Best McDonald's Aces Routine

[MagicbyAlfred]

"The switch is unnecessary because if you place four aces on the table from a deck the obvious audience conclusion is that these are four regular aces from a deck."

i think this makes a lot of sense. It is the corollary to the reasoning that they will be suspicious of packet tricks where cards are removed from a wallet or were otherwise not in the deck prior to use. The irony of going through unnecessary work or a laborious procedure in an attempt to pre-empt suspicion is that it is more likely to raise suspicion that would not have even existed in the first place. The old magical axiom applies once again: "Don't run when they're not chasing you."

[HocoPoco]

Earl Nelson's version:

https://www.magicana.com/video/earl-nelson-mcdonalds-aces

[Zig Zagger]

It remember me this:

VANISHING ACES THEORY

In almost every case where an Ace is supposed to vanish, the handling of the problem is such that the Ace actually does not vanish but rather a different card, other than the ace, takes its place. As an example, let us assume the ace is the bottom card of four cards. Now you deal the top three face up onto the table. The last card is now the ace. Suddenly the card is flipped face up and it is no longer the ace.
Therefore, obviously, a card has been substituted for the ace. If the last card were really the ace and it was to really vanish, the performer should wind up with absolutely no card at all.
(...)

It was written in april 1956.

That's Marlo speaking, right?

[Philippe Billot]

It remember me this:

VANISHING ACES THEORY

In almost every case where an Ace is supposed to vanish, the handling of the problem is such that the Ace actually does not vanish but rather a different card, other than the ace, takes its place. As an example, let us assume the ace is the bottom card of four cards. Now you deal the top three face up onto the table. The last card is now the ace. Suddenly the card is flipped face up and it is no longer the ace.
Therefore, obviously, a card has been substituted for the ace. If the last card were really the ace and it was to really vanish, the performer should wind up with absolutely no card at all.
(...)

It was written in april 1956.

That's Marlo speaking, right?

Yes, New Phoenix no. 338, page 166

[Bill Duncan]

Therefore, obviously, a card has been substituted for the ace. If the last card were really the ace and it was to really vanish, the performer should wind up with absolutely no card at all.

By that logic, if the aces vanish (instead of transpose) to join the leader ace then the leader packet should end up with seven cards, not four.

Otherwise, the effect is that the aces vanish from their own packets, and appear in the leader packet, and the indiferent cards in the leader packet vanish... and go where? And when will they return?

[Bob Farmer]

Here's an easy way to introduce the gaffs. They are on the bottom of the deck showing as indifferent cards. Above them fourth from the face, is the AS face up. The three regular aces are on top of the deck.

Spread the deck face up hiding the aces at the top and the face-up AS and say that the aces are somewhere in the deck.

Turn the deck face down, and spread it, saying the aces are somewhere here but nobody knows where--but they can be made to show themselves.

Double Cut the first gaffed ace to the top of the deck--an ace appears on top of the deck. Repeat four times.

[Richard Kaufman]

I think we can be a bit more artful about bringing the double-faced cards into play.

[Bob Farmer]

Suggestions?

[Bob Farmer]

Here's another idea with the same setup. Halo Slip Cut the deck, taking a single gaff as you do. As you complete the cut take a break and cut at the break. These two actions place an ace face up in the middle and return the deck to its original setup. For the AS, place the deck on the table and cut the deck. Spread the decl to reveal the ace, cutting the deck at that point to return the regular aces to the top of the deck.

There is another approach also. In one of Richard's books (I believe) there is a false triple cut in the hands. It involves a series of swing cuts and at one point there are three separate sections in view as the cuts are made. If you do a Halo Slip Cut on the first cut, then as you complete the triple cut you can let the ace contact your left fingertips and it will slide out of the center of the deck. This is very deceptive since the deck is squared after the card appears and each card come sout of the center of the deck.

[Bob Farmer]

Here is the triple cut I was referring to. I haven't been able to find a reference.

Triple In The Hands False Cut

Swing Cut 1/3rd of the deck into the left hand.

Swing Cut half of the remaining cards on top of the cards in the left hand but sidejogged at a 45 degree angle to the left where they can be clipped by the crotch of the left thumb.

Bring the right hand over with its packet and grip it and the bottommost packet in the left hand.

Move away with those two packets keeping a break between them.

Drop the packet left in the left hand on top of the two packets in the right hand.

Pull out the bottom packet of the three and drop on top.

If you do a Halo Slip Cut as the first cut of this sequence that card will end up as the bottom card of the last portion as you square the deck. Your left fingertips can contact that card and slide it out as the deck is squared.

One more tip: I don't do the Halo Slip Cut the way Harry Lorayne explains it. Using my left forefinger, I buckle the bottom card, then my left little finger pushes against the side of this card, gripping it lightly, as the cut is made. This ensures the broken card slides off smoothly. Harry used just the friction between his palm and the card to move it off, but I could never get that too work for me, perhaps because the complete lack of manual labor in my life had left me with manicured nails and too-smooth palms.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Bill Duncan: "By that logic, if the aces vanish (instead of transpose) to join the leader ace then the leader packet should end up with seven cards, not four. Otherwise, the effect is that the aces vanish from their own packets, and appear in the leader packet, and the indiferent cards in the leader packet vanish... and go where? And when will they return?"

It is an intriguing and thought-provoking point. What's interesting is that in each of the three sequences prior to the final revelation, there appears to have been a transformation (ace into an indifferent card). I don't believe the spectator perceives these sequences as involving transposition, i.e. that the ace changed places with another card. And then, not until the the final denouement (revelation of the 4 aces together in one pile) does it emerge as clear that it was actually three transpositions.

[Bill Duncan]

Bob,
I think the production you're talking about sounds an awful lot like Richard's DH Revelation (Double Halo) from the New York Magic Symposium video. One of my card productions. Ever.

[Bill Duncan]

Alfred,
I think audiences would assume that's the aces are going somewhere, because of that whole "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed" rule our universe operates on.

But even if they do assume things are vanishing forever (because we hate aces???) and are surprised by the (let's face it, obvious reappearance) it leaves the unanswered question of where the indifferent cards went to at the end.

[Zig Zagger]

Therefore, obviously, a card has been substituted for the ace. If the last card were really the ace and it was to really vanish, the performer should wind up with absolutely no card at all.

By that logic, if the aces vanish (instead of transpose) to join the leader ace then the leader packet should end up with seven cards, not four.

Otherwise, the effect is that the aces vanish from their own packets, and appear in the leader packet, and the indiferent cards in the leader packet vanish... and go where? And when will they return?

You are right, that is a discrepancy!

But I was just going to point out another discrepancy between our perception and the audience's one, when I read Alfred's latest post! I'm also convinced that most laymen would describe the effect as "he made three aces disappear from three piles and then found them in the last pile with the fourth ace" rather than "he transposed the aces from three piles with three indifferent cards in the fourth pile."

If we want them to perceive the effect as intended, we might need to make this point clearer visually. One option could be to use three jacks, queens and kings for the three piles and then add the fourth jack, queen and king (seemingly) to the fourth ace. If we now turn the three aces into the missing jack, queen and king in their three respective piles and find the four aces together, the transposition would be hard to miss.

However, I do prefer the plot of vanishing the three aces within their piles. That's why I like the versions of Ouellet/Copperfield and Vallarino so much. Both offer good solutions for the finale. An easier version to climax without a discrepancy would be to find the aces in the card box with the "leader ace", as has been suggested above.

But here' another visual version that also gives the trick a vertical dimension of presentation: Put each ace into a wine glass with their face towards the audience. Add three cards to the first three aces. Put a silk over the glass with the fourth ace (which seems to be left on its own). Take one pile after the other from their glasses, make the three aces disappear and return each pile of three cards to their glasses. Lift the silk briefly to display the leader ace again in the fourth glass. Then whisk away the silk over the glass as you rotate it at the stem 180 degrees and show another ace up front. Take out the pile and slowly spread all four aces. (Obviously, this would need another D/F of the same ace on the front and back.)

[Jonathan Townsend]

It helps to have a clear goal of magical effect to aim at.

If the audience believes you put the four aces down and then covered each with three additional cards you are set for the magic. The magic starts after you set one of those piles aside (or chosen by volunteer) . Then, when you start to show the cards in each of the piles to not contain an ace - you have a buildup. The climax is that they are in the pile that was set aside.

But if they don't believe there are only four aces and they had a choice in that pile of cards ... it's not so magical as it could be.

If you want to change the trick into something like "bank night" where you put each ace into an envelope, they choose one and you proceed to tear up the other three envelopes showing no cards there... go ahead.

[Bill Duncan]

I'm also convinced that most laymen would describe the effect as "he made three aces disappear from three piles and then found them in the last pile with the fourth ace" rather than "he transposed the aces from three piles with three indifferent cards in the fourth pile."

I suspect you are correct, because that's the effect. The only problem is when the indifferent cards are unaccounted for... That's one of the reasons Jazz Aces is so much clearer than the old style. No ambiguity.

It might we worth re-reading how Erdnase presents the effect in the magic section of Expert At The Card Table. That script makes it very clear what is happening, and why all those extra cards are about.

[Bob Farmer]

Another triple cut you can use is the Pirandello False Cut by Jeff Semmel in Frank Simon's Versatile Card Magic, 1983, p. 58. This is one of the most deceptive in-the-hands false cuts you can do. It would work the same way: Halo Slip Cut on first cut and the face-up ace appears in the middle of the deck.

[Tom Stone]

I just messed around a bit with the plot. This is a bit crap, but it might be made into something.

1 Ace of Spades
2 sets of Ace double facers, Clubs, Hearts, Diamonds - with random cards on the other face.
3 cards that are mates to the random cards on the double facers.

Assemble Ace of Spades and 3 double facers in one packet. Spades at the back.
And the rest in a second packet. All with non-Ace sides in the same direction, doublefacers at the face.

Show 4 aces, face up, and deal them out in T-formation using Vallarino's "Rumba Count", Spades dealt last.

Show 6 indifferent cards, first face down using Daryl's "Combo Count", then turn them face up and spread.
The three at the back of the spread is placed face down on the table.
Ace of Spades is picked up and placed face up on the remaining cards (doublefacers).
Make a Halfpass of the doublefacers and place the packet down, back to its position in the T-formation.

Pick up the three regular cards, into dealing position, face up. Try to avoid attention on the face card.

Pick up the first ace from the T-formation.
Place it Ace-side up on the face up packet, then, seemingly, turn it face down - but a double turnover is done. Lift the top facedown card with the right hand, as the left hand thumbs off the face-up top card to the place the Ace just occupied. The right hand snap its facedown card over the Leader packet, and then show that the card no longer is an Ace. The right hand put its faceup card at the back of the left hand cards.

This is repeated with the second ace from the T-formation.
Place it Ace-side up on the face up packet, then, seemingly, turn it face down - but a double turnover is done. Lift the top facedown card with the right hand, as the left hand thumbs off the face-up top card to the place the Ace just occupied. The right hand snap its facedown card over the Leader packet, and then show that the card no longer is an Ace. The right hand put its faceup card at the back of the left hand cards.

... and with the third ace from the T-formation.
Place it Ace-side up on the face up packet, then, seemingly, turn it face down - but a double turnover is done. Lift the top facedown card with the right hand, as the left hand thumbs off the face-up top card to the place the Ace just occupied. The right hand snap its facedown card over the Leader packet, and then show that the card no longer is an Ace. The right hand put its faceup card at the back of the left hand cards.

Spread the three indifferent cards in your hands, showing both sides, then drop them casually face down on the face-up indifferent cards, one on each of the doublefacers.

With one finger, spread the Ace of Spades packet, to show all 4 Aces to be there.

As people react, casually square up the three 2-card piles

Pick up the Spades and use it to scoop up the other three Aces. Show them one by one with a Flushtration count.

For a reverse kicker, while holding the aces in the hands, move above and across the tabled cards while doing the Asher Twist - causing the packet to gradually change from 4 Aces to 1 Ace and 3 indifferent cards.

Turn over the tabled cards, without spreading them, to show the Aces back where they started.

[Richard Kaufman]

Very interesting, Tom!
The reverse ending has been established independently by both Larry Jennings and Guy Hollingworth.

[Bill Mullins]

Another discrepancy is that often, the three packets from which aces vanish show 3 face-down indifferent cards, and a face-up ace. And during the vanish/transposition, the packet is turned over, and 4 face-up cards are shown. Sometimes, the handling accounts for this, but sometimes it doesn't, and the turned-over packet should be 3 face-up cards and a face-down one, which (it seems) should be turned over and revealed to be not an ace.

[Jonathan Townsend]

How "artful" would you like? Here's a beginner level thought: Remove the four aces and put the pack back in your pocket. Do Vernon's Twisting or similar trick. Bring the pack back out face down (+the extra gaffs at the face) and drop the aces on the pack face down. Do a triple cut of the pack onto the table. For an encore have the four aces turn face up at the same time. Divide the pack at the aces as you start the selection of a favorite patter and start counting out the packets of cards. Count the first four as three, then more packets of three. Let them pick an ace - add the "three" cards on top, pretend to flip over the ace and spread the packet as four. Put that at the face of the pack and their hands on top of all that. To be slightly more "artful" once you know the ace they select you could put the suitable card at the face of the pack - and use a scooping action to seemingly add three face up cards under their ace and then all go face down on the face up pack. The face card on the pack would not change.

Not that this is "news" but once you get back to Hofzinser's use of four double faced cards you could as well reveal four kings under their hand at the end... just saying

[Brad Jeffers]

Jonathan,
With cards in hand I tried to follow your instructions but could not make heads or tails of it.

Richard, you are a master at writing technical instructions. Perhaps you could do a slight rewrite of Jonathan's post so that I might understand it.

Or maybe it's all perfectly clear and I'm just getting senile

[Bill Duncan]

Another discrepancy is that often, the three packets from which aces vanish show 3 face-down indifferent cards, and a face-up ace. And during the vanish/transposition, the packet is turned over, and 4 face-up cards are shown. Sometimes, the handling accounts for this, but sometimes it doesn't, and the turned-over packet should be 3 face-up cards and a face-down one, which (it seems) should be turned over and revealed to be not an ace.

I'm less bothered by this, as the card has apparently discorporated from where the Ace of Spaces is, and reintegrated with the other indifferent cards. It's presence is what's meaningful; less so the orientation.

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Bill, folks here are some options for how to handle that face up card and face down packet of three cards incoming;
1) Actually put the face down cards on top, pick up the packet and then mime a flip-over of that bottom card. It looks like a deliberate manipulative card reversal.
2) Use the three cards together as a scoop to slide under the ace and so turn over the ace. This approach is more graceful but means you need to keep the faces of the three card packet down and then angle the face of the packet toward yourself in that scooping action.
3) Openly add the face up ace to the face down packet of cards and do a callback to the earlier trick to magically turn the card face down.

Such manages the packet construction actions but still does not motivate the packets. Earlier I suggested dealing the actual aces off the top as if there were a four handed poker game. By now the scoop switch (Taught in Carney's book) is not a great secret - nor is the four-for-four switch that was in development since way back then and currently (and well) taught by Chris Kenner in his video. The notion of doing such a switch off a face up pack may seem novel but it serves in this routine. Hofzinser himself was aware of this plan and wrote to one of his students that he should not be so impressed with this other guy's tricks as he uses crude misdirection and turns over the pack (facing the pack) to switch cards as needed. Nothing new under the sun - but much room for improvement when it comes to streamlining the handling of a routine from open parlor down to tight focus closeup magic.

[Bill Mullins]

Another discrepancy is that often, the three packets from which aces vanish show 3 face-down indifferent cards, and a face-up ace. And during the vanish/transposition, the packet is turned over, and 4 face-up cards are shown. Sometimes, the handling accounts for this, but sometimes it doesn't, and the turned-over packet should be 3 face-up cards and a face-down one, which (it seems) should be turned over and revealed to be not an ace.

I'm less bothered by this . . ..

My reaction isn't usually "bothered by it", either, especially if the routine is otherwise good.

Note how Ricky Jay avoids and/or covers any possible discrepancy, through patter/and or handling: the QH is initially face up and then face down, and he tells us that she "turns her back" on her suitors; he ostensibly turns the QD over himself to match the other cards; and the QC "disappears" from the crowd, and he vanishes it by doing an Elmsley display and @4:48, ends with two spread cards in his right hand and "one" (actually a double) in his left (but after the vanish, when attention is lowered, he does show four face-up cards as he discards them). I suppose the first two are clearly transpositions, and the last is presented as a vanish but also can be seen as a transposition.

And I didn't see any of these as discrepant when I watched them, and I doubt most others would as well. But I'm not surprised that the construction of his routine has (apparently) identified the possibility of discrepancy, and worked to minimize it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Here is a sleight-of-hand switch that results in a switch of the real aces for the double-faced fekes.

I found this switch in a pamphlet entitled Aces High by S. Leo Horowitz and Dr. Jacob Daley.

Initial Arrangement: The real aces are held face up in the palm of the palm-up left hand. The feke cards, aces side down, are picked up and held by the left finger tips above the real aces. They are stepped forward about one inch. The ace on the bottom of the double-faced packet must be the same ace showing on top of the real-ace packet.

The Switch: The right thumb and index finger grip the left inside corner of the feke cards and draws them inward across the real aces and into a vertical position...

I'm trying to follow and missing some of the action. At the start, the real aces are face up on the left hand (across the fingers or at the fingertips?). Now if the left hand were to pick up some tabled cards it would have to grip the cards it already has and yet keep these additional cards separate. I can imagine that so far - but I'm not sure that's what you're describing. What's supposed to be happening in this sequence, from audience view?

The position after picking up that second packet of cards is you have some at the base of your fingers and some up toward your fingertips.

The right hand comes over and does what? It makes a grab for a packet as the left hand turns inward? The illusion being that the aces they now see are the ones they thought were lowermost packet? The same outcome could have been achieved by thumb palming the packet just picked up off the table and and letting the real aces drop as your wrist turns .

Puzzled, as usual

JonT

[Jonathan Townsend]

... gives the trick a vertical dimension of presentation: Put each ace into a wine glass with their face towards the audience. ...

That's much more classy and scales up the trick for larger audiences. Just the basic card change done under a handkerchief with the pack in a glass gets good reactions. How to you carry and introduce the wine glasses?

In Expert Card Technique that kind of thinking is mentioned briefly, even mentioning using a paper matchbook as an easel to move the action toward vertical.

[Brad Jeffers]

I found this switch in a pamphlet entitled Aces High by S. Leo Horowitz and Dr. Jacob Daley.

You can get a pdf of this pamphlet HERE.

[Zig Zagger]

... gives the trick a vertical dimension of presentation: Put each ace into a wine glass with their face towards the audience. ...

That's much more classy and scales up the trick for larger audiences. Just the basic card change done under a handkerchief with the pack in a glass gets good reactions. How to you carry and introduce the wine glasses?

Thank you!

I'm just dabbling with ideas like these at home, behind my 1960s magic bar, so this seems very organic, and fortunately I don't need to carry any glasses around!

[Bob Farmer]

Richard mentioned reverse assemblies above.

I developed a couple of these independently.

First, using my Turnantula move: the aces vanish one by one and appear in the leader packet, also one by one. For the kicker, three of the aces vanish from the leader packet and return to their original packets. Though not explained in the Turnantula manuscript the method is simple: you make the aces vanish in the usual manner and use the Turnantula move to make them appear one by one in the leader packet and then vanish all at once.

You use two sets of double facers, one for the packets and one for leader packet.

You can find it here:

https://www.lybrary.com/turnantula-p-922491.html

In a soon to be released manuscript, the Demonic Packet Messiah, there is a reverse assembly with a color kickers.

After offering to explain how card cheats palm cards using an invisible sleeve hook, the performer introduces a set of red-backed Kings. He also has a blue-backed deck of cards. He lays the four Kings out on the table and deals 3 blue-backed cards on each one, explaining that the red-backed Kings will be much easier to follow as the cards are palmed.

One by one the Kings vanish and appear in the performer's hand. The vanishes and subsequent appearances are visual and dramatic.

“What happens if you're caught cheating?” the performer asks hypothetically.

Suddenly the red-backed Kings vanish from the performer's hand and return to their packets.

Using contrasting backs for an assembly routine was first proposed by Lynn Searles in Ultimate Aces (1958).

The Reverse Assembly plot was first published by Phil Goldstein as Seca Rouf, in his booklet, Card Tricks For People Who Don’t Do Card Tricks (1974). Other versions have appeared by Allan Ackerman, Ed Marlo, Dave Solomon, John Mendoza, Jon Racherbaumer, Eugene Castillion and Danny Korem.

Other historical details, and routines by Francis Pelkey and Jeff Busby that combine the Progressive Aces, the Ultimate Aces and the Reverse Assembly plots, are contained in issue 8 of Jeff Busby's magazine ARCANE (1982).

[Bob Farmer]

Apparently, Karl Fulves has an assembly routine using some blank-face cards. Does anyone have a reference for that? Thank you.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I found this switch in a pamphlet entitled Aces High by S. Leo Horowitz and Dr. Jacob Daley.

You can get a pdf of this pamphlet HERE.

I have that product. From the text/pictures 2,3,4 and 5 (and the earlier description) it seems you are using both hands and moving them from horizontal to vertical as you regrip a packet between your first and second fingers. That's a large two-handed action. Help?

[Philippe Billot]

Apparently, Karl Fulves has an assembly routine using some blank-face cards. Does anyone have a reference for that? Thank you.

I haven't this reference but Marlo make a suggestion with this in his booklet Those Wild Wild Aces published in 1971.

[Bob Farmer]

If you are a fan of McDonald Aces routines, check this out:

https://www.lybrary.com/bammo-aces-p-923728.html

[Paco Nagata]

I didn't dare to add anything to this very interesting thread because of so many wise thoughts and great conclusions already commented about it... So, at first, I had nothing new to add to the topic until I read the new post of Zig Zagger in his blog https://zzzauber.wordpress.com/2020/05/ ... r-thought/
It is about an interesting overview of the thread regarding the NATURE of the "Aces Assembly" effect.
Well, after reading this overview I had a quick look again to the thread and noticed something interesting that has not brought to light yet (as far as I could see) regarding the nature of the effect:
Well, I think that when it comes to card magic spectators consider the deck of cards as "a whole," so, if a card vanishes from a certain pile, spectators may assume firstly that it "must have" travel to the deck (not to the pocket of the magician). Likewise, when the Ace is TRANSFORMED into a random card, spectators may see it as a VANISH effect, not has a transposition effect, considering the deck of cards as "a whole," so to speak, if that card is now another one if because the former has desapeared; everything that happen in card magic must be in the enviroment of the deck of cards. So, if the magician says it vanishes, it vanishes, unless the magician says another thing like it has been transposed with other card.
The FACE of the Ace has vanished hence another card takes its place as the deck is "a whole."

So, what happen in magic is what the magician says, not what the spectator think. (Gerald Deutsch may not agree with this, of course )

Another very different thing is when the entire card vanishes physically (not the face), implying a different magical effect.
I want to remark that Bob Farmer's idea of the time travel is very, very good. I like it, hence remember that what happen is always what the magiciam says: if the magician says the Ace travelled in time, the Ace travelled in time, if the magician says... I don't know... I killed the Ace! and now I resurrect it! that's what happened.
I have presented Aces Assemblies along with metaphorical tales for children, as for exemple, The Three Musketeers always get to joint D'Artagnan! And things like that. I love metaphorical stories in card magic.

[Bob Farmer]

Paco, I love the Three Musketeers idea. That would work well with four Jacks. D'Artagnan would be the leader. We need an evil Cardinal and his evil minions for the indifferent cards, so they would all be red cards.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Paco Wrote: "I love metaphorical stories in card magic."

So do I. And, more importantly, the spectators do. In my mind, the most memorable and important words spoken by Dai Vernon were "You must have an emotional hook." When I conceive of a plot and compose patter and presentation for a trick or a routine, I am guided by the question, "Why should they care?" I constantly analyze what it is about a great book, movie, play, or TV show that draws people in, engages their interest and emotions to where they don't even think about, or forget all about, the fact that it is a work of pure fiction with which they have become involved.

Sometimes, in lieu of telling a metaphorical story, I will endeavor to make the "story" a real-time story about them. For example, I often present the Invisible Deck as a means of testing their psychic abilities; I "transmit" the image of one of the 52 cards and ask them to try to receive the thought or read my mind. The story then has a wonderful and delightful ending, as they become the "star" and have succeeded, versus a plot centered around what an amazing thing I have done. Of course, amazement and astonishment have still been generated - just in a different package. And, it presents a bona fide opportunity to ask for applause - but not for yourself. When the host or event planner or establishment owner hears people clapping, he/she does not care how it came about, but it greatly heightens their impression and opinion of the performer. Sneaky, right?

I believe the emotional hook element is particularly important in magic, as it has as an underlying (even if not overt) premise that the spectator will be fooled, and thus, many people, given the human ego, have a defensive posture. Moreover, they will immediately sense when magic is merely a platform to showcase the cleverness of the magician. And, meaningless explanatory/descriptive patter is a surefire way to turn them off. An engaging story, which captivates peoples' interest and/or emotions, is a very effective way of blunting, even dissipating, that defensiveness, and IMHO helping to raise magic to a higher form of art and entertainment.

[Bob Farmer]

Agreed 110%. For great examples, see any trick by Eugene Burger.

[Zig Zagger]

Well, I think that when it comes to card magic spectators consider the deck of cards as "a whole," so, if a card vanishes from a certain pile, spectators may assume firstly that it "must have" travel to the deck (not to the pocket of the magician).

Hmmm... another interesting thought, Paco!

So, what happen in magic is what the magician says, not what the spectator think.

That's quite authoritative! But maybe the spectator does not remember the effect later as the magician told it, but differently?

The FACE of the Ace has vanished hence another card takes its place as the deck is "a whole."

What about one card color changes in particular? I could imagine spectators thinking, "He changed the face of the card" instead of "He transposed one card with another"...?

I have presented Aces Assemblies along with metaphorical tales for children, as for exemple, The Three Musketeers always get to joint D'Artagnan!

I also like this idea a lot! Now if the Jacks only carried foils or sabers...

[kkelly]

i hope it's appropriate to post this here instead of starting a new thread. there is a four ace trick by stan lobenstern advertised in the august '67 issue of genii, page 509. i wanted to include a snap shot (from an original magazine) but do not know how. it contains all the hyperbole you would expect in a trick advert including "the big winner at the pcam convention." "use your own cards" and no gaffs. it seems to me that if it were remarkable in any way it would have stood the test of time. but the testimonials (as you would expect) are strong. does anyone know of this or have this?