Has anyone tried these manipulation cards?

It would seem that they are made of a plastic.

It's hard to believe that plastic cards would fan well, but if so, these could be nice.

I will have to give them a try.

I don't have them yet, but I don't think they are plastic. Juliana Chen's sells a plastic card, but she does not use them in her act. they are just to heavy.

I believe these are just very well plastic coated or laminated. I never dipped my Lance Burton cards in water, but they are the longest lasting I have run across, and used. To bad they are all sold out at Seo Magic for such a long time.

Bill, Juliana uses 2 kinds of cards in her act, manipulation cards and plastic cards. The plastic ones are for shooting. She sells the cards also, met her 2 months ago.

RJH

Maybe she has recently changed. When she started selling her white back manipulation cards made out of all plastic, she later lectured at a magic convention and sold the plastic cards. The person who purchased the cards for me and attended the lecture stated, "she does not use the all plastic cards in her act".

I have worked with her and she does not use all plastic cards.

Richard

I just watched two performances of Yu Ho Jin in Akron, Ohio as they prepared the show for the Broadway performances which open tomorrow and then go on tour. His work registers very well with laymen as well as magicians. Whatever cards he uses, he does not lose many. He has drop cloth put out on the floor before the act. He also does a wonderful all blank deck that is printed and unprinted with closeup camera.

Save your nickels but don't miss out on this show. Well worth the money. It just might be the thing to give magic a jumpstart again.

Richard

I've had a deck of these for a month or so, but haven't had a chance to really work with them more than just fanning and feeling the cards. They are very thin, but have a nice spring to them. At first they feel similar to most manipulation cards and I'd never think to submerge them in water... but after touching the cards for a few moments, I noticed there's a different kind of texture to them; maybe that's what makes them waterproof? I hope to work with them more soon.

Ok here's little review about four color Yu Hojin cards. They feel excellent, fans pop up nice, back palming is very easy to do. Cards are thinner than I expect. Two deck packs, red and white. I liked both of them. Cards are flexible, but not for intense folding. I did already fold for one card and it remains permanently on card, though it almost disappered when I powdered them. Powderdering method was quite unfamiliar for me and I was suspicious. Water and Nielsen Fanning Powder worked well and card became smoothly. Print of is great but sensitive for scratches. My nail hit on eight of clubs and color detached a little bit. For lucky I had black permanent marker so I could add it. Perhaps someone knows how print is added to card's surface. I can recommend warmly these cards to everyone.

Pros:
-Nice pastel colors
-Easy to handle
-Very thin to palm
-Fans are easy to do
-Powder method for everyone: water + powder together

Cons:
-Price is too high (33€ in my country)
-Surfaces are sensitive for scratches
-Pictures of Kings, Queens and Jacks are not included at colored version cards

Score 4/5 stars

Water and powder together? I've never heard of this. Do you mix the powder with water and then apply to the cards? Sounds like a mess, but it must be workable.

Yes I put them together like it's told to do in instructions, cards work great now

I have his manipulation cards as well. They are extremely thin and the version I have does not have court cards.

The one thing I am not hearing is whether these cards are bridge size or poker size

also wondering if they come with these said directions people mentioned.

thanks

sam

Just heard back from seo magic

they are just slightly bigger then bridge and slightly smaller then poker
interesting.

(2 3/8” x 3 ½”)

Hi Sam,
As mentioned, I have a deck of these and while I haven't worked with them yet, I can say they certainly fall into the bridge-sized category. The difference in size when compared to Murphy's Bridge, Nielsen Extra Thin, or Bee bridge cards is negligible.

I just compared them and here are the results:

Compared to Murphy's bridge cards: Murphy's are slightly LONGER. Yu Hojin's are slightly WIDER. The Murphy's are longer than the Yu Hojin's are wider.

The Nielsen Extra Thin and Bee Bridge Cards are virtually identical to the Murphy's Bridge Cards, so the above comparison is true for those as well. I don't think you'll notice any difference in the handling unless you use poker sized cards. Manipulation Cards used to always have a slight variation, depending on the cut, so I think this is typical.

I need to work with these more, but I really appreciate folks giving their reviews. It's helpful.

In regards to Julianna Chen's cards, my experience matches with Bill's and Richard's. In the couple of times I got to work with and learn from Ms. Chen in Hawaii, she used plastic cards only for the production she does where the cards appear at the fingertips, clipped between the first and third finger on one side and the middle finger on the other. This is the production that she does at amazing lightning speed.

She did not use plastic cards for the other productions.

I worked with the Yu Hojin cards for about 20 minutes today and here are my initial impressions.

TEXTURE/FINISH:
The cards fan beautifully right out of the box. They have a silky smooth texture which is pretty much identical in feel to any other brand new manipulation deck after being put through a standard treatment with fanning powder (Nielsen, Murphy's, Lance Burton, Aug Muller, Magician's Card). This means they fan and slide very well. This also means there isn't much drag on them, so they can slip out of your grasp somewhat easily, but as I mentioned, this is true for any of the five brands I listed above when they are new and powdered. After using any of those decks extensively either in practice or performance, the finish will rub off and you'll require another powdering, at which point, the card will have more drag and be easier to control. I suspect the same will be true with the Yu Hojin Deck.
Having said that, in general terms, the soft finish of these cards feels higher in quality than any other deck I've tried. I said "wow" out loud during the first split fan. The quality is outstanding.

STIFFNESS:
The cards are extremely supple and pliable, even more so than the Murphy's cards, which are already one of the thinnest, most pliable decks I've ever tried. This means they are easier for some techniques, but for any production that requires a spring in the card, you'll encounter challenges. For example, the "Perfect" front hand production will not snap into view. You'd need to make up for that with some hand movement and momentum. This is true for other decks as well, but more so for this one. Still, for many other moves, this plyability (is that a word) is an advantage. And I had no problems with the Sheridan Production or a production (the name of which escapes me) where the end of the produced card is held between the first and third fingers on one side of the card and the middle finger on the other (referenced above in my Juliana Chen post).

DESIGN:
At first I thought the back design was strange, but I think it only looks that way if you show the back of a single card. Showing the back of a fan, with the black border at the top looks just fine and is much better than showing the back of a fan that has only the "other" color we're all familiar with (likewise this is better than fanning these cards with the black borders at the bottom, as is emphasizes the other color too much).
I like the thought that went into making the backs versatile with two colors. If you're a manipulator who colors the edges of your cards, then you may start pondering the same thing I am: how to do so with this deck. IE: Do I color half the deck black and the other half the other color? Or color all the edges one color? No right or wrong answer there; it's all in how you use them.

COST:
As others have said, these are definitely expensive cards. I think they are double the most expensive brand I've seen out there. Are they worth it? I think that depends. These were designed by a FISM winner who specializes in Card Manipulation. That says a lot. If the ads are accurate that they can withstand a lot of abuse, and more importantly, if they turn out to be "perfect" for your needs, it may be hard to say they are too expensive. I haven't tried putting them through the abuse (I admit, I'm a bit squeamish to deliberately try to ruin a deck I paid $35 for, LOL) and I don't know if they are "Perfect" for my needs; that requires trying them out more, so the jury is out for me personally.

As you can see I have a lot more to learn about these cards, but wanted to put this out there in case it helps anyone. Would love to hear what you guys think of them and your experiences. For example, I can't imagine swishing these around in a bowl of fanning powder and water!

Christopher

good review. similar to what I have heard from others.

i have used Chens cards for her production and enjoy them however they seem to suck at the perfect production. maybe some fanning powder could help I don't know.
i do like the plastic feel and how they "snap" into sight.

i have tried others like Duffies and neilson but hate them both as they are too flimsy and have yet to work well for anything I tried.

i actually have been using a cheap set of regular plastic bridge size cards (ok maybe not cheap they were $15) but even though they are not thin I can take 12-15 and do the perfect production and they slide and snap with perfection.

this is why my hope is that the Yu Ho Jin cards will work well.

i am planning a mix of his cards, chen cards and regular bee cards for my routine. the bee cards will be ones that I let fly to the floor or shoot out to the audience as they are easily and inexpensively replaced.

thanks again for your post and every one else - its good to hear real world experiences.

sam

No problem, Sam. But if the Murphy's/Duffy and Nielsen's are too flimsy for you, these will be too. But I say pick up a deck and try them anyway. Small investment to test for yourself, right?

Well the Chen cards are super thin but plastic and snap great.

the duffies and others are just like paper with no snap or spring to them.

i was under the impression that these cards are plastic and although thin are like the Julia Chen cards which can take a beating and still look great.

am I wrong??

Hi Sam. Yu Hojin's cards are definitely not plastic. They are paper cardstock. Similar in pliability to the Murphy's, but more so.

The advertisment says the cards will last a long time because they are resistant to folds, cuts and it looks like even water too? That may be true, but I haven't tested it. It seems unlikely because of the fact that they are paper, but maybe there's something I'm missing.