|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Those of you have taken the time to read my thoughts about things magical have probably suffered from ocular hemorrhaging. I apologize
Also, I like to test an effect before an audience a number of times before writing a "review". Hence the phrase "First Impressions" is more apropos here since I am still studying the many nuances of this excellent approach to the one of the most powerful effects possible in magic. So, the effect first, taken directly from Wesley James's manuscript: Effect: From a spectator-shuffled deck - it may be borrowed - a spectator cuts off a random number of cards from which to make a mental selection, or they may elect to use the entire deck. The spectator is then shown cards, which the performer does not see, until he or she is satisfied with the selection they have made. They have the opportunity to select any of the cards that comprise the portion they have chosen. After recombining the cards the performer briefly shuffles the deck and demonstrates how the spectator should cut the deck without completing the cut. When the spectator is satisfied with the point to which he or she has cut, and only then, he or she is asked to name the mental selection. It is always the top card at the point where the spectator divided the deck. There is never any ambiguity or deviation of procedure, no outs or equivocation. The spectator has located his or her own mentally chosen card. [end of effect description] There are absolutely NO setups at all. This can be done impromptu and with a borrowed deck of cards. I have run through the effect twice to get the gist, and already I am sensing that this effect, when given the proper study - as all magic should be given - is the most direct method yet for this seemingly impossible feat. If you know of Wesley James's work then you also will encounter in this effect the very same painstaking instruction for which Wesley James is known. The pdf is cleanly produced, and while textually dense is very easy to read. A word about the particular method of copy protection: the pdf is doubly protected by password and by watermarking. The watermark on the pages is YOUR name, so, this would be VERY difficult to surpass, thankfully, and, the password encryption is sound. Some may grouse at having to type their password each and every time one desires to read the e-book on one's screen. I do not find this a problem at all. Also, the watermarking really makes it hard for this to end up on Torrent sites. [Just an editorial opinion here, but, those who DO illegally download e-books I would wager would not have the first clue how to approach this effect. This is no method whereby you will be doing the effect two minutes after reading it. While the method is not difficult, it does require you to be fully engaged and you need to understand the psychological whys and hows of the effect. This is not a beginner's effect in my opinion.] The e-book begins with a history of the plot, complete with a bit of controversy concerning Vernon and Ralph Hull. As usual, Wesley James is VERY careful and completely accurate with credits, and you will find them in the introduction as well as a partial bibliography at the end of the e-book. I will not offer the names in this article contained in the bibliography. I believe, just as in an academic peer reviewed article, that bibliographies serve us best after we have read the article. What Wesley James has produced in method are two extremely useful and utilitarian techniques that have wide ranging applications in card magic. He writes that there will possibly be a manuscript released at a later date detailing further ideas. I hope he does; these techniques, developed by Wesley James, WILL make you think. So, you are not only getting a powerful effect, you are also receiving two very special techniques that I believe will spawn many new approaches to existing effects and perhaps solve riddles in our never ending search for the best method to achieve maximum impact. Every action in the method is completely motivated. You have a legitimate reason for everything you do, and the real beauty of the method is that what you do, rather than looking at all suspicious or cozy or contrived, actually heightens the effect. However, I will reiterate that this e-book must be ACTIVELY engaged by you, the reader. This is not Scarne on Card Tricks. However, if you truly engage the author and engage in a dialogue with the text, you will have something(s) very special. [Note: No slam on Scarne on Card Tricks. It is a great book in its own right even WITH the incorrect crediting. ALL books should be actively read. I just had mentioned Scarne on Card Tricks because the only other printed matter nearby was the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine ) Wesley James writes at some length about the psychology and the theatricality of the effect. Please do not pass this by! If you have read any of Wesley James's books, you know to be prepared for heavy analysis. Fear not those of you new to Wesley James however. His writing style is thorough without being pedantic, and one does not get the sense of the Ichabod Crane pedagogue. You will find his prose to be conversational but never patronizing nor condescending. The writing has the "feel" of his wonderful tome "Enchantments" and I find his style most conducive to learning. In conclusion, we often debate about what has been held back in effect description. But, we have to be honest colleagues: we present the ILLUSION of being able to perform MAGIC. The effect as written IS what the audience sees. After reading the method, I went back and read the effect again, and everything "jibes." I am excited about this effect. If there is one niggle, and this is the M.A. in English in me, is that the effect description has that terrible problem of plural and singular pronoun replacement. But, that is more an intrinsic weakness of the English language, so, the English graduate student can overlook that easily. If you are serious about your magic, I urge you to give this a try. Even if you do not do the effect - which IS what it says - you will have learned two new techniques and invaluable theory from one of magic's greatest theorists. Thank you for reading! Ahimsa, Vlad |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
I have to confess that I am a bit mystified. The parts of this handling that I like cover no new ground from Vernon, or more particularly, Crosthwaite, and the parts I'm not thrilled with (or, for the M.A. in English, "the parts with which I am not thrilled") seem to be steps backwards. The techniques are interesting, however, I am not satisfied that they are put to adequate use in this context. The revelation may require two sleights, under fire, to show that the spectator has cut to his card. I'm not sure it's an improvement.
|
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
Vlad,
Sometimes, I log on to the Café just to read your reviews. Keep it up. Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Thanks Mike for the kind words.
John Wells, It's always tricky when writing thoughts or reviews about anything. I do not claim to be anything more than just another magician trying find interesting approaches to plots. But even the best reviewers like Swiss, Frame, Mead, etc., take a chance when offering their impressions. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Eric Mead gave a rather stinging review some years back of Power Plays by Mike Powers. It's an excellent book, and in fact Eric Mead's review was the only negative review I had read. I am sorry you are mystified. Perhaps our perspectives are different and of course I can no more predict what each person will LOVE or not. Just the same as the record execs at Decca told Brian Epstein that guitar bands are on the way out. I still hold with my first impressions, and, after having performed this a few times for real people, the reactions are excellent. I do think that the techniques introduced by Wesley James have wide ranging applications and I hope that he will in future release a booklet dealing with other uses. Perhaps you might want to discuss with Mr. James why you do not feel this is not breaking new ground. I do not have HIS expertise - few do actually - but, I have had more success with this than the Vernon or Fr. Crosthwaite approaches. I don't think it is possible to write a completely objective review. And perhaps first impressions are even more perilous. Nonetheless, we all have certain criteria we establish as a yardstick against which to measure that which we evaluate. Mr. James does quote Sir Issac Newton regarding this effect: "if I have seen farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." If you have the Randy Tanner work on this plot, perhaps it may be fruitful to compare and contrast to that? Mr. James credits Randy Tanner's excellent work on this. I have one of Randy's approaches to this and I can see that while his IS excellent, there is a sense of motivation to Mr. James's approach that has worked much better for me than other approaches. Nonetheless, I realize that anyone that writes anything about a product is taking a risk. I also realize that it is important to stand by the criteria I have set and hope that what I have written can be of value to somebody. Finally, I have to be man enough to bear the slings and arrows. I do so respectfully. Ahimsa, Vlad |
|||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
Vlad,
You mis-remembered the credit, which goes to Randy Wakeman, not Randy Tanner. Beyond that, I'm pleased to hear that you are getting the reactions you report to my treatment of this classic plot. I can tell you from personal experience that as you learn to sell the fairness of the proceedings the reactions will get even stronger. Thank you for your continuing updates. Wesley James |
|||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
John,
As I stated in my description of the material, my treatment is built on the efforts of the many, including Vernon and Crosthwaite, who have preceded me. While we should probably take any detailed discussion of method private, the selection procedure goes well beyond anything Crosthwaite offers in persuading the spectators that they have had a wide-ranging and well distributed choice of cards from which to make their mental selection. It streamlines all previous versions in its minimal shuffle procedure and eliminates all the questioning required in the Hull and Vernon treatments. It avoids the fishing techniques employed in some versions and what you refer to as "two sleights, under fire" appear as nothing more than the actions one would have to perform to show the spectator the card to which s/he has cut. I'm truly sorry you are "a bit mystified" but I hope you will try performing my version. I think you will find, as Vlad and I have, that it plays exceedingly well with lay audiences; and isn't that the final determinant of the quality of any treatment of any effect? Wesley James |
|||||||||
dylan magic Elite user 424 Posts |
I picked this up, and to be honest I'm luke warm about it, there are some nice touches to the oosoom style routine.
I'm not confident the selection procedure would pass muster, but that's just my opinion,I work for tough crowds in bars and restaurants where people burn my hands and I wouldnt feel confident using this procedure.It is however clever and not something I'd seen before even though I'm a fan of this plot and have a lot of the material wesley james credits (in great detail I might add, and that's to be respected and admired). The moves wesley descirbes would be easier if they had photographs showing them, they're not particulary hard to understand textually, but I feel photos would of added something to the manuscript. I do not have the background knowledge of vlad or wesley so cannot comment on how legimately ground breaking these are, however one move (i can't go into too much detail for fear of exposure) is something quite similar to a move I read in a routine in john bannons impossibilia book, "oh calcutta" if memory serves correct. I also not convinced the moves are done at a good moment in the routine, I'm my opinion the heat is on at that point, and it's not the best time for the move to be done, in my opinion, you may feel different. Can the move(s) be covered with misdirection?. Well of course but I'm not sure it would cover a peformance to larger group. Also I feel its important to note that the spectator tells you the name of the card, hence there is no fishing. To me this is odd, why would you have someone go through a selection procedure such as a oosoom sequence just for them to tell you the card, and then reveal they have cut to it?. Wouldn't it be stronger for you to name the card you are thinking of, and then have them cut to it? my thinking is that it would be stronger to get the card and the have them reveal it themselves. For some people this may not be an issue, but for me it doesn't sit quite right with the selection procedure. I was hoping the spectator would be able to cut and then turn it over themselves in all scenarios, unfortunatly its not the case. The cutting procedure is good and I think people may find other applications for it. Overall its a good read and may get your creative juices going, but I'm kind of diassapointed I spent $25, I don't feel I got my moneys worth, to me this a $15 manuscript. However opinions are subjective and you may enjoy this manuscript, I offer this review just to point out some things I felt people may wish to know before purchase. |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-06-11 04:14, Wesley James wrote: Thank you for the correction Mr. James. That's what I get after trying to write something after a long gig (musician too, it was a 4 hour blastfest for a bunch of bikers ) Dylan, Believe me, I have no expertise in the sense of Wesley James or Harry Lorayne or [insert great thinker here], but, I do sense when I have come across something special. Perhaps that sense is again that yardstick of which I wrote in an earlier post. I would only offer this IF you desire to give this effect a try: you mentioned you weren't confident that the selection procedure would pass muster. Question yourself deeply WHY you think this is so. If you aren't confident, it won't work. But, this is true of any effect. When I was starting out (and I am not saying you are a beginner - your post here tells me otherwise) and learned the good old cross cut force, I thought, there is no WAY this would fly by ANYONE. But, one night I decided to give it a go. To this day, even though I know and use far more "advanced" forces, I STILL use this great old ploy as well. And I still smile that it does FAR more than "get by." That being said, I do not perceive the methods of THIS effect as being at all obvious. Rather, I see that every stage is so very motivated, and the conditions appear SO very fair - and in fact the so much of it IS, that I find that my audiences are blown away by it. Then again, my performance style may inform that as well. I love visual magic, but I REALLY love magic that really happens in a not so obvious way. This effect DOES work beautifully at least for me. And, it really is impossible for a non-magician to reverse engineer. In fact, although I really dislike performing for other magicians - and Steven Youell has given me sage advice on how to rethink my position on this) - I just MIGHT, once I throw in a few red herrings, do this for the local cognoscenti. It's been a fun ride this past week, as I have been working this effect and Martyn Smith's Up The Ante into my working repertoire. Admittedly, while I am doing the James effect, I am still choosing the right time to do it, not because I feel the effect is by any means weak, but, I am still working my way through the process of mastery. This happened with Silent Running earlier this year. Now, I am blowing minds left and right with Ben Harris's baby. I like Ganson's chapter heading in his card trilogy devoted to Vernon: "sometimes miracles take a little longer." I do think your assessment however is valid for you insofar as only YOU can ultimately know what WORKS for you. But, I will make a daring prediction, and that is that people who buy this, learn it completely and will full confidence, are actually going to take it underground and it will be a beautifully kept secret Case in point: approximately three months ago someone had posted some comments about how wonderful Roy Walton's effect entitled "Back Into Time" plays. So, I went to Pallbearer's Review and learned the effect, and it DOES play well! But, here is the fun bit: It was published in, I BELIEVE the June 1973 issue (I will re-check) and in the September or December issue (AGAIN a recheck needed) someone had written that it is a shame that this effect will be forgotten. Apparent;y it was by many, but generated a bit of buzz in 2010, finally. But, I suspect this little Walton masterwork has been one of the best kept secrets in magic; that people have been performing it and keeping it close to the vest Ahimsa, Vlad |
|||||||||
ggarcia Veteran user San Antonio Tx 395 Posts |
Does anyone know how this compares to Paul R Wilsons "Out of Your Mind"? I've been doing this version for some time and its great.
|
|||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
Dylan,
I've done this treatment of this plot for tough crowds but, be warned, this plot doesn't lend itself to very noisy venues with many distractions. That's not a limitation of my treatment but of the plot itself. I considered including photographs but there aren't specific moments or movements that photos would help clarify. The grips are not critical, there are no specific finger positions that must be employed, so I'm not sure what I would have photo illustrated. Photos for the sake of photos might have done more to confuse than clarify. I'm not sure what "move" you are referring to as relates the Bannon's "Oh Calcutta." I'm reasonably familiar with Bannon's work but nothing similar to my technique. If you'd like to take this private I might understand and become persuaded of the relationship you seem to see. I can understand your initial misgiving about the timing of some critical moves. I suspect you are feeling guilty because you know the disposition of the cards; the audience doesn't. The misdirection, apart from the fact that you aren't focused where they are, derives from the impossibility that the spectators can know where the mentally selected card is, apart from the top of the tabled packet. The revelation itself comes at a moment of tension but not the heightened scrutiny as you might suspect. Remember, you have committed to the location of the mentally selected card before it is revealed and the spectator has created that location. If you convey confidence that s/he is already correct, the scrutiny is minimal, though the tension is high. Finally, since the spectator who mentally selected the card is the only person that knows the card, asking for it to be named immediately before it is revealed is merely a way of confirming that the correct card has been found. If there are multiple spectators, this is critical to everyone being able to appreciate the effect. If it is being performed for only one person, without an audience, it allows confirmation that s/he was correct in the spot where the deck was cut. The key is that the spectator is the hero of the piece, not you. That's why there is tension but not great scrutiny and why the card must be named before it is revealed. It also militates against the spectator trying to mess you up by naming a card that was not actually seen. Try it for audiences and get your ego out of the way as much as possible. Let the spectator seem to be the one who found the card s/he was thinking of and you'll find it to be very strong. Don't worry, you get credit for having accomplished the effect, even though the spectator did all the work. Let the spectator be the star. Wesley James |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
So, you actually believe the movements necessary to secretly ******* a card second from the bottom of a packet in order to perform another sleight to reposition the cards to be consistent with those required to do "nothing more than the actions one would have to perform to show the spectator the card to which s/he has cut." Really?
|
|||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
John,
Please don't distort my words. Clearly there is more occurring than simply revealing the spectator's card, but if handled as described it should appear to your spectator and audience that that is all that is occurring. Magic abounds with techniques that are far more difficult to cover than what is called for here, and at far more difficult moments. Have you ever performed the "Card Under Glass?" Perhaps you can take some comfort in knowing that, to the best of my knowledge, no spectator has ever suspected the actions you are questioning. Really! Wesley James |
|||||||||
RandyWakeman V.I.P. Plainfield, ILLINOIS 1617 Posts |
Wesley forgot to mention the other benefits of performing this effect. Your teeth appear whiter, your breath fresher. Your skin, softer and smoother. Your vision may get crisper, sharper, and your hearing is more precise. Women find you far more interesting, a sometimes time-consuming but nevertheless enjoyable phenom. Food tastes better. Otherwise blase folks are often transformed into quivering blobs of bewildered, stunned, and amazed protoplasm. I'm really surprised that Wesley neglected to discuss all the fringe benefits.
It really is a strong effect. You have a mentally selected card, not a "mental card" that becomes a physical selection when it is touched, removed, or seen again. No questions of fishing. The effect is, "I thought of a card. I cut the deck at no particular place, but the card I only thought of (and told to no one else) was RIGHT WHERE I CUT!" What I particularly appreciate about Wesley (aside from his fine collection of porcelain) is that when he releases a manuscript you have a very, very thorough discussion of where the effect has been, by who, when, and where, so you can see the direction it has taken. If you have a serious interest in the effect, you'll have no problem locating the method or methods that you are most comfortable with and suit your performing styles, audiences, and so forth. You have the tools to use it "as per," or to further make it your own. |
|||||||||
tomcards Elite user San Francisco 403 Posts |
||||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
Randy,
Thanks for your insightful comments but you are mistaken on one count. The tooth whitening effect you note only occurs when the manuscript is printed on Crest White Strips. That said, I thought it immodest to mention the other "fringe benefits." As for the transformation of "otherwise blase folks" into "quivering blobs of bewildered, stunned, and amazed protoplasm," I'm somewhat limited in what I can say until the court case settles. On a more serious note, I'm glad you like what I've done building on your previously published efforts on this plot and I thank you for sharing your impressions with Caférs. Wesley James |
|||||||||
Wesley James V.I.P. Hazlet, New Jersey 372 Posts |
Tom Frame has provided a review on the Genii forum but while he is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. He clearly has not done his homework. The procedure Randy Wakeman uses, a procedure used by Jack MacMillan and others long before him, is superficially similar to the selection procedure I use, but, unlike the procedure used by others, mine does not appear to limit the selection to a small group. Rather, it seems to allow the mental selection to be made from among as many cards as the spectator may wish to view. Thus Frame's review is factually inaccurate because he didn't fully compare the procedure used by Mr. Wakeman and I. Instead he watched a YouTube video and, evidently, didn't employ my procedure as described.
On his second point, he is even less accurate. Following his reasoning Double Lifts should never be perfomed with two hands, because one can show the top card with only one hand and some lay people would do so. If one uses the procedure I describe in my manuscript without proper rationale for using the same hand that is already closest to the tabled packet, it could appear suspicious. The Curry Change and it many variants would all be ruled out by Mr Frame's reasoning and conclusion. As I have described elsewhere, "The revelation itself comes at a moment of tension but not the heightened scrutiny you might suspect. Remember, you have committed to the location of the mentally selected card before it is revealed and the spectator has created that location. If you convey confidence that s/he is already correct, the scrutiny is minimal, though the tension is high." Guilt can be a terrible thing for a magician. It is the reason so many are frightened of Palming cards, which doesn't occur in this effect. It isn't that the mechanics of Palming are difficult, it is simple guilt and fear that one will be caught. In my handling you aren't doing anything unusual as far as the spectators are concerned, you are simply removing the top card while you happen to have other cards, which you just lifted off, in your hand. If you feel awkward about doing so, one can say something and gesture with the hand that isn't taking off the top card. Adjust your glasses--if you wear them--extend your hand to shake hands with the spectator, by way of congratulations. In sum, do anything logical to justify not using your right hand to turn over the card. Apparently, Mr. Frame either doesn't have enough performance experience to understand psychological misdirection, doesn't read well enough to understand my recommendation that it be employed and/or didn't attempt to perform the effect correctly before making a judgement about its merit. Frankly, I surprised that Mr. Frame was so derelict in his responsibility as a reviewer but his plate seems rather full, perhaps it doesn't give him time to write properly researched reviews. |
|||||||||
RandyWakeman V.I.P. Plainfield, ILLINOIS 1617 Posts |
The "Randy Tanner Method" is likely the best. There are a lot of different ways to go, but it helps if you understand what the intended effect is. Apparently, many people do not. The performer NEVER gets lucky. The spectator ALWAYS does. The entire event is surrounded by and focused on the spectator, the performer in this case is just along for the ride, injecting as little as possible into the event. While certainly the magician gets credit when "miracles happen around him," that isn't the idea. There are any number of effects where this is the idea, "Spectator On Stage" (Spectator Cuts To and Turns Over the Aces) is another one. The magician plays host, but the audience accomplishes the magic. Ostensibly, the magician's role is minor, almost nothing at all.
There is no restriction on what the thought of card might be, it certainly can be anyone of 52 cards. The only restriction is what "magicians" artificially inject into the effect, which is unimportant. When the audience believes they are being restricted, then it is an issue. As long as they are not, there cannot be. Take a popular commercial effect like Max's "B'Wave." It is self-evident that only four cards are in play, what 'magicians' might call a severe, obvious, unnatural, concocted, irrational, severely contrived circumstance-- as far away from a common situation as possible. Yet, despite a clinical dissection of "only four cards" so there can't be anything highly magical about whatever transpires from this peculiar situation, many experienced performers know better. The magic happens between the ears, not as a sterile matter of playing finite numbers and possibilities. What could be more "restricted" than the 21 Card Trick? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0vB8NipmFo. With that severe, obvious restriction if you have a guilty conscience, it wouldn't be worth performing. It gets a reaction, though, a very strong reaction, far beyond what a strictly clinical appraisal of the conditions might indicate. |
|||||||||
RandyWakeman V.I.P. Plainfield, ILLINOIS 1617 Posts |
Perhaps the problem is that very few white men know the true secret of Wesley James. Saying that Wesley James has a lengthy background with Streamlined Discernment would be a bit of an understatement. It fooled the boys on the Mayflower, but then again you need to set conditions. Grueling conditions, yes-- but there was still sixty-six days to get the darn card. Not exactly a spritely pace for a magic effect at all. Yet, beyond the card deal it paid dividends for it was at about that time Mr. James discovered the Natural Separation. I don't recall the woman's name.
Mr. James was deeply involved in Nikola's System for some time. Not exactly a card system, it was the earlier works of Nikola Tesla. It is said that Wesley James was actually the inspiration for the Tesla Coil, due to his electric personality. Soon thereafter Wesley began toying with faster paced effects, many of them involving trains. That was about the time Wesley changed his first name to Jesse, residing in Clay County, Missouri. It was originally “Feet of Clay County, Missouri,” but changed to the simpler Clay to protect the true nature of Wesley's background. This is secret information, so secret that I doubt if Wesley remembers it himself. Things got nasty in Missouri where Wesley was forced to flee to Canada and lay low for a time, working for the post office. Wesley again changed his first name again, to Stewart, to avoid any association with his train escapades. It never was “51 Faces North,” but actually 51 places North-- the exact number of times Wesley was forced to move while in Canada to conceal his true identity. The “Rising Young N. Y. Card Star” as touted by Frank Garcia met with other challenges along the way. After inventing the crimp, it was ruthlessly marketed by Jack Chanin. Very few really good card tricks are devoted to parts of great cities by great lakes, so “Lake Shore Drive Aces” will always be a timeless classic to me. To Wesley's credit, he taught Vernon how to be a responsible husband and father. In 1981, always believing that variety is the spice, Wesley changed his first name yet again, to Rick, and 1981 heralded the biggest commercial hit yet for “Super Freak James.” Though the facts are a bit murky, my understanding is that Wesley is not related to the Kentucky ceramic artist of the same name. The adventure continues. |
|||||||||
Sociomagi New user 85 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-06-24 12:43, RandyWakeman wrote: Allan Ackerman has this same effect is his book Here's My Card. He calls it "The Super Cut" (1978, p. 53). I love effects where cards are only thought of. Peter
Belief is the biggest step man can make!
|
|||||||||
RandyWakeman V.I.P. Plainfield, ILLINOIS 1617 Posts |
Hello Peter,
No, not at all "the same." The Ackerman routine is a two-phase routine that requires a set-up, not at all from a borrowed or spectator-shuffled deck. In the first phase, the spectator neither cuts or reveals the card. The performer both does the cutting and revealing. (Note that this first phase is credited to Ed Marlo.) In phase two, a small set-up is again used. The performer completes the cut, according to the description. Half of the time, the performer resorts either to a side-glide or a second deal (or double lift) to reveal the card. So, no, the effect cannot be considered the same. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » First impressions of Out of Sight Discernment by Wesley James (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |