(Close Window)
Topic: Your favorite way of invisibly reversing one card
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 11, 2019 03:24PM)
I am spending some time developing this and thought it would be wise to ask others who already have their favorite card reversal.
I am asking for something that is virtually invisible surrounded. I have seen some reversals that were fairly obvious from the front, etc. For me at least, the reversal in the Singularity Invisible Deck is fairly easy to spot on the video. I am not trying to criticize others, just trying to find some things to work with. I will also contribute items to the post as I research it. thanks.
Message: Posted by: Steve Malco (Jun 11, 2019 04:21PM)
For me I get giddy when I use a "Browery Reversal", I remember being taught it by Gerry Griffin approximately 15 years ago and I fell in love with it.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 11, 2019 04:32PM)
Thanks Steve, I almost apologize for this post. I didn't realize Vinny had just posted his. But this is different. I am asking for a reversal that is virtually invisible, surrounded. Standing.

Here is a quote from another thread:
From what I have read about reverses, it's easiest and cleanest when you just Cop palm the bottom/top card with one hand, and with the other spread the cards out, showing them being a normal deck of cards. Then square the deck and put the deck back in your "copping hand" (reversing that Copped card).
I think it works fine for me, but thank you guys for your replies
Message: Posted by: cfirwin3 (Jun 11, 2019 07:36PM)
If I wanted to be straight up invisible... no hint at strange moves... super clean and nearly hands off (as in setting the deck down immediately after reintroducing the target card)...

Honestly, I wouldn't reverse it at all. I would underspread force a dupe of an already reversed card, cut it back in, and then proceed to melt minds.

That's an invisible "reversal" with the EFFECT of "reversal" in mind.
This is like the concept of a bluff pass, which isn't a pass at all, but merely just seems to be.

On the other hand if you are looking for a utility move to accomplish something other than a super duper clean reversal effect, then I go with a reversal of the bottom card on an overhand shuffle (sometimes attributed as a Braue Reversal). You can absolutely do this standing, completely surrounded, on the premise that people can't see through your body... and there is no reason why you can't shift your position as you work.

Another sneaky way around the problem is once again to not actually reverse the target card... but to have an indifferent, already reversed card stand in for your target card and then switch it after extraction as you turn it face up for a reveal (via a DL or do it before with a top change, or second/bottom deal... just about any method to swap the fake for the actual card). I do an impromptu Thought-Of-Card Invisible Deck this way.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 11, 2019 08:10PM)
Just a note: Thanks Steve. According to a post in 2004, the Browery Reversal is actually the Braue Reversal mispelled. I quote " in Volume 7 I read the 'Browery Reversal' when it should be the 'Braue Reverse'." This is volume 7 of complete card magic with Gerry Griffin. Since then, it has been corrected.

"Another sneaky way around the problem is once again to not actually reverse the target card... but to have an indifferent, already reversed card stand in for your target card and then switch it after extraction as you turn it face up for a reveal (via a DL or do it before with a top change, or second/bottom deal... just about any method to swap the fake for the actual card). I do an impromptu Thought-Of-Card Invisible Deck this way."

Wow, cfirwin3 you are brilliant. I was wondering why this was not done in the invisible deck or brainwave. For the invisible deck, a card is turned face down. Then it is shown to be their thought of card. This would be easy if you have a good way to get ahold of that card. Just use any random card or a gaff card to show a card face down. But you would be burned a bit more since they had not seen the card. In a way, having the thought of card face up as in the brainwave would be the best way to get the heat off of a card switch. Because once they see a portion of that card, the trick is over to them.

I am still obstinately working on an in your face reversal while going through the cards. I almost have it. It should be pretty much angle proof.
Message: Posted by: Steve Malco (Jun 11, 2019 08:24PM)
"Braue" not Browery. Thanks for the correction!
Message: Posted by: jcroop (Jun 12, 2019 05:57AM)
Many like Ken Krenzel's "Mechanical Reverse"

Another simple method to leave the bottom card in your palm as you turn the deck over end for end on top of now reversed card. This may be the similar as the copping method above but I'm not sure as the turn over wasn't stated.
Message: Posted by: cfirwin3 (Jun 12, 2019 07:27AM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2019, jcroop wrote:
Another simple method to leave the bottom card in your palm as you turn the deck over end for end on top of now reversed card. This may be the similar as the copping method above but I'm not sure as the turn over wasn't stated. [/quote]

You know, I don't see why this wouldn't be nearly invisible from essentially all angles (assuming that you are standing and free to shift your position at will) if you just cradle the bottom card deeply in the hand as you turn the deck over SIDE to SIDE (rather than end for end). This motion has cover from every angle, because the card is buried and the deck is observably flipping. This is essentially the same thing as reversing on an overhand shuffle in that it reverses what was the bottom card and now places it on the top (with the deck ending face up... but you could just as easily start with the deck face up and end face down). You could even follow this with a quick spread for a last 'convincer' demonstrating regularity, retaining the flipped card in the final block of the spread. If turning the deck over has this kind of motivation, then this sort of procedure would essentially appear to be a "moveless" effect. The only issues to contend with would be prior control of the card to the bottom and then a follow up control to cut the deck (to centralize the flipped card). This is a "stupid easy" process, but probably as clean as it gets when you think about it. It's essentially still a form of Braue Reversal, where the deck (not the card) is being flipped.

I think it is cleaner and more burnable to revolve the deck over the card rather than revolving the card around the deck... or taking up otherwise empty space that would need additional cover with a half-pass or flipping under a spread. All you need is motivation to flip the deck over, and that's easy to justify.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 14, 2019 01:22PM)
You can find a large selection of reversals, including many of those mentioned, in Card College books 2 and 4.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 14, 2019 02:32PM)
My favourite way to reverse s card is to reverse the deck (ala Rosini)
I also like Cervon's M.A. Reverse, Jennings' Larreverse, Lorayne's Universal Reversal, Lorayne's RTP.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Jun 14, 2019 04:07PM)
Absolutely. Some of the above just gotta' start reading the good stuff!!
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 14, 2019 08:26PM)
Jcroop and Cfirwin3,


In both of the methods you suggest, whether turning the deck end-to-end or side-to-side, how do you avoid the noise of the deck scraping against the bottom card? From your description, Cfirwin3, I gather that the bottom card is back in sort of a gambler's cop position? If that's the case, how do you get into that position without being observed?


Thanks,


Bob
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 14, 2019 10:35PM)
Bob, frankly, you mentioned the problems shared by the reversals mentioned or perhaps all reversals generally known to magicians. Either there can be or will be significant noise, or the reversal is visible, even if the magician is not aware of it. Because of that I developed a virtually silent and invisible reversal. Basically under conditions and simple handling of the deck that would make a reversal impossible. I wanted to really do the brainwave or invisible deck with no gaffs. perhaps knowing the order of the cards, which does not detract from the effect. But nothing else. So you have made a very important point. Just because you can get away with a reversal does not mean it is good stuff. I am looking for great stuff that I am never caught at. That is all I will consider using in my paid performances.
Message: Posted by: j100taylor (Jun 14, 2019 11:42PM)
Automatic reversal - Ken Krenzal
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jun 15, 2019 01:12AM)
Just do a double undercut ...
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 15, 2019 11:01AM)
Arthur, could you explain how to use a double undercut to reverse a card? I know the DU, but I'm not seeing how to do the reverse. If necessary you could PM me to avoid exposure.


Thanks for your help,


Bob
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 02:01PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, countrymaven wrote:
Bob, frankly, you mentioned the problems shared by the reversals mentioned or perhaps all reversals generally known to magicians. Either there can be or will be significant noise, or the reversal is visible, even if the magician is not aware of it. Because of that I developed a virtually silent and invisible reversal. Basically under conditions and simple handling of the deck that would make a reversal impossible. I wanted to really do the brainwave or invisible deck with no gaffs. perhaps knowing the order of the cards, which does not detract from the effect. But nothing else. So you have made a very important point. Just because you can get away with a reversal does not mean it is good stuff. I am looking for great stuff that I am never caught at. That is all I will consider using in my paid performances. [/quote]
Wow you sure do invent a lot of new sleights.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 15, 2019 02:48PM)
Necessity is the mother of invention. It's not that I want to. I just don't believe, just because some video seller or book author recommends it, that it is actually invisible, natural, doable, and undetectable. It is a lot of work. But when it works it is really worth it, not to worry in a performance.

If I was just doing this for friends or a small group once in a while, it wouldn't matter so much.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jun 15, 2019 04:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 15, 2019, Bob G wrote:
Arthur, could you explain how to use a double undercut to reverse a card? I know the DU, but I'm not seeing how to do the reverse. If necessary you could PM me to avoid exposure.


Thanks for your help,


Bob [/quote]

PM'd you. Bob.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 05:54PM)
[quote]On Jun 15, 2019, countrymaven wrote:
Necessity is the mother of invention. It's not that I want to. I just don't believe, just because some video seller or book author recommends it, that it is actually invisible, natural, doable, and undetectable. It is a lot of work. But when it works it is really worth it, not to worry in a performance.

If I was just doing this for friends or a small group once in a while, it wouldn't matter so much. [/quote]
I hear ya. Those crowned heads of Europe deserve only the finest. Good on you for not settling for the feeble attempts at deception by Vernon, Miller, Hofzinser, Annemann, James etc. Sure they were clever, but we need stuff that actually fools people.
Can't wait for your book.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 15, 2019 06:20PM)
No it is not as you think. It is not a feeling of being entitled to something better. It is being humble enough to want to serve my paying customers without worrying about technique. I love to study masters. But when it came to an absolutely invisible card turnover with spectators a foot away and surrounded, it didn't exist. At least not something surefire and INVISIBLE. So I devised one where a card is contorted, half flips under a spread, and when squared, continues its turnover. Silently. It is very doable and repeatable. I never forget we all owe a huge debt to the masters. For magic to gain wider acceptance today, though, I think it is fair to say we need to upgrade both technique and entertainment value. The things that reign supreme today are phones and fb and "social" networking. A hard act to follow to those enslaved to it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 09:37PM)
"But when it came to an absolutely invisible card turnover with spectators a foot away and surrounded, it didn't exist."

Of course it exists. There are dozens of techniques perfectly suited to this.

Nothing wrong with coming up with your own stuff of course. I'm just concerned that since you are unaware of some of the best stuff in print, perhaps you are also unaware that your creations have already been created.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 16, 2019 09:27PM)
I also utilize Aronson's Head Over Heels concept quite often.
I've been using it for Simon's Two Card Transpo and for Ackerman's Double Reverse.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 16, 2019 10:35PM)
Bah humbug. I have all the resources. This does not exist. Magicians are true believers many times. With sponge balls for instance, I created a gimmick that is so good it creates astonishment and sometimes fear. This would not happen with the normal assumptions. But you are right in your own mind I don't want to change it . NOthing can be improved. Just go to Harry Larry etc.

I do appreciate your ideas. It is just that I set high standards. Yes some reverses might be not seen by people. But they are not really invisible. Mine uses a concept that is inherent to the makeup of cards, but it has not been used before.

I appreciate your suggestions. Just that when you think that nothing significant can be improved, you are basically going against history.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 17, 2019 05:47AM)
"Bah humbug. I have all the resources."
No you don't. Nobody does.

"This does not exist."
Yes it does. I learned it from Simon Aronson.

"NOthing can be improved."
Yes it can. Many things can be improved.
 
"It is just that I set high standards."
So do Michael Ammar, Max Maven, John Carney etc.

"But they are not really invisible."
Yes, many of them really are.


"Just that when you think that nothing significant can be improved.."

Again, nobody here said nor thinks that nothing can be improved.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 17, 2019 10:17AM)
Magicfish, Great Happiness! You referenced a method that's taught in a resource I already own!


See you,


Bob
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 17, 2019 10:38AM)
Glad to hear it Bob!
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 17, 2019 11:56PM)
You did not read my post. Your answer does not deserve an answer. I will side with history, that things can improve when you set higher standards and innovate. This is nothing personal against those who have gone before. Magic must set higher standards with not only technique but also its ability to entertainment modern audiences. If not , it will die a slow death, which is what is happening now.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 12:32PM)
DL to face up on deck. Turn deck, pull top card and replace. Cut. Done.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 01:07PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
DL to face up on deck. Turn deck, pull top card and replace. Cut. Done. [/quote]
J.K. Hartman
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 01:58PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
DL to face up on deck. Turn deck, pull top card and replace. Cut. Done. [/quote]
J.K. Hartman [/quote]

Probably, but no need to quote the inventor of breathing.
The lungs do what they want autonomously.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 03:05PM)
Probably? No.

Breathing? I'm not following.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Jun 18, 2019 03:13PM)
I believe that reversal is Daley's.

[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Probably? No.

Breathing? I'm not following. [/quote]

Yeah, it's a clumsy metaphor that doesn't invite much scrutiny. Also, it's wrong. There's nothing wrong with thoughtfully crediting the inventor of anything — especially when the item in question is one of such ingenuity and utility as the Daley technique.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 03:35PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
I believe that reversal is Daley's.

[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Probably? No.

Breathing? I'm not following. [/quote]

Yeah, it's a clumsy metaphor that doesn't invite much scrutiny. Also, it's wrong. There's nothing wrong with thoughtfully crediting the inventor of anything — especially when the item in question is one of such ingenuity and utility as the Daley technique. [/quote]

I'm not a historian so I appreciate the footnotes and credits by the folks who've catalogued.
I considered this method a simple-solution that probably had multiple independent authors. I'm sure there are great subtleties to the handling in the literature.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 04:18PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
I believe that reversal is Daley's.

[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Probably? No.

Breathing? I'm not following. [/quote]

Yeah, it's a clumsy metaphor that doesn't invite much scrutiny. Also, it's wrong. There's nothing wrong with thoughtfully crediting the inventor of anything — especially when the item in question is one of such ingenuity and utility as the Daley technique. [/quote]
(Fish on! Ahem)
Interesting. Which Daley technique are you referring to?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 05:31PM)
"I believe that reversal is Daley's."

...better ask for your 5 bucks back.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 18, 2019 09:12PM)
Here is the deal. It is one thing to have a reversal that is invisible or unseen. I had to develop a reversal that was impossible. Surrounded. Close up. turning over anything won't do. Why? It is for the invisible deck/brainwave. The way it should have been done from the beginning.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 09:13PM)
Interesting. And how do you know it is original with you?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Jun 19, 2019 04:47AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"I believe that reversal is Daley's."

...better ask for your 5 bucks back. [/quote]

Why?

It's the reversal Vernon uses in Twisting the Aces. I'm pretty sure Daley deserves credit for it, but am away from home at the moment and can't verify.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 19, 2019 10:13AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"I believe that reversal is Daley's."

...better ask for your 5 bucks back. [/quote]

Why?

It's the reversal Vernon uses in Twisting the Aces. I'm pretty sure Daley deserves credit for it, but am away from home at the moment and can't verify. [/quote]

Nobody deserved credit for something so obvious. Any hack who perused Royal Road would figure it out in five minutes while dinking around.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Jun 20, 2019 05:32AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"I believe that reversal is Daley's."

...better ask for your 5 bucks back. [/quote]

Why?

It's the reversal Vernon uses in Twisting the Aces. I'm pretty sure Daley deserves credit for it, but am away from home at the moment and can't verify. [/quote]

Nobody deserved credit for something so obvious. Any hack who perused Royal Road would figure it out in five minutes while dinking around. [/quote]

What a backwards, anti-intellectual, and weirdly defensive statement.

The concept of turning over a double onto the deck didn't even exist until the 20th century. Nothing is obvious until it is. I don't see what a bother it is to respect the process of invention. No one's asking for anything more than that.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 10:05AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
What a backwards, anti-intellectual, and weirdly defensive statement.

The concept of turning over a double onto the deck didn't even exist until the 20th century. Nothing is obvious until it is. I don't see what a bother it is to respect the process of invention. No one's asking for anything more than that. [/quote]

The turnover-double is as old as the DL. I fully support crediting the folks who managed to secure a publisher for tricks/sleights.
But lets not pretend everything that beat-the-press is innovative and unique work deserving of accolades.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 20, 2019 10:14AM)
I would never do a DL turnover. I am doing the brainwave and doing an impossible reversal. There is no way a sane person would assume there could be a reversal. they can be inches in front of the deck. But it bends and happens halfway then the rest of the way by force built into the properties of playing cards. invisible. and not imaginable for someone expecting it.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 20, 2019 10:32AM)
So magicfish I respect your studies . You are great and knowledgeable. But sometimes you have to develop something where you can literally tell someone-- what'? you think I turned it over? dude, don't mention the impossible you were rignt in front of the deck. it is impossible to do that. look, etc..... To answer those who give a quick I know how you diddit like a 10 year old when they have no clue. I am talking of the turnover I developed. OUt of necessity.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 10:54AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, countrymaven wrote:
invisible. and not imaginable for someone expecting it. [/quote]

This indeed sounds like strong-magic. This is an advice-thread, so perhaps you will share your creation.
Message: Posted by: jim ferguson (Jun 20, 2019 01:27PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
What a backwards, anti-intellectual, and weirdly defensive statement.

The concept of turning over a double onto the deck didn't even exist until the 20th century. Nothing is obvious until it is. I don't see what a bother it is to respect the process of invention. No one's asking for anything more than that. [/quote]

The turnover-double is as old as the DL. I fully support crediting the folks who managed to secure a publisher for tricks/sleights.
But lets not pretend everything that beat-the-press is innovative and unique work deserving of accolades. [/quote]


The turnover double (as you put it) most certainly is not as old as the DL. And whoever did come up with it deserves the credit, regardless of how "obvious" it seems after the fact.

Do you have a reference for this early "turnover double" you mention ?


Jim
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 02:18PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, jim ferguson wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
What a backwards, anti-intellectual, and weirdly defensive statement.

The concept of turning over a double onto the deck didn't even exist until the 20th century. Nothing is obvious until it is. I don't see what a bother it is to respect the process of invention. No one's asking for anything more than that. [/quote]

The turnover-double is as old as the DL. I fully support crediting the folks who managed to secure a publisher for tricks/sleights.
But lets not pretend everything that beat-the-press is innovative and unique work deserving of accolades. [/quote]


The turnover double (as you put it) most certainly is not as old as the DL. And whoever did come up with it deserves the credit, regardless of how "obvious" it seems after the fact.

Do you have a reference for this early "turnover double" you mention ?

Jim [/quote]

I'm sure there are folks here with far deeper resource-libraries than I who can pinpoint the first published date of a DL turn-over; I only own a few dozen tomes and they are mostly of more recent vintage.

No harm in crediting (I'm fond of minutia) but the odds of the publisher being the original-inventor of such obvious manipulations are staggering.

Perhaps they rightly deserve naming-rights, like an explorer planting his flag on conquered-land.
Message: Posted by: jim ferguson (Jun 20, 2019 02:51PM)
Sorry, but if you only have a few books which are from a relatively modern era, how can you state that the turnover is as old as the DL ?

In the original DL, the cards were grasped by the front and back short edges by the thumb and fingers, held up face towards the audience, then replaced on the deck - much the same way David Berglas uses it. No turning of the card on the deck.
It was originally called the invisible pass, and was used to make a card travel invisibly from the centre of the deck to the top.

I'd have to check for references etc.

I do agree that the first to put a move in print isn't necessary the inventor, as has been proved many times before. But this is one of the reasons that proper research is important - so that proper crediting can be given in any future literature.


Jim
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 03:58PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, jim ferguson wrote:
Sorry, but if you only have a few books which are from a relatively modern era, how can you state that the turnover is as old as the DL ?

In the original DL, the cards were grasped by the front and back short edges by the thumb and fingers, held up face towards the audience, then replaced on the deck - much the same way David Berglas uses it. No turning of the card on the deck.
It was originally called the invisible pass, and was used to make a card travel invisibly from the centre of the deck to the top.

I'd have to check for references etc.

I do agree that the first to put a move in print isn't necessary the inventor, as has been proved many times before. But this is one of the reasons that proper research is important - so that proper crediting can be given in any future literature.


Jim [/quote]

The DL turnover is not quite as old as the DL. The turnover aspect probably wasn't discovered until the first hour it was sessioned.
I'm certainly no card-wizard and it was obvious to me. I have faith the prestidigitation-elite of previous eras were at least as savvy as myself.
Message: Posted by: jim ferguson (Jun 20, 2019 05:37PM)
Why do you keep arguing about this when you clearly have no evidence to back up your assumptions ? Check the literature.

Rupert is correct in his post above - the written record shows no evidence of what we know as the turnover, and certainly not the facing of a card on top being discussed, during the 1800s.

If you have evidence which is contrary to this, then please share, I'm all ears.

Repeatedly stating that you must be correct in your assumptions, simply because the idea was obvious to you is just silly.



Jim
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 20, 2019 08:06PM)
Back to the original topic: does anyone else want to describe their favorite reverse?
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Jun 21, 2019 07:36AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Bob G wrote:
Back to the original topic: does anyone else want to describe their favorite reverse? [/quote]

There you go trying to get things back on track!

What seems lost also in the discussion is the difference between invisible and functionally invisible. What I mean is, there are reverses that make it appear that nothing happened. A half pass such as Aaron Fishers Gravity Half Pass is a good example. In the act of simply raising the deck to the fingertips you can reverse the bottom card or the bottom 51. I would call that invisible. To me, any time you turn cards over and leave one reversed in the process it is functionally invisible. They saw cards flip upside-down but did not see the fact that one card or cards remain in that condition.

I would put Krenzel's Mechanical Reverse in the camp of invisible. I would put the Braue Reversal in the camp of functionally invisible.

So in the end, do you want it to look like absolutely nothing happened? Or not?
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 21, 2019 01:01PM)
"There you go trying to get things back on track! "


"I just thought," said Pooh humbly.


To answer your question, I want to do whatever I *can* do at the level of magical attainment that I'm currently at. Fishers half-pass sounds great, and everybody raves about it, but I had the impression that The Paper Engine is a pretty advanced book. I'd consider springing for it if I thought I was capable of learning some of the material at this point, especially the gravity h. p. Any thoughts on the difficulty? I can do a pretty good Halo cut; that's the hardest sleight I do and it took me many, many months to learn. I can do a pretty good strike double lift, though not consistent enough for performance, and I'm working on the Elmsley Count. I perform Color Monte. -- Just to give yo an idea of where I am.



I have Lorayne's book on Krenzel and have tried to learn the mechanical reverse. No luck at the time, but it may be worth a second look.



Now the Braue Reversal -- that I can do. (And I can appreciate its cleverness.) To make it functionally invisible (a term that I think I understand from context), you have to frame it so that it seems like a natural move, no? Any advice on how to do that? I'm sure it depends on the trick. The standard "This isn't your card, is it; what about this one?" strikes me as kind of lame; I would *think* that intelligent spectators would think, "I just saw a reversed card, and a minute ago I saw the magician do these funny cut where he turned the cards over; surely the secret lies in somewhere in that turning."



So... any suggestions for how to camouflage Braue?
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 21, 2019 08:58PM)
Very good thinking Tortuga. In the past people did not tend to think about these distinctions, I imagine. It is important in a trick where you want to rule out the possibility of any reversal. great!!!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 21, 2019 09:56PM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, countrymaven wrote:
Very good thinking Tortuga. In the past people did not tend to think about these distinctions, I imagine. It is important in a trick where you want to rule out the possibility of any reversal. great!!! [/quote]
Yes they did. They spent their lives thinking about it. They left their homes and sometimes their families to devote every day of their life thinking about it.
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Jun 22, 2019 01:24AM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, Bob G wrote:
"There you go trying to get things back on track! "


"I just thought," said Pooh humbly.


To answer your question, I want to do whatever I *can* do at the level of magical attainment that I'm currently at. Fishers half-pass sounds great, and everybody raves about it, but I had the impression that The Paper Engine is a pretty advanced book. I'd consider springing for it if I thought I was capable of learning some of the material at this point, especially the gravity h. p. Any thoughts on the difficulty? I can do a pretty good Halo cut; that's the hardest sleight I do and it took me many, many months to learn. I can do a pretty good strike double lift, though not consistent enough for performance, and I'm working on the Elmsley Count. I perform Color Monte. -- Just to give yo an idea of where I am.



I have Lorayne's book on Krenzel and have tried to learn the mechanical reverse. No luck at the time, but it may be worth a second look.



Now the Braue Reversal -- that I can do. (And I can appreciate its cleverness.) To make it functionally invisible (a term that I think I understand from context), you have to frame it so that it seems like a natural move, no? Any advice on how to do that? I'm sure it depends on the trick. The standard "This isn't your card, is it; what about this one?" strikes me as kind of lame; I would *think* that intelligent spectators would think, "I just saw a reversed card, and a minute ago I saw the magician do these funny cut where he turned the cards over; surely the secret lies in somewhere in that turning."



So... any suggestions for how to camouflage Braue? [/quote]

I would never critique the Braue reversal but you point out a fact. You are reversing cards. To what end? If you cannot justify the action then the audience will deduce that it had something to do with the result, whatever that is.

Perhaps a Braue reversal is best when you need to reverse a card but not necessarily for the purpose of displaying it reversed. In other words as a set-up for another move.
The Gravity Half-Pass is not as difficult as you might think. I would say it is knacky but once you get the idea it flows. Nearly effortless in action but you must watch the angles until you get the smoothness down. Done correctly it really appears you merely raised the deck to your fingertips. Fisher's video is helpful.
Message: Posted by: Bobby Forbes (Jun 22, 2019 06:49AM)
Hey Bob, I sent you a pm.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 22, 2019 08:06AM)
Magicfish, some of your retorts remind us of a fish left out for days.

I quote you: "Yes they did. They spent their lives thinking about it. They left their homes and sometimes their families to devote every day of their life thinking about it."
I was complimenting someone on their insight. Do you have to be so childishly argumentative that you have to post what was a worthless comment against a sincere and sensible compliment? I like you . You have good insights. Please let off being so contra-everyone so we can have some peace and help each other here. I welcome your insights, but not your attempts to start a verbal fight. I want to welcome your insights. You have a lot to share with others.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 01:11PM)
You still don't get it.
You make foolish statements like,
"In the past people did not tend to think about these distinctions, I imagine."

I like you too, and that is why I am trying to inform you that YES they most certainly DID think of it. They uprooted their entire lives to think about it. And they recorded their findings.

I'm not trying to fight. I'm trying to help you.

You constantly tell us that you have all the resources (which you don't) and that there is nothing out there and so you create better stuff.

Again there is nothing wrong with creating, but when asked how you know it is your own creation you ignore the question.

We stand on the shoulders of giants.
It is important to know what was done previously.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 02:12PM)
As far as helping each other, I have offered no less than 6 techniques in this thread.
All you have done is told us that you've created something better than all of them.

And offered statements like this:

"But sometimes you have to develop something where you can literally tell someone-- what'? you think I turned it over? dude, don't mention the impossible you were rignt in front of the deck. it is impossible to do that. look, etc..... To answer those who give a quick I know how you diddit like a 10 year old when they have no clue."

This is nothing short of magic suicide.
In the true spirit of assisting others, please, don't ever say this to a spectator.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 23, 2019 06:17AM)
You are hardheaded. this is a tongue in cheek statement. Did you go past high school?
the point is, if they did suspect it, it would be obvious a turnover was impossible. As for how you know it is original. The same way you would know. It is really not so hard if you have the resources and can look up every variation made.

Look dude, the fact that the invisible deck is still done, with a gimmicked deck, is a sign that yes people did have brains. But they didn't think critically. There is a path magic has to take. It has to jump off always quoting so and so. And think of the spectator. Some of the stuff that passed for great by some of your idols looks like an ape playing with a deck, nervously and quickly. I don't really know spectators who would think magic happened. That is fishy magic, is that what you are content with? I am aiming for people to be *** scared at my magic. To have seen a miracle. Very often I get these reactions. This is a result of thinking of the spectator first. They need a relief from facebook hehe.

Again I respect you. Remember if we were in the same magic club we would be the best of buddies. This online format does not always promote unity first. The written word is more harsh and set in stone. Unlike the comments we would make to each other at a magic club. So let's keep that in mind. I will promise you I will meet you and others at a convention or club and we will have a good time and even a beer perhaps. thanks
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 23, 2019 08:11AM)
I agree. Asking me if I finished high school is both harsh and impolite.

But we still might be buddies and have a beer at a convention. That is, until you tell me that the magic of Dai Vernon, Ed Marlo, John Scarne, Nate Leipzig, Max Malini, Derek Dingle, Mike Skinner, Bruce Cervon, Larry Jennings, Ricky Jay, looked like an ape playing with a deck.
That is when I would pay my bill and leave.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 23, 2019 12:23PM)
"(He, who says to have improved Vernon or Daley, is like
saying he improved Beethoven or Mozart – he’s either a fool or a liar.)"

- Giobbi
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 23, 2019 12:41PM)
Dear magicfish and countrymaven,


I like and respect you both, and magicfish, you've been a tremendous help to me in my magical progress. But may I respectfully suggest that your quarrel has gone on long enough in public, as it were? Of course you have every right to ignore me and continue in the same vein, but I don't think you're going to reach a resolution, and I don't think your disagreement is instructive anymore. So, for what it's worth, I hope that you will (1) agree to disagree, (2) continue with private messages, or (3) meet at a pub and have that beer together.



Thanks for thinking about it, and I'm looking forward to discussing magic with both of you in the future.


See you,


Bob
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Jun 23, 2019 02:03PM)
On the core topic, I think a bit more context would help. I can think of a bunch of ways of reversing any old card, since it's not difficult to come up with a routine that puts the heat elsewhere. For example, when people ask to see a trick, they usually expect to be getting ONE trick. So, if you've got a strong trick that relies on a force, then the very performance of that trick ought to offer enough opportunities to reverse a card for the NEXT trick, that relies on a reversed card at the bottom. The challenge would then be to come up with a strong forced card trick that you'd be satisfied opening with in a paid performing context.

There are also ways of getting a reversed card into position if you're starting with your own deck. At the bottom of the deck, you could have an already-reversed card second from the bottom, pull out the deck, flash the bottom casually, then do a milk shuffle, ending with a weave to bring the properly-reversed card to the bottom. This would essentially be angle-proof.

The problem with both the above is that you're reversing an indifferent card, which is perfect for some tricks but irrelevant for others.

As such, more context is needed, and it probably isn't even as simple as knowing more about the card being reversed. Tommy Wonder's Mind Movie feels apropos here -- doing the trick as if you were capable of real magic (no moves, no methods, no nothing) and then studying the conditions and choreography to look for opportunities for deception. Methods in the literature could be listed ad infinitum but they'd be potentially useless without more information about the context of the trick being performed, since the compromises needed to make those methods work might not fit what's needed for the trick in question.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 24, 2019 01:27AM)
Sorry Bob, I will not sit idly by while someone tries to tell me that Dai Vernon didn't think critically.
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Jun 24, 2019 08:02AM)
Personally I have no issue with verbal volleyball. It sometimes helps us all learn. We need to know that there are differing viewpoints. Otherwise we live in echo chambers. The problem I have is when the argument turns to ad-hominem attacks. This is usually when the person makes a good point or undermines yours and all you have left is to attack their character, education or other.

So I say bring on good-spirited debate but if you begin to type something about the person, better to log off instead.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 24, 2019 08:26AM)
Agreed Tortuga.
This is a good topic. As long as we remain respectful and avoid personal attacks.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 24, 2019 08:34AM)
The great Earl Nelson was partial to Cervon's M.A. Reverse.
I wish I could've seen either of them do it.
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Jun 24, 2019 09:06AM)
[quote]On Jun 24, 2019, magicfish wrote:
The great Earl Nelson was partial to Cervon's M.A. Reverse.
I wish I could've seen either of them do it. [/quote]

Or NOT seen them do it!

You remind me, it is time for me to go back and read my copy of Variations by Earl Nelson. Great book!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 24, 2019 09:42AM)
That is a great book.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 24, 2019 09:58AM)
"Personally I have no issue with verbal volleyball. It sometimes helps us all learn. We need to know that there are differing viewpoints. Otherwise we live in echo chambers. The problem I have is when the argument turns to ad-hominem attacks. This is usually when the person makes a good point or undermines yours and all you have left is to attack their character, education or other. So I say bring on good-spirited debate but if you begin to type something about the person, better to log off instead."


Like magicfish, I agree with this. Thanks, Tortuga.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Jun 24, 2019 11:38AM)
I agree Bob. Excellent thinking Tortuga. I will try to abide by that. We have to understand there are different mindsets in magic.
One of the "respect the past yet focus on inventing better" another is to "learn from the past almost exclusively". there are some differences that arise between these types of thinking. Almost everything I do in the miracle class (from spec's viewpoint) for me comes from the former viewpoint. For you your miracles may come from the latter. So we need to realize we are wired differently. Great point Tortuga--we should not disrespect the person. I will try to come to this thinking of these differences in approach. thanks
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 24, 2019 01:14PM)
Thanks to you, too, countrymaven, for your gracious note. Let the party continue!


Bob
Message: Posted by: Drylid (Jul 18, 2019 09:02PM)
Get a pinky break under card you want to reverse, drop your hands and rub it on your hip to reverse. invisible, only we notice it and literally made for street magic
Message: Posted by: vinsmagic (Jul 20, 2019 05:06AM)
Gun Reversal by the godfather

https://youtu.be/oIWsXI7OYPM
Message: Posted by: magicthree (Jul 20, 2019 07:18AM)
Didn't see a thing. Nice job
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jul 20, 2019 01:36PM)
This is my favorite because it's based on an easy sleight. I haven't tried it in performance or thought about how to get into it. Hold the deck in your left hand, facing toward you so that your spectators cant see the bottom card (the one that's facing you). Do the first step of a BR; then do the second step, but put the half-deck *above* the new top half-deck. The result: the deck is face-down in left hand dealer's grip, but with the bottom card (which was the bottom card at the beginning, too) face up.
Message: Posted by: littlethumbtip (Jul 21, 2019 03:52PM)
Lee Asher’s TWIST move has always been a solid “go to” sleight for when I need to reverse a card within the deck without drawing undue spectator attention. Practice the move within the context of a packet trick, as intended. Then progressively add cards as you get comfortable with the half pass until you can softly perform the reversal under the cover of any number of cards or even the whole deck. Watch the Asher perform the move and then practice will teach you the correct timing in execution as you casually spread cards to display.
Message: Posted by: Chris K (Jul 25, 2019 02:37PM)
Lots of good advice (I spot read, 4 pages is too much, lol).

A new method I've been playing with here is Close's False Faro Reversal (built on Homer's False Faro Shuffle), which I read in "The Road to Riffsville."

I like it but, and this is just my personal preference compared to Michael Close's, I think a shuffle right before showing a card reversed lessons the impact, since the cards have been very obviously handled. I know Close likes the "Chaos" then revelation type of theory but I just tend to disagree. So the fact that I still like the move shows how strong I think it is.
Message: Posted by: AceOfShades (Aug 25, 2019 06:48PM)
I am a fan of Randy Wakeman's Throwing It In Reverse. That and a couple of Ken Krenzels moves that I think have already been mentioned like the Invisible Reverse Transfer. They are pretty much invisible and instantly get cards reversed into the middle. I don't have tricks for them but when I need the moves they're going to be very handy.
Message: Posted by: holdingoutflat (Sep 1, 2019 03:09PM)
I use a method that I stumbled upon (that has likely already been discovered and is in print somewhere) that reverses any number of cards from the top of the deck and it requires a top palm and then a spreading action/squirt move under a spread. I've found it to be extremely reliable and invisible.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 1, 2019 05:37PM)
I'm enjoying the Spread Gather Reverse from Lorayne's and Finally! Smooth little maneuver for some effects.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 1, 2019 09:30PM)
Double Olah Reverse- Lorayne
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 5, 2019 03:49PM)
I personally prefer methods that give me some space from spec memory.
The Braue Reversal is invisible and perfectly workable, but surely there are retrospective-shenanigans with the packets reversing.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Sep 5, 2019 04:02PM)
An interesting comment, Mr Salk. I have little performance experience, but I've fretted about this issue too. Braue is the only reversal I know. Jerry Mentzer says that it passes as a showy cut, but I've always been skeptical of that. I suppose it depends on the circumstances.


Can you (or anyone) recommend a quicker reversal that's less obtrusive -- and fairly easy to learn? I know this thread is bursting at the seams with ideas, but I don't know how to decide which ones would suit my purposes. I don't have the money to buy everything people suggest, and often people just name the sleight, possibly with just a reference.


So, to recapitulate -- can anyone recommend a reversal that's reasonably easy to learn and to disguise? After months of work, with lots of generous help from people on the Café, I've got an Elmsley Count that one person described as "Solid -- not the best I've ever seen, but far from the worst." So maybe something at that level of difficulty or below.


Thanks,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Sep 5, 2019 04:15PM)
P. S. After writing the above, I lightly read the whole thread again, and realized that there's much more discussion than I'd remembered of advantages and drawbacks of various reversals. Nevertheless, it would help me to hear suggestions specifically in answer to y question.
Message: Posted by: AceOfShades (Sep 5, 2019 06:29PM)
I'm working on a book/pamphlet thing that includes at least a good half-dozen reversals but unfortunately it is quite a ways from being done. I really like Krenzel's reverses but his book may be hard to get a hold of. For an easier move that doesn't require a book I do suggest trying some of the moves that involve a DL. I think that kind of thing may be in The Royal Road to Card Magic but the concept or similar is covered in a few Twisting the Aces routines I have seen on YouTube as well.
Message: Posted by: jim ferguson (Sep 5, 2019 07:05PM)
Bob G,

Can you pm me the trick(s) that you need the reversal(s) for ?

I may be able to help.



Jim
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 5, 2019 07:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
I personally prefer methods that give me some space from spec memory.
The Braue Reversal is invisible and perfectly workable, but surely there are retrospective-shenanigans with the packets reversing. [/quote]
No. Not if the actions are motivated.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Sep 5, 2019 08:39PM)
Jim, thanks. I've PM'd you.


Thanks to you, too, Ace of Shades, I actually have the Ken Krenzel book, but found the reversals difficult to follow. That's nothing against Lorayne's writing, which is quite clear. Much as I like books, I'm beginning to think that I learn sleights better from videos, or at least in conjunction with videos, if they're well-done and explained slowly enough. I'll look for some twisting the aces videos and see if one helps me. Meanwhile, good luck with your book!


Bob
Message: Posted by: Leo Reynolds Jr (Sep 6, 2019 06:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"I believe that reversal is Daley's."

...better ask for your 5 bucks back. [/quote]

Why?

It's the reversal Vernon uses in Twisting the Aces. I'm pretty sure Daley deserves credit for it, but am away from home at the moment and can't verify. [/quote]


I first learned that method years ago out of Bill Tarr's book Now You See It Now You Don't page 50 no credits given. Still use it.



Nobody deserved credit for something so obvious. Any hack who perused Royal Road would figure it out in five minutes while dinking around. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 6, 2019 07:37PM)
Wait til you hear what he says about dupes.
Better sit down and have a drink first.
Message: Posted by: danny (Sep 9, 2019 06:20AM)
Marlo's future reverse works well.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Sep 17, 2019 09:10PM)
The best way to reverse a card INVISIBLY will be mentioned in a minute. People suspect more than you think. Just because they don't notice something does not mean they did not keep it to themselves. So when I started this, I meant INVISIBLY with the heat on. For me the best way is to bend the card around, covering the front subtly with a finger. It stands up to the heat. I will give this away soon. It is an impossible and invisible reverse. Nobody would suspect you could do it. While watching from the front. I know misdirection is good. But you can't make it work all the time. This reversal of mine allows an invisible deck or brainwave with regular cards. It is nice to hand out the cards when you are done. no biggie. But I appreciate the discussion. Yes there are reversals for different situations. I appreciate all the contributors here. Great thread.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Sep 18, 2019 08:23AM)
Thanks, Danny and countrymaven. Danny, I'll look up Marlo's future reverse.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Sep 21, 2019 01:19PM)
All the reversals mentioned here are fine - when properly done, of course. But since what was/is asked is for a "favorite," my Universal Reversal has reached the top of my list. I've fooled knowledgeable card men all over the world with it - before I put it I print. It's easy to do, and etc. If you don't know it, forgive the repetition, but - you really gotta' start reading the good stuff!!