What magic tricks you learning now?

[Brown]

I'm pleased to report that, with some luck and perseverance, I found my props. One of them happened to be sitting in a bin in an Ikea store (about fifty miles from my home). (And it was reasonably priced, too! If I'd purchased the prop over the Internet, it would have cost over five times as much.)

Another prop I found in a toy store.
...
I've already started work on one of the tricks. So far, I'm having a lot of fun with it! There is one basic "move," but there are so many variations!

In connection with a skeptics' get-together, I wrote:

And I'll bring my version of Richard Osterlind's Industrial Strength Link. That should be fun.

Some of the props I mentioned pertained to Osterlind's Industrial Strength Link. I did not perform this trick at the skeptics' get-together (a short explanation about why I did not perform it appears in the Community sub-forum), but I did perform it at work. I had the apparatus in full view, and people asked me what it was. I showed them, and they were all delighted with the effect.

Basically, the appratus is simply a compression spring and a metal coat hanger. The coat hanger is thick rather than made of wire (I got a pack of five such hangers at Ikea), and appears to be made of the same metal as the spring.

The simple routine is to show the spring and the hanger separate. I put the items behind my back and a couple of seconds later, I bring them out front again. The spring is linked to the hanger and will not come off. I hand the apparatus to the spectator, who confirms that the spring and hanger are linked.

At this point, I vary the routine a bit depending upon my audience reaction. I might put the apparatus behind my back again and remove the spring. In one case, the spectator remarked that I had put the thing behind my back, so I told him that I would do everything out in the open--and I did! I was able to take the spring off in full view and put it back on easily, but when I handed the apparatus back to him, the spring was linked as tightly as ever.

I used one of Osterlind's finishes, asking the spectator to point to any place on the hanger, and hold his hand palm up under that spot. I then put the linked spring on his palm, and had him cover the spring with his other hand. And then I pulled away the hanger, leaving him holding the spring. Somehow, the spring had become unlinked between his hands.

It's a fun effect. I prefer to perform it as "something weird," rather than as a puzzle that the spectator is unable to figure out.

 

[bugjack]

You don't like "Reflections"? I got the full package deal (Sinister, etc) a while ago and personally find Reflections to currently be my favorite of the bunch. I haven't had the MO figured out at all as yet - what method are you using to generate the initial number? If I can ever figure out a good way of ensuring absolutely that each spec looks at the same place in the book, I was even thinking about getting a couple more copies to use one spec per element of the effect (emotion/sign/memory).

As for Sanctum 2 I'm probably going to order it sometime this week. With the exchange rate it's a pretty good deal along with the Kioku cards (I'm too lazy to copy the Reflections version and laminate my own) and am looking for a couple of things to add to the Stealth Assassin arsenal. I'll post an opinion when I get it if you like.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the reply.

After posting, I decided to dust off "Reflections" and poke around the Outlaw Forums board. You are correct in pinpointing the number selection as where a potential weak spot for me was. There's a great post on the board outlining a simple numerology test that justifies the three number selection. Later, my wife wound up picking up the book, which I had lying on my desk, and asked what it was. I had tried "Reflections" on her when I got it almost a year ago and completely seized on the number selection as being suspicious (I just did the normal one outlined in the instructions.) This time, she had completely forgotten she had seen the effect before and I did the numerology thing and the whole thing really blew her away. So, I'm going to play around with this some more.

I went ahead and ordered "Sanctum 2" as well, although I don't have the nice exchange rate as a bonus.

I was always thinking about "Sinister," although I have my doubts as its usefulness in casual situations -- I'll probably work through the "Sanctum" card first.

Best,

Scott

 

[JonWhite]

After posting, I decided to dust off "Reflections" and poke around the Outlaw Forums board. You are correct in pinpointing the number selection as where a potential weak spot for me was. There's a great post on the board outlining a simple numerology test that justifies the three number selection. Later, my wife wound up picking up the book, which I had lying on my desk, and asked what it was. I had tried "Reflections" on her when I got it almost a year ago and completely seized on the number selection as being suspicious (I just did the normal one outlined in the instructions.) This time, she had completely forgotten she had seen the effect before and I did the numerology thing and the whole thing really blew her away. So, I'm going to play around with this some more.

I went ahead and ordered "Sanctum 2" as well, although I don't have the nice exchange rate as a bonus.

I was always thinking about "Sinister," although I have my doubts as its usefulness in casual situations -- I'll probably work through the "Sanctum" card first.

Hi Scott.

Good to hear that you've got Reflections working for you - I really do like this one (with no Magic Cafe type hype attached).

As for "Sinister" then I'd say that you're right and it's not so useful as an effect to just pull out and do. It is a very cool prop though but really does need to be woven into a story and a certain mood created to do it justice, which I haven't yet got fully figured. Of the three (Sinister/Homicide/Whitechapel) it is definately the strongest IMO if you're only going for one of them.

Let us know your thoughts on Sanctum when you get it. I'm going to put in my order sometime this week as well.

Cheers,

Jon.

 

[Cain]

Welp, a couple days ago I finally got serious about memorizing that deck. I popped in Season two of The West Wing and numbered the cards, except I cut the nine of diamonds to the top of the deck. It's great having a stack with a built-in-blow'em-away finish. Screw the Aronson stack. The power in this thing is ridiculous. I'm working on a routine, modeled on Ackerman's Opener, and once it's done, I'm done.

 

[Dinsdale Piranha]

The most recent things I've worked on is Karl Hein's handling of Greg Wilson's Hundy 500 (which is Greg's version of earlier variations of versions, etc, etc).

Karl did an impromptu lecture at CCC in Charlotte a couple weeks ago. He performed his handling of Hundy 500 among many other excellent bits. Karl's variation is well worth looking into.

 

[Unalienable]

I saw Derren Brown do a trick on television which went like this:

He sat a couple at a table with two decks spread out before them. He got a girl to pick a card through "free choice" (yeah right) and she picked "seven of hearts." Then Darren had both of them put the decks under the table, shuffle them around, and reverse one card (make it face up in the face down pack).

Then they brought the cards to the table face up and spread them out. The two face down cards in the two decks were pulled out, and flipped over, and sure enough they were both the seven of hearts.

After some contemplation I see how he made it so that they would both produce the force card. It's a very clever technique, say no more.

So then I thought about how he forced the seven of hearts from the girl, and my conclusion is that it was a psychological force. Listening to his exact verbage confirmed this. It's also no coincidence he let the girl do the picking--women are so more predictible when it comes to certain questions. E.g., "Do you prefer hearts or diamonds?" What women would be so crass as to say she likes money over love? Sure enough, she picks hearts! (I'm sorry if what I just outlined counts as exposure, feel free to delete my ramblings if it does.)

Well in short I'm not looking to become a Darren Brown copycat but the techniques he combined for that one effect really moved me, and I'm playing around with my own ideas to present the "shuffle the cards under the table" type effect in a different context. I'm a firm believer than the best tricks are ones you design yourself drawing from the enormous toolbox of well published magic techniques.

 

[Garrette]

I don't think that effect relies on a force, Unalienable.

 

[Unalienable]

Also, another trick I'm playing with is Card Through Window. I like tricks that are simple, crisp, and like Dai Vernon said, "can be explained in one sentence." The sentence here would be "The magician throws the selected card through plate glass."

Spectator chooses a card at random. I tear a corner to hand to her as a "receipt." I put the torn card back into the middle of the deck, draw the audience's focus to a closed window, then spring the cards at that window. One card has stuck to the glass--the chosen card with its corner torn off--and yes, you guessed it, it's on the other side of the glass.

I know, not exactly original, but it's such a beautiful classic of card magic every magician at one point or another has to become interested in this effect.

 

[Unalienable]

I don't think that effect relies on a force, Unalienable.

You might be right--I know exactly what you mean. I can imagine a way to do the trick where the spectator has true choice of all 52 cards.

But nevertheless, if you listen very carefully to the verbage that Derren used when getting her to pick her card, it has all the hallmarks of a certain kind of psychological force which I've seen in print, and it's actually called "The Seven of Hearts Force." I would describe it in more detail but I think I'd be overstepping the exposure rules here.

Combined this with the fact that Derren did not touch the cards during the entire exhibition, I tend to think that it was actually a psychological force and he "got lucky" with that particular girl.

Needless to say, if she settled on the 9 of clubs, he would have had plenty of outs to still produce a mind blowing effect.

 

[dannagain]

Well i just made my own version strange travellers from a pack of xxxxxxx cards. It's a good trick. Very hard to mess up and hard hitting. I'm not sure i my method is the same as the official strange travellers but it works anyway!

 

[Garrette]

But nevertheless, if you listen very carefully to the verbage that Derren used when getting her to pick her card, it has all the hallmarks of a certain kind of psychological force which I've seen in print, and it's actually called "The Seven of Hearts Force." I would describe it in more detail but I think I'd be overstepping the exposure rules here.

It is possible the effect relies on a force but likely it does not. Derren Brown uses this type of patter because that is how he has chosen to present himself.

 

[bugjack]

Let us know your thoughts on Sanctum when you get it. I'm going to put in my order sometime this week as well.

Cheers,

Jon.

Well, I bought and received "Sanctum 2," and it may be a while before I'm able to post any spec responses. Initial thoughts: after reading posts on the Cafe and TalkMagic, I got a pretty clear idea of what I'd be receiving and that's what I got -- no more, really, but also no less. It's a small, business-card-size laminated card with various "Sanctum membership club" info on the first side and a picture of a kind of drawing room on the second. With the card you can do some simple mind-reading effects using the first side; with the back, you have the spectator "go back in time" to imagine the room that Sanctum members met in (and in which something horrible or weird may have occurred) and then, at effect's end, proceed to reveal that they correctly "saw" a number of things in the room. It comes with a 46 page booklet that provides a backstory for the card and a number of routines and scripting ideas.

"Sanctum 2" is both an effect and a prop, and it differs from Outlaw products like "Homicide" and "Sinister" in that "you" are not doing the mindreading. With this effect, the spectator is doing the work, and at the end you simply see how accurate he or she was. This distinction positions "Sanctum 2" differently than the book tests mentioned previously. It takes it out of the realm where there are "right" and "wrong" answers and makes it more a mini piece of theater that can be, depending on the responses you get, a showstopper or, if things don't go as well, just an interesting experiment.

The card looks cool and is definitely a prop people might be intrigued by. As it's not gimmicked per se, people can examine it all they want. As you've probably guessed, there is a lot of scripting involved here, and that's what's going to take me time to feel confident with. This is very different than "Kioku" or "Reflections" or "Homicide" -- it really does depend almost entirely on the presentational skill of the performer (and, actually, the compliance of the subject). The "out" is that you haven't set the spectators up for anything momentous to have occurred. You are testing their abilities by using an intriguing and slightly creepy prop.

I'll post more when I've actually used it.

 

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Well i just made my own version strange travellers from a pack of xxxxxxx cards. It's a good trick. Very hard to mess up and hard hitting. I'm not sure i my method is the same as the official strange travellers but it works anyway!

Not sure if I'm familiar with this one. Is this a variation of Dai Vernon's Travelers? Could you give a quick description?

 

[Bob Klase]

Not sure if I'm familiar with this one. Is this a variation of Dai Vernon's Travelers? Could you give a quick description?

It's not a variation of Vernon's travelers. The effect is similar Simon Aronson's Red Sea Passover (or the Michael's Close's full deck version, Full Deck Passover) and a number of other tricks. One dealer description reads:

10 cards are held by the spectator's and 10 by the magician. The magician spreads out his cards and has the spectator MENTALLY chose one of them. The chosen card vanishes from the magician's stack of cards only to end up in the spectators pile that they've been holding the ENTIRE TIME.

That's an accurate description.

 

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Thanks, Bob. This also sounds similar to Dan Harlan's Red Rover.

 

[Azrael 5]

I think it's a soft psychological force to be fair Garette.It is mentioned in Pure Effect.

I assume the card is already reversed and has a certain soemthing applied to keep it that way!

 

[Garrette]

I think it's a soft psychological force to be fair Garette.It is mentioned in Pure Effect.

Well that's doubly embarrassing since I have Pure Effect...

I won't apologize because I wasn't trying to be argumentative, but I will admit I was wrong and Unalienable was right.

 

[Azrael 5]

Well that's doubly embarrassing since I have Pure Effect...

I won't apologize because I wasn't trying to be argumentative, but I will admit I was wrong and Unalienable was right.

Hey it's good to be wrong.It's only my take on it,but I do think it to be right.
think Ross gives away the method unknowingly at the end.With his "Its got jam on it" comment. To magicians at least.

 

[Unalienable]

Not sure if I'm familiar with this one. Is this a variation of Dai Vernon's Travelers? Could you give a quick description?

"Strange Travelers" is a commercial trick sold by Paul Harris (and David Blaine slapped his name on it too), it's very simple but hard hitting.

Briefly:

I count off 20 cards from a deck of cards, I show that they are all different, then count half of them into a spectators hands, so I have 10 cards and she has 10. I show her the 10 that I have in my hands and say "concentrate on one of them." She holds the card in her mind and I close up my packet. Then I "make a magic moment" with whatever wiffle-dust the situation calls for, and suddenly we do a count to reveal that I am holding only 9 cards, and she has 11 cards. The card that she thought of is missing from my packet and now appears in her.

What's not to love? The trick affects only one card, the card she merely thought of -- she didn't write it down, she didn't tell a friend, it was her very own private mental property. Under the right circumstances this trick makes people lose their cookies.

 

[Cain]

Briefly:

I count off 20 cards from a deck of cards, I show that they are all different, then count half of them into a spectators hands, so I have 10 cards and she has 10. I show her the 10 that I have in my hands and say "concentrate on one of them." She holds the card in her mind and I close up my packet. Then I "make a magic moment" with whatever wiffle-dust the situation calls for, and suddenly we do a count to reveal that I am holding only 9 cards, and she has 11 cards. The card that she thought of is missing from my packet and now appears in her.

What's not to love? The trick affects only one card, the card she merely thought of -- she didn't write it down, she didn't tell a friend, it was her very own private mental property. Under the right circumstances this trick makes people lose their cookies.

This sounds exactly like an effect called "Brainless Travellers" by James Brown on "Fancy a Pot of Jam." I'm not sure about the title of the trick, but Brown has an optional addition where he repeats the trick for another person who also gleaned a card.