Page 3 of 3

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 2nd, 2020, 2:52 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
Aside from the overhand vs side grip, how do you distinguish the "Hindu" shuffle display (say from Royal Road to Card Magic 1948 - look at the second trick in the section) from the Flushtration count?

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 2nd, 2020, 4:25 pm
by MagicbyAlfred
Jonathan Townsend wrote:Aside from the overhand vs side grip, how do you distinguish the "Hindu" shuffle display (say from Royal Road to Card Magic 1948 - look at the second trick in the section) from the Flushtration count?


They clearly do bear some similarities, and both are based on creating an illusion of "sameness" when there is a glaring (but generally undetected) discrepancy. But here, IMO, are some points of distinction, aside from the different grips:

1. The Flustration Count ("FC") is generally done with a small packet of cards, versus the Hindu Shuffle Display ("HSD") which is typically done with the entire deck. Personally, I wouldn't use the HSD with a small packet; and, conversely, wouldn't use a flustration count when there are more than 5 or 6 cards in a packet.

2. With the FC, only one card at a time is peeled off or dealt from the packet, whereas with the HSD, usually multiple cards or small packets of cards are peeled off in each sequence of the procedure.

3. The FC may be used to show that each card in the packet is identical. For example, let's say you have a packet of 4 cards with the ace of spades on bottom. By doing the FC it can be made to appear that all 4 cards are aces of spades. It would be exceedingly awkward trying to create that same illusion with a packet of 4 cards using the HSD. Of course, the illusion that all the cards are the same can be created using the HSD, but it would be done, generally, using the entire deck, and creating the illusion that every card in the deck is (again, for example), the ace of spades. I believe Harry Lorayne (and I'm sure others, as well) uses this subterfuge in one of the phases of his AC routine to show, ostensibly, that all the cards are the ambitious card.

The HSD is a marvelous tool to use in a color changing deck routine, whereas the FC would have limited (although I wouldn't say no) utility in such a routine.

I'm sure others can point out other distinctions between the FC and the HSD.

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 2nd, 2020, 7:14 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
Not a fan of that direct a use of the shuffle either - just recalled the item from way back when. Here's the text about the discrepant display to show "all the same" from Royal Road
All Change Here
In this effective feat the Hindu shuffle is used to show that apparently every card in the deck is the same. It is an artifice that is useful in several other good tricks..[snip into step 7.] "The fact is that all these cards are fives of hearts, hence it made no difference to me what number you called. Look!" Begin a Hindu shuffle by pulling off a small packet into your left hand, then lift your right hand, bringing its packet to a vertical position with the bottom card facing the audience squarely. Lower the right hand, continue the shuffle by pulling off a few more small packets from the top, and again lift the right-hand packet, showing the five of hearts. Repeat the same motions until only the five of hearts remains in the right hand. Drop it on top of the packet [snip]
8. Pick up the second packet by drawing it back towards yourself,[snip] show apparently that all these cards are jacks of clubs by using the moves detailed in step No. 7,...
That 's an intentional use of the discrepant display to show packets of duplicates. Wondering where the ploy is used earlier in our literature.

Anyone try using kick cuts and overhand grip for the display?

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 2nd, 2020, 8:07 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
Update - A Jinx item from October 1939, "Red and Blue Futurama" in issue 61 by J. G. Thompson has the display used to show the backs of a deck. The card case is blue, the top card is blue and "To all appearances the deck is blue. To heighten the effect..." Then he does the display with the face up pack showing blue back(s?). The trick goes on to make good use of the deck. The item references back to issue 56 for for the Hindu Shuffle. In issue 56 is some history about the shuffle which takes it back to 1927, Emir Bux, and reference to a "Hermann Shuffle" sleight.

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 2nd, 2020, 9:02 pm
by MagicbyAlfred
I know this is straying away from the core topic of this thread, but what the hey, it's magic. So while we're on the topic, as you may already be aware, Jonathan, a third sibling in this family of artifices, is to swing cut small packets, each time turning the wrist to show the underside (i.e. the same card). This can be quite useful in the color changing deck. The cards are held in biddle grip, face up, and after each swing cut of a small packet, the wrist is turned to show a blue- backed (i.e. the same) card . Or, to show that all the cards are the same card (e.g. the ace of spades), the deck is held in biddle grip face-down, and after each swing cut of a packet, the wrist is turned to show the ace of spades. But I think using it for that purpose could be more easily detectible and seen through by even a reasonably a observant spectator, and so it is probably a more efficacious move in the context of the color changing deck.

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 3rd, 2020, 1:17 pm
by Jack Shalom
That display Alfred mentions, turning the wrist to show a back, makes sense in a Hamman-like display for Wild Card, as in that case you're not trying to directly prove that the cards have backs, but merely counting the face up cards. That's Regal's strategy, but in addition he throws in an extra convincer afterwards that seals the deal.

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 3rd, 2020, 3:17 pm
by MagicbyAlfred
Yes, Jack, that ploy definitely makes a lot of sense in the context of the Hamman-like display for Wild Card. It is very often a great subtlety, or you could say a diabolical form of misdirection, to prove something indirectly by doing a maneuver that is completely unrelated to that which you wish to prove. It's like the spectator's analytical faculties are channeled into a different slot and their perception is focused on the magician counting some cards, rather than the magician displaying them in an attempt to show they have regular backs. And yet it registers that they do have regular backs. But the minute they sense you're trying to prove something, that is precisely the moment when suspicion is aroused - ironically, suspicion that may not have even existed but for the attempt at direct proof.

Erdnase set the bar high for us, as well it should be, when he said (paraphrasing), actions should be done in a manner so that the most critical observer will not even suspect, let alone detect...

Re: Opinions on initial Wild Card display

Posted: June 11th, 2020, 3:10 pm
by Spellbinder
If you are still performing with all alike (duplicate) cards, you might want to check out Jim Gerrish's "Death and Taxes" performed with all different Tarot cards that can be shown on both sides, and then he turns them into all alike "Death cards" with a skeleton (#13 - XIII). He ends with an appearance of an extra card - the "Tax Man". You can check it out with the video at: https://www.magicnook.com/tarot-tricks/Tarot01-02.htm