The Genii Forum

As you all know, I spend a lot of my time on the leading edge of what's happening by constant surveillance on social media and by speaking to the young people in their own language ("Wass up dude?" "OMG!" and "Awesome!"). A lot of these millennials who are too damned lazy to get off the couch now use something called an "Alexa." You talk to it and it does stuff. I tried this with my dog but I don't think he understands a word I'm saying but he's an Alsatian so maybe I should try German but I don't speak German except for, "Achtung!" but I tried that and the @#$%^ dog bit my ankle.

Anyway, I was thinking this suggests a modern presentation for any rising card trick. You claim the deck is an "Adecksa," and if you merely tell it to, it will find the selected cards.

Okay, I've got to go now, got to go to the mall and get my flip phone fixed, the @#$%^ dog chewed the screen off.

Groovy, man.

I think it is a fabulous idea for a presentation of the Rising Card(s). As performers, IMO, we need to be able to relate to our audience, and it certainly helps if we can speak their language - at least a modicum. Millenials now compose a substantial segment of the population. Tricks using cell phones are also good for entertaining them. "Double Exposure" (Asi Wind), which uses their cell phone, is a good example, and there are of course tricks and mental effects that can be done with apps. Even texting them a photo of their card (or having a confederate do so) following a force is a simple way to entertain and impress them.

I am thinking the dog is a Millennial, because having access only to his master's flip phone, he is unable to tweet, get on Facebook and Instagram, etc. The biting of the ankle and chewing up of the screen are indubitably a venting of his anger and frustration...

So true--

(sent from my Commodore 64)

Thanks Bob, that's a fun presentation angle for the trick. Adecksa cut to the card. Adecksa turnover the card. Adecksa eject the card.
Does anyone here have a flat wind-up key noise maker available I could hide behind a card? The idea of a wind up deck as steam-punk toy seems to fit with what Bob described in the first post.

If anyone has the card reel rigging ... Adecksa, Alice in Wonderland finale

In Tarbell, Vol. 2, pp. 265 to 267, there is a fantastic rising card effect by Tommy Dowd. After cards are selected, the deck is placed in a glass and then another glass is inverted and placed on top to completely isolate the cards. The cards rise one by one.

The deck is ordinary and there are no threads or rubber bands or any of the usual means of motion.

I'm searching for the proper props and will report on results.

The other effect which could use this presentation is one whose name and origins I don't know. A shuffled deck of cards is placed in a stem goblet and each time a handkerchief is flicked in front of the glass, an ace appears. I have a version published by Ray Grismer, called, "Glaces." Grismer credits Herbert Milton and Karl Germain. Grismer uses regular cards, but there are methods that use double-face cards, but I need a reference.

My preference here, would be to use a black silk and one of those Houdini Magic Spirit Lights:

https://www.houdini.com/magic-lights

Introduce the black silk as your "Adecksa" and have the light bobbing around underneath it and showing through the silk. Then produce the four aces. At the end everything can be examined because you've ditched the light.

Interesting reference to Ray Grismer, Bob, I’ve never heard of that routine. More commonly, I’ve heard “Aces Front” On p. 230 of The Magic of Alan Wakeling to be the source. This is a gaffed card handling, and traces its roots to Germain as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you, Curtis. The Grismer version uses ordinary cards and looks pretty good.

I avoid doing any magic effect that utilizes a technological device, which in it's normal everyday use, does things that are more amazing than the trick I am doing with it.
Therefore, I would also be inclined to avoid using any patter that makes an allusion to such devices.

I agree with Brad on that point, however, when the device is obviously NOT a technological device (in this case, a silk), then the audience knows you're kidding and we're back to Arthur C. Clarke's observation that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" the corollary of which would be, "Any magic that is obviously not an advanced technology must be magic."

I'm with Brad on tricks with smartphones: the audience don't believe what they're seeing is impossible (i.e., magical) though they may be amused by what they see. They simply assume that it's just another smart phone ability.

Footnote on the rising cards: the Cardini version (in the same chapter as noted above) is really sneaky. Five cards rise and when they are all up, the gaff is gone and the deck may be examined. The final two cards make this possible.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:... Does anyone here have a flat wind-up key noise maker available I could hide behind a card? The idea of a wind up deck as steam-punk toy seems to fit with what Bob described in the first post.

Backtracked that - to a Ron Bauer routine - or the artwork on the cover at least for his item #11.

Curious if anyone would care about this.
Actually, I would appreciate input on this.
I am presently constructing a rising card deck.
It is computerized. Technology is such today that it is feasible.
There would be two tiny motors in the deck.
There would be a 40 megahertz computer in the deck.
There would be a li po battery to give long life.
And there would be a high density memory chip that can plug into a PC.
A program on the PC programs what the deck will do.
Put the program on this chip.
Plug the chip into the deck.
Any sequence imaginable can be programmed into the deck.
One motor is to rise selected cards.
The other motor can raise one card and pull it back into the deck.
The gimmick is about 15 cards thick.
???????

Al Schneider wrote:Curious if anyone would care about this.
Actually, I would appreciate input on this.
I am presently constructing a rising card deck.
It is computerized. Technology is such today that it is feasible.
There would be two tiny motors in the deck.
There would be a 40 megahertz computer in the deck.
There would be a li po battery to give long life.
And there would be a high density memory chip that can plug into a PC.
A program on the PC programs what the deck will do.
Put the program on this chip.
Plug the chip into the deck.
Any sequence imaginable can be programmed into the deck.
One motor is to rise selected cards.
The other motor can raise one card and pull it back into the deck.
The gimmick is about 15 cards thick.
???????

Make it remote control with individual card selection and you could name your price.

I have thought a lot about that. While I have found solutions, none are realistic.

Brad Jeffers wrote:I avoid doing any magic effect that utilizes a technological device, which in it's normal everyday use, does things that are more amazing than the trick I am doing with it.
Therefore, I would also be inclined to avoid using any patter that makes an allusion to such devices.

I think I agree with this. My gut feeling has always been to avoid stuff like this although I have never reasoned out why. When you have been performing for decades somehow you just know what is right or what is wrong. Instinct honed my experience.

As those who are familiar with the effect know, the "Double Exposure" trick I mentioned in this thread uses the camera on their own cell phone. They pose for the picture holding a fan of cards which, from their vantage point, are mixed face-up/face-down, a la triumph. When they open the photo on their phone, they see themselves holding the fan with the selection being the only face up card in the spread. The magician does not fiddle around with the phone prior to taking the photo and there is no time for loading any app onto their phone; they simply open up their camera and seconds later the picture is taken. I think this provides an exception to the otherwise legitimate concerns that have been expressed on here about tricks using technological devices.

I had always assumed that the art of magic was concealing the technology behind the effect.
A comment here suggests that that is not the case.
However, the beginning of this thread was about rising cards.
So, I thought I would dive in.
At one time I had a Devano deck. I had one with pins and one with sticky stuff.
I did a routine suggested by Ron Bauer.
The routine had a powerful effect on the audience.
But getting the Devano to work correctly took a lot of effort.
When not adjusted correctly the cards would rise with a sudden clunk.
In a few clips I see of the trick on Youtube; they did not invest time to adjust the gimmick.
Correctly adjusted, the card slowly and mysteriously rises.
It was truly magical looking.
The idea suggested comes from a desire to consistently reproduce that effect.
It is beautiful to behold.

Magic By Alfred: I have to respectfully disagree. The audience will simply assume this is a feature of a smartphone they were unaware of. It's not impossible if they think it's possible. This is different from simply creating a novel outcome.

There is no magic unless the audience knows what is possible and what is impossible. If there is even a hint of possible, the illusion fails.

Here's an example from my experience: years ago, I invented a trick for David Ben for a computer trade show. It was a version of the Tossed-Out Deck using some properties of Word. After the cards were thought of, David asked each participant for some information (e.g., zip code, favourite color, etc.) which he typed into the computer--then he hit enter and the information given was then "computed" and a list of cards appeared. Those were seen and read off and the trick concluded as usual.

Weirdly, several months later I'm at a party and a guy is telling me about this amazing mind-reading computer that he saw at a computer show (it was David's). He doesn't know me, he doesn't know I'm a magician and he doesn't know it's my idea. He claims it's a program that can read minds, so to him it wasn't magic, just some new technology.

Another time, I was pitching a TV variety show (Are There Any More At Home Like You!?) that was to feature weird acts. Since there was a shortage of the weirdness we wanted at the time, my production partner and I decided to make up fake acts and sell them as real. For example, we claimed we had a Korean appliance repairman who had been shocked while fixing a microwave oven and could now read the digital information on a CD with his tongue. We had another guy, who could look at a sheet of typed paper for 10 seconds then whistle into a fax machine and an almost perfect replica would emerge.

None of these "acts" were questioned as fake: the TV execs accepted that these were real acts because almost no one really understands how all this technology works. I can't find the exact quote, but Charlie Chan once said, "Mystery like radio--inside very complicated, outside very simple." If a piece of technology can produce a result, it will be assumed to be a technological result, not a magical one.

I see your point, Bob.

Mr. Farmer
I believe your last post is spot on.
Also, the philosophy you present is a cornerstone of my approach to magic.
Al

However, there is one audience that would see the phone trick as magic not technology: the audience of people who designed the phone and its software since they would know what was possible and anything that didn't fit in as possible must be impossible and therefore magic.

Excellent logic.

Cards from a different deck ejected?

Those engineers also know their programmed phone could change when their service provider does an update. And display alerts at surprising times.

A more certain and capable devano gaff would be nice. Maybe even rotate a card

If you can get the extra few feet distance the musicbox and roller mechanism thing is impressive.

Jonathan, check out the Tarbell references above. They are much simpler and just as impressive, especially the two-glass method.

Lesson 27, and nice use of glasses in Dowd's item . Greater Magic has chapter 16 on the topic. The Greater Magic discussion starts with comments on presenting the trick. Were folks doing a comedy vent act with an invisible imp (Harvey rabbit?) partner?

I have performed the Rising Cards a number of ways over the years. There is no question in my mind that it is one of the most (if not thee most) magical tricks one can perform with cards. It transcends being simply a "card trick" because an object moves apparently by itself in seeming defiance of the laws of physics. The Haunted Deck falls within this category, as well. The being said, no presentation of the Rising Card I have ever done has even been a close second reaction-wise to the card rising out of the box as the box is being held in the spectator's hand. I think this will always be "contemporary."

Here are two of my performances of it, one for the bride at a rather boisterous wedding reception at Ricardo's, the bar/restaurant I worked at for 3 and 1/2 years in Santa Rosa, CA, and the other one at another restaurant I worked at in Santa Rosa, called Gaia's Garden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elHQahKbv3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmTtPimb-WY

Great show Alfred! The late Patrick Page had a column in Pabular called "The Pageboy Speaks..." In the January 1975 issue, he described a gig at a restaurant where midway thru the event he dipped into his case and pulled out his Devano deck. After several performances with it, two people asked him where they could purchase one. This shook him up since prior to this effect the spectators were crediting him with the magic, and not the props.

Page spoke to Fred Kaps later on and after relating this incident, Kaps thought it would have been better if Page had used that Devano deck for several effects before unleashing its rising card properties. It should be noted that according to Page, he received his best reactions at that gig with the Sponge Balls.

Thank you, Leonard! Also, thank you for sharing the Patrick Page story. And, yes, no question about it, the sponge balls are a consistent winner with laymen

You're welcome Alfred! Page's story reminds us that props can quickly take the credit for the magic. A rising card effect with a deck that was not shuffled and handled prior to the reveal will look suspicious.

Vernon had a similar experience in his New York nightclub and party gigging experience in the 1930s. He carried a small novelty toy voice box for his performances that would utter the name of the selected card. A lady offered to pay him a large sum for the box, believing it could name any chosen card. When he finally told her it was card handling and not box, she was bummed out. A great story from David Ben's Vernon bio.

I'm looking for references for rising card methods that use any sort of cut-out in the deck. I recall seeing a method where a rectangular section was cut out of half the deck so a forefinger could poke in and push up a card, but anything like that would be of interest.

I'm not interested in mechanical methods using threads or machinery.

Any assistance would be most appreciated.

Bob, that method with the cut out in the rear half of the deck is in a German book by Conradi published prior to 1900.

Do you have Conradi's email?

Bob Farmer wrote:I'm looking for references for rising card methods that use any sort of cut-out in the deck. I recall seeing a method where a rectangular section was cut out of half the deck so a forefinger could poke in and push up a card, but anything like that would be of interest.

Tarbell Volume 2 Lesson 27, Rising Cards and Card Case
Roterberg's New Era Card Tricks Rising Card from the hand, second method.
Also Greater Magic - Rising Cards chapter, Method No. 6. The Window Pack.

Thank you, Jonathan!

The Roterberg description comes from Conradi (whose email, phone number, and telex location I do not possess).

Bob Farmer wrote:I'm looking for references for rising card methods that use any sort of cut-out in the deck. I recall seeing a method where a rectangular section was cut out of half the deck so a forefinger could poke in and push up a card, but anything like that would be of interest.

I'm not interested in mechanical methods using threads or machinery.

Any assistance would be most appreciated.

Do you have a copy of Karl Fulves' New Card Rises? The last rise described utilizes an intricate array of cutouts for the first or second finger to actuate the rises for any card called for.

For impromptu card work I favour the plunger version described in Expert Card Technique. It is completely angle proof unlike some of the dafter versions that are around. I don't squeeze and bend the cards as described in the book. I just use pressure at the sides.

However, there is a very amusing version of this trick using a handkerchief. It is called the Zombie Card Rise on account that it resembles the floating ball illusion. Now some of you may know this version and some of you may not. For the latter among you here it is. This is from my Royal Road annotations of Pinkie Does It in the first chapter:
......................................................................................................................................................................................................,,,,

However, I would like to describe here another method altogether which has similarities to the Royal Road version but uses a handkerchief! You get the card to the top of the deck just as described in the description and cover the deck with the handkerchief. You hold the deck in the left hand in exactly the same position as the original description above but this time you don’t need to step the deck. Instead do a move which is akin to the Glide sleight which is described in Chapter Four of this book. In other words you pull down on the selected card with your left fingers so that it protrudes below the rest of the deck. All this will be unseen because it all occurs underneath the handkerchief. The following illustration should give you an idea of what I mean.


You now go through the motions as already described in Pinkie Does It of rubbing your right index finger on your sleeve and applying it to the top edge of the deck rubbing it along the edge back and forth through the handkerchief. However, you secretly extend the right little finger underneath the handkerchief contacting the bottom short edge of the protruding card. This finger applies pressure which bends up the card somewhat and as you raise the hand it brings the top edge of the card into contact with the extended right forefinger which is above the cloth. The card is now, in effect, clipped at the top edge by the forefinger above the cloth and the little finger below the cloth.

As you continue to raise the hand and cloth together they clear the pack but the shape of the card is clearly seen underneath the handkerchief. The card seems as if it is rising out of the deck. The right hand moves from side to side and up and down a la the famous zombie floating ball trick which is well known to magicians. Finally, you ask for the name of the selected card and on hearing it you release the little finger and grab the top edge of the card with the right thumb and forefinger and with a bit of a flourish you invert the hand, the cloth falls and the revealed card is sticking up through the cloth held by your thumb and forefinger.

I don't have the Fulves booklet, but it sounds rather interesting.