(Close Window)
Topic: Blaine style double lift
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (May 30, 2003 04:09AM)
Hi,

I wander which kind of double lift David Blaine uses??? Normally, I will do the snap double, but some how I would like to know what kind of double is that?? Any help would be great!!

Thanks!!

Andrew :)
Message: Posted by: Mr. X (May 30, 2003 04:34AM)
I believe he uses a Derek Dingle style double from his book "the complete works".
If you are only using a snap double, I suggest you get back to basics before even buying Dingles book. I'm guessing you learnt the snap double after purchasing D.Martinez Ambitious Card Video? If so you will notice that this move needs misdirection, like clicking your right-hand fingers. Now this is fine for the ambitious card but for other routines I suggest something more sublime.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (May 30, 2003 05:44AM)
Yes, I learned it from Daryl's dvd. I konw it requires some misdirection and so I am looking for a better double lift, any suggestions??

Andrew :)
Message: Posted by: korttihai_82 (May 30, 2003 06:23AM)
Greg Wilson teaches both doubles on his tape, "Double Take" and I highly recommend it.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (May 30, 2003 07:14AM)
[quote]
On 2003-05-30 07:23, korttihai_82 wrote:
Greg Wilson teaches both doubles on his tape, "Double Take" and I highly recommend it.
[/quote]
Do you mean that it teaches the Blaine style double??? :confused:
Message: Posted by: Mr. X (May 30, 2003 07:16AM)
It's Dingle, not Blaine.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (May 30, 2003 07:29AM)
Oh I understand now, Blaine is using the Dingle double lift, am I right??? Is it taught in "Double Take"?? :thanx:
Message: Posted by: therntier (May 30, 2003 07:35AM)
I use the Jennings (I think it's his) snap double all the time without misdirection. During what part of the double do you need misdirection?
Message: Posted by: Mr. X (May 30, 2003 07:38AM)
The thumb count.
Yes, its Jennings Snap double.
Message: Posted by: therntier (May 30, 2003 07:53AM)
If the thumb count is done quickly and smoothly, there is no realy need for misdirection, especially if the thumb is away from the spectators. A small movement of the left hand is enough to cover the thumb count in all instances.
Message: Posted by: Card Sheister (May 30, 2003 08:00AM)
Blaine uses the Dingle DL using his middle finger instead of his ring.
Message: Posted by: dmk_kirkland (May 30, 2003 08:02AM)
Actually it's Krenzel's not Dingle's. I don't think the controversy is a large one, but Krenzel's was published first by Lorayne, and Dingle's latter by Kaufman.
Message: Posted by: Euan (May 30, 2003 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2003-05-30 08:53, therntier wrote:
If the thumb count is done quickly and smoothly, there is no realy need for misdirection especially if the thumb is away from the spectators. A small movement of the left hand is enough to cover the thumb count in all instances.
[/quote]
That small movement would be misdirection then ;).. Not quite as overt as having a dancing bear come on stage with you but misdirection all the same :nod:

--Euan
Message: Posted by: Mr. X (May 30, 2003 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2003-05-30 08:53, therntier wrote:
If the thumb count is done quickly and smoothly, there is no realy need for misdirection, especially if the thumb is away from the spectators. A small movement of the left hand is enough to cover the thumb count in all instances.
[/quote]
What, like putting it under the table?!
Why after so many years of refining things like double lift get-readys didn't people just thumb count.
The Snap is the most abused double there is, why? Because a thumb count is easier than a pinky count or push-off.
I guess you are going to have to get caught first before you listen.
The Snap double is not a workhorse sleight, it's a part-time mistress.
Message: Posted by: HuronLow (May 30, 2003 08:35AM)
Blaine also uses the block push-off...
Message: Posted by: Tilt (May 30, 2003 11:05AM)
Just get a break under two cards and turn them over. Find something that looks natural for you. Look at the way you would turn over one card and then duplicate it with two.

Mike Pisciotta
Message: Posted by: Clarence (May 30, 2003 11:11AM)
Honestly speaking, if you are going to get a break, I say just do a pinky count double lift.

The nice thing about the push-off double lift is that you don't have to get a break.

It's based on skill, practice and a lot of self-experimenting.

The feeling of the push-off double lift will be different for everyone. Push at different positions, see which feels best, then go for that one.

:smiles:
Message: Posted by: Bone (May 30, 2003 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2003-05-30 05:09, Andrew Wong wrote:
Hi,

I wander which kind of double lift david blaine uses??? Normally, I will do the snap double, but some how I would like to know what kind of double is that?? Any help would be great!!

Thanks!!

Andrew :)
[/quote]

It's called PushOff Double, you can learn this in detail at Ellusionist.com in CrashCourse2 - Ambitious Card.

Truly,

Bone.
Message: Posted by: marko (May 30, 2003 12:21PM)
Whatever DL Blaine uses, I don't think it looks very good anyway. Learn Vernon's DL and you'll never need to learn another.
Message: Posted by: Clarence (May 30, 2003 11:39PM)
The best and most deceptive double lift is the pinky count DL turnover.

Ever since i mastered the pinky count, i've never used other methods. :smiles:
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (May 31, 2003 12:27AM)
Wow, there are 3 answers now, which one is the correct one??

PushOff Double ?
Dingle DL ?
Krenzel's dl ?

Andrew <---- very confused!
:hmm: :confused:
Message: Posted by: Clarence (May 31, 2003 12:39AM)
David Blaine uses the PushOff Double.

Enough said. :smiles:
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (Jun 1, 2003 06:56AM)
Thanks!!! Can anyone suggest some vidoe to learn the push off dl??? :thanx:

Andrew :online:
Message: Posted by: Creanada (Jun 1, 2003 09:19AM)
As Bone suggested, the new Ellusionist video, Crash Course 2 teaches it very well. I had pretty much got the basics of it in no time from this.
Message: Posted by: Nash (Jun 1, 2003 03:59PM)
Forget Blaine's double.

[b]Master Pinky Count[/b], then you can pretty much do whatever kind of double life you want once you get this invisible get-ready.
I usually move from pinky count, then keep the break with my ring finger, then push the cards to the right with my thumb, applying pressures between my thumb and ring finger to keep the two cards in place, double turn over.
[b]Done[/b]. (It sounds complicated but all that is done in less than a 3 seconds)


Trust me, if you don't trust me, trust Darwin Ortiz.
Pinky count is a "[b]must[/b]" for every magician.
It is the best get-ready for double lift, or add on moves, or switch ins, best of all, it is totally invisible.
:wow:
Message: Posted by: Andrew Wong (Jun 1, 2003 06:02PM)
Thanks!!! Then can anyone please suggest a place to learn Pinky Count???? I own Card College already, but seems it's not very detailed.

Andrew
Message: Posted by: Maxim (Jun 1, 2003 06:47PM)
Darwin Ortiz teaches the pinky count in his book 'At the Card Table'. The guy's nuts about it.

Maxim.
Message: Posted by: Jordini (May 30, 2005 08:43PM)
You guys are all wrong. David Blaine uses the "Pickup two cards while my hand is out of the shot" double.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 30, 2005 09:15PM)
[quote]
On 2003-05-30 13:21, marko wrote:
Whatever DL Blaine uses, I don't think it looks very good anyway. Learn Vernon's DL and you'll never need to learn another.
[/quote]
Agreed.

The double lift was meant to give the illusion of handling a single card.

Who in the world turns over a single card like that?
Message: Posted by: at4aces (May 30, 2005 09:42PM)
Magic should mimic real life in order to look natural. If you ask 100 people to take a deck and turn over the top card, none of them will turn it over like Blaine does. (It is the push off double lift taught on Ellusionist). The best looking double lift will mimic what it would look like if you were turning over one card naturally. There are many ways to get into position to turn a card over naturally and I think Vernon, Ortiz and Jennings all teach different versions very well. Master one technique and go with it. The snap double by Jennings is very easy and can look very natural, but I would advise not trying to make the cards "snap". That is not very natural. Just my 2 cents.
Message: Posted by: rannie (May 30, 2005 10:44PM)
Logan,

Buddy you said it man! No one turns over a card that way. Worse ,after the double , he (Blaine) turns it casually for the single. A snap, strike , Vernon's or Ron Bauer's DL is more natural. The closer it looks to a normal way you would turn over a single , the better. I am still continously working on my DL. I practice by turning a couple of singles in a row and burn that image as reference.

Peace,

Rannie
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 30, 2005 11:45PM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-30 22:42, at4aces wrote:
If you ask 100 people to take a deck and turn over the top card, none of them will turn it over like Blaine does (it is the push off double lift taught on ellusionist). [/quote]
Ask 100 people to shuffle a deck of cards and probably none of them will do it the way a casino dealer does, but that doesn't mean the way a casino dealer shuffles is unnatural. "Naturalness" doesn't mean handling cards the way a layperson does, it means handling them in a way that doesn't arouse suspicion. I see nothing particularly suspicious about stud-style double-lifts (and apparently neither does Derek Dingle or Martin Nash).

Paul
Message: Posted by: J3 (May 31, 2005 12:15AM)
I thought Blaine did the strike double, but its been a while since I saw the Ambitious card video. As for the pinky count it really is a usefull move to have for when you need to get a break under more then 3 cards, for just a double or triple theres a move greg wilson teaches on his pyrotechnic pasteboards and card stunts(I think) where you can buckle the top cards without any obvious movement, so theres no need to tilt the deck down or misdirect, with the pinky count if you the spectator can see the top card theyl see the back corner just snap up.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 02:19AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 00:45, Paul Sherman wrote:

Ask 100 people to shuffle a deck of cards and probably none of them will do it the way a casino dealer does, but that doesn't mean the way a casino dealer shuffles is unnatural. "Naturalness" doesn't mean handling cards the way a layperson does, it means handling them in a way that doesn't arouse suspicion. I see nothing particularly suspicious about stud-style double-lifts (and apparently neither does Derek Dingle or Martin Nash).

Paul
[/quote]

Granted, that is true.

But you're just turning over one card...how much more simple does that have to be?

And Blaine turns it over the way he does.

I have nothing against Blaine, I really love watching him, so this is nothing personal.

Unlike shuffling, there is only one straight-forward way to turn a card over - I don't see why it has to be convoluted unecessarily.

The strike double accomplishes this very well, and if done sequentially alternating between doubles and singles, is undetectable.

It's true naturalness does play a part in EXECUTION, but it does not help in the LOGIC department very much. So with naturalness you can execute it flawlessly and without suspicion but it will not cover or hide the fact that it is illogical to turn over ONE card like that, especially if the rest of the time you are turning over one card 'normally'.

Am I scrutinizing? Maybe so.

Would the spectators catch on? Maybe not - but then again, you never know, our beloved spectators are cleverer than they appear!

I just feel the DL is too good a sleight to be put in the backseat.

With naturalness and the right logical method, you would have one killer DL.
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 02:37AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 03:19, Logan wrote:
Unlike shuffling, there is only one straight-forward way to turn a card over - I don't see why it has to be convoluted unecessarily.

The strike double accomplishes this very well, and if done sequentially alternating between doubles and singles, is undetectable.
[/quote]
The only straight forward way to turn over a card is to strike its right edge with the finger and peel it upwards, turning it bookwise onto the top of the deck?

Nobody tell Ron Bauer...

or Nate Leipzig...

or Stuart Gordon...

or Dai Vernon (who doesn't seem to have cared for strike DLs)...

or anyone who's ever dealt stud poker.

[quote]
...but it will not cover or hide the fact that it is illogical to turn over ONE card like that, especially if the rest of the time you are turning over one card 'normally'. [/quote]
While I dispute that there is only one way to turn over a card "normally", what you describe here sounds like a problem of lack of uniformity of action and not necessarily a problem with the design of the sleight itself.

[quote]
I just feel the DL is too good a sleight to be put in the backseat.
[/quote]
I'll bet Derek Dingle and Martin Nash would agree on that, too.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 02:53AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 03:37, Paul Sherman wrote:

The only straight forward way to turn over a card is to strike its edge with the finger and peel it upwards, turning it bookwise onto the top of the deck?

[/quote]

If technicality is an issue here, then fine, there are at least 3-4 ways of turning a card over onto the top of the deck that would be rather straight-forward. But they all would more or less follow the same method, only difference being they just leave from different edges of the deck.

Either way, Dingle's doesn't come close to any of them. Agreed?

[quote]

While I dispute that there is only one way to turn over a card "normally", what you describe here sounds like a problem of lack of uniformity of action and not necessarily a problem with the design of the sleight itself.

[/quote]

PRECISELY! If one wants to do a certain double, he should try to maintain uniformity with his singles. But with the Dingle DL it just wouldn't be logical to do it EVEN WITH uniformity. Because the DL looks a little illogical, doing it again and again, with the aim for uniformity, would only cause more suspicion. It just doesn't look normal. And if you do it without uniformity, the lack of consistency is obvious, well, to me anyways.

All I'm saying is if you can turn over singles normally, why not turn your doubles normally too?

So either way, the Dingle DL TO ME isn't worth it.

Personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 03:30AM)
[quote]All I'm saying is if you can turn over singles normally, why not turn your doubles normally too? [/quote]

I understand that it's just your personal opinion, but this rhetorical question reveals that your argument begs the question; it assumes that one way of turning over a card (apparently "bookwise") is "normal".

Your argument doesn't offer any evidence to support this assumption and I feel that it is incorrect.

I've seen a lot of people do the Dingle lift badly, and that certainly looks unnatural. Competently performed, however, the move looks like a stud-turnover. Turning cards stud-style (as in the Dingle and Nash DLs) is an accepted practice at card tables (that's why there's a "stud" version of every false deal). Stud-style double-turnovers are apparently natural enough that they've been used extensively by many magicians widely regarded to be masters of the art. You have a hard argument to make if you're claiming that turning cards over stud-style is unnatural.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 03:33AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 03:37, Paul Sherman wrote:

Nobody tell Ron Bauer...

or Nate Leipzig...

or Stuart Gordon...

or Dai Vernon (who doesn't seem to have cared for strike DLs)...

or anyone who's ever dealt stud poker.
[/quote]
Why are you condescending me?

These are all different people who have different opinions.

What they say is NOT THE GOLDEN RULE.

I am just expressing MY opinion, on what I perceive to be natural and logical.

There are a million DL's out there that would suffice, the regular old DL from a pinky break. A DL obtained from a pinky count. Strike is excellent. Snap is awesome. Non-acrobatic Diving Board Double looks very convincing.

I just have a gripe with the Dingle DL, as it's movements defy logic.

Again, I stress PERSONAL OPINION.


Posted: May 31, 2005 4:41am
-----------------------------------------------
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 04:30, Paul Sherman wrote:

I understand that it's just your personal opinion, but this rhetorical question reveals that your argument begs the question; it assumes that one way of turning over a card (apparently "bookwise") is "normal".
[/quote]
You raise a good point here.

I think it has to do with where we live. Around Asia, stud really isn't a game that is played very often - in fact, I've never seen or heard anyone playing it here, and I think this is why I can't quite agree with the logic behind Dingle's DL - as I've never come across it here. In fact, table riffle shuffles are also a rarity - albeit, people can easily identify that it's a shuffle if it's shown to them.

I see why now it seems to alien to me. I overlooked the fact that we live in different places, which have different practices.

I apologise for causing a stir.

Thanks for the heads up!

[quote]
I've seen a lot of people do the Dingle lift badly, and that certainly looks unnatural. Competently performed, however, the move looks like a stud-turnover. Turning cards stud-style (as in the Dingle and Nash DLs) is an accepted practice at card tables (that's why there's a "stud" version of every false deal). Stud-style double-turnovers are apparently natural enough that they've been used extensively by many magicians widely regarded to be masters of the art. You have a hard argument to make if you're claiming that turning cards over stud-style is unnatural.
[/quote]
Thank you for the clarification my friend.

Take care,

Logan
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 03:52AM)
I'm sorry if you took offense. I was trying to point out in a humorous way that a number of very successful magicians (including one who more or less founded the school of "natural magic") either used non-bookwise turnovers or didn't like the strike double-lift, and would probably disagree with your argument. Humor doesn't travel well electronically. I didn't mean to condescend and, again, if you were offended I sincerely apologize.

[Deleted the last part, since I just saw your reply. You do make the excellent point that cultural difference will effect what is "natural" in any given place. I'll keep your thoughts in mind if I'm ever in Asia].
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 03:58AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 04:52, Paul Sherman wrote:
I'm sorry if you took offense. I was trying to point out in a humorous way that a number of very successful magicians (including one who more or less founded the school of "natural magic") either used non-bookwise turnovers or didn't like the strike double-lift, and would probably disagree with your argument. Humor doesn't travel well electronically. I didn't mean to condescend and, again, if you were offended I sincerely apologize.

[deleted the last part, since I just saw your reply]
[/quote]

I agree, sometimes humor falls short when transmitted over the Net.

No harm, no foul my friend.

I've learned from you, so thanks once again.

Had it not been for your wise words, I would be going on and making a fool out of myself due to a lack of basic knowledge - that being we live in different parts of the world, and as such we play different games and so cheating follows different routes.

All the best,

Logan
Message: Posted by: Vraagaard (May 31, 2005 04:05AM)
The DL is the most important of all card sleighs since it is used throughout lots of tricks. that's why we need to practice it to perfection. Now what it should look like to a lay man is exactly how a lay man would deal a card or turn over a card. Ask a layman to deal a card or turn over a card and you will see that they all (if right handed) will hold the deck in the left hand an deal or lift from the top right corner of the deck. This means that you need to deal or lift a card from the top right corner when you hold the deck in dealing position - if you want it to look natural. You would actually do the same if you sit down and try to handle a single card - and that is of course how a DL should look. Conclussion - lift cards of from the top right corner of the deck - that's my opinion.

That's why the strike double and also the pinky count will not look entirely natural - since it doesn't make them able to lift the card from the top right corner of the deck - maybe a few can master that from a pinky count but I haven't seen them yet. The strike double will normally be liftet from the bottom right corner - which is unnatural - Sankey's double lift (strike double) is by this definition unnatural looking - which I always thought from the first time I saw it - and that was before I even knew about the double lift.

In conclusion I use 3 different get-ready's that enables me to lift from the top right corner.

1) A push over get ready - when the flow of the tricks allow that to look natural (Michael Ammar uses this get ready a lot).
2 The Larry Jenning snap double (don't make it snap - that's only in the beginning when you practice it that it should snap. A snap sound is unnatural). And believe me this is totally angle proff and doesn't require any misdirection if you tilt your left wrist a little towards your left).
3) A push over double - and believe me that requires a lot of practice. I've seen the Marlo students who claim they use the push over double like Steve Draun etc. and they are great. Even though - they also still use the snap double and the push over get ready when they can get away with it - because it's easier and looks equally good.

SO what ever get ready you recommend - please at the same time tell us if it makes you able to lift the card from the all important and natural top right corner of the deck - because that's the only natural way to lift a card - unless you live on Mars. Just study Dai vernon - he spent a lifetime making his magic look natural - on the revelations DVD's he has a clean comment to the strike double. The essence of that comment is "that's unnatural and the best examle of how not to do it since it lifts the card from the bottom right corner - always lift the card from the top right corner of the deck".
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 04:17AM)
[quote]On 2005-05-31 05:05, Vraagaard wrote:
The DL is the most important of all card sleighs since it is used throughout lots of tricks. that's why we need to practice it to perfection. Now what it should look like to a lay man is exactly how a lay man would deal a card or turn over a card.[/quote]
Why are we laboring under the assumption that "natural" is defined by how laymen handle things, rather than by how laymen might reasonably expect to see things handled?
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 04:24AM)
Paul,

I think it's cos we want to try to hit 'closer to home' so to speak. So they don't just pass of a miracle we just did because we have 'skills' by doing things differently. There will always be skeptics, but I personally feel that if we try to make the moves we do familiar to some extent, there is less room for doubt.

Just a possibility. I know that's why I strive in that direction.
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 05:20AM)
What I'm suggesting is that "naturalness" covers a range of possible behaviors, rather than a few discrete behaviors that are themselves "natural".

If a layperson thinks "oh, he must have done it when he turned the card over that way", then obviously the turnover wasn't deceptive. The question is: why wasn't it deceptive? Assuming that the technique itself doesn't flash and that it really does look like a single card being turned over, the explanation must be that the technique looks "unnatural". That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is necessarily to handle things like a layperson.

For example, if you handed violins to 100 laymen with no musical background, and asked them to hold it as if they were playing it, you'd probably see 100 people in stances that were vaguely similar to what they've seen professional violinists do. They'd probably be clumsy and unsure and they would probably all make mistakes.

Now imagine you had 100 laymen watch one professional violinist as he uncases his instrument, positions it, and begins playing. He would do countless things different than they would. He would move more deftly, handle the instrument more gracefully, position it without conscious thought. The laymen might see that there were several things that he did completely differently. Yet, despite the fact that his actions only vaguely resemble those of a layperson, they would hardly be noticed, because they fall within the range of expectations. He's a professional and people expect that he'll handle his instrument in ways that are more refined than they would themselves. They'd probably pay no attention to these actions and would just wait for the music. Also, consider how odd it would seem to all those lay people watching that violinist if he, a professional, were clumsy in positioning his instrument.

This same range of naturalness exists in magic. Obviously the range is affected by what we wish to convey. If a magician wanted to make people think he was a layman, he would probably want to handle card exactly as a layman would. Max Maven, as someone demonstrating psychic abilities, probably wouldn't want to shuffle his ESP cards like Steve Forte. The range is also affected by our personalities (certain techniques that arouse no suspicion in the hands of an expressive person would scream out in the hands of a reserved person and vice versa).

At any rate, what I'm getting at here is that the way lay-people handle things is only a small (and probably not even the most important) part of the range of naturalness. Generally speaking, we have more leeway than that.

Paul
Message: Posted by: Vraagaard (May 31, 2005 05:42AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 06:20, Paul Sherman wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that "naturalness" covers a range of possible behaviors, rather than a few discrete behaviors that are themselves "natural".

......

For example, if you handed violins to 100 laymen with no musical background, and asked them to hold it as if they were playing it, you'd probably see 100 people in stances that were vaguely similar to what they've seen professional violinists do. They'd probably be clumsy and unsure and they would probably all make mistakes.


.......

At any rate, what I'm getting at here is that the way lay-people handle things is only a small (and probably not even the most important) part of the range of naturalness. Generally speaking, we have more leeway than that.

Paul
[/quote]

Hi Paul,

I agree with you that when it comes to naturalness "we have much more leeway than that". So I buy into your point in general. But this thread is about the best way to perform a DL - so we are not talking about what we can accomplish with clever misdirections - because then any DL would be "perfect".

I do believe if you can make the trick and handling natural looking even from a laymans point of view - you are better of - and you need less misdirection to achieve your effect - meaning you can contrate more on your presentation. So if you can make it as a lay man would do it - then why not - or if you could make so that a lay man wouldn't find it odd - then why not do it.

Your example with the violin's - although well meant - is not the best example for comparison. You see out of 100 spectators to a magic show at least 100 have had some sort of cards in their hand at some point in their life - and most of them are pretty used to playing cards. Whether its regular cards, childrens cards, Pokemon cards, basecall cards or other cards. SO here you are actually performing for people who knows the feeling of holding a deck and dealing a card - unlike the feeling of holding a violin.

I can still only say that before I even knew about the DL I saw Jay Sankey (using the strike double from the bottom left corner of the deck) and I remember I was thinking "what an odd way to take a card". I didn't think he was cheating at that moment - but still it gave me an odd feeling - and you can overcome that by making it look natural.

I'm not saying that you cannot perform great magic with unnatural moves - of course you can. And sometimes unnatural moves just gets unnoticed - due to the presentation. I'm only saying that if you can acccomplish the same with simplicity and natural moves - then I think you are better of. And in this thread we are discussing the "best" way to do a DL. Isn't it a part of refining the tricks we do - making them more simple, more direct and more natural in the handling. I think that's a part of "better do a few tricks perfect - than a lot of tricks less than perfect". That of course depends of your purpose and who you are.

Just my two cents - for what its worth.
Message: Posted by: ziatro (May 31, 2005 06:16AM)
I think that as magicians we get too worked up about what looks natural or unnatural. If a move is performed smoothly and doesn't look so weird as to rouse suspicion on the part of the spectator, where is the problem? Why would you necessarily want to perform a move exactly the way a layman would do it, after all most people have never witnessed live magic and wouldn't really know what to expect. I certainly don't imagine they would worry or analyze the turning over of a card too much if it differed from the way they would do it. After all, surely they would expect something a little different. A lot of the moves or sleights that exist in card magic don't look particlarly natural, but we have the additional benefit of patter to reinforce the sleight or move, and thereby giving a reason for it's existence, without raising any real suspicion that anything unnatural has occured. I do my own one handed double lift which looks like the top card is hinged from the back of the deck and immediately pops up into a vertical position; how unnatural is that! But before this happens I pretend to pull a hair from my head and wrap it around the front edge of the deck and give it a sharp tug and the card is instantly raised. Is this natural; of course not, but it is magical and rouses no suspicion from the spectator. Keep it smooth, make it technically as good as you can, try not to make it ultra weird, and nobody will be any the wiser.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 07:11AM)
Love your points Ziatro.

But one correction, I think what me and Vraagaard mean to convey is NOT to copy the layman - but to put it in Paul's words (hope you don't mind buddy), to fall within the range of expectations of the layman - the expectations here being handling cards as logically as they do.

Why handle it logically when we can show them our elite skills with cards? Well, from my point of view, if you handle cards logically, when the spectator watches, he/she can follow easily and more importantly, can RELATE. They would think, "But he turned the card over and now it's changed?!" The last thing they would think was that you turned over 2 cards - why? Because you did it naturally and logically - with grounds that they can follow. This is just from my point of view. Now don't get me wrong, this only applies to the aspect of DL's - I like fancy cardwork myself :)

It's not about stooping down low to fumbling with cards like laymen would do - but instead look at it as being us trying to speak a language they can understand. A DL should be a simple, non-odd/fancy act that gets the job done and flies by undetected - doing an odd looking DL would negate that.

Just my 2 cents.
Message: Posted by: domcoke (May 31, 2005 07:38AM)
Ok, to stick my oar in...

I perform "a" push-off DL. I practised it for months, getting the feel of two cards under my thumb, and the precise point on my thumb which would facilitate pushing two cards off, but my squaring motion is different, and I think, much more natural and less flourishy than the push-off taught on Ellusionist. It doesn't have the "twist" to square the cards, it simply turns over, and I use the ball of my thumbs, and the index finger on my "taking" hand to square them. To me, it looks natural, and when consulting friends who are very very critical and analytical, they have agreed. I saw the DL on Ellusionist after I perfected mine, and I was unimpressed, because the twist looked completely bogus, and was a clear tell that there was a move happening, whereas my version looks a lot less flourishy - I say "mine", I'm sure that it has been established before I did it, but I kind of learnt it on my own without reference to any published material...

There is NO substitute for a natural DL, and I don't like the strike double because it inevtiably has to fall back onto the deck, which in itself looks weird, I much prefer to have the card in my hand, away from the deck, cos this consolidates the feeling in the spectator's mind that nothing fishy is going on, whereas a turn back onto the deck could give the game away.

So in short, the Push-Off double is the ultimate, but without the annoying twisting motion which quite clearly sucks.

Dom.
Message: Posted by: ziatro (May 31, 2005 08:01AM)
Isn't the real problem with magicians, our inability to see the world of magic as a lay person would see it. We try to see it with their eyes, but generally fail miserably because we analyze the problem from a magicians perspective. Make a video of 4 or 5 tricks,incorporate a D.L. you think to be natural in one trick, and one you think not so natural a few tricks later. Show it to some friends and ask them for an honest opinion on each trick and any part therein. You might be suprised at the results. I've done it myself and was highly suprised.
Honest feedback from lay people and sometimes magicians, is what most magicians lack, but is something that ultimately will make you all the better for it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be at the time.
Message: Posted by: Vraagaard (May 31, 2005 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 09:01, ziatro wrote:
Honest feedback from lay people and sometimes magicians, is what most magicians lack, but is something that ultimately will make you all the better for it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be at the time.
[/quote]

I agree. That would be very valuable. Moreover, that's what we also try to give in this forum, allthough not on video - simply to give our best of recommendation - for other magicians to use or disregard at their own comfort.

[quote]
On 2005-05-31 08:38, domcoke wrote:
Ok, to stick my oar in...

I perform "a" push-off DL. I practised it for months, getting the feel of two cards under my thumb, and the precise point on my thumb which would facilitate pushing two cards off, but my squaring motion is different, and I think, much more natural and less flourishy than the push-off taught on Ellusionist. It doesn't have the "twist" to square the cards, it simply turns over, and I use the ball of my thumbs, and the index finger on my "taking" hand to square them. To me, it looks natural, and when consulting friends who are very very critical and analytical, they have agreed. I saw the DL on Ellusionist after I perfected mine, and I was unimpressed, because the twist looked completely bogus, and was a clear tell that there was a move happening, whereas my version looks a lot less flourishy - I say "mine", I'm sure that it has been established before I did it, but I kind of learnt it on my own without reference to any published material...

There is NO substitute for a natural DL, and I don't like the strike double because it inevtiably has to fall back onto the deck, which in itself looks weird, I much prefer to have the card in my hand, away from the deck, cos this consolidates the feeling in the spectator's mind that nothing fishy is going on, whereas a turn back onto the deck could give the game away.

So in short, the Push-Off double is the ultimate, but without the annoying twisting motion which quite clearly sucks.

Dom.
[/quote]

Hi Dom.

I believe Steve Draun (and probably also Ed Marlo) finetuned it they way you are describing. So just be proud to be in their league on this move. I would love to see your handling - it definately sounds like the natural handling of a single to me.
Message: Posted by: Paul Sherman (May 31, 2005 02:14PM)
Could someone tell me what's so odd-looking about a stud-turnover? I still don't get it. Also, if the answer is "the pivoting on the base of the left thumb" (in regards to the Dingle and Nash turnovers), then do you also consider the Vernon "New Theory 2nd Deal", which uses an identical pivoting in the context of a stud second-deal, to be unnatural?
Message: Posted by: dchung (May 31, 2005 06:03PM)
I'd like to hear someone's argument about this as well. Nobody seems to have addressed Paul's question directly. As far as I can see. There's nothing wrong with a stud-turnover, certainly no more so than a book-style turnover.

Here are some of my thoughts on this matter.

Logan, you say there is only one way to turn a card over on top of the deck. But let's remember that it's not the point of the move.

The point of the move is usually (but not always) to show your audience the face of the (double) card. That's why you're doing a DL. You're asking the spec the wrong question. You should be asking him "How do you show the top card of the deck to an audience?"

In this case, I defy you to find a layman who will turn a card over on top of the deck in order to show it around. So even this you have to motivate. For instance, I use my now free hand to gesture or pick something up. This makes everything logical, but this type of management is not exclusive to the book-type lift.

As for a stud turnover, it makes perfect sense to do it when you want to look at the card first. For instance, consider the following script "Here on top of the deck, we have (start stud lift, with the face now pointing to you) the ace of clubs (continue lift to display the face to the audience). That seems pretty logical to me.

Ask anybody comfortable with cards to look at the top card of the deck, and he'll almost invariable lift it stud-style.

Notice here how motivation makes both actions logical and natural.

People will offer that your DL should look just like your regular lift. I can offer the same advice that was given to me regarding the second deal. You can either make the false action look more like the true one OR vice versa.

Cmon people. Give some justification for your opinions. Saying I like this or that without telling why is not as helpful as it could be. And using an reason like it's more natural doesn't help unless you can define exactly what you mean by that. We probably won't come to a consensus, but the careful reader can make an intelligent decision based on the dialogue.
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 09:25PM)
Dchung,

You make intelligent points.

Let me first point out though that I already stated that it was just my personal opinion regarding the bookstyle lifts.

Also, the stud-style lift seems odd to me due to where I stay (Asia) where lifts like that are not practiced - no one plays Stud here (or I haven't seem them anyways!)

It's the same in the Western world, where the Hindu shuffle is mostly used by magicians - whereas in Asia, the hindu shuffle IS the shuffle. Most Westerners don't recognize a hindu shuffle as being a shuffle - it may look odd to them, I know I've read a few posts regarding how odd the hindu shuffle appears, it's the same scenario here, for me anyways.

But upon reading your post, it WOULD make sense with the proper scripting, so I thank you for bringing that to light.

My justifications regarding the bookstyle lifts? As I stated in earlier posts, bookstyle lifts, when done smoothly, appear extremely innocent and have a 'light' touch to it, i.e. no big squaring motion or unnecessary spinning.

Now, my position on the stud-turnover has definitely changed, thanks to yourself and Paul, but I still wouldn't use it solely because I still feel it's still odd to me and it is alien here.

Can anyone give me sources of stud-lifts so that I may get a better understanding of it? Please PM it to me if you feel you would clog up this thread.

Thanks guys!
Message: Posted by: Nosher (May 31, 2005 09:39PM)
There have been some good posts on this topic.

I find the stud-turnover is a very natural looking DL, the book-turnover not so much. I think though, that it is FAR more important that your DL is imperceptible, 'naturalness' comes second.

I had to change my DL recently because of some nerve damage in my elbow. My little finger has permanent 'pins and needles' and is now useless for counting. Now I use a thumb count and the DL where the card is rotated over the pack between the thumb and middle finger of the right hand, with a little help from the left thumb. (I'm not sure of the correct name, I pinched it from a magician on the television).

This DL looks a little flourish-y but I try to convey a "this might be different to the way you do it, but it's the way I always do it" impression to the spectators.

The key word here is always. When lifting a single, I still display it in this manner. Even after the initial gl**e in Dr. Daley's, where the set up is perfect for nearly any type of DL you can imagine, I still make sure I use the same DL as always. This consistency resonates with the audience.

Stud-turnover,book-style,strike,push-off or stolen off the telly ; as long as your DL looks like your single AND you are confident and comfortable doing it - I don't think anyone will ever pull you up on it.

Cheers,
Nosher
Message: Posted by: Nik_Mikas (May 31, 2005 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 04:33, Logan wrote:
There are a million DL's out there that would suffice, the regular old DL from a pinky break. A DL obtained from a pinky count. Strike is excellent. Snap is awesome. Non-acrobatic Diving Board Double looks very convincing.

I just have a gripe with the Dingle DL, as it's movements defy logic.

Again, I stress PERSONAL OPINION.
[/quote]
You're kidding, right? You say the Dingle Double is unnatural, even though it emulates a natural action, and then go onto recomend three of the most unnatural techniques ever published? If you are striving for naturalness, the techniques you mentioned are terrible. Not only would nobody EVER turn over a card in the same manner as the Snap double, the Strike, or the Diving Board double, they would never turn over a single card in a manner that ever RESEMBLES any of those techniques.

Perhaps you should re evaluate what natural is...
Message: Posted by: Logan (May 31, 2005 10:14PM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 23:00, Nik_Mikas wrote:

You're kidding, right? You say the Dingle Double is unnatural, even though it emulates a natural action, and then go onto recomend three of the most unnatural techniques ever published? If you are striving for naturalness, the techniques you mentioned are terrible. Not only would nobody EVER turn over a card in the same manner as the Snap double, the Strike, or the Diving Board double, they would never turn over a single card in a manner that ever RESEMBLES any of those techniques.

Perhaps you should re evaluate what natural is...
[/quote]

Nik, I don't think you've read all the posts that I submitted after that one.

In the posts that follow I detailed why I felt Dingle's was odd to me.

I know many do not agree with me, and that is why, I say again, it is just my personal opinion.

Paul and dchung have shed a lot of light on the matter to me.

I think it boils down to personal preference and habits of people where you live, i.e. what they are used to seeing. Where you live, Dingle's may look natural, but in Asia, it isn't, no one (or at least to my knowledge) plays Stud and therefore all the DLs I had listed would be a lot more convincing to the people here than Dingle's would.
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 1, 2005 05:50AM)
Sigfried: But Roy, that's not how a layperson would reveal the lady-to-tiger illusion!

Roy: Do laymen do magic? I thought they paid to see professionals do things they couldn't.

Sigfried: But it looks suspicious when you do it that way

Roy: is it not suspicious that I make a woman turn into a 400lb. tiger?

You gys just need to relax. I think people get hung up on this stuff way too much. People expect to see you doing something differently. The same thing goes for a lot of Vernons ideas. He lived in the Vaudeville, and circut eras where costumes, and apparatus were the standard. He came along and made the same things happend with ordinary objects. I seriously doubt that he meant to "do things the way they do." I think he meant just do it, and do it professionally.

Now, on to this business of the stud-style turnover looking fishy. Well you've just got to be plain out of your mind. I don't care if you think it is an issue of opinion or not. Where are you from for you to feel that it is "obvious." You said somewhere in this thread Asia. What part of Asia?
Message: Posted by: Logan (Jun 1, 2005 06:48AM)
Michael,

I'm in Singapore and I lived in Brunei for most of my life as well. Either way, stud turnovers are new to me - and thus, look odd.

By the way, never in my entire posting on this thread did I say it was 'obvious', I said it looked odd and unnatural - and I believe I have every right to feel that way considering my lack of exposure to stud turnovers.

Just because most of you have had the privelage to know different types of turnovers doesn't brand me 'out of my mind'.

I am starting to look into stud-turnovers, just so you know, so I can have a better knowledge about it.

Before this thread, I just thought that Blaine's turnover was weird beyond anything, now I stand corrected - and if I'm not wrong, that's what this Café' is for.

By the way, I like your bit with Sigfried and Roy.
Message: Posted by: Jordini (Jun 1, 2005 07:35AM)
I still thing the Diving Board Double is the best out there. EVERYONE BUY IT NOW and stop arguing.
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 1, 2005 07:46AM)
Ashers double is amazing. I'll give you that. But I really don't care to pay money to do it. If someone down the line shows it to me, fine. I probably still wouldn't use it unless I was showing off to magicians though. If you were watching from a laymans point of view, it wouldn't be any cooler than card spinning or the Simple Switch flick.

You could accomplish the same thing in a specs mind by doing the same flick of a single followed by a pass.

Has anyone ever tried doing the Simple Switch flick with a double? I tried it out and got it down almost flawless. I was feeling pretty good until I fould out many before me have tried it. And if I'm not mistaken, there is a trick marketed the utilizes it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 1, 2005 07:56AM)
[quote]
On 2005-06-01 08:46, KidCrenshaw wrote:...I was feeling pretty good until I fould out many before me have tried it...
[/quote]
There is a basic problem with presuming the result of a personal creative act would also be novel in the community.

If you can focus your sense of accomplishment upon the results you get instead of "coming up with something new in magic" you can proceed to find what works for you.
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 1, 2005 08:12AM)
This is true.

My best trick to date is an "original", and one that I came up with haphazardly because I couldn't think of anything else to do with flash paper. No one can believe what happens. I just gotta figure out how to do it in a persons hand. I wonder if people would be reluctant to leave their open hand out for too long after they see that paper light up! Hmm... must think.

I know what you're saying. But it wasn't my intention to "come up" with something. I was just practicing Simple Switch, and I thought, "hey, wait a minute..."
Message: Posted by: Jordini (Jun 1, 2005 09:28AM)
Flash paper scares people even when it's 15 feet away from them. (They do not know how dangerous it is or isn't) I would not take chances putting fire in a spectators hand, or anywhere near a spectator, because there's no way to gauge their reaction.
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 1, 2005 03:07PM)
Are you saying it's a pipe dream, Jordini? Hehe, maybe it is. But dang it, it would be cool as heck.
Message: Posted by: seandixie (Jun 2, 2005 03:31PM)
Hi all,

Watching magic I find the newer/younger guys(myself included) like to add some cool flourishes along with the magic itself-big generalisation there, but there you go. With that in mind I'd like to add that I'm a fan of Harry Loraynes flip-up double lift. His logic of "Why should card men handle cards like laymen" somehow rings true for me. If your an expert performer surely you can act like one? I've never been questioned on this DL, it looks so impossible to do with two cards so it just can't be done eh?... Admitedly I'll never be a pro, just thought I'd voice an opinion.
Message: Posted by: Phaedrus (Jun 2, 2005 03:50PM)
After reading over some of the comments in this thread, I think that most people are missing the point that Rannie was trying to make earlier: the problem with the DL that Blaine uses is that it looks different from the way he turns over a single card.

Personally, I don't think it matters what DL a person uses, so long as he turns over cards consistently whether it is a single or a double. I have seen far too many magi perfect some kind of DL, which they can pull off with nary a flash, but they only use it as a double; when they want to turn over a single card, they use a completely different technique, and usually something that looks more natural.

I don't think anyone would argue that the way a magician turns over a card has to be consistent with how a layperson turns over a card, but I do believe that it has to be consistent whether the magician is doing a DL or turning over a single card. If you use a different technique to turn over a single and a double, people are going to notice it, even if only subliminally. Ideally, both actions should be identical and indistinguishable from each other.

I've made this point elsewhere, but I think it's worth repeating: regardless of the DL you choose to use, you need to develop the discipline to use that same technique to turn over a single card.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 2, 2005 04:04PM)
Absolutely. The double I now use is one I learned from Stars of Magic. I think it looks natural and no one has ever caught me one it. But while I was developing a routine where I was flipping singles over on top of the deck, I noticed I was doing it different than the doubles. So I changed the way I flipped the singles to match. And, yes, it felt very strange to flip a single card over that way. But it doesn't look strange at all.

Interesting what we discover when we actually pay attention to what we're doing...
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 2, 2005 06:18PM)
Honestly, I do not use one consistent method of turnover.

I'll do the push-off mostly, but sometimes I'll do a thumb-count get ready, or hold a pinky break. Sometimes I'll do the turnover book-style, or I'll do a push-off and return it to the deck to show people, then book-style turn it back face down using a strike-double.

Why should it be consistent? I mean, why should you put yourself in a position that if by some chance you get caught - everyone watching now can know what you're doing every time?

I agreed that they should be consistent when I began, but as I progress, I feel much differently. I have many methods of turnovers, and it keeps me on my toes. It means I have many variations that I can use depending on my mood, nerves, or my audience. It keeps people guessing.

I just can't understand why you would want to limit yourself to ONE method. If you are dedicated, you are always learning something. So why should you find one you like, and then stop looking? Would you rather learn 100 ways of controlling a card to the top, or 100 ways of showing a double as a single? Seems obvious to me. And for that matter, why not learn both - and learn them effectively.

It just seems lazy to say that you should only do one. That just really doesn't make sense to me.

Seems like a lot of people are trying to learn 10 passes, 20 controls, 10 palms, and 10 forces... but ONE double lift.

Personally, I actually use consistently 2 passes (Classic and Riffle), 4 controls (Hindu, In-Jog, Overhand, Protrude), 2 forces (Classic and my own), and 4 double lifts (Push-Off, Thumb Count, Pinky Break, and Strike). These moves are second nature to me, just like any other sleight, I have and do put the time in daily to make sure I am at the top of my game.

I understand the the point trying to be made about consistency, and I'm consistently changing. Catch me if you can!
Message: Posted by: weapon (Jun 3, 2005 12:19AM)
I do the quote on quote "blaine style push off double" and it looks very natural like a person turning a card over stud dealing style..the key thing is don't make it so obvious that your pivoting the bottom left corner of the card against the heal of your thumb..ofcourse practice it slow first then at speed I pivot it off my heel for a fraction of a second..then I display...another thing, to a laymen..it would seem extremlely hard to turn over two cards at once that way that's why it also adds to the illusion of it being a single card..in a laymens eyes it would be more believable to turn over two cards together using a strike dl..compared to using a push off stud style dl...ask any laymen to try to turn over 2 cards at once and watch what they will do....just to add I must have done a million push off doubles in my life and never once have I got caught or questioned.."why do you turn over cards like that?"
Message: Posted by: Marco S. (Jun 3, 2005 07:28AM)
Weapon is right. To me, it looks very nice and more convincing than the standard DL most people use.
Plus, spectators I have shown it too never ever thought this would be two cards, whereas other DLs are much more suspicious.
Also I think it looks great. Those who say it doesn`t are just killjoys.
Message: Posted by: Phaedrus (Jun 3, 2005 01:25PM)
[quote]
Why should it be consistent? I mean, why should you put yourself in a position that if by some chance you get caught - everyone watching now can know what you're doing every time?
[/quote]

You misunderstood the intent of my post. I wasn't advocating using only one kind of DL; I was saying that you shouldn't turn over a single card normally, and use a different method of turning over a double. The reason is exactly what you mentioned: when spectators see you turn over what they know is a single card using one method, and then see you doing something fancy or different, they know that something is up. I can't tell you the number of magicians I have seen with this shortcoming: I can always tell when they're doing a double lift, simply because it'd different than how they turn over a single card. The logic of this should be obvious.

[quote]
Seems like a lot of people are trying to learn 10 passes, 20 controls, 10 palms, and 10 forces... but ONE double lift.
[/quote]

Think about this for a moment: every one of the sleights you have mentioned are intended to be done in secret, out of the view of the spectator. In other words, if you do them correctly, no one is aware of them. On the other hand, a DL by its very nature is intended to be done openly, and with the intention of giving the spectator the impression that you are only turning over a single card. Therefore, it should resemble as closely as possible a single card being turned over.

I think you are grossly underestimating your spectators' intelligence. People do notice discrepant moves, even if they can't necessarily articulate exactly what they saw. My wife is a perfect example: she's not a magician by any means, but she can tell when someone is doing something "fishy." She'll often say, "I don't know exactly what you did, but you did something." And invariably, it will diminish the astonishment of the effect for her, an indication that I still have work to do.

If people think that you're doing something tricky, they won't feel that anything magical has taken place; they may be impressed with your digital dexterity, but they won't feel that something amazing has occurred; after all, if you "did something," then there's a logical explanation for what they saw, even if they don't know what it is.

[quote]
Catch me if you can!
[/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with this as an attitude for a magician to have, but I can tell you this: if you turn a single over one way and use a different technique to turn over a double, I guarantee you I will catch you, and I'm willing to bet your spectators will as well. I would be much more impressed if you could turn over a single and a double, and I couldn't tell which was which.
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Jun 3, 2005 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2005-06-03 14:25, Phaedrus wrote:
You misunderstood the intent of my post. I wasn't advocating using only one kind of DL[/quote]

Mayve you weren't, but many others do. They were the ones I was refering to.

[quote]Therefore, it should resemble as closely as possible a single card being turned over.[/quote]

Of course it should. But what discrepencies are there when you're turning cards over differently, to an extent, everytime? I almost never turn over three cards in a row in the same manner, doesn't matter if they're doubles, triples or what.

[quote]I think you are grossly underestimating your spectators' intelligence.[/quote]

Why would you think that? Of course I don't. Spectators make me nervous still. WHy would I imagine they can't, or won't figure out what may be going on? The simple answer is, I don't. That's why my card handling is always variable. I'm never committed to one method of accomplishing something.

[quote]I'm not sure I agree with this as an attitude for a magician to have...[/quote]

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was talking to magicians about my approach to handling a given situation.

Man, you really made me work with all this quoting stuff.

Lemme tell you this. I have, since learning DL's, never been fooled by another one. Say what you want bro, but it's just not gonna happen. Even Ashers Diving Board Double, looked great. But the first thing I said to the person that showed it to me was, "did it take you longer to learn that doulbe than any other you know?" I don't think it's necessary by any means to need to flip the cards like that for a spec. That's a magicians DL to show skill as far as I'm concerned. If you can't convince someone with a simple push-off, I don't know if there is a convincing double.
Message: Posted by: weapon (Jun 3, 2005 07:24PM)
A lot of magicians who are against the push off DL are magicians who cant do it..or cant do it correct =o)
Message: Posted by: Franz-O (Jun 15, 2005 11:08PM)
I just checked out Gregory Wilson's double take. It's got lots of great stuff.. his push off method looks nice and strike double is nice and soooooo easy to learn.. ^^
Message: Posted by: Owen Thomas (Jul 30, 2005 10:21AM)
Before I did magic I turned over single cards like David Blaines does DL. So to me his DL looks "normal".
Message: Posted by: Elwood (Jul 30, 2005 12:21PM)
Second deal.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 30, 2005 01:40PM)
Why would anyone want to duplicate the Blaine double anyway?

It is tough to do without a camera to get your hand out of frame anyway. There are LOTS of better lifts to say the least.

Worst of all that "bending the card" thing flexing it to show it is one card I guess, looks stupid. who shows a card like that? nobody I can think of. pushing and bending it against your left palm, I mean it just looks goofy to me.
Message: Posted by: ursusminor (Jul 31, 2005 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-30 14:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why would anyone want to duplicate the Blaine double anyway?

[/quote]

You took the words out of my mouth!

Bjørn
Message: Posted by: dchirlin (Jan 31, 2008 03:25PM)
I agree. His double lift looks terrible - completely unnatural. It's almost as though he wants the audience member to be suspicious... that or he is trying to impress them with his card-handling. But nothing about him truly strikes me as "subtle" anyway.
Message: Posted by: worldasillusion (Feb 1, 2008 08:01PM)
[quote]
On 2008-01-31 16:25, dchirlin wrote:
I agree. His double lift looks terrible - completely unnatural. It's almost as though he wants the audience member to be suspicious... that or he is trying to impress them with his card-handling. But nothing about him truly strikes me as "subtle" anyway.
[/quote]

Ahh, another magician bashing Blaine. Remember, our laconic Blaine fooled the heck out of his audiences. No question about that. granted, many of the people he performed for were, shall we say, not the brightest bulbs on the tree.
Message: Posted by: worldasillusion (Feb 1, 2008 08:03PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-30 14:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
pushing and bending it against your left palm, I mean it just looks goofy to me.
[/quote]

That's true, it is rather goofy. The Ellusionist folks just love it, but they're kinda goofy too.
Message: Posted by: Furniture (Feb 6, 2008 02:26AM)
Sorry for interrupting: Blaines doublelift is good and deceptive. He is a professional magician and that what suits his style. He fooled loads of people with it. Natural is what you make the audicence think is natural.

Are there better method? Yes! Vernon DL
Message: Posted by: TheAmbitiousCard (Feb 6, 2008 09:54AM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-30 14:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why would anyone want to duplicate the Blaine double anyway?

It is tough to do without a camera to get your hand out of frame anyway. There are LOTS of better lifts to say the least.

Worst of all that "bending the card" thing flexing it to show it is one card I guess, looks stupid. who shows a card like that? nobody I can think of. pushing and bending it against your left palm, I mean it just looks goofy to me.

[/quote]
I use it. Or at least I use what I learned in the Dingle book which is a lot like Martin Nash's Knockout Double (I think it's called). I like it because it feels natural to me and there's no get ready at all.

Blaine learned it from somebody who learned it from somebody who got it from either Dingle or Nash.
Message: Posted by: evikshin (Feb 7, 2008 12:17AM)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Blaine's double lift the Ken Krenzel "Drag Double Lift" taught in "Signature Effect," in Darwin Ortiz's "CardShark?"
Message: Posted by: joudini (Dec 6, 2008 08:13AM)
He uses the Stud Two-Card Push Off Lift by Steve Draun.
Message: Posted by: PapaG (Dec 6, 2008 09:26AM)
If you look in the latest Castle Notebooks, this lift can be attributed to Dai Vernon circa 1966.
Message: Posted by: Mr Rubiks (Dec 7, 2008 10:51AM)
"Naturalness" is overrated. There was nothing "natural" about the way Ascanio handled cards but he fooled laymen.
Apparently David Blaine does as well......
Use a double with confidence and don't look at your hands and you'll fool most of the people most of the time.
JMO.....
Message: Posted by: EscapeMaster (Dec 7, 2008 10:58AM)
Mentioned this on another DL thread...does no one here misdirect their DL turnovers? Look at someone like Michael Vincent. If you watched him you probably wouldn't notice the DL technique because it always happens on an off beat.
Message: Posted by: Mr Rubiks (Dec 7, 2008 11:01AM)
Interestingly enough Michael Vincent is a Dingle protege.
Message: Posted by: wsduncan (Dec 7, 2008 08:24PM)
[quote]
On 2005-05-31 03:19, Logan wrote:
Unlike shuffling, there is only one straight-forward way to turn a card over - I don't see why it has to be convoluted unecessarily.

The strike double accomplishes this very well, and if done sequentially alternating between doubles and singles, is undetectable.
[/quote]
Actually if you asked a layman to turn over the top card of a deck nearly 100% of them will turn it over stud style as that's how they learn to do it from playing cards, which is what laymen DO with cards.

Laymen who don't play cards usually approach the pack from the inner end,fingers drag the top card off towards themselves. Nothing at all like a strick double.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Dec 8, 2008 03:35AM)
I thought it looked similar to Gary Oulettes double lift...but it seems everyone has a different opinion on what he uses. I prefer a strike double, as my singles then look like my doubles.

However, no matter what you use, be it for singles, doubles or triples, though we can talk now about them being or looking unnatural etc, how many times have you had a spectator say 'I don't turn cards over like that, why do you do it in such an unnatural fashion', or even 'Hey...wait a minute, you didn't turn the cards over like that a second ago, why did you do it like that then...i think you are doing something sneaky mister!'... :P

People don't care! The natural behaviour isn't the action, it is just doing it! Turn over the cards and no suspicion will be arroused. If you just turn over a card, people won't care if you did it the way Dingle/Krenzel/Oulette did it, or evevn Daryl or Martin Nash! You turned over a card, that is all that matters, and I think it seems to have got congested and lost in what seems to have been answers to a simple question
Message: Posted by: Remagicon (Apr 9, 2013 11:36AM)
Here's my little tid-bit on the Dingle double lift and my pros and cons as far as I can see it.
Pros:
Easy (for me) to do
No get-ready
Flourishy (a subtlety of showing skill)
Convincing (I don't think laymen will think that two cards can be turned over in such an elaborate fashion)
Easy to turn back over (don't need to execute another whole double lift to do this as opposed to the Strike double)

Cons:
Lack of get-ready means either you angle your initial push-off to hide the squaring up or you have to be really good to do it while your hands are being burned
It's not natural in that its not close to how a laymen turns over a card, this is exchanged for the flourish subtlety
When pushing up the card against the left thumb, it must be angled and squared perfectly or else!
Triple lifts are hard
Message: Posted by: WesleyBryan (May 20, 2013 11:33PM)
Some people say that the double lift that Blaine does is unnatural. Is it? Can it be natural, yet graceful at the same time? Something done gracefully won't necessarily resemble it being done by your average layperson. It can be considered a flourish. No?
Message: Posted by: Tree (May 21, 2013 11:19AM)
I'll just stick to the way I learned it from Harry Lorayne book back in 67.
It's the best DL, just like all of his work.

Harry Lorayne

Harry Lorayne

Harry Lorayne
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (May 21, 2013 11:45AM)
What good taste you have, Tree. Best - Harry L.
Message: Posted by: Mike Maturen (May 21, 2013 12:27PM)
LOL Harry!
Message: Posted by: TCB (Mar 29, 2014 06:27PM)
[quote]
On May 30, 2003, Clarence wrote:
Honestly speaking, if you are going to get a break, I say just do a pinky count double lift.

The nice thing about the push-off double lift is that you don't have to get a break.

It's based on skill, practice and a lot of self-experimenting.

The feeling of the push-off double lift will be different for everyone. Push at different positions, see which feels best, then go for that one.

:smiles:
[/quote].

I agree Clarence the push off is a great natural looking DL My problem with it is no matter how much I practice it I still get 3 cards from time to time
Message: Posted by: TCB (Mar 29, 2014 06:28PM)
[quote]
On May 21, 2013, Tree wrote:
I'll just stick to the way I learned it from Harry Lorayne book back in 67.
It's the best DL, just like all of his work.

Harry Lorayne

Harry Lorayne

Harry Lorayne
[/quote]

Which one does Mr. Lorayne favor?
Message: Posted by: TCB (Mar 29, 2014 06:31PM)
[quote]
On May 21, 2013, WesleyBryan wrote:
Some people say that the double lift that Blaine does is unnatural. Is it? Can it be natural, yet graceful at the same time? Something done gracefully won't necessarily resemble it being done by your average layperson. It can be considered a flourish. No?
[/quote]

I think sometimes as magicians we are too critical. Half the time spectators wouldn't notice if you counted out two cards in your hands and turned them over right in front of them. However I guess its a good idea to do it until it is good enough to do and be approved by fellow magicians
Message: Posted by: Ado (Mar 30, 2014 01:39AM)
[quote]
On Mar 29, 2014, TCB wrote:
My problem with it is no matter how much I practice it I still get 3 cards from time to time
[/quote]
Solution 1:
Push three, get break. Push again, you now have two.

Solution 2:
Push three, reset, push again, you now have two.

I am sure you can chit-chat your way out of that inconsistency in lifting the top card.

P!
Message: Posted by: Erdnase27 (Mar 30, 2014 09:33AM)
I think the lift does look natural. Yes, no layman would handle the cards that way to turn a card over, but no layman will fan the cards either (or do cardsprings, ribbon spreads, swing cuts etc etc etc). Heck, and this might suprise magicians, most people don't spread cards to let someone else choose one only to let it be returned to the pack, they play cardgames with it like poker.
If you are a magician it is known that you handle cards often and practise often. I think it looks graceful, just a graceful way to handle the cards and to turn a card over.

being "natural" doesn't mean you are ought to handle the deck in a clumsy way, it means that you handle it in a way being consistent with your "character/persona".
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 30, 2014 08:01PM)
Contrary to many of the posts I'm reading here, a stud style lift is very natural in the right hands. Give a deck to a layman and tell him to turn over the top card. There's a good chance he will turn it over stud style.
See Jamy Ian Swiss' Dissertation for further analysis.
Do I like Blaine's handling. Not particularly.
But Nash, Dingle, Krenzel, Steve Draun understood the power of this style of lift.
Executed properly, it is extremely deceptive.
Message: Posted by: TCB (Mar 31, 2014 08:34AM)
[quote]
On Mar 30, 2014, Ado wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 29, 2014, TCB wrote:
My problem with it is no matter how much I practice it I still get 3 cards from time to time
[/quote]
Solution 1:
Push three, get break. Push again, you now have two.

Solution 2:
Push three, reset, push again, you now have two.

I am sure you can chit-chat your way out of that inconsistency in lifting the top card.

P!
[/quote]

Good Points Ado. I guess my problem is I am trying to do it without looking at the deck. Therefore I sometime don't know I have three until I turn them over, and immediatly know by the feel that it's three. Also I found that the push off DL is easier with slightly older cards. I also know what you mean about reseting while you are chatting. That does work :)
Message: Posted by: vargoj (Mar 31, 2014 08:39AM)
[quote]
On May 30, 2003, Andrew Wong wrote:
Hi,

I wander which kind of double lift David Blaine uses??? Normally, I will do the snap double, but some how I would like to know what kind of double is that?? Any help would be great!!

Thanks!!

Andrew :)
Good lord, I had no idea any body else used the snap double, its great. Its practically a one-handed double, move your arm while doing the thumb count and you are good
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: jeebs9 (Mar 31, 2014 01:34PM)
I do the same kind of lift. Most people say he's handling it fancy. I agree with Erdnase27. It's just a nice way to turnover cards.

I've only heard spec say "he kept doing this weird flipping thing".
Message: Posted by: TCB (Apr 23, 2014 11:50AM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2003, Nash wrote:
Forget Blaine's double.

[b]Master Pinky Count[/b], then you can pretty much do whatever kind of double life you want once you get this invisible get-ready.
I usually move from pinky count, then keep the break with my ring finger, then push the cards to the right with my thumb, applying pressures between my thumb and ring finger to keep the two cards in place, double turn over.
[b]Done[/b]. (It sounds complicated but all that is done in less than a 3 seconds)


Trust me, if you don't trust me, trust Darwin Ortiz.
Pinky count is a "[b]must[/b]" for every magician.
It is the best get-ready for double lift, or add on moves, or switch ins, best of all, it is totally invisible.
:wow: [/quote]

The *** Pinky count isn't an easy move to master. It feels awkward, and I always feel like I am putting to much presure with the ring and middle fingers, when all the pressure should be on the pinky and thunb. I guess there is no short cut you just have to keep doing it until you get it one day. Or maybe it will be like the Thumb fan which no matter how long I practice I still cant get those real pretty round ones
Message: Posted by: MontrealMagic (Apr 23, 2014 03:13PM)
This post was from (nearly) 11 years ago... if the original poster still cannot do the DL he requested, the he has discovered girls and magic is but a memory.