The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » Best packet trick of all time (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..18~19~20~21~22 [Next]
Brad Jeffers
View Profile
Veteran user
304 Posts

Profile of Brad Jeffers
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2015, Sixten wrote:
Another vote for Mr. John Cornelius' masterpiece: "Marked for Life"
For those, of you, who are not familiar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj5DX3zJ5tw


Watch the above performance of "Marked for Life" and then watch THIS VIDEO of "Shock Twist" by Gary Jones. Aren't these the same thing?

They seem the same to me, both being inferior presentations of Derek Dingle's "We'll Twist".
Paul
View Profile
Inner circle
A good lecturer at your service!
4402 Posts

Profile of Paul
[/quote]
Watch the above performance of "Marked for Life" and then watch THIS VIDEO of "Shock Twist" by Gary Jones. Aren't these the same thing? They seem the same to me, both being inferior presentations of Derek Dingle's "We'll Twist". [/quote]

They do look very similar in overall effect. But I'm sure there are differences, Gary must have a reason for putting the cards behind his back, for instance. I wouldn't call John's an inferior "presentation" his story patter is a very well thought out presentation for this type of effect. Both performances get better reactions than when I saw Derek perform "We'll Twist" , though that might be because Derek was performing for magicians at the time.

I mentioned a slightly different approach to Derek's routine in my packet trick book "Small But Deadly" in the twisting chapter(p. 60 in the U.S. edition) but you'd still need Derek's book to fully understand the routine. Lots of the twisting routines both implicit and explicit seem very similar.

At the end of the day none of these three are or were ever in my repertoire so they didn't make my best top ten list, nor best twisting effects, though I played around and tinkered with Derek's at one point.
Aljaz Son
View Profile
Regular user
122 Posts

Profile of Aljaz Son
I also have a preference to start a packet trick from a shuffled deck.

My favourites are:

- TalSpin by John Gustaferro from his Brainstorm Vol.2 DVD.
- Bizzare Prequel by John G., also from BS Vol.2
- Oil and Queens by Roy walton, which leads me into The Visitor by Lary Jennings (technically not a packet trick)

I do have one gimmicked packet trick I do a lot of times:

- Twisted Sisters by John Bannon which never fails to deliver.
carlyle
View Profile
Regular user
131 Posts

Profile of carlyle
I like packet tricks, but also mostly enjoy the ones with a standard deck (or work out a switch for the gaffs).

I've been really having fun with James Swain's "The Capitulating Queens". I love it - very visual, you can do a lot with a few cards. I did alter the handling, possibly for the worse - I use the A, 2, 3 and 4 of clubs and just start the transformations in numerical order (the ace is first to change, then see what the 2 does, etc.). The free-choice idea is gone, but for me it seems easier to follow. I love color-changing effects, and this is one of my favourites so far.

"Invisibull" by J. K. Hartman is also nice. Uses the deck as well, but only as set-up and clean-up. Very fun trick, love the surprise ending - seems like three cards disappear, but you're already a few steps ahead.
tvmikek
View Profile
New user
50 Posts

Profile of tvmikek
I'll add another vote for Bannon's Twisted Sisters. People are always floored when they see it. If done correctly, it looks like a miracle.

I also get surprising reaction from a packet trick that someone gave me as a gift...Flipped, Marked and Mirrored. I wasn't sure this would play well, but it did! People always respond well to that one too.
Brad Jeffers
View Profile
Veteran user
304 Posts

Profile of Brad Jeffers
Quote:
On Nov 22, 2015, Paul wrote:
They do look very similar in overall effect. I wouldn't call John's an inferior "presentation".


Perhaps I should have used the term inferior handling rather than inferior presentation, as the handling in both "Shock Twist" and "Marked for Life" (which are identical) can be clearly shown as inferior to the original Derek Dingle handling in "We'll Twist"; whereas if one is to limit the definition of presentation to the patter used, then it becomes a matter of personal preference as to which is best.

Quote:
I'm sure there are differences, Gary must have had a reason for putting the cards behind his back, for instance.


I'm sure he did, however it's a terrible thing to do. No trick should include a moment where you place the props behind your back. I mean REALLY!

Dingle uses Ken Krenzel's Mechanical Reverse to set the cards. Jones sets them by putting them behind his back. Quite an improvement?!

At the start of the trick, Dingle uses an elegant false count to show four blue backs. It's not easy, but it is very convincing. Jones totally eliminates this. The backs of the cards are not seen until the cards are removed from behind the back and the reversals begin to take place.

And I will mention that Dingle's show of the four blue backs is not just an arbitrary thing. It's nicely constructed into the routine.

Replacing the Ace, Two, Three & Four as used in "We'll Twist" with the four Sevens is no improvement, in fact, seems detrimental to the effect.

Finally, I think the simple elegance of having the blue backs change to red is better than having them change to four different backed cards (actually only three change, one card retains the original blue back), or having them become "marked cards".

Ironically, in Jones's presentation of "Shock Twist" he says "In a moment I'm going to make each one of these sevens turn over. Now there's two ways I can do this, the easy way or the hard way. Which would you rather see, the easy way or the hard way?"

In magic simplicity of method is often a virtue, however sometimes in trying to replace the difficult with the easy, something beautiful gets lost in the translation.

... and Dingle's patter is better too! Smile
Paul
View Profile
Inner circle
A good lecturer at your service!
4402 Posts

Profile of Paul
Smile Brad, if the routines don't credit Dingle they were probably independent creations. Patter presentations are never "one fits all". The Marked for Life patter which many liked never really appealed to me. I don't recall Derek's patter, I'd have to look it up if its included in the book. I certainly mentioned the routine in my book because the explicit approach is superior to the implied twisting in many twisting routines.I agree the Dingle routine is better construction and the ace to four rather than four of a kind adds clarity. However, the other routines clearly get good reactions still from lay people, who don't seem to care about trick construction. Sometimes the subtleties we add to routines to make them better the spectators have the audacity to overlook!

I think Gary's routine came out during the multi color back climax revival sparked by John Bannon. Many newcomers were unaware that had been used in the seventies too.

Whilst for the most part I agree about "behind the back stuff" I think there can be exceptions if you have good motivation for it.
Aljaz Son
View Profile
Regular user
122 Posts

Profile of Aljaz Son
Paul,

I would always include credit, especially if I independently created something which is very similar or identical to another creation already on the market. But maybe that is just me?

Brad,

"In magic simplicity of method is often a virtue, however sometimes in trying to replace the difficult with the easy, something beautiful gets lost in the translation."

I couldn't have said it better.

All the best
Aljaž
Paul
View Profile
Inner circle
A good lecturer at your service!
4402 Posts

Profile of Paul
Alzaz, I completely agree with you about credit, as would I, I never suggested otherwise (as anyone who has read my books will know).

To give credit, of course, one has to be aware of the other routines in question. It is possible these other routines were created independently without knowledge of Derek's routine. Certainly, John Cornelius's routine has been around almost as long as Dingle's if not longer! In fact, I never mentioned it in "Small But Deadly" because I'd completely forgotten about it. It regained some popularity when Michael Ammar included it on one of his DVD's. Michael himself must have thought highly of it, as obviously do some people on this thread.

I agree with Brad's other statement too. The key word in that statement is 'sometimes'. Many 'self working' or 'simplified' routines are less direct.

By the way, one of your choices, John G's "Tailspin" also appeared with permission in my second packet trick book, "Still Small, Still Deadly" with a slightly different clean up. It was in my restaurant repertoire for a time, great trick.

http://www.lybrary.com/still-small-still......770.html

I prefer doing "Twisted Sisters" with jumbo cards in a stand up act. It becomes the perfect 'thought of' cards across without having to get people up from the audience, count out cards etc.
gjmagic
View Profile
Special user
UK
964 Posts

Profile of gjmagic
Quote:
On Nov 23, 2015, Brad Jeffers wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 22, 2015, Paul wrote:
They do look very similar in overall effect. I wouldn't call John's an inferior "presentation".


Perhaps I should have used the term inferior handling rather than inferior presentation, as the handling in both "Shock Twist" and "Marked for Life" (which are identical) can be clearly shown as inferior to the original Derek Dingle handling in "We'll Twist"; whereas if one is to limit the definition of presentation to the patter used, then it becomes a matter of personal preference as to which is best.

Quote:
I'm sure there are differences, Gary must have had a reason for putting the cards behind his back, for instance.


I'm sure he did, however it's a terrible thing to do. No trick should include a moment where you place the props behind your back. I mean REALLY!

Dingle uses Ken Krenzel's Mechanical Reverse to set the cards. Jones sets them by putting them behind his back. Quite an improvement?!

At the start of the trick, Dingle uses an elegant false count to show four blue backs. It's not easy, but it is very convincing. Jones totally eliminates this. The backs of the cards are not seen until the cards are removed from behind the back and the reversals begin to take place.

And I will mention that Dingle's show of the four blue backs is not just an arbitrary thing. It's nicely constructed into the routine.

Replacing the Ace, Two, Three & Four as used in "We'll Twist" with the four Sevens is no improvement, in fact, seems detrimental to the effect.

Finally, I think the simple elegance of having the blue backs change to red is better than having them change to four different backed cards (actually only three change, one card retains the original blue back), or having them become "marked cards".

Ironically, in Jones's presentation of "Shock Twist" he says "In a moment I'm going to make each one of these sevens turn over. Now there's two ways I can do this, the easy way or the hard way. Which would you rather see, the easy way or the hard way?"

In magic simplicity of method is often a virtue, however sometimes in trying to replace the difficult with the easy, something beautiful gets lost in the translation.

... and Dingle's patter is better too! Smile


Hi Brad, thank you for your honest comments, I take it you don't like it then Smile Some people like my version, which by the way was first marketed in the early 1980s. My contribution was to add RF and four different coloured backed cards for the climax (we had quite a problem back then sourcing the different coloured backs, unlike nowadays!). The presentation covered the placing of the cards behind the back, which was done at the start of the effect....basically before the 'magic' actually happens so it is done openly. While some will agree with what you said, others think that it the addition of RF allows you to do some wonderful one handed displays.

It's a good job that we are all different and like different things, the world would be very boring otherwise!!

Regards,

Gary Jones.
MIMC Gold Star

www.garyjonesmagic.com

gary@garyjonesmagic.com

DVDs/Effects; The Unknown - iCandy - More iCandy 1 & 2 - Dupes - 52 0n 1 Project - 74% Self Working - Flying Tonight - Pocket This - 6 Pack Coins - 6 Pack Cards - Thought Wave - Noted - Duality - Live Lecture Vol 1 - Pseudo Pickpocket - iContact - Shock Twist - Thought of Cards Across Plus - Touched - Colour Diffusion - Look No Hands Wayne Dobson - Automata - Box Pad - No Frills Lecture Notes 1 & 2 - The Ammo - Automata 2 - Black Market - Trick Soup - Automata 3 - Penguin Live Lecture - Upper Hand - Cartoon Capers.
HoDinhYu
View Profile
New user
65 Posts

Profile of HoDinhYu
To me it's still Asher Twist. Gaffless, practical, and visuaL!
TheRealMagicMike
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas, NV
145 Posts

Profile of TheRealMagicMike
Being a "monte" lover, I like: Stand-up Monte and Color Monte... also Ace and Twisting the Aces.
petegrimaud
View Profile
Regular user
102 Posts

Profile of petegrimaud
One of my favourites is "The Royal Scam" by John Bannon..
petegrimaud
View Profile
Regular user
102 Posts

Profile of petegrimaud
Infact anything by John Bannon is usually great..!
frankinator32
View Profile
New user
3 Posts

Profile of frankinator32
Love the tricks using Bannon's Bullet Party display (Bullet Party, Liam Montier's Montinator and Odd Man Out). And of course, Elmsley's original Four Card Trick.
Failed Magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Still working on the DL even after made
2102 Posts

Profile of Failed Magician
Brainiac, Spin Doctor, Capitulating Queens and The Corner of Piccadilly.
Magic comes through perception. -HS
Razamabaz
View Profile
New user
30 Posts

Profile of Razamabaz
Favourite gaffed packet trick believe it or not is Colour changing Kings to Aces. Nice and easy not much effort involved finish it with a flustration count or Rumba count and it's job done.

Favorite tricks with non gaffed cards, Twisting the Aces, Dr Daley's and Jazz Aces.
C. Kolchak
View Profile
New user
8 Posts

Profile of C. Kolchak
My vote is for Reset by Paul Harris.
I have had more "holy s***'s" from the four cards switching back then from any other card effect.
Paul
View Profile
Inner circle
A good lecturer at your service!
4402 Posts

Profile of Paul
Quote:
On Jun 22, 2016, C. Kolchak wrote:
My vote is for Reset by Paul Harris.
I have had more "holy s***'s" from the four cards switching back then from any other card effect.


I always preferred the similar "Boomerang" by Walt Maddison. Here's an old video clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsZL2a5JG8

You also get a similar response when all the picture cards jump together in Peter Duffie's "Point Blank Assembly" (link below) though neither have been mentioned in this thread yet, I don't think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSPkpqvros8
Karli
View Profile
New user
Estonia
65 Posts

Profile of Karli
How can you beat Stand Up Monte, I don't understand? Its my signature card trick of all time! Cant beat that. Just learn it, try it out and you´ll understand.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » Best packet trick of all time (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..18~19~20~21~22 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2017 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL