|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Steve Burton Loyal user 258 Posts 
|
Jim Ryan's version, Red Hot Mama, doesn't use a double and I think that's the best way to do it. Too much heat on the turnover because of the color change.
|
|||||||||
|
James F Inner circle Atlanta 1096 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2017, danaruns wrote: How does turning a card over like that look suspicious? Hand a deck to someone and ask them to turn the card over on top of the deck. They will either do what looks like a push off double or maybe turn it end for end pulling it from the far short end and rotate it onto the top. What they wont do is lift it up in biddle position and turn their wrist over. |
|||||||||
|
lynnef Inner circle 1407 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2017, Steve Burton wrote: I don't think there's too much heat; but I do thank you for the reference to Jim Ryan, one of the originators of the trick! As for helping the OP (getting back to BobG), I'd like to suggest the locked topic on the DL with many many threads on the apparently debatable DL! Lynn |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2017, lynnef wrote: I researched this when I taught it to a group of magicians, and the information I found is that the first published version was the Hot Card Trick No. 1 by Al Leech, marketed in 1950 by The Ireland Magic Company, and then made popular by Frank Everhart as Chicago Opener when published by Frank Garcia in Million Dollar Card Secrets (1972). I think that's accurate.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
lynnef Inner circle 1407 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2017, danaruns wrote: This is accurate; but then who named it "Red Hot Mama" is apparently a debate. (I opened a topic on this in the Café in 2010, and got different responses). Some say Al Leech called it 'red hot mama', but the name first appears with Jim Ryan. And now that I hear Ryan's version does not use a double, I'm wondering if its the same effect at all! Are Chicago Opener and Red Hot Mama indeed the same effect?? I first learned "Red Hot Mama" off a Michael Ammar tape; and it was credited to "Ryan,Leech,Everhart". Yikes! Lynn |
|||||||||
|
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts
|
Al Leech originally called it "Red Hot Card Trick". Jim Ryan called it "Red Hot Mama".
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
Hi everybody,
People have been posting all kinds of great info without my realizing it! I apparently forgot to subscribe to the thread that I started. Oops. I'll reply to some of people's ideas in the next day or two. In another thread, lots of people generously gave me tips on the DL, which I'm practicing daily. No one needs to convince me that it's a valuable move. Sure, I could wait a year or so until I have a consistently accurate DL and then perform Chicago Opener (which is the same trick as Red Hot Mama, isn't it?). But why wait if in the meantime I can play with another method? Lynn, Yikes indeed! Ammar is one of my sources for Red Hot Mama, too. He does use a DL, as you know, and the trick looks just like other sources that I've seen that were called Chicago Opener. I'm not a historian, but it sure looks like in current usage the two names are just different labels for the same trick. Thanks everybody, Bob |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
P. S. to Steve Burton. Steve, would you be willing to explain, perhaps in a PM, what method you use to perform the trick without a DL? At this point none of us seems to be certain about what to *call* the trick, but it sounds like you have a good method.
Thanks... |
|||||||||
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2017, danaruns wrote: That's not quite entirely true Dana. I was also a personal student of Eugene's (through the Mystery School) going back nearly twenty years now. Eugene maintained that position because it is *mostly* true. He was also the first to admit that he was not terribly good at some sleights, and the DL was one of them. I think saying that there are "no good turnovers" is going a little too far. And to the original poster: Just work on your double lift. It really isn't that hard and simply takes some concerted effort. I am a little old-fashioned in the sense that I firmly believe one should master a routine well enough to be able to perform it competently before audiences without needing to resort to aids like tape, wax, or glue. Not trying to trample on others who have suggested these aids, but I honestly don't feel substituting a simple move for these crutches is good advice. |
|||||||||
|
James F Inner circle Atlanta 1096 Posts
|
[quote]On Sep 22, 2017, Sudo Nimh wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2017, danaruns wrote: That's not quite entirely true Dana. I was also a personal student of Eugene's (through the Mystery School) going back nearly twenty years now. Eugene maintained that position because it is *mostly* true. He was also the first to admit that he was not terribly good at some sleights, and the DL was one of them. I think saying that there are "no good turnovers" is going a little too far. And to the original poster: Just work on your double lift. It really isn't that hard and simply takes some concerted effort. I am a little old-fashioned in the sense that I firmly believe one should master a routine well enough to be able to perform it competently before audiences without needing to resort to aids like tape, wax, or glue. Not trying to trample on others who have suggested these aids, but I honestly don't feel substituting a simple move for these crutches is good advice. [/quot I get what you're saying but it really depends. If you use those crutches to avoid ever learning the DL, then yes I agree. But if you're actively working on the DL but want to perform a trick using it and your DL isn't there yet, I don't see an issue. As long as the substitute you're using doesn't damage the effect at all. I have been PMing Bob and I can assure you he is actively working on the DL. |
|||||||||
Leo-Kim Veteran user 359 Posts
|
Use a thick card. Flawless strike doubles and triples without any get ready.
Of course you have to adapt the routine to allow for the thick card but I have done it ( and I have a good DL anyway) and it works beautifully! Micke J Sweden
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well (Donald Duck)
|
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2017, Leo-Kim wrote: Agreed. I feel that this would be a much better option than using adhesives. |
|||||||||
|
Steve Burton Loyal user 258 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2017, Bob G wrote: Hi Bob, Dana Runs and Bobby Forbes have already pointed to Ryan's method in this thread. The card is a stranger and usually just used for this one effect, so why not throw in a bit of gimmickry? Especially since it makes the handling so nonchalant. Separating the two is really not a problem as it seems as though the effect is over at that point and their attention relaxes. |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
Got it -- thanks, Steve.
|
|||||||||
|
tltq Regular user east coast 161 Posts
|
To Bobby
Before I post a sequence. I have a question. After you get your break, what do you do with the cards above the odd-backed card |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
To Sudo Nimh (Pseudonym, I guess, no? -- gosh I'm feeling intelligent tonight haha): I'm finding that I'm old fashioned in the same way. Logically, I'm not sure why it should matter: tricks are based on trickery, after all, so why should it matter whether the trickery is accomplished with gaffs or with sleight of hand? Nevertheless, every time I decide to use a gaff, I find myself practicing a sleight. Are we just stodgy purists, or is there some defense of the position that sleight of hand is in some way "better" than gaffs?
|
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
And thanks for everyone who's made encouraging remarks about the DL. I'm practicing it a lot, and it's definitely getting better. I do think that I'll get it to the point where I'm comfortable using it in a performance.
But I find this particular sleight scary in a way that other basic ones don't, and I finally figured out why. It seems like if you blow it once then you've let your audience in on the secret, and then when are you going to be able to use it again? If you have a small audience (in my case my family and a few friends), the sleight is dead for your purposes, isn't it? --Mind you, I'd be happy to be talked out of that position... |
|||||||||
|
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts
|
Lynn,
Thanks for all the interesting ideas. Is the Altman trap what I think it is? -- catching the double in the heel of the hand as it lands? If I'm right about that, can you describe it or suggest a reference, please, that gives the details? (Inexpensive would be great.) Sometimes I find that the double (or single for that matter) bounces around when it lands, and I'd like to avoid that. Bob |
|||||||||
Last Laugh Inner circle Grass Valley, California 3498 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2017, Steve Burton wrote: Wait, what? I was always under the impression that Chicago Opener and Red Hot Mama were the same trick? If it doesn't use a double, then what does it use?
My Mentalism Podcast:
The Mystery Arts Podcast Check out my products! Direct from me (PW: cassidy) On Penguin Magic |
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2017, Bob G wrote: Hi Bob. (yes - pseudonym) 
Though I generally tend to prefer sleights, I'm not against using a gaff or gimmick if it strengthens an illusion or enhances the impact. If you are really having difficulty or discomfort with the DL, a thick card (as was suggested earlier) will help you to easily execute the DL without you having to muck about with less user-friendly aids. They also offer a wide range of versatility for other uses. There are a small number of professionals who make use of one in their deck, so it is worth giving it a spin - you may even really like it. 
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Chicago Opener without DL?? (6 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 19, 2017 06:14 am 
| [ 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 < 
|