Hi,
I agree with you! But it made more sense logicaly than returning it to the deck to do nothing with it only find it agian.
the clear way to go is just to have it removed and show it says you will chooose on the face of the card. but not knowing if this could be done from the original post (which was all I had to go on at the time )my idea made a little it a little more logical.

Plus, Impression is a hardcore mentalism effect, not a magic trick.

As a member of the mentalist asylum group. I think if it where hardcore mentalism it would probably not use playing cards at all!

Phillip

It's all about the mood and they way you do it Mr. Jones.

Andrew

When you read the routine in the booklet as it explains putting back in the deck, it makes much more sense. Although you don't need to, it sometimes make the spectator sigh in disbelief., that you know his card all along.
As Andrew said, it really does depend on the mood.

Thanks guys!

Just got this and....WOW....it's great...completely practical and great for table-hopping and walk around.

I'm gonna do this on Friday at my restaurant....I'm sure people will freak.

Hum......... can the card be given away as a gift? Can I use another language instead?
Thinking of getting it.

Michael Lam

Yep, the card can be definitely given away!

You can use any language you want.

Thanks for the comments guys!

Hi all,

Well my copy fell through my door today.
I was not totally disappointed.

Then again, I fail to see anything new in this trick. I find it difficult to believe that it hasn't been published before. For example I know and perform a John Riggs effect that uses the same move/method already.

Also I feel the need to clarify the claim of



There is nothing to ditch or add, but a clean-up for examination afterwards will involve doing something with the cards. Examination of the deck prior to the effect is not possible, as you need to be a very quick setup first (which is very minimal and could be done during a shuffle if you wanted - even by those of us who are all thumbs).

Whilst it may or may not be true to say there is no sleights, there is a move and it is a G******* F*** though the moves name is not mentioned in the instructions. This leads me to wonder how much research Yousif has done prior to publication (or maybe he thought that by not naming the move the advert could legitimately say "no sleights".

Well, I started my appraisal on a positive note, and I must end on a positive note. This effect is dynamite as mentalism, and a breeze to perform. I just wish I knew for sure if Yousif is the first to publish it.

I'll respond as best as I can.

1. Clean up - it takes 2 seconds, and can be done right in front of the audience! Everything can be examined at the end! Why would anyone want to examine something before the trick even started?

2. I have never said "no sleights", I've given it out for review and those who tried believe it doesn't really count as a sleight, and I'm taking it judged on what they said and what they think are sleights. If you call it a sleight, then it doesn't even require prior knowledge about cards, its THAT easy to do.

3. When I have given out this for review, I also asked if anyone has seen it somewhere before, and no one has told me they've seen the method PUBLISHED somewhere, but that it is an old method brought back.

As for the credits, I am looking and the new versions will have credits to who ever it goes to. Thanks for making sure!


Also,
Thanks for the review!

Essentially, the most important "move" here has been published. I saw Eugene Burger use it. He attributed the move to Al Baker. It is called Al Baker's Impossible Card *****. Yousif's application of the move has been personalized.

Gianni

I agree actually, the clean up isn't a big deal. In fact I don't think I would actually bother as I bet spectators wouldn't even notice anything and if they did I don't think they'd think twice about it.


The problem is that some participants are like this unfortunately. Remember that even if the participant doesn't intend on "examining" the deck they or someone else may see something wrong with the deck, so careful participant management is required.



Well the ads say no sleights. and how do we draw the line at what is a sleight or not? I would say any "move" constitutes sleight of hand, otherwise the performer wouldn't need to handle the deck. But the move is ridiculously easy


You're right the method is old, and common in gambling circles. It is wonderfully deceptive to most people though. Aside from John Riggs Psychic Psurprises Lecture Notes '97 and the Burger reference, I would suggest checking out Larry Jennings as I think I recall that he did some work/published a routine using it.


Not a problem, glad to be of help (it's not often I can be).


Thanks for releasing the effect! Especially if it does turn out to not be published elsewhere previously, as I think it's a great impromptu mental miracle like OOTW.

Hi.

Actually the ads never mention 'no sleights' , that was a part of the purchasers review, the first post.

Thanks, it seems everybody likes it!

Phillip,
Right on! It is so illogical. I wrote the following to Yousif. First of all of course, a lot of the writers seem to think this is a new disovery. The basics are probably one hundred years old--and simple. So much so that I dismissed it, but it sort of haunted me with its simplicity and aesthetic manuscript. So, here is the following:
1)Write prediction. Give it to Spec to hold.
2)Let him choose whatever card he wants and mark it on the back, stick a bit of post-note to it.
3) Shuffle card into deck.
4) Spread out deck on table FACE UP.
5) Have spectator open prediction and read it; eg: "find the six of clubs". (It now makes sense that the deck be face up and the card lost in it.
6)Slide card out on table
7) Turn it over----Va-voom!!
Marty K.

Well,
I just read some of the posts that I had skipped. I'm amazed at how few know their history! This has not only been published by guys like Burger (that I did not know) but it was the first move many learned from any beginner's book of card tricks. I think every book from Johnson Smith and Co of Detroit (are you old enough to know of that?; their intriguing ads adorned the rear of every comic book in America. At ten cents a piece you could have the Wizard's Manual of Magic Ventriloquism,How to Build a Flyable Airplane etc.--all reprints using material from Prof Hoffman, etc.) But this "move" was almost the first anyone ever learned. Took about 3 seconds to master.
Marty K

Hi Marty!

Your way sounds great, however I did discuss it with other magicians and they seem to like the original routine better. Its basically a 50/50. However, you think it is illogical only because you haven't heard the full routine and as to why you would do that, it's explained in the manuscript.

Yes it is an easy move. As said in one of the posts above, packs small, plays BIG!

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

I got my Impression from Yousif and it's a good use of a simple 'move'. The effect far outweighs the method. Even if you don't do the routine, it gives you food for thought.

Apparently many posters aren't aware of magic's history. This is to be understood as with so many books and magazines its hard to know everyplace something has appeared in print.

I have found very little being released today that hasn't already been in print or invented years earlier.

Maybe I can throw some light on this and give some basic history of the move.

So lets set the record straight, this move is ancient. The move was invented by Clayton Rawson and was first published in The Jinx .
Al Baker published the move in several places.
Since that time Larry Jennings and Marlo both used the move in various tricks. Marlo used this move in a routine where a spectator cuts to another person's card. Marlo also published a trick where two people sign a card, one the face, the other a back. Using this move the card is shown to have both person's signature.
Abbotts and UF Grant both released manuscripts using this move in gambling routines. If memory serves me correct I believe UF Grant described this move to do poker deal in his fake gambling act manuscript released in the early sixties.
These are just a few of the prior references I can think of off the top of my head, I know there are many more. This move has been in so many card books its hard to keep track of it.

Devin Knight

I saw the trick tonight...
I received 2 pages of explanation. It's nothing new, a good trick, though.

I think it's suitable to appear in a magazine rather than PUBLISHED.

Michael Lam

I received this trick yesterday from Yousif.I've already tried it a couple of times and it gets a good reaction.
The move as has been said before, is an old one and a very simple one. However Impressions is a good trick and I wouldn't have thought of it until Yousif put it out.I will be using this a lot.It's simple, a strong effect ,the spectator is fully involved and gets to keep the card.
Also I like the card being put back in the pack before being revealed.It adds a bit of drama.

Chappelly

Yay Chapelly! Finally someone with some sense. You have tried it out and you know that it works and the putting the card back in part adds drama. All those guys who posted previously who said it was illogical are thinking too much like magicians. They should go out and try it for themselves like you did. And even if that part doesn't work for someone they don't have to put it back in the deck.

Andrew

Yes, I agree with Andrew. You really do need to try out a trick before you judge it. Magicians do not think like laymen, but somehow we still think they do.

The feedback from the those who've used it out in thier act are great!

Thanks for the comments!

Yousif, I used it recently, it's good.
However, for laymen, I can use other force instead, but with your presentation, they still like it.

Michael Lam