examinable

[Peter Ross]

A dichotomy that I find interesting in close-up magic is the concept of the “examinable” magic trick. On one hand, the prevailing magicians’ opinion of the ultimate response to magic is that it should create mystery and wonder, as opposed to being “merely” a puzzle (The latter charge is usually leveled at Tenyo or toy-like apparatus tricks, although it also applies to poor presentations).

Many close-up tricks are proudly presented as being examinable by the audience, this extra attribute apparently strengthening the mystery and wonder. In ad copy, many sellers of magic tout their trick being “fully examinable at the end,” and even tricks in books sometimes pronounce that “everything may be handed out for examination at the conclusion.”

However, does a trick being examinable really represent a more full mystery, or does it turn the just-witnessed miracle into the dreaded “mere puzzle” as the spectator ruminates over the props in their hands, “puzzling” over the items after the initial astonishment while the magician silently waits and smiles?

I personally don’t fully believe in the derogatory designation, “mere puzzle” in the first place (see my essay on the subject on my website), but it seems to me that if a magician were to subscribe to the belief that the ultimate goal of magic is a moment of wondrous astonishment (as opposed to just a puzzle), then that magician should also not be in favor of the spectator examining the props at the end, a deflating and banal finish as they come.

[Richard Kaufman]

When I did card magic often for lay folks, often people would think I was using a stripper deck. No idea why. I handed the person the deck to examine and they would try to strip out cards. After they were done, I would proceed. Usually a trick with a few Passes just to kick their ass into the dirt.

[Jackpot]

If a magic trick is examinable that does not mean that I have to insist the props be examined. "Examinable" just changes the way I manage the audience. In my experience, ungaffed routines allow for different routining and audience management than a gaffed routines.

[Bob Farmer]

"Examinable" seems to be considered a feature that does away with the classic bugaboo, the fear of detection. I have performed a lot of packet tricks that cannot be examined and anytime anyone asked to examine the cards, I simply replied, "No! Would Paganini let you play his violin, would Eric Clapton let you touch his guitar!?"

After all, it is the magician who is in charge of the performance, not the nosy spectator.

Okay, if you're really worried about this, Mike Close has devised the perfect solution. He asks the spectator if they'd like to take the cards home and try the magic at home. Of course, they agree. Mike slides the cards into a coin envelope, seals it and hands it to the spectator.

When they open it, they find Mike's business cards because using the old flapless envelope switch he has ditched the gaffs.

[Al Schneider]

I have a different approach.
Some time ago I was working at someone's house.
I set up to do some closeup and this guy was sitting behind me.
I said, "If you sit there you will see how it works."
He instantly got up and moved in front of the table.
Occasionally someone asks to see a prop that is gimmicked.
I have said, "Sure but you will see how it works." Then they don't bother.
I have taken the approach to be as honest as I can with the audience.
And I listen very closely to what they say.

This reminds me.
At one event a person said to me that card tricks are all palming.
I showed him two tricks using a palm.
I assume he didn't have a clue.
We are devious aren't we.

[Tarotist]

In working impromptu if someone asks to examine something and you refuse then of course they know your prop is faked and they will feel victorious. It is therefore advisable than anything you use when working impromptu should be examinable since in these scenarios people will often want to examine the stuff you are using.

Different rules apply when performing close up magic professionally for two reasons.
1. If you have things examined it slows up the show.
2. In professional situations it is very rare that anyone will ask to see your props anyway. Not unheard of but far less common.

[Joe Lyons]

Different rules apply when performing close up magic professionally for two reasons.
1. If you have things examined it slows up the show.
2. In professional situations it is very rare that anyone will ask to see your props anyway. Not unheard of but far less common.

True. Amateurs, especially youthful ones are twice as likely to have such demands.

Examination, however, can be another tool in the gibeciere.

Tommy Wonder insisting that the cards were examined after the first four changes in his wild card routine added to the magic and made it less likely in my opinion that the subsequent ones would be challenged.

Having a deck of cards examined and shuffled before an ambitious card routine can produce miracles later after a deck switch.

[Jon Elion]

At one event a person said to me that card tricks are all palming.
I showed him two tricks using a palm.
I assume he didn't have a clue.
We are devious aren't we.

I was hanging around Al Cohen's shop in DC one day when a customer came in complaining bitterly that the thumb tip he had purchased the previous day did not match his skin color. I was standing off to the side and saw Al slip on an over-sized bright red thumb tip. He knew I was there and could see it, and smiled at me and winked. He then proceeded to amaze the angry customer with several standard effects, telling him up front that he was using a thumb tip. When Al finally opened his hand to reveal the thumb tip he had been using, the customer's jaw dropped, and he quietly slinked out of the shop. Those of you who knew Al can visualize the mischievous smile and impish grin he had on his face the whole time.

[Tarotist]

That reminds me of the time that Harry Stanley informed me that Tarbell was a terrible magician! I asked him if he had ever seen Tarbell perform and he said no. I then naturally asked him how he knew Tarbell was a terrible performer. The response amused me and I am not sure it was evidence that would stand up in court!

It seems that Harry sold Tarbell a thumb tip and he deemed Harlan to be too over enthusiastic about it. Tarbell kept holding it up to the light exclaiming what a fantastic thumb tip it was and how it matched the colour of the thumb so well that it was virtually invisible. Harry, who knew the principle that it doesn't matter what the thumb tip looks like anyway since you never let it be seen in the first place. It seems that Al Cohen knew the principle too.

Anyway as a result of that one incident Tarbell was condemned by Harry Stanley as a terrible magician!

[Paco Nagata]

Irrespective of the great Mike Close's idea Bob Farmer talked about and, actually, Bob himself's great "Paganin and Eric Clapton idea," I've always trying to dodge un-examinable (card) tricks.

The reason... Tarotist and Joe Lyons said that.

I've been all my life an amateur...

So then, in my amateur card magic book I talked widely about it (pag. 35 and 170) with the term "resolution." The idea is considering giving the props away or to check it out as a kind of confirmation of the magical effect. A kind of second effect or magical impact.
I've got even greater reactions in some magical routines right after giving the cards to be checked (specially being a family/casual amateur).

Don't get me wrong. I agree with just not giving anything away after a trick, but the most examinable magic tricks I can do the better.
One of my solutions about un-examinable great tricks I've been working on, is trying to perform them along with other tricks in a show, so that I can get rid of the props as I pass to another trick quickly.

A stupid personal idea I've used many times to solve this problem with my relatives is the "electric shock gag":
When I'm asked for the cards I say they sometimes cause electric shock to non-magicians, since they are magical cards.
After saying that few dare to take them. If someone insist I take the card behind my trunk saying: "I'm going to discharge it."
Then I get rid of the un-examinable part or switch the deck, etc.
Obviously they don't believe me, but I can go by the situation giving the props.