Switching methods is always a good thing...I myself have come up with several new additions to the routine, based on the feedback of the posters...in future releases of the booklet, I'll be sure to contact all that have contributed and ask for their permission to include their variation/convincer/presentation, with full credits.

On a side note, I sometimes wonder what laymen would think if they knew all of the hard work that does into our magic. Once, in order to make an attempt at feeling superior , I tried explaining to my laymen friend once all of the thinking that went into SCISP and all of the variations I came up with, and he shook his head halfway through my monologue and said something along the lines of "you have no life". I took great pleasure in the fact that I fried him with SCISP the next day.

Me: concluding my latest miracle that I've worked on for five hours a day for seven months, and am just now trying in live performance for the first time. "The impossible has just happened."

Spectator : "That was pretty good. So, did you catch the game last night?"

Me: "Ahhh...I spent seven months on that and all you can say is...yeah, I did catch the game, that was a great play in the second half, huh?

It's ironic that we spend countless hours practicing what the spectators will never see.

Anyway, after that tangent, I'll move back on to topic...thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming!

Zach

Just an update...with any luck, I'll have Slo-Mo out soon, hopefully by the end of the week. Thanks!

Zach

I agree with you Zach!

Talk about lack of appreciation! But that is the life of a magician, isn't it? Oh well, what to do?

I guess it all pays off when I receive profanity filled remarks of astonishment as well as the sweet sound of jaws dropping and head smacking! When I get those reactions, I forget all the hard work and toil it took to get me there and it's only then that you'll know that it was all WORTH IT!

And you know what, it will show in the performance of the trick!

It took me about a year to master Copperfield's Ace Assembly and then come up with my own ace assembly and by now, whoever has seen me perform it will always say it's my best trick. Heck, it won me a talent contest! It will show, so worry not my friend!

Take care buddy,

Logan

Zach, that's always been the layman's attitude - knowing the method is all that interests them.

They don't appreciate the effort that goes into coming up with an effect, working on the patter, polishing the details, practising the sleights. It's simply not of interest to them.

How often have you been asked "How did you do that?" or "How did he do that?"

Compare and contrast that with number of times you've been asked "How long did it take you to come up with that effect?" or "How much practice did that take you?"

Dave

Logan,
Just wanted to let you (and the others reading this thread) that I combined both of our ideas today and tried it out...the reaction was priceless. I performed it so that when the duplicate was drawn out of the pocket it had my signature on it, and then tried one of the numerological psychological forces - which worked - and wrote the number on the back of the card. More convincing, and more impossible!

Of course, that might be a bit overkill for regular performances (a little Too-perfect theory perhaps?), but it did get a great reaction. In fact, the person I performed it on, my friend Nick, has actually seen SCISP before, when it was in its infant stages. For someone that is already pretty jaded to my magic, I myself was surprised at how amazed he was. It was a good feeling.

On a separate note, has anyone actually tried this out yet, risk or no-risk versions?

Zach

I really appreciate your sharing. The remaining will be our effort to practice and amaze spectators.

It seemed to work fine for everyone else...what version of Acrobat Reader do you have?

Zach

Zach! You are the man!!!
Oh man, that sounds so awesome! I swear I', going to try that! I'm gonna use that big time!

Any tips on psychologically forcing a number?

I don't think that's over kill, I can easily come up with patter to make it all make sense.

This is so powerful, I can see the power radiating from my deck...

I can see light radiating from my fingers...oh no wait, those are my D'lites...no matter, they look cool anyhow!

Can you feel it Zach? Can you feel the power? The absolute unforgiving dominating magical powers!??!

I feel so powerful right now...

Haha Logan,
When I read your post for some reason I just couldn't get the image of you dancing around the room laughing out loud.

Glad you like the idea...I find I keep coming up with more and more ideas for this thing. Anyway, about your question on psychological forces...

I haven't gotten around to picking up Banachek's Psychological Subtleties yet, so I'm in no means an expert on this...The one I used was the "think of any two digit number BUT, the digits must be odd and they cannot be the same, like 11." The two most commonly thought of numbers are 35 and 37...I wrote 37 and just happend to luck out, so it seemed like it was complete randomness. I'm sure that there are much better forces out there, that wouldn't seem so obvious in the reconstruction of the effect by the spectator, but I just tried it as an example, and thankfully it worked. Perhaps one of the mentalists on the board could enlighten us on the finer points of psychological forces...

Zach

Hey Zach!

You must REALLY be psychic! I was doing that! Right on!!



I find that number forcing isn't 100% effective, ya know?

There has to be another way...

Any mentalist people care to lend a hand? Or in this case, a thought?

Thanx and take care all, especially you Zach!

Logan

Sorry Zach for not writing and thanking you immediately for this trick.

Logan, YOU must be psychic. Before I read your posts, I also thought about the magician signing the card, rather than a scribble, which makes more sense I think. I also thought of doing an Invisible Palm Aces routine just before the revelation and end up with their card, hand it to them while invisible, thus "exposing" another kind of palm and tell them to place it I their pocket. They will have the shock of their lives when tey feel it materialize in their pocket. I think it is more magical this way rather than rubbing it on their pockets.

Zach, how about a convincer and making it more impossible at the same time. So... do you want to hear about it? Huh?... Huh?

Ok here it goes. The spectator signs the back of the card instead of the face. You use a dupe that you already signed on the face. After he retrieves the dupe, you sign the face and the card in his pocket has already got your matching signature on the face. What a great situation you are in now. And when he removes the dupe from his pocket, there is no questioning about it, because he is seeing te face of the card, and he has just seen it's back as well when he palmed the double. Becuase in this version you need to place the "card" (really 2) face down in the spec's hands with their signature shownig. Then they proceed to pull it out as described in the pdf. How about this?? Does it make sense?

I have another secure method for when they pull the dupe out so that they do not notice there are 2 in their pocket. But this is not compatible with my above method, though. They only put their thumb inside the pants pocket and pull the card on the inside up with the thumb tip, as you state that this is a flourishy way by which a magician pulls out a card from a pocket. I think it is more deceiving this way, but not compatible with every variation.

Phew! That's enough for now.

What do you think guys?

Hi Zach,

Just to let you know that I tried this out on a group of friends using the patter that I mentioned above.

The set up ( i.e. getting card in specs pocket)actually worked first time with no problems and then the freedom it gave me to really create a good comic routine around the lines I suggested, before getting to the the final revelation was great.

I think that in your notes you actually undersell how likely this effect is to work so when the spec pulled out the first card and left the other still sitting in their pocket without a clue that it was there I was gobsmacked at how easy this was.

Another point that my "assistant" himself brought to my attention to was that he was flabbergasted at where the card came from as only a few minutes earlier he had had his hand in the same pocket and "there was nothing there then !" So subconsciously the load of the card in the first part of the effect actually convinces the spectator there is nothing in their pocket. My tip is therefore to ensure that "without making it too obvious" you do everything you can to reinforce the fact that you go nowhere near them fom the point that you get them to retrieve the first card from their pocket.

Even better in practice than in print..thanks a lot.

Good idea...for me, I wouldn't use that variation, because I think that in light of what Logan and I have come up with (combined forces of obsessed magicians!) However, I must say that it is a great alternative to the original version of SCISP in the manuscript. I think, however, that I'm going to be using the combination method version from now on, as I personally think it is a bit more convincing. Excellent thinking, though...I actually feel like this trick has some worth now that everyone is offering their ideas on it.



Just to clarify...the setup for this would be that, out of the double in their hand, the real signed card would be on their palm, and the card you signed would be visible with your signature visible), right? From my reading of this, it wouldn't work with the original version of SCISP, am I correct? However, if you choose to modify the effect so that the card can be drawn out of the pocket like that, it is killer. I'll have to test it out sometime, but if it works, you're right; it would be very deceiving.

Thanks for all your thoughts on this, niva - they're greatly appreciated.

eggshell,
Congrats on having it work! Looking back now, I realize that the reason I undersell it so much is because when I first started performing this, I was having the spectator hold the card a different way and having them remove it a different way, both inferior methods. I think my lack of success was partly due to that. The more I performed it, the more I realized that there were better ways to perform it, and so modified the routining, where it ended up where it presently is today. So it probably is a bit easier now...

Thanks for the second point as well, about reinforcing the idea that you never go near them...I'd just like to mention that when I perform this, whether it is for a large group of people or just one person, I NEVER get close to them after they have picked the card. I make it a point to reach out to hand them things, and make them reach out to me as well (without saying this, of course) in order to reinforce the idea that I never loaded it. Which, in a sense, is true.

Thanks again niva and eggshell, your ideas are excellent. Hope to hear more thoughts from people who have tried this. If nothing else, you can take eggshell's comments as testimony that it should actually work...I just tried to be somewhat realistic in the manuscript so that people wouldn't get discouraged.

Thanks again all!

Zach

Hi Zach.

In the method I described, the magician signs the card (actually the dupe) after the spectator pulls it out from his pocket. The other one in his pocket already has the magician's signature. So you must give the double to him with his signed card on top, (signature on back facing up and magi's signature on the face) and the dupe underneath. I hope it is more clear now. I tried to also combine your idea of signing the card afterwards for that extra convincer you mentioned.

I will try this sometime soon.

Hey Zach,

All I have to say is... wow! It's innovative and gutsy, and exactly what I've been looking for. I needed an effect to add to my routine that involved the spectator, and SCISP fits perfectly. I am going to try performing the original version a few times, then I will come back and add some of the suggestions that have been offered. Thanks for this awesome effect.

I haven't really tried this, but here is my concern..

The spectator has 2 cards in his pocket, when he reaches in how do we know he is going to grab the duplicate? What if he grabs the original signed card? And what is stopping the cards from easily seperating and him feeling 2 cards?

Sorry if this was covered in another post, I didn't read the entire thread..

The best answer to this is to try it out on yourself submagi.

If you put two cards in your pocket as one and take your hand out then reach into your pocket again to get a card you'll find that you invariably go in with your fingertips first and not with thumb and fingertips.

The natural inclination is to draw the top card out by pressing your fingertips against the card and pulling your hand out until there is room for your thumb to get a purchase. By this time the card is well free of the one left behind.

Just read the pdf carefully, submagi.

I guess I spoke to soon. After re-reading the script a couple of times and trying it out on myself it seems like it would work. Soon I will try it out on my mom and close friends, maybe ill get enough guts to perform it for strangers sometime...

Alrighty, I've been away for too long!

Now, Niva, I must say that yes, I am psychic, comes with the whole gig of being a mage

And to comment on your idea, it sounds like a good one, in fact, it sounds like the opposite of mine but there are a few things that don't make it appropriate. Firstly, they sign the card at the back of the card, meaning that you can't use that card for a certain routine before it like an Ambitious Card - therefore they sign the card for the sole purpose of it being placed into their pocket. That's alrite mind you, but I think it will leave more of an impression if you've been doing a trick with it and they see the card many times and then finally it lands in their pocket, you know? Because when you take out the dupe, they won't question it, they've seen it like 12 times because you did your ambitious with it. I'm not saying they will question it in your case, they definitely won't. It's just that you want them to be comfortable with 'their' card.

I hope I make sense...

But one thing I DO like is the visual conviction, of seeing the 2 of Diamonds, or 4 of Hearts or whatever the face of the selected card is being taken out of the pocket - I know there will be NO DOUBT that that is the person's selected card! But spectators are very stubborn, you don't really know what they will think, because the actual face of the card is the centre of attraction, and what's on it? Your signature - and sadly, many take the actions and words of a magi are taken with a pinch of salt. It doesn't help that the spectator's signature is in the background of the whole trick - this is just my humble opinion, I love your idea niva, make no mistake, I WILL try this variation out.

But in all honesty, I'm not sure what the reactions will be like with both methods...I like niva's though...I think it's clever, but I'll see when I get to perform this. There are some guests coming over in a couple of days...hmmm...

Hey niva! Here's a presentational idea! You talk about gambling and 'marking cards' and they can mark the back of their card with their signature! Whadaya think?

And yes Zach, I am an obsessed magician...how can I not be? This is good stuff and it always had some worth my friend!

Take care fellas,

Logan

Only out of curiosity...

How far is Slo-Mo to done?

getting anxious. I want to practice in the car on the way there!

looking forward to it