Thanks a lot for the references, Illucifer.
I shall look those up...

The Hollingworth routine is, indeed, very clever. Though it isn't an Any Card @ Any Number routine. It is still simply a card @ any number (though it is a supposed signed card at any number) that doesn't allow for any card @ any number. It also has a bit of restriction as it uses a dual reality approach.

I can't speak on the effect published in Genii as I haven't had a chance to review it. Thanks for the heads up!

Will you be selling this at your Missouri lecture?

If all goes well, I will have these on my upcoming tour!

WOW, the demo looks very good.
Can you perform it without to show the blue deck?
In my opinion, if you don't show the first blue deck,
the effect becomes very impressive and removes any malicious thoughts.
Release date?

-Antonio

Patrick, to summarize, what will be the major differences with "Auspicious coincidence", apart the fact that the spectator can open the box and remove the cards?

No definitely not IMO.

There are three different approaches/handlings included in this DVD project.

You get both instructions for the close-up version of the gimmick and the stage gimmick which are different gimmicks.

Both gimmicks are vastly improved from previously published material.

In the stage version, an audience member holds onto a package (in this case a gift bag) with a deck of cards inside it (they can feel and confirm that it's there and theoretically could even be shown that the cards were in the bag before its handed out to hold but this (in my opinion would kill the effect theatrically).

In the close up version, not only is the deck openly on display, but the box may be viewed from all sides...in fact even handed out to the audience top be opened. This was not possible in the original version of the effect. The gimmick that does the secret something is essentially self vanishing. This was not the case in the original version.

In addition there are additional details not included in the original versions that apply other systems to this system. Everyone will have their preference on which system works best for them. This is one of that great things about this effect is that different people will prefer different handlings and they're all talked about and explained on the DVD. I'm being purposefully vague here as to not give away the farm. There's some clever thinking from Tom Baxter, for example, that really brings in a different approach to the cards themselves.

The impromptu version, which we should have a video preview of that up soon, has seen print before but this is the first time the necessary something has been explained and taught in video format. A lot of folks have felt the need for more visual instruction of the one simple invisible move.

There's been a lot of work bringing this project to where it is and has been in development for a very long time. Many of you are familiar with some of that work along the way. I'm thankful to be working with Anatomy Productions in finally bringing this project the digital video world of light.

-PGR

Patrick, you will be lecturing at Tannens next month, but I will be out of town on business that week
Are you doing any other lectures in the NYC area?

Thanks for your answer Patrick, cannot wait

Wish you every success with this project Patrick.

Best

John

I should also note that the differences between my original version published in 2005 (Auspicious Coincidence) and David Forest's that was published a few years later (Route 01) both involved a similar principle but his involved tape, glue, and what not. The original version of this effect did not involve having to glue or tape anything together. That is not the case with the updated gimmick, but the original method is briefly discussed in passing on the DVD and if you'd like to go that route (no pun intended) you may certainly choose to do so.

-PGR

Is the DVD going to be available to buy from patrickredford.com or one of your other websites ? Thanks!

Hi Dorian,

Yes it will be available through my usual product site and eventually all other dealers soon.

This update has fooled me! I'm looking forward to your new work o this subject.

Thanks! I'm glad you've enjoyed it!

Dear Patrick,

Firstly, let me just say that I think I'm becoming a fanboy of yours. And I definitely need to look up your lecture tour dates (in the North?). You're style and charisma never seem to fail to charm me; and the hat is awesome.

Secondly, is it possibly to use my own deck stack with this? You say yours doesn't require maths or memory work, but I am worried that it will be something that (when spread) is obviously stacked. I only ever like to carry one card deck around with me, though I will now carry this second gimmicked one too, but I like performing with this deck in my own style. I use it to do card calling and so on.

Do I have to change the structure of my deck, or can it remain as it is? If you do indeed have a clever way of removing all the mentally hard work, then I'd love to use your deck, but I am worried that if I do it will mean I cannot do things like Card Calling or so on.


xx

Eshla,

Thanks for the kind words. While a memorized stack is not required, nor is any full deck stack, it certainly may use one if you choose. I'm a big fan of the Aronson Stack and have used a modified version of it for years. That said, whatever stack you choose to use (where you're able to know the position of every card at every number) work well with this effect. Again, it is not necessary to use such a stack or any stack that has any pattern to it. On the dvd I describe how to perform this effect with what is essentially a legitimate shuffled pack of cards (with a few exceptions) where it would be very difficult to spot any pattern as any pattern that does exist only does so amongst five cards.

I don't see the use of another stack with this method being an issue.

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

-PGR

I'm confused. Does Hands off use a stacked or doesn't it?

What we could see in the video... being myself a fan like you... Jan