|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
magicstudent8416 Regular user 172 Posts |
I don't like the blaine one where you do the fake fast change and smash the card into their hand and back again. Seems rather silly to me.
I really like david williamsons version here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cEhIHqSOJ8 So what is the name of the trick he is doing here? is it actually memory test or something else? and what publications can it be found in? This way is much smoother than that clunky fake out card exchange of blaine's imo. Or now I watch it again is it the same trick just with Williamson's added smoothness and different patter? |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
The original trick is Eddie Fechter's "Be Honest, What Is It?" I don't believe Williamson's trick can be found in any print publications, but it is on his Magic Farm DVD.
As far as both presentational hooks and basic handlings, I'd say Williamson's is the ideal version of Fechter's trick. Although you CAN perform the original trick in a slower, less crass way than Blaine. |
|||||||||
magicstudent8416 Regular user 172 Posts |
Thanks. Oh yes I remember some time ago when asking about the blaine version people mentioned Fecher's as the original but I never got around to looking it up which I shall have to do to get a better understanding of how the contemporaries adapted it.
|
|||||||||
Zauberman Veteran user 314 Posts |
Paul LePaul took Eddie Fechter's idea and published it in his book, 'The Card Magic of Paul LePaul' ..P.49 - 'A Magical Transposition'
|
|||||||||
magicstudent8416 Regular user 172 Posts |
I have been looking up warp daly's last trick and it is very similar to that isn't it.
I think I'll just do the daly one as it will fit neatly after twisting the aces as evidenced nicely by Michael Ammar. |
|||||||||
hhoudini New user 13 Posts |
Similar, but Daly's trick is a transposition. Fechter's is a transformation...the cards that end up in the performer and the spectator's hands have not previously been seen to be on play. It is for this reason that I think Fechter's effect is far stronger.
|
|||||||||
pepka Inner circle Uh, I'm the one on the right. 5041 Posts |
It drives me crazy when people call this 2 card monte. They are two COMPLETELY different tricks. I do a routine with Be Honest What Is it, Twisting the Aces, Doc Daley's Last Trick and then Overture by Phil Goldstein. A LOT of magic with just 4 cards.
|
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2017, pepka wrote: Calm down. We all start somewhere. As long as the person is informed of the correct name, it doesn't matter. If you truly want to be pedantic, I could say that it's wrong to call it "Daley's Last Trick" because a) the correct title is "The Last Trick of Dr. Jacob Daley," and b) neither the effect nor the method are original with him. But I won't. Because this kind of pedantry is a useless waste of energy. It's just card tricks. |
|||||||||
FalseDeal New user 76 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2017, Rupert Pupkin wrote: Did you check out his website? I don't think I've ever seen someone tip their entire act on their website before! Pepka has been a devoted sleight of hand artist for over 20 years. An expert playing card manipulator, Pepka does not perform mere card tricks that everyone's uncle does. In his hands, playing cards appear, vanish, change color and have a life of their own. While playing cards are his favorite medium, the way other artists work in oils or watercolor, he does not limit himself. When you watch him perform, you are also likely to see silver coins travel invisibly from one hand to another, small rubber balls appear, vanish and change to a piece of fruit, your favorite piece of jewelry vanishes only to reappear where you least expect it. All of this is done with such charm and grace that always takes away the sting that you have just been fooled.....badly. Audiences who have seen him all agree, it's a good thing he uses his skills.......for entertainment only. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2017, Rupert Pupkin wrote: He is calm. And he is right. And yes, it does matter. The "Daley's Last Trick" analogy doesn't work here as it is the same effect as "The Last Trick of..." Fechters Be Honest What is It? is not the same as Two Card Monte. Two totally different effects. To call it by its name is not pedantic. It is respectful to the creator, our craft, its history and lineage. If you believe these are "just card tricks" that's fine. But to the beginner I would advise to the contrary. Card tricks can be elevated to the realm of high art by an artist who holds them in due regard. Cardini, Hofzinser, Vernon etc. Eddie Fechter was/is a giant in the world of closeup card magic. A legend. A man who's work must be studied, preserved, and for some, revered. The very least a student can do to begin his journey, is to hold the effect in due regard, find out who created it, why he created it that way, what made it so strong, and call it by its proper name. Not only does it matter, little can be of greater importance in striving to maintain the elevation of the craft we inherit from its masters. |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 21, 2017, magicfish wrote: You're right, that's somehow worse to me. Quote:
To call it by its name is not pedantic. It is when you chastise beginners for it. Quote:
It is respectful to the creator, our craft, its history and lineage. Agreed. Quote:
If you believe these are "just card tricks" that's fine. I mean I was low-key quoting Elmsley, but yeah, I do. Quote:
But to the beginner I would advise to the contrary. Card tricks can be elevated to the realm of high art by an artist who holds them in due regard. Cardini, Hofzinser, Vernon etc. Sure, okay. It's fun to get beginners jazzed by leading them to believe that, I guess. But saying it drives you "crazy" when they call something by a different name is the opposite way to get them jazzed about magic. Quote:
Eddie Fechter was/is a giant in the world of closeup card magic. A legend. A man who's work must be studied, preserved, and for some, revered. Yes. Quote:
The very least a student can do to begin his journey, is to hold the effect in due regard, find out who created it, why he created it that way, what made it so strong, and call it by its proper name. Correct. I'm not taking issue with the concept of crediting a name correctly. Like, at all. What I take issue with are grown men losing it over beginners making a simple mistake. We're only furthering our image as emotionally stunted, developmentally arrested children when we react this way. Have a little perspective here, guys. And react accordingly. Quote:
Not only does it matter, little can be of greater importance in striving to maintain the elevation of the craft we inherit from its masters. Agreed. Now see last comment. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
If that was the case, you might have a point- but it isn't. A search will show that this 'beginner' has been coached by many members here repeatedly of the origin of the effect and yet he persists in showing up every so often to ask about Blaine's 2 card monte.
It's a game. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
||||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
How many more times are you going to correct our young 'beginner' before you become pedantic Rupert?
|
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Game, set, match.
Until next time, Moriarty. |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2017, magicfish wrote: Dude. Cheeky isn't a good look on you. Also, excellent set of mixed idioms ya got there Quote:
How many more times are you going to correct our young 'beginner' before you become pedantic Rupert? Wow, I could say "QED" right here and be done with it, but that would almost be TOO easy. I'll break this down. First, the answer is "none many times," because if a poster continues to ask a dumb question, I just stop paying attention and/or don't feel the need to respond. Why? Because this is the Magic Café -- dumb questions are literally what holds this site together. Also, I simply do. Not. Care. But more to the point, your bringing this up as if it's some smoking gun that OP is worthy of quivering pedantry, illustrates my point perfectly. He acknowledged his mistake in this very thread, and immediately after my (measured, adult) response. Then carried on with substantial conversation. But most importantly, this has only happened once before. And you still think it's worthy to bring up and use as an example? That speaks volumes. (Your sad, smarmy Moriarty button only helped bolster the silliness, by the way. Go easy on that next time, amigo.) |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
No. It hasn't.
|
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
I'm sorry you've had to endure that. How many times has it happened now? Should I quote Colonel Kurtz?
|
|||||||||
furmanmatt Loyal user New York 217 Posts |
Williamson's version is amazing. I made one small change and now it is a masterpiece. I put it in one of my videos, can't remember which one.
|
|||||||||
ebackes88 Regular user 153 Posts |
It's on magic farm, and his ridiculous set
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » David williamson 'memory test' or other versions of two card monte? (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 < |