The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Flexability: Coin sleights vs. card sleights (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
It seems to me that there is a great subject that deserves it's own thread.

So here it is:

Do card SLEIGHTS transfer over to other objects as easily as coin SLEIGHTS do?

For example: A false transfer (coin move) would apply directly to other things such as thimbles, cigarettes, sponge balls, cups and balls, etc. While the position of the grip(s) and hand posture would change, the overall actions would be very similar both in execution and application.

A statement that was made in a different thread (I don't like card tricks.....) speculated that the vast MAJORITY of card sleights were proprietary and not applicable to other objects. This is not to say ALL card sleights have no other application, but most, by their vary nature, are specific to the pasteboard medium.

I am inviting all those who have previously voiced their opinions on the above mentioned thread to restate their position on this (apparently) hot-button topic.

The topic in the card room is "I'm not interested in card tricks...."

Sorry for the mis-quote.
Dave Egleston
View Profile
Special user
Ceres, Ca
632 Posts

Profile of Dave Egleston
We've been having a lot of fun with this subject, Most of it tongue-in-cheek-I still maintain that almost every move in non-card magic will have a similar card sleight, that can be used, problem is: I'm not smart enough to defend my position - Let the games begin!


Dave
Lance Pierce
View Profile
Special user
878 Posts

Profile of Lance Pierce
Well, Pat kicked off the dispute in the other topic, but we need to be clear that he was talking about the physical configuration of a move, not about any strategies or principles. So, any EFFECT you can do with cards will probably transfer easily to other objects, and any PRINCIPLE you can apply to cards will also probably transfer easily, but any MOVE may not. You can, for instance, use techniques that equate to a shuttle pass (in principle) with cards OR coins, but you'll find that the technique itself for cards won't easily be used on coins and vice versa -- however, a shuttle pass technique for coins will need almost no revision to apply it to dice or olives.

This is because how a move takes place is completely dependent upon the physical configuration of the object in relation to your body. A pack of cards is very different physically from a stack of coins or a set of small balls. Most small objects will share physical properties with each other that they simply do NOT share with a pack of playing cards. This is why I tend to agree with Pat on this. Card moves, as such (and only as such) generally don't transfer well to other objects...at least not as well as moves can be transferred between balls, coins, dice, etc. We can even take many coin moves and apply them to toothpicks and the like, but not so easily to cards.

Best,


TCR
p.b.jones
View Profile
Inner circle
Milford Haven. Pembrokeshire wales U.K.
2642 Posts

Profile of p.b.jones
Hi,
I am a card man, but I agree with you to a LARGE EXTENT. if you look at the top card sleights

Classic force
Palm
Pass
Top Change
double Lift
Faro shuffle
colour change

The actual sleights forgeting any misdrection skills cannot really be transfered to much else un-cardlike
But I do not see what real diference that makes in the scheme of things.
Phillip
cardshark101
View Profile
New user
UK Hertfordshire
69 Posts

Profile of cardshark101
I find card sleights a lot easier then coins, because I just do it the way I am, I wish I could change, tried loads of times but failed.

Cardshark Smile
Cardshark

All things are difficult before they become easy...
Chad Sanborn
View Profile
Inner circle
my fingers hurt from typing,
2206 Posts

Profile of Chad Sanborn
Coin sleights cna be used to control any similarly shaped or sized object. Card sleights can be used for other things too. But those objects must be similar in shape or size. The problem is that not much else is similar in shape or size. The only other items that come to mind are credit cards and drivers license. And they don't come 52 to a pack. So the heart of the problem is what else is 'card like' in the world?

Chad
p.b.jones
View Profile
Inner circle
Milford Haven. Pembrokeshire wales U.K.
2642 Posts

Profile of p.b.jones
Hi,
Add Pay envelopes to your list Chad.
I actually use a top change with them for one effect I perform
Phillip
Peter Marucci
View Profile
Inner circle
5389 Posts

Profile of Peter Marucci
I tried a double lift with billiard balls and it was terrible! Smile
cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4570 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2002-08-30 10:45, Peter Marucci wrote:
I tried a double lift with billiard balls and it was terrible! Smile
cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com


You should try Mercury folding a silver dollar. Talk about painful
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
RandyWakeman
View Profile
V.I.P.
Plainfield, ILLINOIS
1617 Posts

Profile of RandyWakeman
Quote:
But I do not see what real diference that makes in the scheme of things.
Phillip



That is the crux of the biscuit. It should surprise few that not all card sleights are applicable to "everything," but a remarkable number have been applied to paper money, credit cards, business cards, even squares of cardboard.

Argument can be made that many card sleights do not apply - - not particularly amazing in that there are far more card sleights than coin or sponge ball moves. We can debate whether billiard ball magic helps the card enthusiast as well, but the end result is not particularly meaningful.

There is far more crossover in effect than specific mechanics.
Dave Egleston
View Profile
Special user
Ceres, Ca
632 Posts

Profile of Dave Egleston
Hey Peter:
Once again: I might be the worst magician on this board but - Isn't every added billiard ball a double lifted ball?
Of course there are exclusive card - coin - billiard ball - zombie ball - cigarette moves
That was never the question in my mind - I thought the original thread stated: card sleights were not good for any other type of magic -

Dave
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
First, I would like to clarify WHY I believe this subject is worth discussing.

Understanding the "cross talk" between effects (both sleights and principles) make you a much stronger and (potentially) more creative performer. By applying the tools learned in one effect, a student may create brand new routines/effects.

Example: Misers dream, continuous ball from mouth productions, the "shower of balls" sequence in the cups in balls, continuous cigar productions, etc. These all share the common element of either a secret load or a shuttle pass action. While the sleights must be modified to fit the object in question, the application for the sleights remain the same.

The main six coin sleights I use are:

#1. The False transfer
#2. The Shuttle pass
#3. The Bobo switch
#4. The Sylvester pitch (Essentially a secret load)
#5. The Gallo pitch (Variation of HPC)
#6. The One hand switch (Similar to an old dice switch)

If you look at many "object" style routines, you may find a lot of the "key" moves are vary similar in execution/function to the above mentioned coin sleights.

The reason I believe that card sleights do not transfer as well (Please note: I do not claim that they have NO other application) is because in MOST cases, cards are NOT being uses as objects.

In the example from above, the great commonality that all the props share is the fact that they are "generic". Each coin is the same as the last, each ball, each cig.

Most sleights in the world of cards are meant to take advantage of the fact that each card has a unique identity. And further, that identity can only be discerned by looking at the FACE of the card. They all appear the same from the BACK. This gives cards a fairly exclusive property!

How many other props in the world share that particular set of features? Dollar bills are close, but bills will vary in degrees of wear. Not so with cards. They need to appear identical from the back or the spectator may assume that the "wear" is a helpful factor. (And indeed it could be!)

There are things out there (business cards, for example) that could fit this field. But I think you would agree, it is a fairly stringent set of properties.

When cards are treated as (generic) objects their sleights are very flexible. However, most of the time card sleights are designed to take advantage of the "lost in the crowd" principle.

The six sleights I use in 90% of my card performances are:

#1. The Prayer cull
#2. The Pass (classic, or variant)
#3. The Top change
#4. The Bottom deal (and variations, i.e. double deal)
#5. The Double lift (more technically: The double turnover)
#6. A Top/Bottom palm (Topping the deck, Berg palm, Erdnase 2nd method bottom palm)

I feel these are some of the most flexible sleights in card magic. Yet still, in my applications, each relies on the LITCP to a greater or lesser extent. (Meaning: If the backs were not the same, the sleights would lose much, if not all, their flexibility)

Even palming would suffer (in standard context) if there were no other similar cards visible. The sleight typically hinges upon the spectators inability to discern that a card (or cards) are missing from a packet/deck.

Because in coin/object magic the empty hand can close and apparently contain the palmed object, the objects singularity is not an issue. However, a card is typically visible when held in the hand, and so it requires something else to account for its whereabouts. (i.e. the deck)

There will always be exceptions, but ask yourself how these factors affect the function(s) of your sleights.

In summation: When cards are treated as OBJECTS (deck switches, false counts, single productions from the air, etc.) The sleights are highly applicable to other things. But in standard close-up magic, MOST card slights REQUIRE the "lost in the crowd" principle in order to be effective. Thus limiting their flexibility in application, at least in comparison to coin magic.
RandyWakeman
View Profile
V.I.P.
Plainfield, ILLINOIS
1617 Posts

Profile of RandyWakeman
It is laudable to try to look at things in a new way, but there are a few road blocks in this argument. All six of the "different" coins sleights cited could be construed, and used as "false transfers."

General principles and effects are, of course, important to gain understanding of. It takes special pleading to say that application of card sleights to a ball, cube, or rod merits any extraordinary attention.
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
Randy,

Thank you for your support in the pursuit of knowledge and learning.

In regard to your comments about the false transfer, I agree. Mostly.

If you were to break down the name "false transfer" it is a key to identifying what does or does not qualify.

False = Not real.
Transfer = To move from one place to another.

Therefore a "false transfer" is the action of apparently moving an object from one place to another, when in fact, that does not happen.

It is also my opinion that the false transfer is the "heart" of all object magic.

I know the Bobo switch, Shuttle Pass and even the Gallo Pitch are all forms/extensions of a false transfer.

But by the above definition, I would refute the Sylvester Pitch/generic secret load as being a false transfer. The apparent action is that of the visible object being transferred from one place to another. The reality of the situation is the object goes from one place to another. The fact that something is secretly introduced to the original display area is secondary.

I think the merit of identifying the flexibility of a sleight is purely for problem solving.

While that may not have been inspired by eachother, the Elmsley count and the false count used in the Professors Nightmare share a common methodology.

Proving the point that on the surface cards and rope have very little in common, but when thought of as objects, the methods can cross over.

Food for thought? : - )
RandyWakeman
View Profile
V.I.P.
Plainfield, ILLINOIS
1617 Posts

Profile of RandyWakeman
It is interesting to look at these things, but you won't get any strong agreement or strong disagreement from me. I don't strongly agree with myself!

Magic terms seldom mean what precisely what they infer, for example: "A Coin Pass." It all depends how thin you wish to slice your cheese. When is comes to something like a false transfer . . . genericly, I would define it as something that secretly does something more or less than is readily apparent.

The Bobo switch is a legitimate transfer of an object, it is just that you are not transferring "what they think." Many vanishes are false transfers: you "obviously" move / place an object, yet place / move nothing at all.

Regarding the Alex Elmsley "Four as Four Count" . . . it does not specifically apply to the "Professor's Nightmare," which is a "Three as Three" procedure. The concept is far different, as in "Prof.'s Nightmare" the purpose is to prove singularity, the Elmsley concept hides a reversed card. Several Linking Ring counts / displays have more of a direct relationship than the E.C., with three objects. One can also take the stance that the Prof. Nightmare is no count at all, nor are many L.R. shows-- the are displays, as the number of objects in play is not in question.

As mentioned, I have no hardened perception of any of this. It is, as you aptly put it- more "Food For Thought." It appears we are in the right forum!

Best of luck,

Randy
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
Randy,

Thank you for your prompt response. I am honored you find my musings worthy.

I agree that magic terminology is rather dicey. Old school magic text can read "Make the Pass" and if you are holding a ball it means one thing, with cards it is something completely different.

As for a vanish: If the object appears to be (but is not) placed into the other hand, I would label it a "false transfer". If the vanish is accomplished be a secret steal of the object from the hand that displayed it, I would consider that something else entirely.

As for the Elmsley/4 as 4/Ghost count, it serves many functions. I hope I am not breeching etiquette for this dissection, but my overall review of this site leads me to believe this will be allowed. (My apologies if I am wrong.)

If we assume only four cards are used (as there are variants where this is not the case) the features of the Elmsley count include:

#1. Concealing the back or face of a single card.
#2. Displaying a card twice.
#3. Displacing cards from their original order.
#4. Keeping two cards in contact throughout the count.

I agree that the Odin count (with the Linking Rings) would have a more direct lineage to the Professors Nightmare count, but my objective was to make a comparison of a card sleight to other (apparently unrelated) props.

In that respect, the point I was trying to make was that the P.N. count and the E count share a common method, that of a secret switch done under cover of counting/displaying the objects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because the E count uses four objects and the P.N. uses three, I don't believe the base methodology would be considered different.

It has been stated that that Elmsley COUNT would be more apply named the Elmsley DISPLAY, because in most cases the number of cards is not in question. It is the CONDITION of the cards that is being called to the audiences attention. (Think of the most famous application, Vernon's Twisting the Aces. I don't believe the NUMBER of cards is ever an issue.)

I hope this clears any confusion about my prior statements.


Best regards,

Tyler
Sid Mayer
View Profile
Special user
Santa Fe, NM
656 Posts

Profile of Sid Mayer
I had no idea there are so many theologians in the Cafe. How many angels can dance on a coin? On a card? On a ring (and does it matter whether it's linked or not)?

I once spent 6 months practicing a really convincing false shuffle of 52 sponge balls only to discover that I had no use for it. The people who write the performer's checks don't give a tinker's poot what kind of moves he or she uses. In fact, they should believe that magic ... real magic ...doesn't require moves.

More than half seriously,

Sid
All the world's a stage ... and everybody on it is overacting.
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
Sid,

I brings my heart joy to know there are others out there who enjoy conversing about the nuances of magic as much as I do. Being as this is the "Food for Thought" section, it does seem rather appropriate.

I concur, the people who pay me should not be concerned with what sleights (if any) I am using.

Query: If the people who pay me don't give a "Tinker's Poot" about what methods I employ, should I not care either?

I would fully understand if you believe the topic of this thread serves no purpose. It seems to be a line of thinking uncommon in magic. It has, however, proven very productive for me. (Both as an instructor, and a creator)

In order for me to create the illusion of "real" magic, I need to spend a great deal of time contemplating the "best" way to accomplish it. The "cross referencing" of sleights is one of many tools I use.

I thank you for allowing me to voice my thoughts.


Sincerely,

Tyler

P.S. LOVE your quote. (Re: "All the worlds a stage..")
RandyWakeman
View Profile
V.I.P.
Plainfield, ILLINOIS
1617 Posts

Profile of RandyWakeman
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because the E count uses four objects and the P.N. uses three, I don't believe the base methodology would be considered different.


If you insist, yes . . . I believe that the analogy is wrong.

A less tortured link could be made for Edward Victor's E Y E count (actually, a display) which predates (and was credited by Elmsley). If the number of cards is not an issue, then we are sent back to (at least) the Jordan count. It might make more sense, in trying to compare ideas, to more crisply define what the ideas are.

The intent of a move really should be looked at, as mentioned. Switches go back 500 years plus . . . intent of Prof. Nightmare is to imply / demonstrate singularity, while concealing an secret joined condition. Not the case in the count / displays cited.
TylerErickson
View Profile
New user
St. Paul, Minnesota
50 Posts

Profile of TylerErickson
Randy,

Thank's for keeping me on my toes!

While no one has directly said it (yet), I feel it is best to apologize for something. My last post had crossed the gray area over into the "concept" side of a sleight vs. the "execution". And, while it is not the topic we started with, I feel it is something of importance and worth clarifying.

I could have used the EYE count or the Jordan count, (or any number of other counts) to make my point. Yet I felt the idea could best be conveyed by referencing things most of the Cafe members would be familiar with. Being as the Professor's Nightmare and the Elmsley count are rather "high profile", I thought they would be the ideal candidates.

Personally, I do not believe my comparison to be a "tortured link". We may need to "agree to disagree" on that.

Part of this confusion is my fault. I used an example between an actual effect (Prof. Nightmare) and a sleight (Elmsley count). This is problematic because in one case a count is being used for a specific purpose, (that of concealing a secret link), and in the other case the sleight lacks a (specific) application.

That being said, I still stand by my claim: Both counts share the same basic methodology. A secret switch during a counting/displaying procedure.

In my opinion, it is not fair to say the Elmsley count does not conceal a secret link, because IT COULD. I think it would be more fair to say current applications of the sleight do not exploit that feature. (Though it would not surprise me if someone had a routine were this facet of the sleight was utilized. Magicians can be sooo creative!)

In fact, I am most impressed when someone uses a method/gimmick in a counter-intuitive fashion. (i.e. Fickle nickel, Bewilder-Ring, "The sprizzer" for a full body levitation, etc.) It is for just that reason that I try to see all the possible applications of a sleight/gimmick.

I have tried to be clear I was not claiming the Elmsley count inspired the count in the Prof. Nightmare. I wished only to draw lines of comparison between the two. (Again, my apologies if anyone was mislead.)

Last thought: The Linking Rings & Prof. Nightmare. Are they only similar if it is a three ring routine?

If one believes they are ONLY comparable because of the NUMBER of objects being counted/displayed, it seems a somewhat limited viewpoint. (But that's just my opinion.)



Best,

Tyler

P.S. Sorry for the long posts. I just want to be clear. : - )
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Flexability: Coin sleights vs. card sleights (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.09 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL