|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
As a spin-off from another thread I got thinking about what sort of effects (not actual tricks) cannot be accomplished via SWing methods.
The only one I've come up with so far is a visible colour change. What else? |
|||||||||
marc_carrion Special user 639 Posts |
It all depends on what you mean by SWing, does it need to be 'convincing' too?
I can think of some... torn and restored, anything with a signed card (signed to impossible location), anything that involves the mercury fold, cards across, ... you can probably find SWing for some of these, but the restrictions or the procedures may tip to the method easily... for instance, if I get the ace of spades and torn it, and now it appears again in the box, everyone will know that there was one duplicate one in the box before you started... can you show the box empty? sure, but that is not longer SWing... ACR can be done absolutely SWing with a one way force deck but you can not show the cards, and you can not get it signed... add restrictions and you need to do 'some' sleight at some point... a poker demonstration... without some shuffle work it will be pointless, people will know you have stacked the deck ahead of time, etc.... so, when you say SWing you should inlcude what do 'simple' techniques would you allow for an effect to still be called SWing. Marc |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Hmmm. Torn an restored can be done without sleights (?) and without tearing a card, but I'm not sure that qualifies as SWing - so you might be right!
It's difficult to measure what counts as convincing or not. For example, an ambitious card effect can be done with a normal deck (not a force deck) but not with a signed card. But do laypeople find the lack of signature much less strong? Dunno. I've got reactions with stuff that magicians would see through in a second, lol But generally, I think restrictions will require sleights, yes, you're right . But why add restrictions?? |
|||||||||
marc_carrion Special user 639 Posts |
Restrictions that reinforce the difference between the initial situation and the end situation make the effect stronger... If I lose a card in the deck, but it's not clear it's the only one, finding it is not as strong... if it is clear from the beginning that there is only one (even if it is not true) then the coming back to the top is stronger... so, I agree with you, there are a lot of effects that can be done with self-working methods (some are really strong with gaffed decks) but that does not mean that for every effect, the selfworking is convincing.
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
True. We agree. Or at least, I reckon that SWers can provide for most effects convincingly, but sleights can, for some effects, make them more convincing.
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
TerribleW,
As you know I'm interested in color changes. Would you be willing to share your SW change? Thanks, Bob |
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Oops! I misread your message. You're saying that such a change *cannot* be accomplished w/o sleights.
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Lol
No worries. I have yet to find a SW colour change. But many other effects can be done SW, even ones people don't normally consider SW, like Chicago Opener and an Ambitious Card effect. |
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Gosh -- I really like the idea of doing a SW Chicago Opener. Can you suggest a source? (And thanks again, by the way, for your excellent advice about charting a path through the labyrinth of Magic.)
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
There is no source. I haven't changed the trick, or the sleights involved, just used a product to make the DL skill-less (I used Science Friction). It looks better than even a decent DL, so even though I've now learned to do a passable DL (after about six solid years of practice, lol) I still use a sticky card. Since it's a stranger card it being a little sticky makes no odds after the trick is done. I used to do RHM after FTT and after a few shuffles - all that being SWing too, lol
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Clever!
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Not really, but thanks
|
|||||||||
Poof-Daddy Inner circle Considering Stopping At Exactly 5313 Posts |
Not sure I understand the question. A self working effect, by definition, is self working. Otherwise, it requires "work" and is therefore "Not" self working. Could you clarify a bit as to where "I" am not understanding the topic?
I have been reading a lot lately and often jump back to "Destination Zero" where John Bannon's definition is clearly set out. I often find similar effects that are "Not" self working but the premise is the same. Most often, I find the effect that uses moves to be a better effect overall. Maybe this is what you mean? Thanks.
Cancer Sux - It is time to find a Cure
Don't spend so much time trying not to die that you forget how to live - H's wife to H on CSI Miami (paraphrased). |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
What's your definition of work and self-working, poof-daddy?
And remind me of what Bannon's is, if you could please. For me, I'm basically using the term self-working to mean, 'accomplished without the need for practised sleights; physically easily to do; comparatively skill-less with regard to manual dexterity and legerdemain.' The OP is asking what general effects, like a transposition, card to impossible location, finding a lost card, prediction, lie detection etc, cannot be accomplished by SWing methods (ie all methods apart from practised sleights or comparatively skilful manual handling). An example in my mind is the effect of 'visible colour change' - I cannot think of how that could be accomplished without difficult sleight of hand. Does that help any? |
|||||||||
marc_carrion Special user 639 Posts |
Quote:
On May 17, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote: Yes, the definition of SW is important, I think the agreement is almost selfworking, or not requiring much sleight of hand... for instance reversing a card from a spread when closing the spread would not qualify, but reversing a card while your back is turned on the spectators (of course with the justification of not looking) could be considered SW for the purposes of this thread... Also, I can at least envision one visible color change that would be SW... if you are using Science friction you can use that for the paint brush change... is that what it is called? when you use a double to brush the face of the top card on the deck and release the bottom on the double on top of the card? It is visual, and with Science friction should be very easy. |
|||||||||
marc_carrion Special user 639 Posts |
Here is a color change that can be selfworking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lY3HjcnNk someone is selling it in the Tricks section, full disclosure, I don't know the seller and the reviews of the product I read are pretty bad
|
|||||||||
Poof-Daddy Inner circle Considering Stopping At Exactly 5313 Posts |
Bannon's prerequisite to the effects he chose for "Destination Zero" is covered over a couple pages. Basically though, there are no "moves" meaning the secret manipulation of the cards. Example - a 'shuffle' is "not a move" but a 'false shuffle' - that retains a packet on top of the deck "is". An 'in the hands cut' - "is not" - yet a 'double undercut' - "is". He further establishes that a self working effect relies on a subtlety, mathematical principle or pre-designed system. Many of the effects in the book can be done using "moves" (and he does give some examples throughout in an "afterthought" type paragraph). Often, a move makes the effect "better" in one way or another, but he keeps to the "self working criteria" in all the effects in the book.
Your definition seems to linger between Bannon's definition and a "non-self working" effect since a DL using Science Friction spray is still a double lift and therefore a "move" (albeit easier than a traditional DL). That was all I was asking. "How self working" do you mean when compared to "cannot be accomplished without". I do not know Karl Fulves definition of self working but based on the number of self working effects he has in print, there are certainly plenty out there.
Cancer Sux - It is time to find a Cure
Don't spend so much time trying not to die that you forget how to live - H's wife to H on CSI Miami (paraphrased). |
|||||||||
Poof-Daddy Inner circle Considering Stopping At Exactly 5313 Posts |
Quote:
On May 16, 2017, Poof-Daddy wrote: This post was not meant to be a challenge or to be taken the wrong way. I just wanted to better understand exactly what the topic was so I could add my thoughts. Especially since I have been reading a ton lately and am bouncing back and forth between "Destination Zero" - All SW as per Bannon's definition set forth in the first pages of the book and a myriad of "non self working" books like (my short list for now): Secrets of Bro John Hamman - Kaufman Cardially Yours - Marlo 52 Memories - Gladwin Jennings 67 - Kaufman And seeing the differences in their strengths as well as weaknesses intrigues me. Something along the same lines to consider in my opinion would be breaking down effect types/plots. I remember reading somewhere that there are only so many (and it is a fairly small number) of "plots" in magic. Ie. - http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/......fication then see Giobbi's Basic Effects of Card Magic. This may help narrow down "some" effect types that can only be done with "moves/sleights" as opposed to Self Working.
Cancer Sux - It is time to find a Cure
Don't spend so much time trying not to die that you forget how to live - H's wife to H on CSI Miami (paraphrased). |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Yes, my definition is somewhat inbetween Bannon's and maybe the term semi-automatic, and that seems 'better' to me.
For example, Bannon seems to think that a Jay Ose cut is self-working, though that is really a secret move - it is a false cut, though skill-less - but this seems a little in contradiction to his own definition. A top stock retention Rosetta shuffle likewise (as on his Move Zero DVDs). Would the ID be self-working? Not under Bannon's definition, I think, probably not 8 card brainwave either. It's tricky. This is why I prefer to think of SW in terms of skill rather than sleights - technically an Ose cut is a sleight, but it is virtually skill-less (in terms of manual dexterity). Likewise the use of a Hindu shuffle force or false Rosetta or the use of many gaff cards or decks. Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter . Maybe the simplest, broadest definition is best - a SWer is a very easy to do trick! |
|||||||||
Uli Weigel Inner circle Berlin, Germany 1478 Posts |
As soon as language and spectators get involved, the term self-working looses all meaning. Just a thought.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » What effects cannot be SWing? (2 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |