WARP WRAP

[Jon Racherbaumer]

I must have been asleep at the wheel because I missed the talk and squawk about Card Warp? And I only bring it up because it neatly dovetails into my fleeting remark (in another thread) about creating NEW EFFECTS rather than new METHODS.

To me, Roy Walton's "Card Warp" introduced a new spin on what could be called a simple CARD REVERSAL. The perception of the effect, plus the co-expressiveness of the patter and the fact that the principal card is FOLDED in half, puts it into a TOPOLOGICAL category. When some workers exclaim that the card "turns inside out," the spectator's subjective response and interpretation makes the ostensible effect much different from common reversals. It makes the effect transcendent!

The Unmentionable of course gets credit for introducing the topological aspects of having a folded card turn inside-out. He even had--if I'm not mistaken?-- the card folded in half TWICE.

As far as the credit issue regarding a prepared Warp Deck is concerned, I'm content to let that wrangle pass and accede to the Published Record. Both Maze and Ortiz are creative cardmen and are capable of discovering such a commonsensensical corollary. When I worked at P.O.E.T.S. in the 70s and started performing Card Warp after Derek Dingle explained it to me, I repeated the trick dozens of times during a given night...particularly in the bar. Therefore, I always pre-torn about half of the deck so that I could perform it 26 times without having to prepare another deck. I also used cheap Aviator cards, rather than Bikes or Tally-Hos. This notion, to me, seemed obvious...although sometimes these notions are overlooked. So what? And I did this BEFORE Darwin published it. Again...So what?

I'm certainly not going to claim any independent or inventive brilliance. It's not that big a deal!

In the end, the useful notion is admirably recorded in Darwin's book for future students to read and then apply.

Fifty years from now, whatever squabbling has occurred regarding the provence of this "incidental intelligence" (as the New Yorker magazine used to call such things)will be forgotten, along with most of the names associated with it.

Regardless, I thank Darwin for memorializing the notion in his book; I thank Richard for publishing Darwin's book and putting it into the hands of thousands; and I thank Gentleman Gene for sharing it with whomever he did... I think that their reputations for the most part are intact. Bruised egos are another matter.

Onward...

[Cugel]

I think the Ortiz idea of using a rainbow deck takes this beyond the basic idea of pre-tearing half the deck. It creates a justification for taking out a deck for one effect (and then putting it away) and avoids the sticky problems that might arise if you were to use the gaffed deck for other effects, for example: you could never have a spectator shuffle the cards.

I think this needs to be acknowledged to avoid the 'me too' dilution that tends to occur when magicians discuss independent invention.

Just a thought,
Andrew

[Guest]

Hey,
I thought this topic was locked ;)

D.Conn

PS:

GREAT post Jon. Insightful thoughts, puts things in perspective.

Ditto to Wimhurst... Good points that could (should?) have been mentioned on the original thread.

"that's all I have to say about that"

[Guest]

I agree- too bad Mr.Racherbaumer wasn't there to keep the topic on track. One thing- I recently saw Sankey lecture in Sacramento and he was nice enough to share some of what he has in the works. He mentioned a card warp idea that might be another bit of incedental intelligence. I'll just say that it leaves you COMPLETELY CLEAN at the end of the routine. You can hand spectators the two halves to keep. A brilliant idea!

Card Warp is one of my favorite effects;) It's too bad we can't continue this thread with tips etc. I've played with the idea of having the spectators hold the cards and even having THEM push the card slowly through! David Acer has a great get-ready for cardwarp. So, if it's okay, how about we have a real discussion about cardwarp? Theory, methodology, presentation, anything ...

[pduffie]

Hi Josh

>I'll just say that it leaves you COMPLETELY >CLEAN at the end of the routine. You can hand >spectators the two halves to keep. A brilliant >idea!

You're left completely clean at the end of the Walton original.

Best Wishes

Peter

[Guest]

Mr.Duffie,

You're correct. What I mean is you are completely clean--- the tear matches exactly. The fact that you altered the physical structure of the card can therefore stand up to intense scrutinity, forever.

[pduffie]

Thanks for clarifying that. After I posted, I started to think that's what you meant.

[Ian Kendall]

Tears and the like.

I've loved Card Warp since the beginning of my magical time. I now have a method where the two unprepared cards are selected by the spectator. Roy saw me do this in his shop a few years ago and told me I was the first person he had seen go ahead with normal cards. He then said this was how he originally did it, but put the pre-tear work into the manuscript...

I mention this not to claim anything, more how Roy did it in the first place.

Oh Well, Ian

[Richard Kaufman]

I have seen other people work out methods where you do not begin Card Warp with a pre-torn card. There always seemed to be a problem with the sound of the rip--unless there is suffienct ambient noise it can be an issue.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

My good buddy Ryan Pilling and I worked out a way to secretly prepare a card for Card Warp in front of an audience so that we could start out with two average, everyday cards. It was even possible to do it with one hand so that the other hand was free to gesture (and misdirect, if needed). Just speaking in a normal voice would be enough to cover and ripping noise, though there was very little, if any. Ultimately, I found it unnecessary -- setting up beforehand is easier and just as effective.

-Jim

[Jeff Pierce Magic]

I have, on occasion prepared the gaff card behind the cover of a fan of cards, but only when approached in a impromptu situation.

I agree with J.R. in that I thank both Ortiz and Maze for their contrabutions but this brings up a interesting point. I was the one who posted the first credit question that started all the rukus and I am left with no diffinative answer ,just more questions.
How am I supposed to credit something (card warp deck idea) when the experts cannot even agree.

Maybe I'll just credit the person or routine that inspired me in the first place. It might not be the originator but then again, I've never seen Walton perform his CardWarp routine.

Jeff

[Richard Kaufman]

Jeff,
It's easy to answer your question in this case: you credit Ortiz--it's in his book. Maze doesn't seem to care. End of story.

[Guest]

As transcendent as "card warp" is, the effect of the card turning inside-out is implicit. The second effect of the card structurally transformed is also implicit.

I've messed a fair bit with better showing the card's structure to be altered. If you pulled the card out of the "portal" early, a spectator would be quick to understand how the effect is being accomplished. So how then do you convincingly display the card? Most of us end the routine by tearing both the cards- destroying the evidence. It is very possible someone else thought of this, but what if you incompletely tear the cards? Let me explain:

The presentation would be to end by offering the spectators a souvenir. Ask if they'd like the face-up or face-down half. Project the half they don't name out the side of the portal-card saying "okay, i'll keep this half" as you tear the half from the bottom(border-side) to the top(fold) BUT stopping at the fold, incompleting the tear. You can now pull the entire card out of the portal in the act of offering them their half (the halves are still connected, but just barely). They pull their half from yours, finishing the tear. This is the first point in the routine the spectators see the entire card altered. In theory, this should leave a nice final image in their mind.

[Guest]

http://www.geocities.com/cardwarp2002/

Not sure how clear I was, but this is what the spectators would be seeing as they pull their half from yours. The cards are connected only at the point highlighted.

[Ian Kendall]

Tear or not to tear...

Again, I was not implying that I was the only one to eliminate the tear. I would have been amazed if noone else had figured it out.

As for misdirection, Jim is correct; just talking is enough cover. I would disagree with pre tearing being less hassle. How can getting extra cards torn, kept in a separate place and then brought out or ringed in be easier than taking any two cards from a deck and going from there? If you want to get more intimate, have the gaffed card signed along the long edge so the signiture can be seen to flip. If they have held the card and signed it you have got them to examine it without implication and they do not suspect a tear.

Having said that, each to his own.

Oh well,

Ian

[sleightly]

Ah, what the hell...

Have been doing Card Warp for years as a "Do As I Do" effect, by bringing out one of my business cards, and borrowing a second. I begin to tell the story of a guy I met in a bar (or sales meeting, or conventions, you get the idea). I put the work into the borrowed card while soliciting the loan of two bills... The participant (always hated the term "spectator"), would use my card, and I his... Would work for me, not for him... All the displays, etc. At the end, I'd tear the card in half and show the inverted pieces then deliver the blow-off:

"You can keep my card, if you figure out how it works, give me a call. I've no idea how he did it. If I did, I'd show it to you! I don't, so I won't."

[Guest]

That's a great idea. The fact that you are using THEIR business card is a great way to add to this trick's impact. Thanks for sharing...

[Richard Kaufman]

Andrew, that's awfully good.

[Guest]

I understand making any additions to card warp (added convincers, etc.) are probably unecessary, but there is still a problem I have always had with the routine-- The only peak of amazement for the spectators is when you initially push the card through, everything after that is just showing off. I used to over-show the card 'reversing', pushing the card back and forth and I even would use some of Michael Close's added handling. However,you realize that this is all pretty pointless because at this point the spectators really are only interested in seeing the card(I am sure many 'participants' actually feel compelled to rip the cards out of your hands). So, is it necessary to give them what they want? The handling I mention in a previous post accomplishes this, without making a big deal out of it. They want to see what the transformed card actually looks like so you show them. Again, I haven't decided if this is necessary.

For those of you that perform Card Warp, what sort of added handling do you find to be necesary?? (I guess this is more of a theoretical question)

[sleightly]

Thanks your kind words...

As for alternate handlings (or "convincers") check out Bob McCallister's "Green Warp" in The Collected Almanac (Kaufman, 1992, page 113 or Issue 13, September, 1983 cover piece) which is precisely the reason I perform this with bills...

In this piece, the card is opened and closed several times as the bill is unfolded. At two points in the McAllister routine, you can open up the bill part way to "show" the card in non-inverted state both when the card is still folded (page 114, Figure 8) and opened up flat (see page 115, Figure 12).

In my opinion this piece is one of the most practical versions of Card Warp for the working performer. All the moves are performed slowly and it has the "convincers" your audiences need...

I know that this should be in another thread, but special thanks to Richard for putting together one of the most valuable, discriminating compilations of close-up magic (with a high ratio of modern classics) ever produced. If you want material that plays strong with *any* audience, you would be well-served to dedicate a couple of years to this one volume.

Very high wheat content... Kudos!

(I didn't put this in the other thread, 'cause really, I want to keep it all to myself. I'm a bit of a selfish bugger...)

ajp

[Guest]

Here is a little touch I discovered.... If this is old news, let me know-

Assuming the left hand is holding the cards in a position to display the card "changing"- You pivot the warp card so it is diagonal and almost the whole card is in view-(the rip being concealed by the other card and the left hand thumb- I read this somewhere)

here is what I've added:

While the card is still diagonal, you push the card through showing it visibly changing. While doing so, you move your left thumb to follow the rip, which gives you another 1/2 to 3/4" to push the card through (I.E. if you were to lift your thumb, you would be exposing the rip). The cool thing about this, aside from it being visual, is that you can get to a position where the audience only sees a little peice of the card face down and what looks like most of the card face up (and vise-versa). Even though you are covering with your thumb, when they see only a small peice of the card facing one way, it gives the image of MORE THAN HALF of the card facing the other way, further concealing the method. You can push the card back and forth while in this position, following it (slightly) with your thumb. It needs work still and I realize that it may be completely unneccessary, but I'm dinking around with it and I think it has potential......

-Pat

[Brad Jeffers]

Pat, Your discovery has indeed already been discovered! Michael Close described this move to me a while back, and I believe it is covered on one of his L&L tapes. It is not original with him, but was discovered by someone else, through a misinterpretation of the original instructions for Dr. Strangetrick (from Workers #1). The move even looks better when using a bill (with the corners folded in, as per the original Dr. Strangetrick handling).

[Curtis Kam]

Well, looks like we're back on this. So I'll mention something I found remarkable about the old thread: Doesn't anyone have a problem with the spectators, now suitably impressed with your topology-morphing powers, asking you to restore the torn card?

I have a solution. Any others out there first?

[Guest]

Using your finger to cover their card sounds like an original idea-- I don't think Close shows as much of the card, does he? Ostensibly showing more than half the card is a great idea since this would further sell the effect, ALSO the spectators are less likely to think they were just seeing a half-and-half card (which they are!). Pat, very nice subtle idea!

Curtis, part of the reason I offer them half as a souvenir is to lessen the liklihood that i'll even be asked. Close, has a nice method but only does it when people challenge him. I use Williamson's idea he uses in T&R transposition, but only when they're not expecting it. It's such a bold switch that there can't be any heat on your hands. Pieces on the table, I pick up the deck as if i'm moving on and perform a mercury fold on a duplicate card. The move is to come under the deck with the pieces and switch them with the mercury-folded card in the action of a jinx change(?) - putting the deck(and pieces) in my pocket I proceed to restore the card. It's almost an afterthought that I decide to TRY and restore the card. This is bold, but it works!

Please share your idea~

[Guest]

As mentioned, it is the act of pushing the card clearly beyond halfway that makes this idea credible (at least in my head).

I thought that Close pivoted the card as a display but did not push it through while it was angled. (I could very well be wrong here).

Perhaps I should post this under the "what have you re-invented" thread.

*sigh*

Pat

[Brad Jeffers]

Remember, Close's version (Dr. Strangetrick) uses a bill, so you can't really pivot the card in the way you can, when using two cards. What he does however, is to fold down the two corners of the end of the bill which covers the card. This exposes more of the surface area of the card. This gives you basically the same position as you have when you pivot the card, in the two card method. The left thumb is placed near the top of the point formed by the folding down of the two corners, and from there the handling is the same as you described. It does indeed, create a very nice illusion of almost the entire card turning over.

[Pete McCabe]

A magician whose name I embarassingly can not remember (Unless it's David Fletcher, in which case I remember it perfectly) had an interesting Carp Warp with a single business card and your hand.

I developed about three-quarters of a great routine for this. At one point you lift the index and pinky fingers in a fashion inspired by the bent corner technique from Dr. Strangetrick.

I remember thinking if I could get the last quarter of it I would have a great trick; you start with your business card, do a miracle with it, at the end you tear it, and if they ask you to restore it (which you have to do anyway to give them your card), you switch it for a restored duplicate, and hand it to them.

Maybe I should re-figure this out and finish it.

[Guest]

Something that happened to me once recently.

I performed Card Warp, tore the cards in half, and handed them out.

After much, but much, examination of the cards, someone then pointed out that one half of the Warped card hinged both ways (ie, it had obviously been folded in half, creased, and then folded the other way and creased again), whereas the other half of the Warped card only hinged one way (ie, it had obviously been folded in half, creased, and then had not been folded the other way).

I smiled and said nothing. But it occurs to me that it might be advisable to fold and crease the to-be-Warped card in both directions. However, I don't think I'll bother.

Dave

[Gary Freed]

Bruce Cervon published a routine with a bill and card that was far from extraordinary except for the ending..He has a display of the whole card in the bill just before the tear that is beautiful. He goes on to do two tears, which I found to be one tear too many..The display is great though. It looks great when combined with the McCallister handling.