Recently I explored a very fine card effect using math & numerical values from Martin Gardner´s book: Mathematics Magic and Mystery, page 6.

I want promote this effect because I think its very good.
A deck is shuffled by the audience.
Tha magician places it in his pocket and
asks someone to call out any card that comes to mind. (no force)

For an example: Queen of Spades is named.
He reaches into his pocket and removes a spade.
This, he explains, indicates the suit of the chosen card.
He then removes a four and an eight which together total 12,
the numerical value of the queen. Amazing!

Very direct and clean routine. This is very easy to do.
The trick is the invention of Arthur Findley, New York.
The doubling principle is very clever, indeed.
I will try to improve and extend this routine for my performing style.

The book.
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486203352.html

It is almost same as Charles Jordan's 'The Sprit Mathematician' published circa 1919.

Anyway, Charles Jordan published tricks created by Arthur Findly, creditting his name (Charles Jordan) to every trick. I've read Arthur Findley wished to keep his name unknown. Dai Vernon told me all of Jordan tricks were created by Arthur Findley.

Hideo Kato

Does this play well with the crowd in your experience? I think if I saw this in action I would be thinking "Why didn't he just pull out the QS?"

JMO of course, dobber

Its always up to your presentation if any magic will occur in your spectators mind.

If spectator selects and hides a card, we have a good reason to reveal the selection by producing a few cards which indicate the suit and value of the selection. But not a strong trick anyway.

Hideo Kato

I would agree with that if the spectator had selected a card, but this trick involves a card merely named.

Nonetheless, your points are well taken.
dobber

I have done this trick twice and my sceptical friends was amazed, sure.
They shuffle the deck and I can produce a result from any named card - if that is not strong what is strong?

You can make this effect an amazing memory feat: just let them shuffle the cards: spread the cards out on the table and pretend to memorize the sequence. Put it away in your pocket and let them name any card... and voila - yo produce a result!

Thanks Mats,

I'll take a look at this. It sounds fun.

Anyway, its selfworking. Perfect in some situations.
The strong point in this routine is that you not just produce only one card from a shuffled deck but severals that matches the named card, how can that be possible ? Remember - the cards are in the pocket and you never look at the cards when you bring the correct ones out from the shuffled deck.

Its also possible to let them put the shuffled deck of cards in their own pocket if you are a advanced card worker...that is strong. [add some palming and you have a miracle]

In case a Jack is selected, I produce Ace, Two and Eight to indicate Jack.
My wife would say "Why don't you produce a Jack?"

Hideo Kato

Hello Hideo ,

A good point to raise and one I was thinking about over the weekend .

An option would be to hand the specator the shuffled deck , ask them to think of any card , removed it from the deck and place it in their pocket .

Now the Question about why not pull out the thought of card is to a certain extent removed.

One could then play it out as some sort of mental black jack, rather than try to get 21 you try to match the specators chosen card without going bust.

Andy

Good idea Andy-san.
I think a presentational framing sometimes can help to improve mathematical tricks.

Another point to consider :

If the selection is not hidden, just thought of, you need to ask its name.
If the selection is hidden, you have no way to know it other than clocking or other such methods.

Although I had struggled with this trick for a while, I could not solve the dilemma. Then I used this principle of using "1,2,4,8" binary numbers and the resulted trick is described in Gary Ouellet "Close Up Illusions" as 'The Kato Kount' (page 281).

Hideo Kato

I have worked on versions of this trick for around 30 years, first on its own then as part of a structured three phase routine. The sensitive fingers patter plays well. As the routine evolved it has appeared in a few of my earlier publications.

I have always used the values A, 2, 4, 8.

A card is selected from a deck the spectator has shuffled and is NOT named or shown, before cards are removed from the pocket. This makes it stronger.

My handling (as part of a much longer routine) is demonstrated on my "Mind Stuff" DVD under the heading "Three Phase Routine."

The Jordan/Findley question and various letters etc. were discussed in length in the huge Jordan book Karl Fulves published in the late seventies. There were all sorts of theories about whether Jordan created the effects or not, but I don't have the book available right now to check and refresh myself on the details(it's still in England and I'm in the USA). I feel pretty sure the lengthy article concluded that Jordan WAS the creator, but if anyone on the forum has that book handy, they may want to jump in.

Paul.

Jordan/Findley mystery is featured in two magazines.

May 1948 issue of "Pentagram".
August and September 1992 issue of "Genii".

Hideo Kato

Thanks for those references Hideo. I should easily be able to check the Pentagram one as I have it on CD. Next time I'm in England (if I remember) I'll read again the Fulves article on Jordan.

Paul.