and performed for years by Grippo or just have the wallet, which is convenient and no need for reset.

How would you compare the Pat Page item to the Terry Seabrook item? Asking as that was my introduction to the trick.

Nathan Muir wrote:So what you've just said is that the conditions as understood by the spectator, plus the use of a superior wallet design [Mullica] are important factors in your effect achieving maximum impact.

Then we are in agreement.

No. What I said was that if the spectator knows (with certainty) where the card is, before it's revealed in the wallet, and they don't have to search to be certain it's missing (proof is immediate) then the card does not need to be signed.

The brand of wallet doesn't matter at all. What matters is that you don't fumble the load and destroy the illusion that you have done nothing.

Efendi Kwok wrote:

Nathan Muir wrote:... Otherwise he would never have bothered with letting them open the wallet to get the card (proving there was no slit or other gaff), or making the effort to load it behind the plastic compartment - a factor that would have added to the sense of impossibility.

Isn't this called "Presentation". Presentation is not the same as patter. It's the way you present things. In the case above, he "present" a factor that would have added to the sense of impossibility.

Even when you do ACR, and your patter is just "Watch your card" then you "present" the routine, let's say you close with the bent card, this is where you "present" that there's a bent in the card.

Is it not ?

It is not.

It is a condition.

How you present it is up to you.

You could observe in a flat voice: "And look, it's trapped behind the plastic." But even that is unnecessary because even the dimmest person can see, interpret and silently conclude that the condition is impressive.