Rafael,

I've had very little exposure to the "Spanish" school, but when it's spoken of, I often think about the handling of double-cards and Ascanio's work on that subject.

I've seen many, many beautiful strategies for handling double-cards as singles. What I haven't seen a lot of (undoubtedly because of my own ignorance of the literature) is discussion about proof vs. over-proof. I think the following all too familiar scenario will illustrate what I mean:

"I have here 1-2-3-4 cards, and with these 1-2-3-4 cards I will show you a trick...a trick with 1-2-3-4 cards and nothing else...just these 1-2-3-4 cards..."

What are some of your thoughts on the handling of double-cards? When is it necessary to "prove" that you only have, for example, 4 cards in your hands? How much proof is too much, and how much is too little? How do you know what proof is best in what situation (i.e. when should you count the cards from hand to hand and when is it better to fan them out or count them to the table, etc.)? When you know many techniques, how do you avoid the temptation to throw all of them in somewhere? Finally, what is your opinion of some of the more recent, more flourishy methods of handling double-cards (spinning them from hand to hand, flipping them up in the air, etc.)?

I know that's a lot of questions, but any insight you can offer on any of them is much appreciated.

Paul

Well, for me four objects are too few to need counting. if you just say 4 cards, and not even that, anybody who watches can just see four. Maybe even five. From then on we enter the counting territory. I'd rather say: "These are black" and do an Elmsley count, for example. I hate the over-proofing and over-stating that your example iillustrates so well. There is a difference between showing something for the first time and letting them see something of which they have already been convinced. Each needs a customized handling. René Lavand does it so well in his famous Oil and Water, when he shows some cards and avoids showing the one that can´t be shown, while making it seem so natural. If yo show one card too clearly, you are commited to show the others. If you let one card be "casually" seen, you can "casually" conceal the next one.

Learning different methods is a good exercise for the hands and for the mind. Sometimes I have a method and neer use iit until one day the right trick appears that calls for it, or maybe not.

As to the flourishy methods, many of them can be used with good taste, in the right place, if it suts your style. But we should not lose sight of the spectator's point of view.

Rafael -- I found the Ascanio booklet "On the Handling of Double Cards" inspirational. I know you use the "burning" idea of his when tabling a double.

As Paul Sherman indicates, and you confirm, the unnatural way magicians use to take, turn over, and replace doubles is a give-away that "something is happening," a sure way to make the magic disappear.

The problem is that the Double Lift is learned early on in a magician's development and is taken for granted. (That's an example of Vernon's famous "Magicians stop thinking too soon" idea echoed by Al Baker and others.)

Any advice?

Matt Field

Actually, I'm not using the burning thing since the moment I discovered the "Nail and Edge" principle, which allows you to lay a double on the table safely without having to stop, in a sweeping continuous motion, if you like. While dropping your am, while turning he card over, or whatever. This principle is outlines in one of my videos and I have submitted it to Genii for publication.

Yes, and some beginners without a book background just go to the club to learn the coolest thing. After years of experimenting with doubles, I often turn the double the simplest way. Some stop thinking too soon and some continue for too long. I like it when I get back to simplicity after trying lot of stuff. It's educated simplicity, so to speak.

Educated simplicity... I almost wish I was an old man to (hope to) reach that stage.
I don't know how old you are, of course, but this sentence make me think of the old Zen painters who can draw a single line which virtually express all their background in a single gesture. Even if you know everything about Zen, you cannot avoid the time of learning, the education of your body, and s.o.

Well... a lot of work in perspective...
:snail:

Jonathan.