|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
KazMagic New user 72 Posts 
|
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.
|
|||||||||
|
warren Inner circle uk 4166 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 19, 2018, KazMagic wrote: 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 ? |
|||||||||
|
AJ MAJIC Loyal user 287 Posts
|
Yes😉
|
|||||||||
CR_Shelton New user 84 Posts
|
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.
An actor is a magician performing the illusion of reality.
www.ActingMagician.com |
|||||||||
evikshin Special user 892 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 5, 2018, warren wrote: 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. |
|||||||||
|
AsL Special user 680 Posts
|
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 |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
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.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
Steven Keyl Inner circle Washington, D.C. 2630 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 23, 2018, evikshin wrote: 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.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!
B2B Magazine Test! Best impromptu progressive Ace Assembly ever! "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain |
|||||||||
|
Yehuda Elite user 413 Posts
|
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 |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
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?
|
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 7, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote: The two are related (but different). Yes, my version is not a card-to-impossible location effect. The effect 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. 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?"
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
warren Inner circle uk 4166 Posts
|
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 |
|||||||||
Rainboguy Inner circle 1915 Posts
|
YES.
Duh! |
|||||||||
|
warren Inner circle uk 4166 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 10, 2018, Rainboguy wrote: Care to expand ? |
|||||||||
|
Merc Man Inner circle NUNEATON, Warwickshire 2538 Posts
|
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.
Barry Allen
Over 15 years have now passed - and still missing Abra Magazine arriving every Saturday morning. |
|||||||||
|
Doomo Inner circle 2364 Posts
|
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.
On Jun 7, 2018, Cain wrote: Tony
If you ever get to a point where words have no meaning, you're probably talking to a dog.
Remember! More Bang For LESS Bucks! It is the right way! www.rfaproductions.com |
|||||||||
|
Doomo Inner circle 2364 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 11, 2018, Merc Man wrote: Which is why I start with the wallet sitting in the speccys hand till the big reveal....
If you ever get to a point where words have no meaning, you're probably talking to a dog.
Remember! More Bang For LESS Bucks! It is the right way! www.rfaproductions.com |
|||||||||
|
Rainboguy Inner circle 1915 Posts
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
GlennLawrence Veteran user Randolph NJ 321 Posts
|
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!"
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Does signing the card really add to the effect ? (31 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 19, 2018 06:22 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|