Ok all, calling out for some help here. I have been desperately trying to find the source of an effect I remember performing sometime last year.
Although it is a card effect, my main passion is mentalism, and I am sure it was in one of the bigger mentalism ebooks published last year. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Without exposure (of which I can remember certain details of the method), the effect plays as such.
Spectator shuffles a deck of cards.
Spectator deals two small packets to the table.
Spectator is given a fair choice of any one of the packets for themselves.
They take several steps back, or your back is turned, and one by one you name the colour of each card in their packet, in order from the top down.
When their packet is exhausted, you quickly prompt them to pick up the remainder of the deck, and start naming the colours, again, of these cards.

I have just devoured Andrew Gerards' "The Process", and I want to make a few changes to the card memorisation routine (which, don't get me wrong, is already fantastic!) in order to better suit me.
I am desperate to re-read the instructions for this effect, as my memory fails me with regards to several steps of the set-up.
Any help at all is massively appreciated.
All the best,
Steve

Magic for dummies

Thank you Parmenion, but it certainly wasn't "Magic For Dummies".
Again, without giving too much away (and feel free to tell me if this is too much), but after the deck has been shuffled, certain aspects of the Lewis Jones' "Pattern Principle" are used.
Hope this helps to clarify.
Kind Regards,
Steve

Mirabill, but your memory of it is not quite correct. Also, if you have watched the Process, wouldn't what you described be moving away from what Andrew has already presented?

Tony

Hector Chadwick's book, I believe.

Thanks Tony for your speedy response. Firstly, I have had a revelation, the effect I was trying to find is called "Reds and Blacks" in the book "The Mental Mysteries of Hector Chadwick". I'm just about to sit down and re-read the effect (hopefully I haven't mis-remembered too much )

Secondly. I do not want to replace any segment of Andrews' routine with the above effect. Hopefully the following will describe sufficiently What I was interested in doing:
Spectator deals a small packet of cards (less than 20) from a deck already used for other effects to the table.
Spectator picks up the packet,
You show how you want the spectator to form the cards into a basic fan, using a small packet taken from the remaining deck as an illustration. At this point, you have still not seen any of the cards the spectator is holding.
From some distance, the spectator is going to flash their fan at you for less than a second. You "Take a mental photograph" of the cards they are holding.
You demonstrate your photographic memory by recalling the colours of the cards in order.

I would then proceed with Andrews' routine.

There are several reasons I wanted to explore this. Firstly (again if I remember rightly) I can get into the setup for this on the back of a previous routine I would perform anyway (perhaps at a proceeding table or with this spectator if necessary). Secondly, and I would happily be proven wrong on this, but I believe this demonstration puts greater emphasis on your attempt to memorise the full deck. It seems to me that making this adaptation would allow me to show my "photographic memory" with a fairly impressive demonstration of only 20 or so cards. Whilst also allowing for a "I've only been playing with this, so it might not work, but lets see if I can do this with more cards" type of presentation. If I were then to follow Andrews' routine, I could patter along the lines of "If I can do this with 26 cards, then by a process of elimination, then I can memorise the full deck".

I realise that this is a stupidly long explanation for something that is only a thought-experiment at the minute, but I haven't been sleeping much and for some reason this was bouncing around the old cranium all last-night.

Tony, I can't see how I would be doing any injustice to "The Process" and its raison d'etre by adjusting the routining slightly to accommodate my slight changes , but I have no problem in being corrected
All the best,
Steve

p.s. Thank you for reminding me about Mirabill, it is one of those effects that has sat, to my shame, on my "To Buy" list for some time!

Well done dmoses
Your post appeared as I was typing out my reply above!
Kind Regards,
Steve

Pit Hartling has a similar effect in his book, Card Fictions.

Steve:

I apologize if I came across as trying to correct. For me, having the participant separate the cards, then turn them over to show what has been done is a simple and direct premise. And it is easy for all to understand.

Tony

What a fantastic book, "Finger Flicker" is a phenomenal routine and a personal favourite.
"Colour Sense" (the one you refer to cpzwart) is also a fantastic routine.

Steve

Tony, there was certainly no need for an apology, I just wanted to understand your point further. I really didn't want to think I had missed something from "The Process". Maybe my explanation was poor, but I think having the spectator deal a small packet of cards to the table, fanning them, and flashing them is also a relatively simple and direct premise. Hopefully one that allows me to create a sense that the routine is "building in impossibility"

Kind Regards,
Steve

That's it! It was on the tip of my tounge yet I couldn't remember it. Now it seems so obvious. Finger Flicker is a favorite of mine as well. It's such a unique application!

Hey Steve

No prob.
And I don't think you have to second guess yourself on "The Process's" account.
Reds and Blacks is a great effect and it sounds like you know exactly how you want to use it.

Let us know how things evolve!

best

d