Hey, new member and heres my 2nd post =P

I have seen a performance of paperclipped and the patter makes it seem like the magician makes a prediction on a card, paperclipped, then the spectator chooses a card and signs it, and the prediction appears to be the signed card.

I've read about the great responses some of the members of the forums have received, but I don't really understand the logic behind it. Wouldn't the spectator assume that you switched it because how else could there be two signed cards? What if spectator wishes to search the deck for the 'original' signed card?

I really want to perform the effect as a finisher to an ambitious card routine (as some others have done), but I can't seem to think of a patter that would fit with the theme. Would I introduce the paperclipped card before the trick or present it after like a card to wallet effect?

Yes.... that is completly true and something I've posted on many times in the past.

In their mind they store 2 different cards so when it turns out to be the same, it obviously is a switch even if they initially react with suprise.


Here is the easy answer:

Keep the folded card and paperclip in the card box and keep that on the table... only after "vanishing" the card or just being done with it, only then do you call attention to the box, cleanly show the card inside and then perform the switch and show it has "travelled" to the box.


I think it is very important that they are never aware of the card until after they have not seen the signed card... if both are visible at the same time a switch is the only answer.

However Sankey fans will vehemently disagree with this because Sankey must always be right, but make your own decision (which it seems you already have).

I personally treat it either as a card to impossible location(to card box folded up/or under table/ect anywhere the folded card is hidden) OR as a transposition.

With the transposition, I do an erdnase change of the facedown top card into one with creases(looks really good), so that it seems the folded card is now on top of the deck and their signed card is now in the paperclip, which you then show to be correct.


In this case you show the paperclipped card beforehand, and the effect being a transposition covers the switch because that is exactly what a transposition is....

If they think the card was switched, leaving it on the table then why would they not think it was switched if it were in a box, good example John Kennedy's Mystery Box. The signed card was just in the deck, either way it has appeared somewhere else. With good patter an of course executed smoothly it should look like magic either way. As far as letting them look in the deck for another signed card, hey why not if they want to, what are they going to find. I do really doubt that would ever come up tho as they signed the card and I would like to think most of them no their own hand writing.

Jeff K

I should think good magic is all about making the absurd real. The trick is styled as a prediction in order to create an anchoring effect: it immediately biases your spectator to a false set of expecations (although these expectations are nevertheless magical). It really would be impressive if the performer could make such a prediction, and this is precisely what the spectator looks for when you unfold the card. But they're thrown for a loop. You did something that's supposed to be even more impossible -- that is, transposing the card in plain sight, under the restriction of a paperclip. If you for a second told them or hinted that the card would appear in the paperclip -- essentially telegraphing the move -- then it would be 30 -- no, 800 -- times more difficult. Instead the spectator has to backtrack in their mind what happened, which is pretty difficult for a regular person. This is the same reason why you never repeat the same effect for the same audience: because they know what to expect.

That said, I'm not a big fan of this trick. You're right: it doesn't make much sense, and it is pretty simple for a person to figure out what basically happened (assuming she doesn't actually believe in magic). It does get a great initial reaction.

Look into Tommy Wonder's ambitious card routine. Is L&L still giving away the performance DVD? The "switch" with that box effect, I think, is 500 -- no, 1100 -- times more impressive than paperclipped.

The basic problem is that the given routine is too direct. You can't show a clipped card one second, have a card signed directly following, and immediately show it to be the card they just signed. Said structure leaves them nothing to think about but method.

The effect needs better structure, that is a problem that you can give personal thought to and have a lot of fun trying to solve it. What the ending truly needs when you give it thought is a secondary effect...or more aptly said, a routine that is structured in two parts that builds more towards an impossible climax. This leaves them more to deal with in their minds than to try and figure out how and when you folded the card. Fundamentally, the idea (I think) is very good, but I do not use the all too direct handling given by Sankey when I perform it. And no, I don't think it's good because I'm a huge Sankey fan and he said it was so - I so hate stupid blanket comments such as that.

I do have a personal routine that has helped what you and I seem to agree on as the major weakness of the standard effect. I will PM you and I hope that you can find some use for it. If nothing else it will be food for thought and possibly a framework that you can better.

best,
Clark

But what about the possibility of the very thing that we're trying to get them to believe in (even if only for the purposes of suspension of disbelief): MAGIC! Allowing the audience no other logical choice but to believe in magic is a very strong position to be in, especially in this case since the switch in paperclipped is so natural and deceptive.

Sankey makes a big deal of showing both the signed card and the paperclipped card at the same time, which emphasizes the impossibility of the effect at the end. Is the effect "too good?" No, I don't think so. It's a mind-blowing effect, because the audience thinks maybe you put the correct prediction of their card in the paperclip, and don't expect that it will be their actual signed card. If they suspect anything, they'd suspect a force, and are blindsided by the revelation of the signed card. And that's what the patter should center around, the idea that you previously predicted which card they would pick and picked it out of another deck. It's perfect to end an ACR with, especially if you nonchalantly laid out the paperclipped card at the beginning of the ACR.

I like paperclipped because the mercury fold is so easy, and paperclips are easily found. It's quite nearly impromptu and hits hard. But I do agree with Cain that Tommy Wonder's card to ring box routine is much more effective and elegant even than paperclipped. Of course, the fact that Tommy Wonder is a far better performer than Jay Sankey has a lot to do with why his performances of this effect come off so well.

Of course your audience thinks there was a switch. They don't think there was magic, even for an instant. But if you do it right it's very hard for them to reconstruct when it happened, and this seems very magical because there doesn't seem to be any time when it could have been accomplished. What I like about this trick, and it's unusual structure has been spelled out very well in a couple of the posts above, is that it feels really different from most other tricks, and unfolds in a very unexpected and delightful way. More and more I'm grateful for routines that don't feel like a lot of other tricks the spectator has seen before. The ending is unsettling and paradoxical apparently even for Sankey, who seems to keep playing with new versions of the ending. I like them all. I don't demand that the paradox be solved.

I have to say that I agree with a little of everything that has been posted above...all very good points and sound advice in their own way.

quanfer, all I can say is that in my personal experience it has been good to have secondary effect and/or a slight delay before the card is found in the clip. In all fairness I have to say that I had rather good success with the original for quite awhile as well, I just found more people guessing at methods with the direct approach as opposed to what I outlined for you before.

looks like you have several new ways to kick an old idea around and that is always a good thing.

Clark

There are some variations in Rev. Card Magic, which get around that problem. I really like the gift idea, because it's almost an afterthought, rather than a full on effect.

Some time ago there was an in-depth discussion on this topic over at the Genii-Forum. I highly recommend reading that thread there for anybody interested in this type of effect: http://geniimagazine.com/forum/cgi-bin/u......3#000000

With respect - no no NO!!!! I can see what you're getting at, Scorch, but I have posted on this before: however much we may wish to believe they do, our audience do NOT, not for one second, (unless they are children or mentally deficient) think we are doing magic. They know perfectly well that it's a trick, illusion, sleight of hand. Our skill is to deflect their attention away from how we did it and, if we do our job well, they will think a) I don't know how he did that, b) it looked like magic, and c) that was fun.

The original poster is, I think, right and Daegs's solution is elegant. There is only one way for the curious spectator to go: a switch is the obvious answer. They may not know WHEN you switched, but in this case suspicion = the right method. In fact, in Paperclipped, it's fairly clear, with only a bit of backtracking, when the switch was made. i.e. when you took it out of the clip. It's the only answer.

WHereas, revealing it in the box (a la Daegs) deflects their thinking and confounds the would-be method-detector.

What a good thread !!

Apart from the really interesting contributions above, my thoughts are that it would be harder to justify paperclipping a card inside the box. Isn't it miraculous enough to find the signed card inside the box?

The point I'm trying to make is who are we trying to perform for? How is the effect strengthened with the paperclip? Where do we stop?

Magic for me is about justifying the impossible, whilst trying to be engaging and entertaining. I would suggest working on the presentation aspect of a 'trick' in terms of entertainment, misdirection etc. rather than trying to dilute the effect to make it more palatable to spectators.

Only my thoughts, for what they're worth.

I agree, but for the purposes of entertainment and their audience's inherent willful suspension of disbelief, I think you are incorrect from a theoretical standpoint and from a practical one. Your argument applies to just about everything we do! They know that some control is happening to the card to get it to keep coming to the top of the deck in an ACR; they just don't know how and it should look fair enough to obscure how we did it so they can come to the "conclusion" that it was magical - and it should appear that way. They know that the snap change is a switch of some sort and that we can't magically transform matter, but it looks magical and they can't figure out how. They know that it's another lady's legs in there and that the first one didn't actually get hers sawn off, but it looks like magic and they can't see the method. Same thing with paperclipped. I think you are thinking too much from your own perspective and forgetting the absolutely lack of knowledge of sleight of hand from a laymen's perspective.



And I think paperclipped is potentially as strong an effect that you can hope for that accomplishes all three of those objectives.



Whereas I agree that the card to ring box effect (especially Tommy Wonder's) is a notch or two better than Paperclipped, I also recognize that your very same logic applies to it as well, and perhaps even moreso. They can figure out the time of the switch because there is one possibility for that as well. But the switch in both effects is very deceptive, and the folded card confounds them as far as they need to be confounded, in my experience.

Paperclipped or card to box are both hard hitting effects like Deep Astonishment, where you get the kind of jaw-dropping silence reaction when you know you can't hope for much better. If the setting is somewhat formal, I'll do card to ring box, but if it's really informal and very impromptu, I'll do paperclipped. It's a little more believable that you might carry around a paperclipped lucky card then if you just happen to have a magical ring box in your pocket!

IF you are going to subscribe to the logic behind several of these posts then no one would ever perfrom a basic two card transpo. I mean, if we apply the line of thinking that most of these threads do then there is no magic in a two card transpo in a laymens eyes.

One of the cards is never hidden, or comes out of a box, wallet, or anything else. So every intelligent laymen simply knows that the two cards were switched for one another at some point, correct?

I apologize ahead of time if the above seems sarcastic, but I think some of the arguments above are quite silly. The classic DL method of the two card transpo is VERY magical in laymen's eyes...yet it is a shinning example of the "problems" that are posted concerning Sankey's "Clipped" effect in particular.

A card switched with a DL or top change and found to be different while in the spectator's hand is one of the strongest effects possible. Once agin, if you follow the reasoning of some of these threads than the 'momment'of magic would only last for a few seconds until said person gave it two seconds thought - which is exactly what doesn't happen, people walk away from that effect swearing that the card changed while in their hands!

Point being, all of this theory on goes so far. The proof is in the performance and performance time with the right structure will prove to anyone that the effect is sound.

Some time ago, a handling was discussed where a paper clip in a cup attracts the card from the deck. You might find some good logic and presentation there.

I'm not throwing mud boss, what I posted above is true. If the matter is "shut for you" then leave it to the few that it is not shut for, as opposed to forcing your opinion on everyone else. I didn't want to jump to conclusions on you personally so have taken the time to back through many of your post and a large % of them are, simply put...you are right and everyone else is wrong. Taking that knowledge into consideration, I posted what I did the way I did and offer no apologizes whatsoever.

As for the tricks popularity, it hardly falls into the category that you try and place it in.

Once again, you seem to not take the time to stop and read any post before you start to type your rebuttal. My first posts on this trick all point out what I think is a flaw in the ORIGINAL HANDLING, as well as what I think are some ways to surpass them. The difference between you and I is that I never made my thoughts out to be FACT...and you...well, I think I covered that already. My posts were to give Quanfer some different paths to think on and decide for himself, not make his mind up for him.

And finally, I am not attacking you personally, only pointing out the fact that your crass dismissal of anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you is played out a little to say the least. Your repeated rants, post after post, about everyone that doesn't agree with you simply being a "follower" is very old and truthfully just plain pathetic.
By the way, just because this has been covered in a thread years ago doesn't mean that the subject is closed. Some people might actually have a new thought to discuss - I know this concept seems foreign to you since you were part of the original thread, but please try and find it in yourself to let the rest of us underlings have a conversation without you screaming that the topic is closed.

Wow. What a very pleasant thread to read.

Clark. I think you are completely right in all your endeavors. Keep up the good work, because magic needs more people like you.

As for the paperclip routine and it's logic...well, magic is illogical. That's kinda why it's magic. Therefore there really isn't logic for what you or anyone here does. There are 'reasons' and 'reasoning' but there is no logic. Signing a card isn't logical at first, but, when you explain the reasoning for it, it makes more sense, but, what you are doing is still not logical. Why do the cards jump to the box/paperclip/drink etc.? Heck if I know. Why not the ceiling, the spectators pocket or down the street, or the otherside of that glass window like David Blaine, Criss Angel, blah, blah, barf.

I guess sometimes it is best, and it's also hard to do, and that is you need to disenguage your brain from your knowledge base and think like a spectator. Not an educated spectator. Not a magical enthusiast spectator, but, just simply...a plain ol' everyday spectator. I think magicians have a hard time with that and you can run yourself in circles overthinking effects.

My best advice would be to do the effect several times. Get a feel for it, and change it as it works to suit you. Cause what works for Sankey might not work for you, and really, who wants to be a clone, anyway, right? So, just go out there and do it. Let them make the leaps themselves, but, proceed with caution and not too fast, because with this effect, you might move so fast that the miss the moment. I got a friend that actally hangs his clipped card on the spectators finger the whole time, and so, he's not even holding it (adds to the impossiblity of it all).

It was more blather than not, but, I hope you get what I was getting at.

I would like to address one of the major hang ups listed above about the specator thinking there was a switch. I have found from performing this routine that that is one of the last things on a specators mind as they try to reconstruct the effect. The reason I say that, is that the specator only see's one folded card throughout the entire routine.

Most times I hear discussions about:
-When did he fold my card?
-How did he fold my card?
-How did he get it into the paperclip?
-The paperclipped card was in view on table the entire time!

If specators really did suspect a switch, the first question you would hear would be-I'd like to see what's inside the pocket you put the paperclip in.

I agree with the posts above about the Sankey version of the effect being too direct. I have used it with great success when "table hopping". I will set the clipped card on the table and say something along the lines of "I only use this in case of emergencies" and forget about. I do several routines, and then finish with my ACR going wrong and having to use the emergency card to get me out a jam. Works like a charm and resets immediately. Who could ask for more?

For what it's worth...my .02

Well said, Mr. Stilts.

Depends what kind of two card transposition you have in mind. Consider the popular version involving a signed card and a dupe. In that case, technically speaking, the cards are not "switched". The spectator sees her unique card go into her hand, and sandwiches it between her palms. She has the card in personal lockbox so that nothing can happen, and she further agrees, either implicitly or explicitly, that the card is in her hands. Another card is casually taken off the top of the deck and shown. *The Magic Happens* and the cards have apparently switched places. Notice the logical structure is more coherent than a generic version of paperclipped.

I like to rub the supposedly indifferent card on the back of the spectators hand, and sometimes slowly wave it over and under. People have sometimes remarked, "Wow, you're fast. That's real sleight-of-hand: I didn't see or feel a thing!" What makes this especially magical is that the spectator has to reconcile a few absurd facts: a different card appeared in her closed hands; one card was signed; the indifferent card was shown immediately before it changed to the uniqe signed card in between their palms; she didn't feel anything; there's no such thing as magic; there is such a thing as sleight-of-hand, which is an art shrouded in mystery.

Spectators (in my experience) have never considered a dupe when their card is signed (or at least expressed such suspicions aloud). The signed card functions as both a red-herring AND a test condition. If you do this trick without a signed card, then some people will immediately suspect a copy -- although (again, in my experience) more often than not they'll be wrong as to which card has a dupe. And this is just further evidence that you're miles ahead of them. I don't think the same could be said for Paperclipped, which is still a nice effect. In paperclipped, the switch is literal and within the realm of a typical layman's imagination, in contradistinction to DLs, which remain a bit more esoteric.

Another comment on the anchoring effect: it applies to magicians as well. First impressions matter. Many times we will perform a trick for the first time and get a reaction that does not match our expectations, which consequently frames our perspective and anchors future expectations. Of course everything has to be repeated lots of times for different audiences under varying conditions, but the first few times we do something probably still has a strong impact (if only on the subconscious level). Some people might stubbornly stick to a replaceable effect because his first few reactions were just phenomenonal. I think everyone still feels a bit of nostalgia for the first "real" effect s/he saw and/or performed.

Maybe if somebody went totally ****ing crazy the first time I performed Paperclipped and wanted to start a religion with me as their deity, then I would think it was awesomely amazing.