|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote: What a backwards, anti-intellectual, and weirdly defensive statement. The concept of turning over a double onto the deck didn't even exist until the 20th century. Nothing is obvious until it is. I don't see what a bother it is to respect the process of invention. No one's asking for anything more than that. |
|||||||||
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote: The turnover-double is as old as the DL. I fully support crediting the folks who managed to secure a publisher for tricks/sleights. But lets not pretend everything that beat-the-press is innovative and unique work deserving of accolades.
.
. |
|||||||||
|
countrymaven Inner circle 1428 Posts
|
I would never do a DL turnover. I am doing the brainwave and doing an impossible reversal. There is no way a sane person would assume there could be a reversal. they can be inches in front of the deck. But it bends and happens halfway then the rest of the way by force built into the properties of playing cards. invisible. and not imaginable for someone expecting it.
|
|||||||||
|
countrymaven Inner circle 1428 Posts
|
So magicfish I respect your studies . You are great and knowledgeable. But sometimes you have to develop something where you can literally tell someone-- what'? you think I turned it over? dude, don't mention the impossible you were rignt in front of the deck. it is impossible to do that. look, etc..... To answer those who give a quick I know how you diddit like a 10 year old when they have no clue. I am talking of the turnover I developed. OUt of necessity.
|
|||||||||
|
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, countrymaven wrote: This indeed sounds like strong-magic. This is an advice-thread, so perhaps you will share your creation.
.
. |
|||||||||
|
jim ferguson Veteran user Ayrshire, Scotland 386 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote: The turnover double (as you put it) most certainly is not as old as the DL. And whoever did come up with it deserves the credit, regardless of how "obvious" it seems after the fact. Do you have a reference for this early "turnover double" you mention ? Jim |
|||||||||
|
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, jim ferguson wrote: I'm sure there are folks here with far deeper resource-libraries than I who can pinpoint the first published date of a DL turn-over; I only own a few dozen tomes and they are mostly of more recent vintage. No harm in crediting (I'm fond of minutia) but the odds of the publisher being the original-inventor of such obvious manipulations are staggering. Perhaps they rightly deserve naming-rights, like an explorer planting his flag on conquered-land.
.
. |
|||||||||
|
jim ferguson Veteran user Ayrshire, Scotland 386 Posts
|
Sorry, but if you only have a few books which are from a relatively modern era, how can you state that the turnover is as old as the DL ?
In the original DL, the cards were grasped by the front and back short edges by the thumb and fingers, held up face towards the audience, then replaced on the deck - much the same way David Berglas uses it. No turning of the card on the deck. It was originally called the invisible pass, and was used to make a card travel invisibly from the centre of the deck to the top. I'd have to check for references etc. I do agree that the first to put a move in print isn't necessary the inventor, as has been proved many times before. But this is one of the reasons that proper research is important - so that proper crediting can be given in any future literature. Jim |
|||||||||
|
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, jim ferguson wrote: The DL turnover is not quite as old as the DL. The turnover aspect probably wasn't discovered until the first hour it was sessioned. I'm certainly no card-wizard and it was obvious to me. I have faith the prestidigitation-elite of previous eras were at least as savvy as myself.
.
. |
|||||||||
|
jim ferguson Veteran user Ayrshire, Scotland 386 Posts
|
Why do you keep arguing about this when you clearly have no evidence to back up your assumptions ? Check the literature.
Rupert is correct in his post above - the written record shows no evidence of what we know as the turnover, and certainly not the facing of a card on top being discussed, during the 1800s. If you have evidence which is contrary to this, then please share, I'm all ears. Repeatedly stating that you must be correct in your assumptions, simply because the idea was obvious to you is just silly. Jim |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
Back to the original topic: does anyone else want to describe their favorite reverse?
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2019, Bob G wrote: There you go trying to get things back on track! What seems lost also in the discussion is the difference between invisible and functionally invisible. What I mean is, there are reverses that make it appear that nothing happened. A half pass such as Aaron Fishers Gravity Half Pass is a good example. In the act of simply raising the deck to the fingertips you can reverse the bottom card or the bottom 51. I would call that invisible. To me, any time you turn cards over and leave one reversed in the process it is functionally invisible. They saw cards flip upside-down but did not see the fact that one card or cards remain in that condition. I would put Krenzel's Mechanical Reverse in the camp of invisible. I would put the Braue Reversal in the camp of functionally invisible. So in the end, do you want it to look like absolutely nothing happened? Or not?
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
"There you go trying to get things back on track! "
"I just thought," said Pooh humbly. To answer your question, I want to do whatever I *can* do at the level of magical attainment that I'm currently at. Fishers half-pass sounds great, and everybody raves about it, but I had the impression that The Paper Engine is a pretty advanced book. I'd consider springing for it if I thought I was capable of learning some of the material at this point, especially the gravity h. p. Any thoughts on the difficulty? I can do a pretty good Halo cut; that's the hardest sleight I do and it took me many, many months to learn. I can do a pretty good strike double lift, though not consistent enough for performance, and I'm working on the Elmsley Count. I perform Color Monte. -- Just to give yo an idea of where I am. I have Lorayne's book on Krenzel and have tried to learn the mechanical reverse. No luck at the time, but it may be worth a second look. Now the Braue Reversal -- that I can do. (And I can appreciate its cleverness.) To make it functionally invisible (a term that I think I understand from context), you have to frame it so that it seems like a natural move, no? Any advice on how to do that? I'm sure it depends on the trick. The standard "This isn't your card, is it; what about this one?" strikes me as kind of lame; I would *think* that intelligent spectators would think, "I just saw a reversed card, and a minute ago I saw the magician do these funny cut where he turned the cards over; surely the secret lies in somewhere in that turning." So... any suggestions for how to camouflage Braue? |
|||||||||
|
countrymaven Inner circle 1428 Posts
|
Very good thinking Tortuga. In the past people did not tend to think about these distinctions, I imagine. It is important in a trick where you want to rule out the possibility of any reversal. great!!!
|
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 21, 2019, countrymaven wrote: Yes they did. They spent their lives thinking about it. They left their homes and sometimes their families to devote every day of their life thinking about it. |
|||||||||
|
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 21, 2019, Bob G wrote: I would never critique the Braue reversal but you point out a fact. You are reversing cards. To what end? If you cannot justify the action then the audience will deduce that it had something to do with the result, whatever that is. Perhaps a Braue reversal is best when you need to reverse a card but not necessarily for the purpose of displaying it reversed. In other words as a set-up for another move. The Gravity Half-Pass is not as difficult as you might think. I would say it is knacky but once you get the idea it flows. Nearly effortless in action but you must watch the angles until you get the smoothness down. Done correctly it really appears you merely raised the deck to your fingertips. Fisher's video is helpful.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
|
Bobby Forbes Inner circle virginia beach, VA. 1569 Posts
|
Hey Bob, I sent you a pm.
|
|||||||||
|
countrymaven Inner circle 1428 Posts
|
Magicfish, some of your retorts remind us of a fish left out for days.
I quote you: "Yes they did. They spent their lives thinking about it. They left their homes and sometimes their families to devote every day of their life thinking about it." I was complimenting someone on their insight. Do you have to be so childishly argumentative that you have to post what was a worthless comment against a sincere and sensible compliment? I like you . You have good insights. Please let off being so contra-everyone so we can have some peace and help each other here. I welcome your insights, but not your attempts to start a verbal fight. I want to welcome your insights. You have a lot to share with others. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
You still don't get it.
You make foolish statements like, "In the past people did not tend to think about these distinctions, I imagine." I like you too, and that is why I am trying to inform you that YES they most certainly DID think of it. They uprooted their entire lives to think about it. And they recorded their findings. I'm not trying to fight. I'm trying to help you. You constantly tell us that you have all the resources (which you don't) and that there is nothing out there and so you create better stuff. Again there is nothing wrong with creating, but when asked how you know it is your own creation you ignore the question. We stand on the shoulders of giants. It is important to know what was done previously. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
As far as helping each other, I have offered no less than 6 techniques in this thread.
All you have done is told us that you've created something better than all of them. And offered statements like this: "But sometimes you have to develop something where you can literally tell someone-- what'? you think I turned it over? dude, don't mention the impossible you were rignt in front of the deck. it is impossible to do that. look, etc..... To answer those who give a quick I know how you diddit like a 10 year old when they have no clue." This is nothing short of magic suicide. In the true spirit of assisting others, please, don't ever say this to a spectator. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Your favorite way of invisibly reversing one card (15 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 20, 2019 10:32 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < 
|