As a magician, there are moves that are invisible to laymen, but "felt" or noticed by magicians.

The pass is one of them. I have seen people with absolutley invisible passes, but i know when they are used and sort of what they "feel" like. A double lift is another. I sometimes know when it is used, even though it might be completley clean.

My question is what double lifts have fooled you the most?

Everything Gregory Wilson's Double Take video. It changed my life! The first step from just having a svengully deck and a scotch & soda to becoming a working magician. But to your point of being noticed by a fellow magi, I only "perform" for laypeople if I am around another magi we are typically practicing.

Lee Asher's doubles are really good. Especially when he is doing the silver surfer from his "Five Card Stud" video. And his springboard doubles are pretty cool too.

Do you know how to fool magicians with a double lift?

It is more easy as you can think. Just prepare two cards, as if you prepared an invisible deck. The two cards won´t slide, and you could put them on the table, and so on, naturally, as they are really just one card. This little and simple thing... fooled a lot of magicians, at least in my experience.

All the best magic,

Pablo Tejero

Longbeach - Your question may not elicit the response you want, but then, maybe I am reading more into it than there is. If you are asking how to "get by" people with a DL, then asking which one fools us is just going to get you a list of people who do "good" DL's. Or a list of "good" methods.

The real problem is the one you stated, that people "sense" a move. The question is - Why? The answer, in part, is - you have a tell, or tells. What are they? How do you correct them? these are interesting aspects of a "good" DL, (or any move, for that matter...), that need to be considered.

Every time I have been fooled it has been because, (A) the technique was excellent (That SHOULD be a given, technique SHOULD be flawless...), and (B)the tells were eliminated by approach, timing, or presentation.

Erdnase suggests that the resourceful professional, failing to improve the method, changes the moment. Sound advice! There are other considerations - perhaps we can begin a discussion along those lines?

Best, PSC

I definately agree...
I remember one time, I was fooled amazingly badly by Eric Mead who did a coins across with 4 coins. The routine used 2 HPC's, but they were done at such off moments, in an off-beat manner, and without calling attention, and they flew right by me.

I think most magicians practice and perfect moves, and then feel the need to call attention to the move, or more accurately, don't feel the need to call attention away from it. As this can serve as a sort of inner reward, one runs the risk of having a move suspected (just as bad, again the philosophy of Erdnase.) John Carney has touched upon the subject (being influenced by Ramsay's work) that the misdirection should be strong enough that no one should be looking at your hands at the crucial time... but the technique should be flawless (to repeat what Paul said) so that incase someone does glance down, they see nothing.

In terms of a double lift, I think if attention is called to the card the moment it appears face up (as opposed to the turning over of it,) then it aids the illusion, since the replacement of a double is a very non suspicion arousing action and looks very fair. Calling attention to the turning over of a card makes a trivial happening all of a sudden an important one and can draw undue attention.
Also, presentation wise, I found that it sometimes helps to let the spectator be curious about the top card (for some reason or another... maybe during an ambitious card routine, you build up suspense in the audience so they wonder if it has risen up to the top yet again etc...) the spectator would be concerned with what the card is so the action is less important.This might also create an off-beat moment (a laugh etc...) and give misdirectin to do another move.


Alpen

Roger Klause's triple lift after a tilt move with face to face cards...

I don't think that's Klause's, I think it's Vernon's (I might be mistaken)... That's the ungaffed variation of the famous trick that Vernon used to fool Houdini.


Alpen

Hello Mr. Chosse,

I would love to begin a discussion along those lines. I don't know where to begin though, I'll let you do the honors.

Best,

Nathan

Righto Alpen - at least to some degree - It is the "impromptu double-backer" method for the "Trick That Fooled Houdini". I don't know that Vernon bothered to describe this method, though Jennings used it and put it in print in an Ambitious Card - when he showed it to me (1977) he was calling it 7 Rises or Seven Up, or some such...

Best, PSC

The emphasis in most double-lift discussions seems to be towards very natural, inconspicuous turnovers - probably quite right too in most cases.

But I'd be interested to hear if anyone is using more 'flourishy' type turnovers - KC mentioned Lee Asher, and his Springboard Double is an example that *springs* to mind. (Oh dear!)

Perhaps 'flourishy' might be overstating it for some other moves, but for example I saw a turnover some time ago, where the right thumb lifted two cards at the left side of the deck (a'la strike double) and with a slight bend in the card, the double card snaps face up at the tips of the fingers.

There's Frank Garcia's Pirouette Double, which looks quite nice. I'm sure many people, better read than myself, could point out many more.

Coming back to Longbeach's original question, maybe a move with an apparently casual flourish might appear to be less obviously a double card?

Jon.

Nathan,

O.K. I'll start, but you guys better help me out!

Let's just start with the moment. Mostly, we call attention to the deck, turn the card over, and then proceed in whatever way is necessary to complete the effect, right?

What if you turn the card over, THEN call attention to the deck? This seems a small thing, and I'm sure you are thinking "How do you turn a card over without calling attention to the fact that you are doing so?" Please note I did not presume to say that the spectator wouldn't SEE you turning the card over, only that you don't call ATTENTION to it...

If you are giving the spectator directions for instance, ("Pick up the glass please...")as you turn the card over, they will see, but not be occupied with, the turnover. You call attention to the card AFTER the turnover by saying something like "I'll isolate the 2 of clubs by placing it under the glass... right here... go ahead, put the glass on it..."

You have changed the moment, shifted attention, minimized the importance of the card, and, and, and... All by NOT calling attention to the card until AFTER it is turned over, instead of BEFORE you turn it over.

Attitude is very important here. You are NOT doing anything tricky, you have nothing to hide. More importantly, nothing to emphasize. That is the subtext of your actions, the impression you must convey. The action of ISOLATING the card is important, not the card. Calling attention to it as you turn it over, making the "move" a Plot Point is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous!

It does matter what you do with it (the card) though, so calling attention to the card as you isolate it does matter, right? WRONG! But they don't know that - you have just led them down the garden path, looking at the unimportant as if it is important, and vice-versa.

Sound like a bit more analysis than necessary just to do a double turnover? Maybe... or maybe not - I just don't know... Hmmm...

Best, PSC

P.S. - Your turn!

Paul's implicit point here (as well as the point made by Alpen earlier in the thread) is one that we would all do well to follow. Oftentimes, we simply stop thinking too soon.

You see a great deal of discussion on misdirecting the pass, the top change, palming, and other sleights that lack an "external reality". However, for moves that are made under the pretense of another action (the double lift, the double undercut, a false shuffle) we tend to assume that once the move is visually deceptive, our work on the move is done, and we stop thinking.

If it is the identity of a card that is important to an effect, then the position is immaterial. Nothing is lost by misdirecting at the moment of the turnover because the only information your interested in conveying is that contained on the face of the card, information available AFTER the turnover.

For an effect like the ambitious card though, there are two pieces of information critical to the effect: 1) the identity of the card...and 2) its position on the top of the deck. Now we have a problem. In this situation should the magician misdirect from the turnover? Certainly the first time the card comes to the top you could direct attention away from the turnover, but on each subsequent time the turnover itself is a point of interest. Thinking along these lines might lead one to believe that maybe we use the DL too much in our ambitious card routines, or maybe our ambitious card routines are too long.

Granted, that's a lot of thought to put into the use of the DL in one very specific instance. But, as I'm sure Paul would agree, we rarely suffer from thinking too much about our effects.

Paul

"Please note I did not presume to say that the spectator wouldn't SEE you turning the card over, only that you don't call ATTENTION to it..."

That is a good point.

I think the DL is one of the hardest moves to do well and I find a lot of the flashier tricks use it, making it very important that it looks right.

I've been using a standard lift for a long time now but I really ought to try another. What would people suggest as a relatively simple (not necessarily easy) alternative? Card College is somewhat lacking in these.

Fascinating topic. Thanks to Nate for suggesting it and Mr Chosse for sharing some of his thoughts.

your idea of performing the turnover quite openly but without drawing attention to it is very reminiscent of the Ramsay approach. In effect you are guiding your audience as to what is important note and what is not through the use of your own gaze and appropriate construction.

Juan Tamariz has an application of this approach in which he gazes at and actually points at the top card to emphasise it's location. He then raises his pointed finger in a gesture, lifts his gaze to the spectators face and continues with his commentary. As he talks the hand drops back down and executes the turnover. Finally he looks down again to note the identity of the card.

In this way both the location of the card, its identity and the fact that it is being turned over have been firmly established without drawing attention to - but without hiding - the action.

One could argue that turning over a card is a very simple task to accomplish, and spectators are perfectly (if unknowingly) aware of this. To focus on executing such a simple action is either to betray the importance of the move, or give the spectator the impression that we lack the most basic hand-eye coordination skills.

Talk to people in the real world as the pick up objects, transfer things from hand to hand or flip over pages in a book....they will most likely glance at the object to ascertain its location and then look back at you as their brain coordinates the action without needing to gaze intently at what is going on.

Ramsay made the point that you cannot just suddenly try and distract attention at the moment you perform a sleight. Instead you have to train the audience to take direction from you and follow your lead, which means structuring your effects, your commentary and your gaze to be directing them from the start.

There is a danger of being to heavy handed and leaving the audience with the impression that they were forced to look away at a crucial moment. Managing the situation such that the audience is not focused on the action, yet does not feel as though they are being distracted, and is perfectly aware I am turning over the top card is - for me - a difficult but valuable goal.

Whew....my apologies for such a long rambling message, but I took Mr Chosse's invitation quite literally...

Regards,

Kevin

I agree with the above points, a magician friend of mine does the pirouette turnover and it measures on the rhicter scale when he performs it but like pchoose said they saw it but did not SEE it because his audience cared what he cared about. He didn't seem interested so neither did they. For something like ambitious card however I have found the key is consistency in the way you turnover a single or a double. Make both look similar and again its the effect people are interested in.
T

A couple of random thoughts here...

If all we do is the equivalent of "first I do this, next I do this, then I do that...," we become card mechanics, nothing more. When I perform a trick/effect, I like to talk with my spectators...not only does it divert attention from my hands, but it allows me to try and make the trick something more than just a trick.

Simon Lovell addressed another point the other night; he said why do we call it "misdirection?" Why isn't it just direction? We're directing their attention in one manner, while misdirecting gives rise to an entirely different set of behavior. Jamy Ian Swiss calls himself the "honest liar;" I'd suggest we gleefully consider his approach.

When I learn a trick, I write it out in Words for Windows - even if I have it in a book.

For each step of the trick I have line called Attention: where I write what the specs are (supposed to be) focussing their attention on it might be "Tabled card" or "Right hand gesture" or whatever. I find it helps me understand exactly what I'm doing. When I'm finding a trick difficult I normally find that I've not nailed where the attention is or have conflicting goals in this respect.

[quote]On 2003-01-30 13:45, Alpen wrote:
I don't think that's Klause's, I think it's Vernon's (I might be mistaken)... That's the ungaffed variation of the famous trick that Vernon used to fool Houdini.

Absolutely correct Alpen. It is the trick that fooled Houdini which is featured on Daryls Ambitious card.It is a great little thng which I do a lot with the use of a double Backer.
I think if one wants to get comfortable with the lift itself you should get Daryl's-thats were I started, and at the end of it you will have constructed your own AC routine. Tjen go away and practice and the lift will come.

I left something out of this that might make a differnce in my point... The double lift I use is a stud style double in which the card is not placed flat on the deck. I feel that just showing a card is a little more natural than turning it over and letting it rest on the deck. The reason that I never liked that method is that you must created 2 moments of relaxation instead of 1 (one for the turn over, and one for the replacement.) So after the top card is turned over and attention is drawn, the card can be very naturally flipped back face down.

Alpen