(Close Window)
Topic: Does signing the card really add to the effect ?
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 5, 2018 10:24AM)
The signed card.....is it really needed ?

Personally it's very rare that I get a card signed even at a paid booking, that's not to say I don't get cards signed. I have a card signed for a stickman routine that I do but obviously the back of the card gets drawn on so I'm going to give the card away regardless, I have a card signed for anniversary waltz and very occasionally for a mystery card routine.

Even when I do card to wallet I don't get it signed even though I actually p**m the card and the response is always brilliant which makes me think that perhaps getting a card signed is more a magician thing than anything else so for me the card only gets signed if it actually adds to the routine.

Try it yourselves do a card to wallet routine and try it with and without the signature and see if there really is a difference, I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this subject ?
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Jan 5, 2018 10:31AM)
I think in most cases the card being signed adds nothing for lay audiences, and is purely to satisfy the magician(s).
Message: Posted by: Gerald Deutsch (Jan 5, 2018 11:10AM)
See The Unsigned Card Trick on the Perverse Magic thread of the Genii Forum In September 2005
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Jan 5, 2018 11:14AM)
This all depends on what trick you're doing. For card to wallet, the signature is just a single layer in what should be multiple layers or deception. If you're consciously choosing to avoid it, then you must consider how else you're going to steer them away from the very likely possiblity that you're using a duplicate. You could have the card named, for instance (though Darwin wouldn't recommend that).

It does raise the question: If you're not bothering to have the card signed, why NOT just force a duplicate? Yes, it's as lame as it sounds, but it sounds like you've resigned yourself to that exact trick, minus the method.
Message: Posted by: Mike Powers (Jan 5, 2018 11:23AM)
Signing is the only proof that the card isn't a dupe. I think specs can imagine a dupe in, say, Ambitious Card. I always have the card signed. I think it matters.

Mike
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Jan 5, 2018 11:47AM)
The only card I ever had signed was during an ACR, and I only did that for a moment of misdirection. That routine came in 3rd on the set. The first trick involved them seeing the fronts and backs of the entire deck, the second trick (Chicago Opener) involved them taking the deck and looking through to pick one card. By the time I was doing the ACR I had done impossible things with the cards, and they'd looked at every piece of the deck and knew it was totally normal.

No one ever commented about dupes or trick decks. I can't say they never thought it, but they never said it.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jan 5, 2018 11:49AM)
The effect is the same obviously, so the addition of the signature shouldn't make a difference.

There are other ways to make people don't even suspect about duplicates. But I think that for cards appearing inside of food (lemon, bread, cake, egg...) the signed card could be a plus. "Could be" because I don't perform any of that, so I don't know.

Also for a card inside a sealed transparent thing (sealed acrylic box, sealed bottle, sealed cellophane of a new deck (but outside of the box) or "impossible to open" object, where the spectator can see right away that is his/her card is inside, the signature adds meaning. Because for sealed things, people may think there was a duplicate inside before, because if it is impossible to open now, probably it was when the trick started. I think, in this case, when the recognition is immediate, I presume the effect should be better.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jan 5, 2018 11:51AM)
Another point to consider is that maybe is not that the effect is stronger with a signed card, but the way to interpret the effect is different. With a signed card there is no doubt about where the card came from, it IS the selected card. So the path the spectators minds must walk is: 1) that is my card. 2) my card was in the deck. 3) my card appeared inside the wallet. and finally the important question: 4) HOW DID IT GET THERE?

That question tells us what the spectator will try to remember or what he is looking for. In this case is a physical transposition of the card. With a well performed effect, the question remains unanswered: "He never touched his wallet". So there is no solution.

In the "card without signature" scenario the path his/her mind goes through is different: 1) that is the card I choose. 2) that card was in the deck. 3) the card appeared inside the wallet. Here it can take different paths: if the wallet was never shown empty in the first place: 4) was the card already there?. 5) did I have a free choice in the selection or was I influenced? 6) If I look in the deck right now, will I find the same card there?

So we must deal with those questions in order to leave no possible solution (even fake and farfetched solutions specs sometimes invent: he hided it on his sleeve; he has 52 different wallets hidden; etc).

In my opinion, the effect is stronger when the spectators arrive at the answers and at the conclusion that is impossible by themselves. If most of them ask to see the deck at the end of the effect, even if they are proved wrong on their theories, the effect does not play that strong.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 5, 2018 01:02PM)
Thanks for everyone's input it's much appreciated.

As a few people mentioned why not just use a dupe or that the spectators may think a dupe is used which is interesting I thought I would expand a little, usually the card to wallet is either used as an added kicker or when someone asks to shuffle the cards so it acts as an out.

I have the card selected in a very fair manner and always ask if they want to change their mind so I guess in the spectators mind then it must be the actual card, believe me when I say some of the people I perform for would have no problem in telling me how I did things if they thought for a second I was using a dupe but as it's never been suggested I've never considered the signing of the card to be a big thing. Perhaps if I was performing just the card to wallet or a card to impossible location as the main effect then I would get the card signed and make a big deal about it.

For the record I'm not against getting the card signed especially if it adds to the effect and whenever I perform a bill to impossible location I always get the bill signed. It does make me think of trying some stuff with a dupe just to see how it plays although not for card to wallet as it's easier just to load my wallet. Something that I would incorporate into my presentation if I were to use a dupe though would be to show that the card had in fact vanished from the deck.
Message: Posted by: puggo (Jan 5, 2018 03:06PM)
I strongly believe that for many effects, having the card signed really does matter for 2 reasons:
1: Your audience can relax more as they don't have to remember the card. I've seen many live performances where the unsigned card is revealed and there is a moment of hesitation as they try to remember or else another person has to verify the card. Add a bit of alcohol and a signature helps even more...
2: I often hear specs say things along the lines of ..'and I even put a little squiggle/kiss (or whatever) there...' In other words, it can add to the belief/experience. Signing a card allows for more interaction (Jon Allen's Ad-Libitious card is an interesting variation which allows more interaction/fun).
3: Generally the spec will want to keep the card if signed (I normally say that as it has their name on it, they may want to keep it or dispose of it), which should make a stronger memory of the magic, you or both.

Okay, that was 3 reasons.
Of the few routines that I nearly always perform, one place I don't get a card signed is when I start with a thought of card, but I then get it signed to help build the rest of the routine.

So I'm a part timer and I respect that many will disagree, but for me I expect to use 1-2 new decks at each performance and would not consider going unsigned unless forced to.. Of course, borrowing a deck or doing a 10 person multi-selection would be a different kettle of fish...
Charlie
Message: Posted by: puggo (Jan 5, 2018 03:11PM)
PS in terms of a dupe, one of the most 'impactful' card effects that I have performed was a signature switch (from the top - signed x card, card, dupe x card, they sign then DL, you sign then DL...). The only reason I don't often use it is that I'm mainly FASDIU with the odd stranger card these days.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Jan 5, 2018 03:27PM)
The spectator might not mention the possibility of a dup, but doesn't mean that they're not thinking it.

the spectator might not think of the possibility of there being a dup, but when they share their experience with someone else, that person might mention it and then that person might think "you're right, it probably was a duplicate!" but if it was signed, problem solved and the effect is still strong. just my .02
Message: Posted by: Huzzah (Jan 5, 2018 03:34PM)
For the card to wallet, I think part of it depends on the setting. If it's a casual encounter like hanging out with friends or whatever, then I think it's less likely that they'll think about dupes because the situation creates an unprepared and spontaneous feeling atmosphere so it seems improbable that you're prepared enough to have put another card in your wallet on the off chance you happen to end up doing magic. On the other hand, if it's a more formal performance, I think signing would be more important because the audience recognizes that you are a professional who has taken the time to put together some tricks for them so it doesn't seem too ridiculous that you've also prepared enough to have put a card in your wallet before hand.

I think this topic also introduces the concept of an audiences intellectual vs emotional interpretation of an effect. The intellectual interpretation is your ability to describe the effect and speculate how it was done, i.e. looking objectively at the trick and its workings. Emotional interpretation brings us into that magic feeling. I very much believe that magic is a feeling that can't be described. We (magicians) are in a situation of "we know what's best for you" in that the audience doesn't know about the psychology and importance of subtleties in a trick. We can perform a trick badly (let's say you put a card in the deck and immediately control it via shuffling, leaving out important time misdirection) and the audience may say they like it and admit they don't know how it's done, but we know they'll react better if the trick is performed better. The audience can't say exactly how magical the first performance felt, they just have this feeling they can't articulate that something was...off. I think the same thing applies with signatures. many times it's not necessary, but sometimes, even if the spectators don't specifically think about the possibility of duplicates, that "off" feeling can still exist in the back of their minds. I don't think the signature contributes to the intellectual interpretation of the effect because they still know it's the same card, even without the signature, but I do think that the signature contributes to the emotional interpretation of the effect, making it feel more magical, because the audience can't exactly describe or even recognize that the signatures existence makes the effect more impossible. To put it simply, even if there is no doubt that the card is the same one they picked, the signature puts into the subconscious minds of the audience an emphasis on that fact that it's the exact same one they saw go into the deck and therefore could not be inside that wallet.

I like thinking about magic theory and psychology a lot, but I'm not a good writer so I apologize if that made no sense.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jan 5, 2018 03:51PM)
I'm with puggo on this. I think most are missing the main point here. Having the card signed serves as ownership and the spectators have a vested interest. It provides value to THEM.
Most times there are several people at the table (restaurant setting, the majority of my work) and sometimes I have everyone sign the card for a finale routine. They WANT to keep the card as a keepsake for their time together. (special occasion, friends from out of town etc)
I most always have cards signed or a symbol drawn that has meaning THEM. It's ALL about our spectators. That's why we do what we do or at least it should be.
FWIW.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 5, 2018 04:12PM)
Some more very interesting points especially the emotional hook part and definitely the part of allowing the spectators to relax by not having to remember their card, to shed a little more light when I work a table I only perform one card trick and a signature would ruin the effect but everyone knows what the card is as its quickly revealed in an amusing manner and then goes onto have multiple kickers the card in wallet being one of them.

Lunatik I live in the UK and the audiences are very different to those in the USA for example and they are only to happy to reveal how something is done if they think they know especially some of my work mates haha

My reason for the question isn't so much for my commercial work when performing at tables its more what I've found in general when I've been put on the spot to perform there's never been any doubt that the card was the selection and I've had some huge reactions, having said that I've had huge reactions when the card is signed too especially with the stickman routine and like others some of the spectators have said they have kept the card and pulled it out to show me they still have it when they have seen me again so yes it obviously does have a strong emotional hook but who wouldn't want to keep a stickman card ;-)

Just to add I don't think there is a right or wrong answer for this particular question as a lot of it is down to the actual performer combine this with the fact that some routines can benefit from the signature whilst for others it wouldn't make sense.
Message: Posted by: Julie (Jan 5, 2018 07:37PM)
When using a dupe consider having a similar blemish (such as a bent corner) on BOTH cards. A conscientious audience helper just might notice that, thereby confirming in his/her mind it is the "same" card.

Julie
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Jan 6, 2018 01:09PM)
Sometimes I have them sign it, and sometimes not. The points about 'vested interest' I think is especially important when there are other friends/specs around. I can't imagine performing "your signed card" without a signature; and I always give it as a keepsake! As for the signature being proof that it is not a duplicate... I think of that as icing on the cake. I think the more important part is their vested interest. eg think of card to ceiling... "that's my name up there!" Lynn
Message: Posted by: danaruns (Jan 8, 2018 07:44AM)
I don't focus on card magic, but I have an opinion anyway, naturally. :D

One of the jobs we have is to take away every possible explanation for what appears to have happened. Sometimes, having a card signed can remove a possible (and very reasonable) explanation of a duplicate. We also want them to be able to defend the story they tell about the magician who had them pick a card and then found it in an impossible location. "It must have been a duplicate." "No, it couldn't have been, I signed the card and my signature was on it when she produced it." We need them to be able to defend that story to skeptical listeners, for THAT is where magic lives.

Another job we have is to make the magic personal to our volunteers. DavidPaul$ said it very well. This may be your 300th show this year, but it is a singular experience in the spectator's life. And a signed card can help in making it personal and memorable.

Also, a signature can be a convincer for something else. I occasionally do a mentalism routine where I predict a word the spec is thinking of, which uses the Out To Lunch principle with a signed card. The audience thinks I've predicted one word, which they watch me write on a card that the spec signs. At the end, it's revealed that the word is completely different, but it's on the same signed card. The signature is a convincer that the same card has magically changed words.

But for most card tricks, I don't think a signature adds much. There should be a reason for everything you do. If you can't think of why the signature is necessary, then I wouldn't do it.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Jan 8, 2018 01:19PM)
I remember one brick and mortar magic shop I once entered (just can't remember it now). The ceiling was decorated with signed cards... that is, signed by celebrity magicians! Lynn
Message: Posted by: griffindance (Jan 9, 2018 10:58AM)
A signed object ties an audience to the favourable outcome of a trick.

Think of the childhood arguments "It got my name on it, it mine!" By having an object signed the magician reduces the audience's expectation that a dup could be used. It also transfers the appearance of ownership of that object to the audience member who signed it and by extension the rest of the audience.

If you notice the difference between the audience attention while doing a trick with an object you've supplied yourself and a borrowed item, you can appreciate the extra attention dedicated to an object not considered "the magician's property."

Of course, with close up shows a signed object can be given to the spectator. Giving an object is a souvenir, it is also seen as a gift and who doesn't like "free stuff" The other audience members may reinvest interest in the rest of the show if there is the chance of them also getting a souvenir.
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Jan 9, 2018 12:21PM)
The frequency with which I've seen volunteers throw away a signed card shortly after a performance really makes me question those points.

I think the routine has to be inherently meaningful and make the volunteer feel good to motivate them to keep the item. And in those cases, they are not keeping it because it's signed and it's "theirs", they're keeping it because it reminds them of a moment that made them feel good.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 10, 2018 02:03AM)
[quote]On Jan 9, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote:
The frequency with which I've seen volunteers throw away a signed card shortly after a performance really makes me question those points.

I think the routine has to be inherently meaningful and make the volunteer feel good to motivate them to keep the item. And in those cases, they are not keeping it because it's signed and it's "theirs", they're keeping it because it reminds them of a moment that made them feel good. [/quote]


I agree, I think apart from effects like anniversary waltz, Drawn by Chris Congreave and any stickman routine then the chances are that the card won't be kept for long.
Message: Posted by: GusGarcia (Jan 10, 2018 03:10AM)
Certainly depends on the effect. In most cases I’d say it’s not necessary but I do feel the card being signed invests the spectator into the trick, if for no other reason than they get to relax and not stress about remembering the card.
Message: Posted by: griffindance (Jan 10, 2018 06:18AM)
[quote]On Jan 9, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote:
The frequency with which I've seen volunteers throw away a signed card shortly after a performance really makes me question those points.

I think the routine has to be inherently meaningful and make the volunteer feel good to motivate them to keep the item. And in those cases, they are not keeping it because it's signed and it's "theirs", they're keeping it because it reminds them of a moment that made them feel good. [/quote]


Oh, absolutely. An audience is not going to be happy with a magician handing out cards as their main gimmick. The magician has to do their work well in the first place.
However there is never "just one thing" that makes a performance. Whether close-up, platform or stage magic a performance is a combination of many factors. Including a signed card to an effect should be used sparingly and only with those audience members who are most appreciative.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jan 10, 2018 12:13PM)
Just because a spectator(s) may not keep a signed card does not mean it did not have a major impact and does not mean it should be used sparingly because we perceive them as possibly being unappreciative. We don't know what goes on in their minds and emotions. Yes, there are many
routines where an effect is very impactful with no signatures. Agreed.

As I mentioned, when you sign something whether it be a receipt at a restaurant, or checking out at a store, a letter, whatever, it makes it official and provides value/ownership so-to-speak.
For me, I most always have a marking, first name, symbol etc. Through experience and reactions I feel it adds that extra punch and level of astonishment. My opinion

I do agree with griffindance that the interaction should be meanigful and entertaining for them to possibly want to keep a souvenir. If not who cares. It all about our audiences and providing them a
Hopefully memorable experience.
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Jan 10, 2018 02:40PM)
Well, for me, I find that the idea of a magician having random objects signed for seemingly no logical reason, along with the cheesy jokes that so frequently accompany it, that it's become a cliche.
Message: Posted by: GusGarcia (Jan 10, 2018 05:13PM)
Couldn’ agree more to the cheesy jokes thing.
Message: Posted by: Melephin (Jan 11, 2018 03:10AM)
As was mentioned before, signing Card could be a great misdirection and also might add sense to silly Actions. For example, a lot of four ace routines, one takes out the four aces, just to loose them in the deck, just do find them again. Doesn't make sense. But if you take out the aces, to have them signed, put them back in, "Shuffle" and now find the card, it makes a lot more sense.

Also a signed card in the deck (ore even the four signed aces) prevents also from the conclusion, that you might switch the deck (of course you still can). Especially if you end your show with the deck in new deck order, although it was shuffled several times during the show.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Jan 11, 2018 04:09AM)
Puggo is already probably on to this, but Anniversary Waltz is an excellent routine which depends upon a signed card...
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jan 11, 2018 10:35AM)
[quote]On Jan 10, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote:
Well, for me, I find that the idea of a magician having random objects signed for seemingly no logical reason, along with the cheesy jokes that so frequently accompany it, that it's become a cliche. [/quote]

Who said anything about having "random objects" signed? I asked numerous people at a restaurant gig last night regarding this topic and they all said that a card signed by them was by far more impressive. Especially in a CTIL routine.
I learn from my audiences what works and what doesn't what has more impact and was is enjoyable for them. Their opinions are what matters.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jan 11, 2018 01:19PM)
I believe it’s a bit late to add to what has already been said, as pretty much everything has been covered, but notwithstanding here are my two cents:

Signing a card is necessary when it adds to the “degree of conviction”. Most of the time a Card To Impossible Location, such as Card To Wallet, will require that the selection gets signed, otherwise the duplicate concept will be used by spectators as an explanation (whether it’s the right one or not).

However, as pointed out above, there are other means of identifying a selection, such as tearing off the card corner.

In the version of CTW I perform, there’s no signature or any other mean of identifying the selection. However, after the very direct selection procedure: 1. The packet is not handled by the performer but shuffled and held by the spectator and 2. The deck is shown to be missing the spectator’s card. The impact is not diminished, I think, as a duplicate card would not make much sense in the above handling.

I prefer this no-signature handling as there’s no waste of time.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Jan 11, 2018 01:36PM)
[quote]On Jan 11, 2018, Claudio wrote:
I prefer this no-signature handling as there’s no waste of time. [/quote]

Showing 51 cards to prove the absence of one seems much less efficient than showing a single signed card.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jan 11, 2018 02:05PM)
Identifying the card that impossibly-locates is practically mandatory.
It doesn't matter how clever the actual method is if a 5 year could do the effect with a duplicate.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jan 11, 2018 02:52PM)
[quote]On Jan 11, 2018, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Jan 11, 2018, Claudio wrote:
I prefer this no-signature handling as there’s no waste of time. [/quote]

Showing 51 cards to prove the absence of one seems much less efficient than showing a single signed card. [/quote]

Good point, but in fact there's a dramatic tension here that I did not describe above. I ask the spectator to check the deck, no to prove that the card has disappeared, but to hand me their selection as I have failed (magician in trouble) in my endeavour. The card is not found in the deck but ... is produced from a wallet. From a handling viewpoint: whenever possible, I will spread the deck myself, ask the spectator to name their card and hand it to me. Granted, it's not the quickest CTW but I have weaved it in an interesting story (I hope). I used to perform a regular signed CTW but gave up as I found it tedious to carry markers and have the card signed. As I said, in my own experience, I have not noticed and lessening of impact, but I might be biased :)
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 11, 2018 03:03PM)
[quote]On Jan 11, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Identifying the card that impossibly-locates is practically mandatory.
It doesn't matter how clever the actual method is if a 5 year could do the effect with a duplicate. [/quote]

Although not quite an impossible location effect I perform a very clean looking mystery card effect that gets really strong reactions and I don't get the spectator to sign their card but they definitely don't think it's a duplicate ( probably because it isn't ). I remember me performing it for someone at work and they insisted that I do it again for someone else because they had been telling them about the effect and how they just couldn't understand how the card put down before they selected a card was in fact their card, obviously I performed it again and got the exact same "no way" response otherwise I wouldn't be telling the story.

Obviously the effect could be done with a signed card however I believe that I get really strong reactions without the card being signed and get to keep my deck in one piece so don't see the need.

That doesn't mean I'm against the idea of the card being signed and as I've already said some effects do require the card to be signed and most definitely benefit from it as I've already said but sometimes I think it's just to satisfy our needs more than anything else.

With regards to impossible locations if you perform some really strong magic beforehand and then perform a card to impossible location using a dupe as long as you can show very cleanly that the card has vanished from the deck then I believe you will still get amazing reactions because you have already conditioned them beforehand and so they just about think you can do anything. check out this very easy and simple card to wallet on the link as an example at 1 minute in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA5pIlf_koU
Message: Posted by: Motor City (Jan 11, 2018 08:51PM)
Warren, that was a great reaction he got. I remember how I was fooled the first time I saw that effect. I believe it's originator is Paul Gertner.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 12, 2018 01:51AM)
[quote]On Jan 11, 2018, Motor City wrote:
Warren, that was a great reaction he got. I remember how I was fooled the first time I saw that effect. I believe it's originator is Paul Gertner. [/quote]

Yes you are 100% correct the effect is indeed Paul Gertners :)
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jan 12, 2018 09:38AM)
Venue and time is a factor. When you perform in a restaurant setting, performance time is at the mercy of the venue.
Interruptions are common. Maximum impact and entertainment value are essential. Try having a hungry spectator look for their card in a deck when the food arrives. Every magical entertainer has their own style, personality, skill level and MO.
My MO is driven by experience and longevity in the business. Do what works for you, no, more importantly what works for your audience.
Message: Posted by: fonda57 (Jan 12, 2018 12:15PM)
If you do John Bannon's Tattoo You or Darwin Ortiz Signature Effect then the spectator signing the card is important
Message: Posted by: warren (Jan 12, 2018 04:17PM)
[quote]On Jan 12, 2018, davidpaul$ wrote:
Venue and time is a factor. When you perform in a restaurant setting, performance time is at the mercy of the venue.
Interruptions are common. Maximum impact and entertainment value are essential. Try having a hungry spectator look for their card in a deck when the food arrives. Every magical entertainer has their own style, personality, skill level and MO.
My MO is driven by experience and longevity in the business. Do what works for you, no, more importantly what works for your audience. [/quote]

David whilst I understand where your coming from and you make some great points if you watched the clip I provided the card was shown to be missing from the deck in 13 to 14 seconds so it would in fact take you longer than that to take a pen out and get a card signed and if I were going for maximum impact I personally wouldn't opt for a card trick.....obviously I'm saying this just to show things from the other perspective.

In the past I used to perform at TGI Fridays so I am familiar with working in a restaurant setting, as such I have done card effects where the card was both signed and unsigned and both always got great results.

Whilst I agree that some effects definitely benefit from having a card signed I also think that it's not always needed, one effect I used to perform at TGI's without getting a card signed involved getting a card selected and immediately giving the deck to the spectator at finger tips and then have the card vanish from the deck and reappear in my sock.

Part of the presentation involved the spectator spreading through the deck to look for their card which had vanished whilst in their hands and whilst I didn't get the card signed it played really well and I can't think of even one occasion where I didn't get the desired results and it's because of these experiences that I brought up the question.

Will I continue to get cards signed you bet I will however I think that if presented correctly then you can get away with the card not being signed, thanks for your input it really is appreciated :)
Message: Posted by: KazMagic (Feb 19, 2018 12:22AM)
I have the spectator sign a card only when it is necessary for the trick, or when I am performing for a long time using the spectators card again and again.
Message: Posted by: warren (Feb 19, 2018 01:59AM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2018, KazMagic wrote:
I have the spectator sign a card only when it is necessary for the trick, or when I am performing for a long time using the spectators card again and again. [/quote]

When you say" I have the spectator sign a card only when it is necessary for the trick" I think you've missed the point of the discussion, the question is.... does it really add much to the effect ie when performing card to wallet does it really add to the effect by having the card signed ?
Message: Posted by: AJ MAJIC (Feb 19, 2018 02:12AM)
Yes😉
Message: Posted by: CR_Shelton (Feb 22, 2018 09:24PM)
In most cases where a signed card is used, I think the signature is a perfect visual cue for what is going on. It instantly identifies that card as unique among the group, which is essential not just to the mystery, but to the narrative. What makes a chosen card different from the rest? If the answer is only that it's the chosen and remembered one, I think that can be distracting in a trick that's really not about games or identities or secrets, it's just about a piece of cardboard moving around. It may seem like a tiny thing, but some piece of their mind needs to be dedicated to remembering the identity and determining if it's correct every time they see it. It's not difficult work, but it distracts them on some level and is unnecessary. Once there is a signature, they only need to check: Is it there or isn't it?

This is why we do Monte with an odd-colored card. It doesn't matter to the effect if we use playing cards or stickers, it just matters that one stands out from the rest as much as possible. You could perform it with business cards and stickers. The signature is our way of adding a "third color" to the deck, so one card can stand out among all the rest. If anything is distracting, it is the regular faces already printed on the cards, because they have nothing to do with the effect in most cases. I would go so far as to say: Almost all signed card effects would be improved if performed with blank cards.

That said, at some level the aesthetics of using a "normal deck of cards", and the subtle implications of gambling work even if you don't allude to it directly in your performance, must be considered. Many magicians won't want to go so far as a blank deck, but I think if you try to do the routines that traditionally use a signature without one, you need to make up for that presentationally in some way - to make sure the audience is crystal clear on the alleged phenomenon, and engaged with the idea of the cards as physical objects.
Message: Posted by: evikshin (Feb 23, 2018 12:01AM)
[quote]On Jan 5, 2018, warren wrote:
The signed card.....is it really needed ?

Personally it's very rare that I get a card signed even at a paid booking, that's not to say I don't get cards signed. I have a card signed for a stickman routine that I do but obviously the back of the card gets drawn on so I'm going to give the card away regardless, I have a card signed for anniversary waltz and very occasionally for a mystery card routine.

Even when I do card to wallet I don't get it signed even though I actually p**m the card and the response is always brilliant which makes me think that perhaps getting a card signed is more a magician thing than anything else so for me the card only gets signed if it actually adds to the routine.

Try it yourselves do a card to wallet routine and try it with and without the signature and see if there really is a difference, I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this subject ? [/quote]

This is a very good post and an important topic. I've been doing magic for over a decade now, and I will say that magicians sometimes forget about the main purpose of signing card. The purpose is to somehow "prove" that you are not using duplicates. There are other methods of proving this without having to have the card signed.

I do a routine where two cards repeatedly transpose with one another under test conditions, ending with a card to spectator's pocket climax. I obviously use a duplicate. Now, I have several versions where the cards are signed (one using Loki Kross's "Fax" technique), however, I found that I can just palm off the duplicate at the outset, hand out the deck for inspection, then reload it, and I get the same exact audience impact as when I have the card signed. And, by doing it this way, suprisingly, people never ask to inspect the deck at the end.

Sometimes by wanting to contrive a method where the card is signed, we end up restricting ourselves and putting ourselves into a box.

Bottom line is there is a time and a place to do it, but too many people blindly do it and kill themselves trying to come up with a method to do it, when not doing it would have the same effect.
Message: Posted by: AsL (Jun 7, 2018 01:01AM)
I'd usually rather have the card signed with the POTENTIAL of adding more magical impossibilities to the effect than not have the signed card and miss the potential. Yes, I think it matters.

AsL
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 7, 2018 05:38AM)
My very tentative thoughts:

If they sign the card it rules out dupe, but shifts their thinking instantly to p*lm. P*lming is probably much more known about and expected of magi than dupes.

If you don't sign it, then dupes becomes a possibility.

Obviously no audience actually believes the card teleported to the wallet or box, so I guess they must conclude (as I would) that the magi switched it, or loaded it with a p*lm of some kind. I would only discount that if the cards weren't handled by the magi (which a dupe could provide, but with it's own drawback), or if the location was truly impossible (like signed card to a spectator's friends home, or inside a block of concrete at the bottom of a lake or something.)

Maybe the best one can hope from this effect is an admiration of one's skill with controlling, p*lming, loading or pick-pocketing??? Maybe a dupe might even allow for a better effect - esp if combined with showing the card missing from the deck afterwards (p*alming their selection out while the heat is on the reveal of the card fro the pocket). Seems better to go down that road than signing cards IMHO.

I also like Julie's thoughts above regarding a 'marked' card with matching dupe. That might be another way to go for a better effect.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 7, 2018 06:10AM)
I do a card to wallet with an unsigned card. The reason it is unsigned is because the spectators freely name the selection (e.g., one person could decide it's red, another says it's a diamond, and another says it's a three). If the card were signed, then spectators would be inclined to believe that the card appeared in my wallet because I put it there (which is correct). It's still amazing because "how is that possible??" Since the card is unsigned, spectators are inclined to believe that I compelled them to choose whatever was named (incorrect), or that the wallet can somehow produce any card (incorrect), or that I have multiple wallets (incorrect), or that I got lucky (incorrect), or that there are multiple stooges (incorrect), or that I somehow managed to rapidly locate and secretly load the card (correct). The last explanation, however, is not wholly satisfying, especially when the others seem more intuitively plausible (and the effect is framed as a prediction).

The real challenge when producing an unsigned card from an impossible location involves establishing that the destination was inevitable regardless of choice. If I produced a Three of Diamonds from my wallet, half-intelligent spectators might believe the Jack of Spades could have come from right shoe, or that the Jack of Clubs would come from my left shoe, and the queen of hearts would come from my right pocket (and that there other cards in my right pocket), etc.

The trick is excellent. It's like an ungimmicked invisible deck.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Jun 7, 2018 06:14AM)
[quote]On Feb 23, 2018, evikshin wrote:
I can just palm off the duplicate at the outset, hand out the deck for inspection, then reload it, and I get the same exact audience impact as when I have the card signed. And, by doing it this way, suprisingly, people never ask to inspect the deck at the end.
[/quote]

That's a great idea! It also lets them see the deck is "normal" and shuffled without directly calling attention to either fact.

Cain, if I'm understanding you correctly, your effect isn't card to impossible location, but rather a prediction of a named selection, correct? To my way of thinking, those are two very different effects that end up with a card in the wallet. For the prediction, the card can't be signed and then vanish, because it was never in the deck to begin with, from the audience's perspective.
Message: Posted by: YRauch (Jun 7, 2018 08:41AM)
In Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles he lays down brilliant guidelines (basically 3 conditions and if the trick doesn't fulfill 2 of those conditions, you should have it signed) to know when it is NECESSARY to sign a card.

Yehuda
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 7, 2018 11:27AM)
What's his reasoning behind those conditions? Is it to avoid the spectators believing they have the method? If so, is the only method he worries about the spectators arriving at being the use of a dupe?
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 7, 2018 02:35PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:

Cain, if I'm understanding you correctly, your effect isn't card to impossible location, but rather a prediction of a named selection, correct?[/quote]

The two are related (but different). Yes, my version is not a card-to-impossible location effect. The [i]effect[/i] is a prediction, which is achieved by revealing a card from such an impossible/isolated location that spectators must conclude it was placed in advance rather than the intervening time. My main point is that if the effect is indeed that the unsigned selection travels to the wallet (or other impossible location), then it should seem like a logical/inevitable destination. If the destination is not foreshadowed, then it's a deus ex machina.

[quote]To my way of thinking, those are two very different effects that end up with a card in the wallet. For the prediction, the card can't be signed and then vanish, because it was never in the deck to begin with, from the audience's perspective.[/quote]

I am inclined to agree. We had a similar discussion here a few years back where the topic was concluding a signed ACR with Paperclipped, and I said it makes some sense because ACR also involves a card-to-impossible location. Posters soon said that Paperclipped is NOT a card-to-impossible location but a prediction (or a transformation). If that were the effect (in the ACR context), then I'd say magicians pairing ACR and Paperclipped have largely failed because I can't imagine many spectators believe anything other than the same signed card that kept rising to the top ended up on the paperclip. I doubt anyone wonders, "where's the original card I signed?"
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 8, 2018 01:42PM)
Quote:
On Feb 23, 2018, evikshin wrote:
I can just palm off the duplicate at the outset, hand out the deck for inspection, then reload it, and I get the same exact audience impact as when I have the card signed. And, by doing it this way, suprisingly, people never ask to inspect the deck at the end.

It's great to see people are still contributing to this thread I really appreciate everyone taking the time to share their thoughts and ideas and as already said this is excellent approach by Evikshin
Message: Posted by: Rainboguy (Jun 10, 2018 07:40PM)
YES.
Duh!
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 11, 2018 01:22AM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2018, Rainboguy wrote:
YES.
Duh! [/quote]

Care to expand ?
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Jun 11, 2018 05:42AM)
As mentioned by one or two others above, I have to agree 100% that my days of having a signed card appear in a wallet are long gone.

I now prefer to have any named card appearing in the wallet.

A signed card to wallet may initially be a WOW moment - until those, who think about the method, will probably draw the only logical conclusion - that you somehow palmed it out of the pack, then palmed it into the wallet.

However, when a merely thought of card appears in the wallet; and there aren't any more of that named card left in the pack upon inspection, then it is (to my mind) oh so more powerful, magical in effect.

Just to add that for many years, I simply used a duplicate card for card in wallet. Never ONCE, in complete honesty, did I EVER get anyone saying I had used a duplicate card. In fact, I used to use 2 duplicates (3C & JH) as I found there were regularly called - so it was also a back-up to any 'think of a card' routine.

To paraphrase Paul Gordon, 'signed cards spoil the beauty of the prop'. I agree with this comment 100%.

Personally, I just hate signed card tricks - or indeed, any effects that involve a Sharpie and a pack of cards - which is why I gave up watching the Wizard Product Review many years ago. Every single brainf@rt imaginable seemed to involve signing a card; or drawing something on the card case, etc. To the most part, it was non-commercial, low visibility (pre-prepped/have to reset afterwards) dross.

As stated elsewhere, signing cards to my mind, is just a magician requirement rather than a necessity when working for real people commercially - even for Ambitious Card in my view (a plot I also dislike to be honest).

However, when you look back at the pure classics of card magic, how many were actually dependent upon signed cards? Yet it is still these classics performed, in one shape or another, today.

Signing cards also has one major drawback in my opinion. It's 'dead time' during your performance; only possibly having any importance to that one individual who is signing his or her name. Meanwhile, the rest of the people are probably thinking "for Christ sake, just get on with it".

Just my point of view folks, obviously.
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Jun 11, 2018 07:10AM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Cain wrote:
I do a card to wallet with an unsigned card. The reason it is unsigned is because the spectators freely name the selection (e.g., one person could decide it's red, another says it's a diamond, and another says it's a three). If the card were signed, then spectators would be inclined to believe that the card appeared in my wallet because I put it there (which is correct). It's still amazing because "how is that possible??" Since the card is unsigned, spectators are inclined to believe that I compelled them to choose whatever was named (incorrect), or that the wallet can somehow produce any card (incorrect), or that I have multiple wallets (incorrect), or that I got lucky (incorrect), or that there are multiple stooges (incorrect), or that I somehow managed to rapidly locate and secretly load the card (correct). The last explanation, however, is not wholly satisfying, especially when the others seem more intuitively plausible (and the effect is framed as a prediction).

The real challenge when producing an unsigned card from an impossible location involves establishing that the destination was inevitable regardless of choice. If I produced a Three of Diamonds from my wallet, half-intelligent spectators might believe the Jack of Spades could have come from right shoe, or that the Jack of Clubs would come from my left shoe, and the queen of hearts would come from my right pocket (and that there other cards in my right pocket), etc.

The trick is excellent. It's like an ungimmicked invisible deck. [/quote]What you are doing is NOT a card to wallet it is more along the lines of a prediction... NOT that that is a bad thing. I do it myself... But it is NOT a card to wallet specific effect.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Jun 11, 2018 07:11AM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Merc Man wrote:
As mentioned by one or two others above, I have to agree 100% that my days of having a signed card appear in a wallet are long gone.

I now prefer to have any named card appearing in the wallet.

A signed card to wallet may initially be a WOW moment - until those, who think about the method, will probably draw the only logical conclusion - that you somehow palmed it out of the pack, then palmed it into the wallet.

However, when a merely thought of card appears in the wallet; and there aren't any more of that named card left in the pack upon inspection, then it is (to my mind) oh so more powerful, magical in effect.

Just to add that for many years, I simply used a duplicate card for card in wallet. Never ONCE, in complete honesty, did I EVER get anyone saying I had used a duplicate card. In fact, I used to use 2 duplicates (3C & JH) as I found there were regularly called - so it was also a back-up to any 'think of a card' routine.

To paraphrase Paul Gordon, 'signed cards spoil the beauty of the prop'. I agree with this comment 100%.

Personally, I just hate signed card tricks - or indeed, any effects that involve a Sharpie and a pack of cards - which is why I gave up watching the Wizard Product Review many years ago. Every single brainf@rt imaginable seemed to involve signing a card; or drawing something on the card case, etc. To the most part, it was non-commercial, low visibility (pre-prepped/have to reset afterwards) dross.

As stated elsewhere, signing cards to my mind, is just a magician requirement rather than a necessity when working for real people commercially - even for Ambitious Card in my view (a plot I also dislike to be honest).

However, when you look back at the pure classics of card magic, how many were actually dependent upon signed cards? Yet it is still these classics performed, in one shape or another, today.

Signing cards also has one major drawback in my opinion. It's 'dead time' during your performance; only possibly having any importance to that one individual who is signing his or her name. Meanwhile, the rest of the people are probably thinking "for Christ sake, just get on with it".

Just my point of view folks, obviously. [/quote]

Which is why I start with the wallet sitting in the speccys hand till the big reveal....
Message: Posted by: Rainboguy (Jun 11, 2018 12:53PM)
This is very, very simple.

Producing a signed card absolutely and positively proves that it is THE EXACT SAME CARD THAT THE SPECTATOR SELECTED.

This fact raises the bar from "doing a trick" to "performing a miracle". As to others' comments in this thread regarding "dead time" or "hating to destroy a card" I suggest, in all due respect to those posts, that these performers polish their presentations. The cost of a card being signed is insignificant to the performance fees that professionals get for their work. As far as "dead time" is concerned, Pros work long and hard to polish their scripts, timing, and blocking in order to carefully avoid it.
Message: Posted by: GlennLawrence (Jun 11, 2018 01:30PM)
Couldn't have said it better myself Rainboguy! The only thing I would add is that it depends on the effect. It's not a one size fits all question. We should be asking ourselves if the effect is strengthened by having the card signed or if it is not necessary. I've seen plenty of magi have a card signed where I questioned it because it added nothing to the particular effect I was seeing. On the other hand, if you do the impromptu Card to wallet out of Hugard's encyclopedia, there's no question that signing the card makes the whole effect. So to the OP I say in answer to your question, "Maybe!"
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Jun 11, 2018 02:45PM)
Since I always use THEIR deck, signing the card accomplishes nothing - and I'd be ruining one of THEIR cards/decks.
Message: Posted by: Rainboguy (Jun 11, 2018 03:30PM)
Understandable, of course, Harry........with YOU using THEIR deck. I don't do this because I like being able to switch in and switch out my gaffed cards and decks when necessary.

I admire your work, and writing style, by the way!
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Jun 11, 2018 03:47PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Rainboguy wrote:
This is very, very simple.

Producing a signed card absolutely and positively proves that it is THE EXACT SAME CARD THAT THE SPECTATOR SELECTED.

This fact raises the bar from "doing a trick" to "performing a miracle". As to others' comments in this thread regarding "dead time" or "hating to destroy a card" I suggest, in all due respect to those posts, that these performers polish their presentations. The cost of a card being signed is insignificant to the performance fees that professionals get for their work. As far as "dead time" is concerned, Pros work long and hard to polish their scripts, timing, and blocking in order to carefully avoid it. [/quote]
Since when has producing a signed card from a wallet been more miraculous than producing an unsigned one? As I said, I have never had anyone suggest the use of duplicates - ever. Period. Therefore, in the eyes of the spectator, it is the SAME EFFECT.

Should a magician have coins signed then before performing Coins Across, or a Coins thru Table routine? Should sponge balls be signed, to prove the one that the magician was holding is now the same one that's transposed into the spectators hand?

If not, why not? It's the exact same logic, isn't it - i.e. the original item transposing to another place?

But thanks for your advice that (quote) "pros work long and hard to polish their scripts, timing, etc.". I've only worked professionally since 1978 - so let's hope that in another 40 years, I'll be as good as you - and as alluded to in your post above, be able to use 'gaffed cards and decks'.

You couldn't make some of this stuff up! :hysteric:
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 11, 2018 03:55PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Doomo wrote:
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Cain wrote:
I do a card to wallet with an unsigned card. The reason it is unsigned is because the spectators freely name the selection (e.g., one person could decide it's red, another says it's a diamond, and another says it's a three). If the card were signed, then spectators would be inclined to believe that the card appeared in my wallet because I put it there (which is correct). It's still amazing because "how is that possible??" Since the card is unsigned, spectators are inclined to believe that I compelled them to choose whatever was named (incorrect), or that the wallet can somehow produce any card (incorrect), or that I have multiple wallets (incorrect), or that I got lucky (incorrect), or that there are multiple stooges (incorrect), or that I somehow managed to rapidly locate and secretly load the card (correct). The last explanation, however, is not wholly satisfying, especially when the others seem more intuitively plausible (and the effect is framed as a prediction).

The real challenge when producing an unsigned card from an impossible location involves establishing that the destination was inevitable regardless of choice. If I produced a Three of Diamonds from my wallet, half-intelligent spectators might believe the Jack of Spades could have come from right shoe, or that the Jack of Clubs would come from my left shoe, and the queen of hearts would come from my right pocket (and that there other cards in my right pocket), etc.

The trick is excellent. It's like an ungimmicked invisible deck. [/quote]What you are doing is NOT a card to wallet it is more along the lines of a prediction... NOT that that is a bad thing. I do it myself... But it is NOT a card to wallet specific effect.

Tony [/quote]

I thought I clarified this earlier. We need to make a distinction between the method and the effect. The method is a card-to-wallet. The effect is a prediction. As it happens, I use a wallet you made. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Aaron Smith Magic (Jun 11, 2018 04:02PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Merc Man wrote:
Should a magician have coins signed then before performing Coins Across, or a Coins thru Table routine? Should sponge balls be signed, to prove the one that the magician was holding is now the same one that's transposed into the spectators hand?

If not, why not? It's the exact same logic, isn't it - i.e. the original item transposing to another place?
[/quote]

This is a great point that I've never thought about. I have seen magicians put avery stickers on coins before to have them signed, but that's about it.

Personally, I like to have cards signed, only because in my opinion it adds another layer of deception to the effect that I may be doing. Just like a million other magicians, I point out that there couldn't possibly be a duplicate.

I use it for Ambitious Card, Anniversary Waltz, Card to Wallet and Brother John Hamman's Signed Card. With the signed card to wallet the card appears in a sealed envelope inside my wallet. The signature just makes it more impossible in the minds of laymen. That is just my 2 cents.

It's possible that magicians chose to have cards signed because they're much easier to acquire than a new coin or sponge ball set.
Message: Posted by: Rainboguy (Jun 11, 2018 04:15PM)
Merc Man:

I find your post to be insulting.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 11, 2018 04:29PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Rainboguy wrote:
This is very, very simple.

Producing a signed card absolutely and positively proves that it is THE EXACT SAME CARD THAT THE SPECTATOR SELECTED.

This fact raises the bar from "doing a trick" to "performing a miracle". As to others' comments in this thread regarding "dead time" or "hating to destroy a card" I suggest, in all due respect to those posts, that these performers polish their presentations. The cost of a card being signed is insignificant to the performance fees that professionals get for their work. As far as "dead time" is concerned, Pros work long and hard to polish their scripts, timing, and blocking in order to carefully avoid it. [/quote]

In the past I would have probably thought this way but having read a post here on the Café many years ago by someone who actually tried it out in the real world at a restaurant ie first one night he performed the standard signed card to wallet and then the next night he performed the same effect but just used a double backer without the signature if I remember it correctly and he said the reactions were just the same makes me question if signing the card really does add to the effect.

That's not to say your wrong obviously as you give a solid reason and I thank you for your input, my own experience has been that even though I don't get the card signed for card to wallet I have got strong reactions and I've not had one spectator think it was a duplicate although in my case it is actually their card anyway. Plus the card in the wallet is only one phase of a multi phase card routine I perform when working so it's just an extra kicker.

Going back to the excellent post that Merc Man made believe it or not I have actually seen a coins across routine where the magician had the coins signed at the beginning of the routine on youtube I think he may have performed it on Penn & Teller too haha that's not to say it actually added to the routine as I think especially in the case of coins across it's only magicians that this impresses.
Message: Posted by: brucewilcox (Jun 11, 2018 05:37PM)
One opinion from a performer with more experience than I:

In the original instructional video for the Jerry O'Connell Designer Series of wallets, Craig Dixon recommends always having cards signed (for card-to-wallet), for two reasons - spectators may forget what cards they selected, and they also might lie about what cards they selected (especially in venues where there's alcohol). He recommends not asking "Is this your card?", but, rather, "Is this your signature?".
Message: Posted by: obrienmagic (Jun 11, 2018 06:36PM)
For me, the point of a signature is to prove that you are not using duplicate cards. The only reason I would ever have a card signed is when the card itself is moving to an impossible location. I also like to use torn corners and such because it is essentially the same thing to the laymen. The corner matches so it must be the same card. This as I have said is only really necessary when the card is disappearing and ending somewhere impossible (pocket, wallet, lemon, shoe, etc.)
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 11, 2018 07:38PM)
If signing a card prevents the spectator from creating a 'possible solution' for the effect, then signing it (or tearing the corner - nice post, obrienmagic! it reminded me of Gaetan Bloom's Intercessor!) seems like the most easy and practical thing to do.

If not, then signing is unnecessary.

Again, it depends. All other things being equal, and if signing is required by the Darwin Ortiz's "two out of three rule", then yes, signing does add to the effect.


There is another effect that kind of needs the cards to be signed, and not because people could suspect about duplicates. It's the Dani Daortiz's Mathematical Trick: https://youtu.be/C5lhqQQcX5s?t=374



by the way, just out of curiosity, do you guys really feel signing a card slows down the trick to the point people will be bored? I mean, aren't the spectators supposed to be minimally interested in what you have to show them? Really? You are saying this 30 seconds painless process, where there is actually some interaction going on, is so detrimental to the pace of the trick that it makes it less interesting?

I mean, in the video above, if you go back to the minute 2:25, where Dani first produces the pen, it takes less than 30 seconds for the girl to sign it. And that is because Dani spends 10-13 of those seconds making a joke, and only after that gives the pen to the lady. And then in amazing 6 seconds she manages to write her name on the card. She must have practiced for that. It's like she's the Usain Bolt of signatures.

But they don't stop there. Dani extends the signing process for another (aprox.) 60 seconds! It's like he is trying to kill people by boring them to death, right?
Ok, no more sarcasm. Sorry.

Anyway, I believe the trick he performs just after this signature would not hit that hard if the card was not signed. Some said above that the card is instantly recognized when signed and I agree. Heck, this even is a great (and unusual) example of how the signature of a card actually allows the effect to be done with a fast pace!
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 11, 2018 10:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Merc Man wrote:
Since when has producing a signed card from a wallet been more miraculous than producing an unsigned one?[/quote]

Since when has changing a one dollar bill into a one-hundred been more miraculous than changing it into a five? Just because there's no logical distinction does not mean there isn't an emotional one. A challenge with playing cards is that they're relatively abstract. A signature is a little more elemental -- "that's MY card." For some people, it does become a souvenir. Why is an original work more valuable than an identical reproduction? In part because it has a history. More critically, a signature (or drawing) does convincingly demonstrate the selected card ended up wherever it ended up.

That said, I do not have cards signed. If the selection process is seemingly fair, then an unsigned card introduces more mystery.

[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Rainboguy wrote:
As far as "dead time" is concerned, Pros work long and hard to polish their scripts, timing, and blocking in order to carefully avoid it. [/quote]

Can having a card signed be entertaining in and of itself? Sure. But if it were so much fun, then it would make sense to have cards signed even when it's unnecessary for the effect (because everyone's having SO much fun). All things being equal, it's probably better not to have a card signed. Then again, in some cases, not all things [i]are[/i] equal. If nothing else, having a card signed can break-up the monotony in a set of card tricks.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 12, 2018 02:04AM)
Whilst it's not very often I get a card signed I certainly don't think that it's going to slow things down an be a dull part of the effect as it's very easy to make it fun and have a bit of byplay with the audience.
Message: Posted by: kaubell (Jun 12, 2018 07:30AM)
[quote]"Since when has producing a signed card from a wallet been more miraculous than producing an unsigned one? As I said, I have never had anyone suggest the use of duplicates - ever. Period. Therefore, in the eyes of the spectator, it is the SAME EFFECT."[/quote]

Even when the spectator don't yell it out loud on the spot, that doesn't mean he/they wont speculate the possibilitys how it was done afterwards, minutes after you left, even days after, week after, coming to solution "ofcourse it has to be duplicate, otherwise its too impossible"

Why bother doing it hard way if it looks same for the spectator. Just force card and have duplicate in your wallet.

I think words "duplicate", or "deck is in some order", is the 2 most common solutions for any regular person.

If you vanish your own ring and it appears on your necklace. He don't have to tell how it was done on the spot, he can just smile and finds it funny, but few seconds later he probably thinks the first easiest solution possible, duplicate ring on the necklace.
If the trick is done like that, how simple silly the trick looks?
If the trick is not done like that and you could have used borrowed ring, it still looks same for the spectator if you do it with your own ring, and he comes to the same solution in the end.

So why do it hard way, if the end result looks the same as using duplicate and the solution spectator privately thinks is going to be duplicate.
Tricks becomes much simpler and easier, and you can do more amazing effects than with signed card.

You can have card travel through the city to your friends house, and he reveals it from his home with his phone. "don't think its duplicate".
Revealing card from your wallet, zipper closed, is as amazing impossibilty for the spectator, that cant be done without duplicate.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 12, 2018 07:35AM)
Kaubell:
"Even when the spectator don't yell it out loud on the spot, that doesn't mean he/they wont speculate the possibilitys how it was done afterwards, minutes after you left, even days after, week after, coming to solution "ofcourse it has to be duplicate, otherwise its too impossible""

Agreed. It's possible that the spectator mulls over the method afterwards. In which case signing wont help, they'll just assume a p*lm and switch/load. Obviously. What other conclusion would they come to?

It'd be interesting to do a poll of laypeople and see how many think switch and how many think dupe. :) Tbh, either way they solve the problem - so what dos it matter?
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 12, 2018 11:13AM)
Kaubell when you say why do it the hard way that is a relative term, for me personally the easy way is the standard way which usually involves getting the card signed it's just that it's very rare that I get the card signed. Having said that I do understand what your getting at which is a good point for example just look at the very popular Angle Zero which David Blaine performed on TV thus proving that an effect can be very strong without a signature. ( link provided )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbXXm_3bGn0
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 12, 2018 01:22PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
In which case signing wont help, they'll just assume a p*lm and switch/load. Obviously. What other conclusion would they come to?
[/quote]

I don't think is that simple. We shouldn't draw those conclusions because it also depends on another set of variables that we are not discussing (or controlling) right now and that we haven't established yet. Putting it simple, you'd have to make them cancel the possibility of a p*lm AND the possibility of a duplicate.

Take John Kennedy's Mystery Box. (http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/237)
The effect is constructed so that no one should suspect a p*lm just from watching the procedure. It doesn't make sense to imagine a palm somewhere just from the structure of the trick - a clearly empty hand opens the wooden box and reveals a card inside.

If the card wasn't signed, the first suspicion would be a duplicate card. Palming wouldn't even cross spectators minds. And, as already said by others, if they suspect of a duplicate card, it doesn't matter if they are wrong about it, the overall impact of the effect will be diminished.

Again, I'm considering the structure of the trick, not the flaws o performance of the video on the link ;)
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 12, 2018 05:34PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2018, Ricardo Delgado wrote:
I don't think is that simple. We shouldn't draw those conclusions because it also depends on another set of variables that we are not discussing (or controlling) right now and that we haven't established yet. Putting it simple, you'd have to make them cancel the possibility of a p*lm AND the possibility of a duplicate.

Take John Kennedy's Mystery Box. (http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/237)
The effect is constructed so that no one should suspect a p*lm just from watching the procedure. It doesn't make sense to imagine a palm somewhere just from the structure of the trick - a clearly empty hand opens the wooden box and reveals a card inside.

If the card wasn't signed, the first suspicion would be a duplicate card. Palming wouldn't even cross spectators minds. And, as already said by others, if they suspect of a duplicate card, it doesn't matter if they are wrong about it, the overall impact of the effect will be diminished.

Again, I'm considering the structure of the trick, not the flaws o performance of the video on the link ;) [/quote]

I did not click the link to watch that particular performance. In terms of the Bruno Hennig-style card-to-box tricks, the intuitive explanation is that you somehow got control of their signed selection, folded it up, then secretly deposited it in the box. The reason they can't believe this occurred is because how could you do all of those things without anyone noticing? The genius of Henning's idea is that spectators prematurely believe the method has resolved, which will make it very difficult to reconstruct.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 13, 2018 08:49AM)
I'm not sure there's a trick devised that can cancel out every possible method a spectator might consider. All have weaknesses.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Jun 13, 2018 10:28AM)
I honestly think you might find a few in my books!!
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 13, 2018 11:22AM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm not sure there's a trick devised that can cancel out every possible method a spectator might consider. All have weaknesses. [/quote]

Not sure if I agree 100%, but that should at least be our goal, right?

I believe there are some tricks where most of the methods they can think of are canceled, and the ones that are not are an absurd method. Like in a "named card to the pocket" trick one might consider you have 52 hidden pockets with a different card inside of each one.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 13, 2018 01:05PM)
52 multiple outs is hardly absurd, especially to a layman. Neither is 'stooge'. Or sometimes just, 'sleight of hand'.

So it seems to me that if you have a signed card turn up somewhere odd, like in a lemon or a wallet, they will simply think 'steal and load - somehow', and they'll likely be right. If it isn't signed, they might well think 'dupe', and possibly be right. Not that being right matters, if you want them to literally have no possible idea.

I can't really think of a card to wallet that would leave the spectators with no possible solution.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 13, 2018 01:29PM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Ricardo Delgado wrote:
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm not sure there's a trick devised that can cancel out every possible method a spectator might consider. All have weaknesses. [/quote]

Not sure if I agree 100%, but that should at least be our goal, right?

I believe there are some tricks where most of the methods they can think of are canceled, and the ones that are not are an absurd method. Like in a "named card to the pocket" trick one might consider you have 52 hidden pockets with a different card inside of each one. [/quote]

With a named card-to-pocket, in my experience, spectators believe you have another deck in your pocket. This is great fun when you get to the final phase and indeed pull almost an entire deck from your pocket. Someone will often exclaim, "I knew it!" and then you reveal the selected card is the only one that did not travel.

I don't know if it's possible to cancel all methods, or what that would even mean. Hening's trick is great because spectators ask the wrong question: "How/when did he put the card in the box?"
Incidentally, this is why I regard the box as superior to the paradox effects like Paper-clipped (since people intuitively know the card couldn't exist until it was signed, they'll believe a switch occurred at some point). With the box, they're less likely to suspect a switch, and therefore less likely to detect it. However, a few years back, clear boxes were all the rage. I'd be interested in learning if the magicians who switched over to them stuck with it.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 13, 2018 08:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
52 multiple outs is hardly absurd, especially to a layman. Neither is 'stooge'. Or sometimes just, 'sleight of hand'.

So it seems to me that if you have a signed card turn up somewhere odd, like in a lemon or a wallet, they will simply think 'steal and load - somehow', and they'll likely be right. If it isn't signed, they might well think 'dupe', and possibly be right. Not that being right matters, if you want them to literally have no possible idea.

I can't really think of a card to wallet that would leave the spectators with no possible solution. [/quote]

52 multiple outs may not be, but 52 pockets it kind of is. But that's not my point.

Well, but isn't our job, through other means, to make them discard those 'solutions' (preferably by themselves)? If not, what is the point of magic, then? I concede perfect methods may be an impossible thing. But isn't that the goal?

If a signed card turn up in a lemon, and the most obvious method they can think of is 'steal and load - somehow', then we should make that part to feel not possible to be done (or at least not probable or not logical). Maybe by making the steal seem impossible. Maybe by making the load so invisible it looks it can't ever have happened. Methods are not the only way to do that.

But again, we (should) strive to make people feel something impossible has happened. Feel is the word. But for that, logic must be tricked, and if easy solutions are there to be easily seen (even if they are wrong solutions), then what are we doing performing magic?
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 13, 2018 08:58PM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Cain wrote:
With a named card-to-pocket, in my experience, spectators believe you have another deck in your pocket. This is great fun when you get to the final phase and indeed pull almost an entire deck from your pocket. Someone will often exclaim, "I knew it!" and then you reveal the selected card is the only one that did not travel.

I don't know if it's possible to cancel all methods, or what that would even mean. Hening's trick is great because spectators ask the wrong question: "How/when did he put the card in the box?"
Incidentally, this is why I regard the box as superior to the paradox effects like Paper-clipped (since people intuitively know the card couldn't exist until it was signed, they'll believe a switch occurred at some point). With the box, they're less likely to suspect a switch, and therefore less likely to detect it. However, a few years back, clear boxes were all the rage. I'd be interested in learning if the magicians who switched over to them stuck with it. [/quote]

"How/when did he put the card in the box?". I consider that phrase to be the moment where they can't believe the solutions themselves are trying to come up with. Basically, they are rationally canceling that solution. There is a physical impossibility. From their point of view there is no time and/or space for the method to happen. Although that is the explanation they have, they themselves can't really buy it. That's what I meant.

In fact, it perfectly fits "The Magic Way". You hide the solution, give them something else to chase, and when they get to it they find out that can't be - and that's when the question "How/When" takes place.
Message: Posted by: liamwilson1125 (Jun 13, 2018 11:29PM)
[quote]On Jan 5, 2018, warren wrote:
The signed card.....is it really needed ?

Personally it's very rare that I get a card signed even at a paid booking, that's not to say I don't get cards signed. I have a card signed for a stickman routine that I do but obviously the back of the card gets drawn on so I'm going to give the card away regardless, I have a card signed for anniversary waltz and very occasionally for a mystery card routine.

Even when I do card to wallet I don't get it signed even though I actually p**m the card and the response is always brilliant which makes me think that perhaps getting a card signed is more a magician thing than anything else so for me the card only gets signed if it actually adds to the routine.

Try it yourselves do a card to wallet routine and try it with and without the signature and see if there really is a difference, I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this subject ? [/quote]

It depends on the effect you choose to perform I think. For ACR, yes it does. For French Kiss of WH, yes it does. For transposition effect, not really. So on and so forth.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 12:28AM)
Ricardo:
Yes, I think to some extent I agree that one of the aims (along with entertainment or amusement or whatever) of magic is often, but not always, to leave the spectators with a feeling of impossibility.

But I wonder how transient and achievable that goal really is? After all, they will all conclude that what you've done is, in fact, possible since you did actually do it! And since they don't believe in real magic they must inevitably conclude that it was done by trickery of one sort or another. Given widespread knowledge of many magic methods how long can they truly remaining that state of believing the impossible?

Not that this means the end of magic. After all, doesn't everyone know in some rudimentary fashion how the linking rings and cups and balls are done? Yet they are still wonderful to watch. Why is that? It's not because the audience feels they are impossible. Something else is at work.

Perhaps the best we can do is achieve a short lived moment of wonder, followed by an extended period of puzzlement.

And when it comes to card to wallet, I really can't see how those moments can last very long at all - the effect screams out for a steal/load as being the only possible method, no matter how unlikely or unseen - what else can an audience plausibly settle upon their minds? And, tomake it worse, they'd have hit the right solution too!

I might be tempted to argue that unless the card appears somewhere truly out of range of the performer, then having the card signed actually leads the audience directly to the right solution, no matter how cleverly it is hidden (how can it truly be cancelled?). Perhaps a dupe followed by a steal is a better method, especially if using a borrowed deck and having the card appear somewhere truly implausible? But even then, the method which seems most obvious will indeed be the correct one.

Maybe it's the effect itself.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Jun 14, 2018 12:45AM)
Signed card to wallet is just obvious. It's steal and load. So one shouldn't ever do that, unless all you care about is impressing the spectator with your ability to pull that effect off without them noticing it. But that's not to say that a signed card can't be put to great use. One good effect in which a signed card is put to great use is Anniversary Waltz. Should you have a card signed? It depends.
Message: Posted by: kaubell (Jun 14, 2018 03:21AM)
Magician knows what is possible and understands to reconstruct withing that range. Some laymen don't even know pinky break. Their thinking is much different.

In card to wallet. Sure it gets loaded, but how. If laymen don't know how card to wallet is usually done they have very little to start off, and if some laymen don't even know there is pinky break hold, they are in very different position trying to reconstruct it.

So I would say its not that obivious and many tricks are not obivious. You can explain Anniversary Waltz by saying "he made us sign both sides of one card", and that is actually the real explanation, but how its possible is the question.

If you DL and their card becomes blank card in their hands, they could just say "Its obivious. He just gave me different card". Sure, but how its possible. Everything can be explained with reality, but that's not so simple, many gets baffled by the "how its possible" "how he did it" question.

Color changes? "Its different card"

4 Kings to 4 Aces? "He switched the kings to aces"

Card to wallet? "He took the card and loaded it into his wallet"

French Kiss? "He gave me his card and he took my card"

Why tricks fools anybody when it can be explained with reality? I think the question "how it can be possible" is much deeper, and that's why many tricks gets unanswered, even when you know the reality what happened theres no good explanation.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 03:56AM)
Kaubell:

Well that's the crux right there :)

At what level of spectator methodological understanding are we satisfied with?

For example:
Would you be satisfied with your magic effect if the spectators 'solved' the puzzle to their own satisfaction by positing a card switch, even though they didn't know the exact mechanics behind the switch?

Maybe you would, but it seems to me that wouldn't be congruent with the various magic theories which advocate leaving the spectators with no possible clue as to how the trick was accomplished.

Maybe we need a new way of thinking about what magic is aiming to do. And I suspect that this lies close to the heart of the 'divide' between magic and mentalism.
Message: Posted by: mr_misdirection (Jun 14, 2018 04:10AM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
52 multiple outs is hardly absurd, especially to a layman. Neither is 'stooge'. Or sometimes just, 'sleight of hand'.

So it seems to me that if you have a signed card turn up somewhere odd, like in a lemon or a wallet, they will simply think 'steal and load - somehow', and they'll likely be right. If it isn't signed, they might well think 'dupe', and possibly be right. Not that being right matters, if you want them to literally have no possible idea.

I can't really think of a card to wallet that would leave the spectators with no possible solution. [/quote]

I agree that if anyone were to think long and hard about any trick they saw they could come up with a solution.
I think this depends on how the rest of the performance is structured. It's our job to make sure they're thinking of how amazed they are in that moment not at how it's done.

There is an obvious solution to every trick in my opinion but it's our calling to eliminate this in their mind. In my act I like having something signed and held by them in plain view before they destroy it themselves without me ever touching the item before it turns up in the "impossible" location.

Therefore dupe, steal, load in their mind is eliminated.
If they think about it afterwards they could come up with the solution but the way it's presented then leads them to think when could that method have possibly been done?

Misdirecting people for a living, is there a better job? Being a spy perhaps.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 06:52AM)
Misdirection:
"It's our job to make sure they're thinking of how amazed they are in that moment not at how it's done."

Maybe. But if someone doesn't wonder how something was done at least to some degree after the event, then I'd seriously question either how strong the effect was, or how interesting the presentation was. Don't we want our performances to be memorable?

It seems to me that magic that tries to be 'impossible' is caught in a conundrum - if it is strong and memorable and interesting, then it will naturally and unavoidably provoke some/most spectators to consider methodology. And if it provokes people to think of solutions then most will arrive at one - which may well be the correct one if the effect is something like card to wallet.

There are probably effects which are highly unlikely to be 'work-out-able' by the average layperson, but I doubt that card to wallet is one of them. It strikes me as belonging to the same category as linking rings and cups and balls - still entertaining, surprising, amazing etc but not leading to a sense of impossibility.

I guess mentalism side-steps this issue by providing a plausible (to some) false explanation/method - psychic powers/ NLP/ psychological influence etc. I guess gambling routines fall into this category too.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 14, 2018 07:05AM)
Card to Sealed Envelope in Wallet. I would guess that for the average non-magician spectator, there's not even a hypothesis that they come up with. It's just WTF?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 07:09AM)
I cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not, landmark????
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 07:27AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:

Maybe. But if someone doesn't wonder how something was done at least to some degree after the event, then I'd seriously question either how strong the effect was, or how interesting the presentation was. Don't we want our performances to be memorable?

There are probably effects which are highly unlikely to be 'work-out-able' by the average layperson, but I doubt that card to wallet is one of them. It strikes me as belonging to the same category as linking rings and cups and balls - still entertaining, surprising, amazing etc but not leading to a sense of impossibility.
[/quote]

I perform Card to Wallet a few hundred times every week and I constantly hear from my
audiences "Now that's impossible, mind blown" Presentation and interaction obviously plays
a role in it's impossibilty factor.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 07:47AM)
I'm sure that's true.

But a previous post mentioned that what people say, and what they think (esp afterwards) are two different things.

Or, if we take this as evidence that a card to wallet is held to be impossible by laypeople, then we should likewise take the experiences of others in this thread who note the same reactions when using an unsigned card, or even a dupe. In which case that rings us back to the initial question - signing a card doesn't seem to add anything for laypeople.
Message: Posted by: kaubell (Jun 14, 2018 07:56AM)
[quote]At what level of spectator methodological understanding are we satisfied with? [/quote]

What I mean is, for example card to wallet, they can assume it goes somehow to the wallet, but they don't know when it got there, how it got there, how its even possible, etc, and that creates the effect amazing for them. Magician can say "steal, load" and feel good, but for regular spectator everything is mystery. That mystery cant be simply explained with "load" even when its the most common way it can be done, the surroundings are much more mystery, which makes magician and spectator thinking different.

Another example: Card changes in the spectator hands.
Every card that changes must been switched. Every effect where the card changes can be explained by saying "it was switch" and that's it.
It must be switch, otherwise the card cant change itself. Theres no further explanation to that.

But why "DL card that changes in the spectator hands" is one of the strongest effects, it gets amazing reactions and they really try to figure it out without any explanation. Its a switch, that's it. They could just say it and go, what the spectator is trying to figure out? Its explained by displaying the end result. When card changes = it was switched, nothing else can be possible, you have explanation in front of you, a different card.
Change and switch both have even same meaning, you have effect and explanation bind together.

Yet, they are very powerful effects and spectator cant figure it out. A trick that clearly says "the card was switched" numbs everybody.

Even double lift is a switch.
When you do ACR they could explain the full trick "it was all switches" and go to sleep feeling great. But it don't explain it, even when the explanation is clearly in their face. They get amazed because they cant understand it how it works. It needs further explanation to get satisfied how it was done than saying "10 switches". Still it must be a switch, otherwise it cant work, but its not satisfying explanation to really say how it was done, and that makes them feel fascinated with the effect.

Its same with card to wallet. It can be load, or is it? When he did that? How he did that? How its possible? The wallet was in his pocket, he didn't touch the wallet. The zipper was closed. How the card can go there?

Its more than simply saying "its obivious for everybody, its steal and load".
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 14, 2018 08:06AM)
Terrible Wizard:

I agree with most of it. And I'm loving this discussion. It's making me re-think and re-phrase some concepts.

In general, I'm with Andy (Jerxman) on this one: "The magic feeling occurs in the gulf between what they believe is true about the world and what felt true during the course of the effect."

In most instances, I guess the method should be a impenetrable (or very difficult to solve) puzzle. And even when they come to a 'solution', there should be some conflict to it. And that, for me, it's very close to canceling out the method. (That was what I meant, for the most part, when I wrote about it in previous posts). At some level, the 'magical feeling' always come from a conflict.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of providing a plausible explanation. The main reasons are: 1) not wanting people to really believe what is not true; 2) The goal is not the belief, but the feeling; 3) If we are trying to work with believable premises, then we should take that to the next level and bring extremely unbelievable effects. 4) A plausible explanation for a plausible (but impressive) effect doesn't really generate conflict. With an impossible/extreme effect, they will deny the explanation we provide, but they will orbit it. "He didn't hypnotized me... but then, how did I see a different card from everybody?... maybe he did... no, that's no possible... It was some kind of tricked card... but I examined it... maybe everybody was lying to me... no, he just met most of my friends... maybe he hypnotized me... no, that's not possible..."

That's not to say all the tricks need to, or should, be like that. There is room for a Card to Wallet to entertain and to create a sense of amusement, even if for just some of the spectators or even if it's just for a brief time.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 08:09AM)
Speaking for myself and my experience,a signed card has significanly more impact.
Yes it depends on the routine. Last night I had a table of 6 people sign a card
along with the date. I use novelty stickers that either I or they stick on an unrelated
Indifferent card. After some fun interaction involving everyone at the table the sticker
magically appeared on the signed card. The looks on the people's faces and their respones
were priceless. They were left with a memento they said they wanted to keep.
The 6 people were related but didn't get together very often so all the signatures were
significant and meaningful for them.

An unsigned card in this instance and most instances,imo,are much less emotionally
Impact full.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 08:16AM)
Kaubell:
"What I mean is, for example card to wallet, they can assume it goes somehow to the wallet, but they don't know when it got there, how it got there, how its even possible, etc, and that creates the effect amazing for them."

But if they deduce it was by steal/load then they have, in fact, worked out 'how' it got there - as far as they are concerned, at any rate. Sure, they don't know exactly 'when', but is that really what the 'aim at impossible' theory goes for? Timing? It's the same with cups and balls in that sense - everyone knows you put the lemon under the cup, but they don't know when. Is that equivalent to 'having no possible idea'? I don't think it is.

"but for regular spectator everything is mystery"
Is it? If so, then signing adds nothing because a dupe is just as mysterious as p*lming. Laypeople know about both, and I expect they think of p*lming and hiding things up sleeves more readily than dupes, tbh.

"Another example: Card changes in the spectator hands.
Every card that changes must been switched. Every effect where the card changes can be explained by saying "it was switch" and that's it.
It must be switch, otherwise the card cant change itself. Theres no further explanation to that."

Yes, indeed. I agree. Any spectator who thinks about it will likely hit upon that methodology to explain the effect.

"it gets amazing reactions"
So does cups and balls. But it's not about not knowing the methodology. I assume many card magic tricks are the same - they know it was SOH - either a p*lm, or DL, or false deal, or control or something. And that's all they need to know to move it from 'impossible' to 'possible, but impressive'. Maybe it's the difference between pick pocketing - the method is known, but it's still amazing - and, say, a well performed self-working card trick - where the method is truly a mystery because it's based on some unheard-of mathematical principle.

"It needs further explanation to get satisfied how it was done than saying "10 switches"."

I totally agree. But then we're not talking about something being 'impossible' or 'totally inconceivable' or unknown. They 'know' the basics, but are still impressed by the execution, and mystified by the details. Which is great - and good enough - but not what some claim magi should aim at. :)


davidpaul:
Were the reactions you got with a dupe less impressive?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 08:28AM)
Ricardo:
Yes, I agree with much in your last post. Good thoughts :)

Rather than 'impossibility' I think what you wrote is a more achievable, and better, aim:
"In most instances, I guess the method should be a ... very difficult to solve puzzle. And even when they come to a 'solution', there should be some conflict to it.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 08:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2018, Terrible Wizard

davidpaul:
Were the reactions you got with a dupe less impressive? [/quote]
??? I didn't use a dupe.
And yes, it would have been significantly less impressive and emotionally impactful.
I'm going for emotionally impactful as well as memorable for my audiences.
It's ALL about THEM. Bottom line. You obviously feel different and that's fine.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 14, 2018 08:42AM)
Kaubell, Yes!

The generic explanation is not enough. Especially if, from their point of view, appreciating the progression of chronological steps that lead to the effect, they can't make that explanation fit what they saw.

I think that's why we are having a hard time discussing this. The method is not the only variable to this. And signing the card is not something that serves to all tricks. Even tricks with the same name but different methods/presentations/construction may be differently affected by the signature. I believe one of the Dani Daortiz's effect I posted before (not the "Mathemagical", the previous one, starting at 2:25) is a good example of how the signature should be used and how it adds to the effect.

Signing the card is a tool. We just need to use it the right way.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 08:58AM)
Davidpaul:
When you say it 'would' have been less impressive, but also say you didn't/haven't used a dupe, are you going by expectation or experience? Because some on this thread have already noted that using a dupe, or not signing a card, has no noticeable variation in terms of spectator impact.

Are you willing to run the experiment this week, doing your exact same card to wallet effect but not having it signed so as to compare reactions for us?

Ricardo:
At what point between 'generic' and 'highly specific' is it enough? For example, which of these is what you're aiming for:
a) I know the exact methodology of the trick, but am impressed at it's execution
b) I know how it was done, a p*lm and load, but don't know when or the exact details
c) I deduce that a steal/load must have occurred, but am baffled as to when that could have happened without me seeing
d) I deduce that a s/l likely happened, but am unsure because it didn't seem to happen
e) I have no idea at all how it happened

And would you prefer:
f) I know how it happened. Real magic.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 14, 2018 09:36AM)
Terrible Wizard,

I'm aiming at something between 'd' and 'e'. Sometimes 'd', sometimes 'e'. And sometimes 'c' is good enough.

I think 'f' is a mistake. Taking 'f' to the extreme consequences would mean eventually it's just the normality. Like in a fantasy world (like Harry Potter, for instance) magic is just the normal thing, as incredible as it can be the explanation is "It's just some spell". And if we do so much to change the spectators beliefs of what is real, how is that magic? He just accepts as being something real, and normal. That's pretty much what happens with the advances of physics and technology.

And, maybe even more important, the 'f' approach has some serious moral problems to it. That's what psychics do, that's what "alternative medicine" practitioners do.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 09:39AM)
Terrible Wizard;
I' ll be entering my 17th year performing in several restaurants weekly.
I think you are missing my point and my previous posts early on in this thread.
My experimentation, experience and asking my audiences about signed cards solidified for me
why I feel the way I do regarding this topic. Other working pro's can determine what best impacts
their audiences on the levels they feel elicit a memorable and "WOW" experience.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 09:52AM)
Ricardo:
Cool :) Do you think card to wallet is the kind of effect where e, or even d, is really possible? I'm not convinced that it is. Where would you put cups and balls or linking rings on that scale?

And does it matter where you aim? :)


davidpaul:
Yes, maybe I am. Sorry.
Can you clarify for me then: you're saying that you've done card to wallet with a dupe, and done it with a signed card steal/load, and the signed card gets much better reactions?
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 14, 2018 12:34PM)
Not sure. In general, I believe it stays in the 'c', sometimes even 'b' on that scale.

On modern times, cups and balls and linking rings would be in the same range as the card to wallet in average.

I'm not sure how to interpret the last question.
If it's a question specific to my person, then it doesn't matter to anyone where I aim.

If it's a question toward magicians in general, I think it does matter. To aim for each of those categories you described means having different objectives and thus, different method to accomplish. My belief is that the 'magical feeling' (in the general sense) of a performance is better achieved if we hit the spots near 'd' and 'e'.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 03:59PM)
Terrible Wizzard (quote)
davidpaul:
Yes, maybe I am. Sorry.
Can you clarify for me then: you're saying that you've done card to wallet with a dupe, and done it with a signed card steal/load, and the signed card gets much better reactions? [/quote]

Case in point;
I handed a lady a deck of cards and told her to pick any card she liked. I then handed her a choice of different
colored Sharpies and instructed her to sign the card. She picked the Queen of Hearts and signed it on the Queen not on the border where it would be easier to see. Fast forward to the revelation omitting the interaction.

When the card was revealed she was very surprised...BUT.... when she realized the card had her signature ( she didn't
notice it initially) she blurted out " OMG this IS MY CARD" and was excitedly showing it to others at the table.
That would not have happened if the card was not signed.

We can philosophize what matters or what doesn't. What matters to me at least is the over-the-top reactions from the people who allow me to entertain them and what it takes to achieve that outcome. It comes with experience as well as experimentation. IMO
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 14, 2018 04:16PM)
I'm definitely not into philosophising. That's why I want empirical testing: when doing the exact same trick with and without the signature, are the reactions markedly different? If you haven't tried the non-signature method then you simply don't know, even if your speculations are wholly reasonable.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 14, 2018 05:18PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2018, RiderBacks wrote:
Signed card to wallet is just obvious. It's steal and load. So one shouldn't ever do that, unless all you care about is impressing the spectator with your ability to pull that effect off without them noticing it.[/quote]

Someone could say the same exact thing about a card-to-box -- and they would be mistaken. Magicians need to be more aware of hindsight bias. It's like when Melania Trump was accused of plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech at the Republican National Convention. Initially, a lot of laypeople were skeptical: "Don't all of those speeches sound the same?" "Given this is the biggest event for a prospective First Lady, and the fact professionals are paid to write those speeches, why in the hell would anyone risk copying an already famous speech?" But of course it was plagiarized.

Spectators are filled with doubts about they've observed and what they're capable of observing. They also tend to think magician secrets are far more complicated and gadgety.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 14, 2018 09:13PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm definitely not into philosophising. That's why I want empirical testing: when doing the exact same trick with and without the signature, are the reactions markedly different? If you haven't tried the non-signature method then you simply don't know, even if your speculations are wholly reasonable. [/quote]

Really ??? Are you serious? The card could have been a dupe as far as the woman was concerned because she didn't
notice her signature only that it was the card she picked. When her signature came into focus for her, that's when her
reactions were over the top.

I'll continue to have cards signed and you can do what you think best for you.
Experience and proactive evaluation of the effects we perform and how they impact our audiences are our best teachers.

I have plenty of examples but the above scenario is sufficient and common in my experience.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 15, 2018 04:14AM)
Yes, I'm serious. I'm a bit of an empiricist at heart. I prefer evidence and experiment to theory.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 15, 2018 09:55AM)
A signed-card locks the dupe-door.
Some audiences will never try the handle.
Message: Posted by: Mike Powers (Jun 15, 2018 10:44AM)
Succinct and to the point Mr. Salk.

Mike
Message: Posted by: Cain (Jun 15, 2018 04:21PM)
One way to dispel the idea of dupes, and it's even effective if the card is signed, is to show that the selected card is no longer in the deck. Spectators are inclined to assume that if the card's not in the deck, it must already be, um, somewhere else. For a palm version this is effective because spectators assume the card has already been loaded away, when, in fact, it's hidden in the deck, and you're going to secretly palm and load it in a moment. I forget Ortiz's term for this in [i]Designing Miracles[/i] but I want to say he called it "time displacement."

Dani DaOrtiz uses dupes for a card-to-wallet trick. In fact, he has a couple of clever ruses going on, but manages to satisfy what I regard as the important points: 1) the selection feels free (because to some extent it IS free); 2) the card vanishes (or apparently vanishes) from the deck, so it must already be somewhere else; 3) the wallet is established as the inevitable destination, so it's not a [i]deus ex machina[/i].
Message: Posted by: Mike Powers (Jun 15, 2018 04:57PM)
One ruse for card to wallet is to use Convincing Control to seemingly outjog the selection when it has secretly been moved to the bottom. Now you can bottom palm the card and load your wallet. The wallet now is on the table as you openly square the deck. It's more difficult to reverse engineer this since it seems that the selection was in view while the wallet was under spectator control. But the card must be signed in order to cancel the theory that a duplicate is in play. I'm a firm believer in the theory that signed cards close more doors than unsigned cards.

Of course very analytical specs will give up assumptions that lead to dead ends and try out a different theory. The sequence above is certainly not unassailable.

Gaffs that are virtually inconceivable, like a CSB coin, can really bend people's brain. There's no way to figure out what happened without understanding the gaff. But this is getting off subject.

Mike
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 16, 2018 03:33AM)
I'm beginning to think that there's an inherent weakness with the card to wallet effect - whether signed or unsigned a spec who thinks about it will probably hit upon the right methodology, at least in a general sense. If you are happy to just entertain, impress and even temporarily puzzle spectators then this is a great effect. But if you're aiming for the high ground of, 'leave them no possible solution' then this isn't the effect to do that. I would place card to wallet in the same category as linking rings and cups and balls.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 16, 2018 03:42AM)
[quote]On Jun 15, 2018, Mike Powers wrote:
One ruse for card to wallet is to use Convincing Control to seemingly outjog the selection when it has secretly been moved to the bottom. Now you can bottom palm the card and load your wallet. The wallet now is on the table as you openly square the deck. It's more difficult to reverse engineer this since it seems that the selection was in view while the wallet was under spectator control. But the card must be signed in order to cancel the theory that a duplicate is in play. I'm a firm believer in the theory that signed cards close more doors than unsigned cards.

Of course very analytical specs will give up assumptions that lead to dead ends and try out a different theory. The sequence above is certainly not unassailable.

Gaffs that are virtually inconceivable, like a CSB coin, can really bend people's brain. There's no way to figure out what happened without understanding the gaff. But this is getting off subject.

Mike [/quote]

Mike you always offer great practical solutions :)
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Jun 16, 2018 09:39AM)
[quote]On Jun 16, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm beginning to think that there's an inherent weakness with the card to wallet effect - whether signed or unsigned a spec who thinks about it will probably hit upon the right methodology, at least in a general sense. If you are happy to just entertain, impress and even temporarily puzzle spectators then this is a great effect. But if you're aiming for the high ground of, 'leave them no possible solution' then this isn't the effect to do that. I would place card to wallet in the same category as linking rings and cups and balls. [/quote]

There are of course methods that will destroy that. For example having the wallet in the speccys hands till the reveal for example.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jun 16, 2018 09:49AM)
[quote]On Jun 16, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm beginning to think that there's an inherent weakness with the card to wallet effect - whether signed or unsigned a spec who thinks about it will probably hit upon the right methodology, at least in a general sense. If you are happy to just entertain, impress and even temporarily puzzle spectators then this is a great effect. But if you're aiming for the high ground of, 'leave them no possible solution' then this isn't the effect to do that. I would place card to wallet in the same category as linking rings and cups and balls. [/quote]

My observation and it's only an observation is that you don't perform for varied audiences on an ongoing bases or for
any length of time. ( weekly, monthly,seldom )

You are thinking, in this case, Card to Wallet, in the abstract. You are NOT taking into consideration CTW as a
routine" The interaction, the verbage, by- play, other people involved, the context etc.

That's a mistake, because magic is more than something is shown, it dissappears, and ends up somewhere else.
It's obvious regarding your thought process by reading your posts but untill you are out in the trenches performing
for many personality types in varied venues on a consistent basis and learning through experience, you KNOW what
works and what is truly perceived.
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 16, 2018 10:11AM)
[quote]On Jun 16, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'm beginning to think that there's an inherent weakness with the card to wallet effect - whether signed or unsigned a spec who thinks about it will probably hit upon the right methodology, at least in a general sense. If you are happy to just entertain, impress and even temporarily puzzle spectators then this is a great effect. But if you're aiming for the high ground of, 'leave them no possible solution' then this isn't the effect to do that. I would place card to wallet in the same category as linking rings and cups and balls. [/quote]

Do you believe it's (at least theoretically) possible to overcome that by changing most of the trick's structure/presentation/procedures?

I mean, If a layman is presented solely with the starting situation and final situation of a trick, it is possible for them to hit the method (most of the time). In ACR, a creative spectator may even come up with methods pretty close to what we use as techniques. But don't you believe the time line is an important aspect of how the facts and magic are perceived by the spectators? And I don't think we are taking that into account. Or maybe not in the same way.

An off topic example:
Things floating, specifically in close-up magic. There are not many possibilities to that. And if we present a trick about how we make something float, maybe we will hit mostly 'C' in the "Terrible Wizard's Scale" (now an official scale for measuring spectator's comprehension). But what if the trick is not about objects flying, but about something else that is causing, among other things, an object to float. [Lame example alert]: maybe your niece is sleeping in the other room, and she is causing some sort of poltergeist effects. You, and the spect, hear a sound on the kitchen and there lies a broken cup;when you go back to the living room, there is a painting upside down; then you hear a chair falling behind of you; up to now all of the things had moved while you weren't looking, that may lay the ground to accept something strange is happening; when the ring that was on the center table takes off in front of you, the other senses and the brain are already dealing with the other strange things. The trick, then, is not about how the ring floated, but how your niece's childhood traumas are turning your house the stage of a horror movie. That's a completely different story.

I believe (but I personally don't see it happening nor have any ideas how to do it) that the same could be possible with a 'card to wallet'. I mean, I completely believe there are more capable and creative people than me to solve that one. And by making the effects part of something bigger, it's not only more difficult to dismiss it, but also, we will probably be closer to the levels 'e' and 'd', at least during the "performance".
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 16, 2018 11:44AM)
Interesting points, Ricardo. Maybe. Do you think that the weaknesses in the linking rings could likewise be overcome?
Message: Posted by: Ricardo Delgado (Jun 16, 2018 12:21PM)
Not sure.

But I'm tending to say that no. At least in the "classic" sense. Mainly because it's a very unusual prop to have and to make it fit in other situations.

But that isn't to say we can't apply the same principles to, let's say, key rings. If Icm not mistaken, Sankey has a linking key rings routine, which could more easily be applied in other situations and other plots.

By the way, if it's not already clear, my thoughts are heavily influenced by The Jerx Blog.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Jun 21, 2018 09:23AM)
Does signing a card really detract the effect or make it less powerful? thoughts?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Jun 21, 2018 09:35AM)
Lunatik:
Maybe. It leads to only one possible solution, I think, for CTW effects.
Message: Posted by: Churken2 (Jun 21, 2018 11:26AM)
There are very few card effects that require a signature. Most would work fine without the signature.

That being said, having a card signed rarely detracts from an effect. In addition, having a card signed can often add to an effect in terms of presentation, by play or leading the spectator down the garden path. In this way, maybe it is good to have cards signed in order to get more out of the effect from a presentation standpoint.
Message: Posted by: warren (Jun 21, 2018 12:25PM)
I think you can get some fun out of having the card marked in some way which obviously adds to the entertainment point of view especially if you get the spectator to draw something on the card rather than just sign it.

Another interesting point that I heard during a lecture not so long ago was when this particular magician was leaving the venue most of the signed cards that he gave away as a souvenir were just left behind on the tables rather than being kept, I think this may possibly be down to the routine rather than the magician as I can remember bumping into someone I had performed for at TGI Fridays a few months earlier and they pulled out a card I had given them which I had drawn a stick man on to and they had added magic wand to the picture...obviously the card was also signed for the routine hence me mentioning it but the focus was on the stick man landing on their card rather than the signature.