The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Does signing the card really add to the effect ? (31 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
Harry Lorayne
View Profile
V.I.P.
New York City
7944 Posts

Profile of Harry Lorayne
Since I always use THEIR deck, signing the card accomplishes nothing - and I'd be ruining one of THEIR cards/decks.
[email]harrylorayne@earthlink.net[/email]

http://www.harrylorayne.com
http://www.harryloraynemagic.com
Rainboguy
View Profile
Inner circle
1731 Posts

Profile of Rainboguy
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!
Merc Man
View Profile
Inner circle
Nuneaton, Warwickshire
2562 Posts

Profile of Merc Man
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.

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! Smile
Barry Allen

"The Rules of the Sleight-of-Hand Artist, are three and all others are vain; the first and second are 'practice', and the third one is 'practice again'.

Edward Victor 1936
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1479 Posts

Profile of Cain
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.
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


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.
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!"
Aaron Smith Magic
View Profile
Inner circle
Portland, OR
1376 Posts

Profile of Aaron Smith Magic
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?


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.
Rainboguy
View Profile
Inner circle
1731 Posts

Profile of Rainboguy
Merc Man:

I find your post to be insulting.
warren
View Profile
Inner circle
uk
2741 Posts

Profile of warren
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.


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.
brucewilcox
View Profile
Loyal user
Readers advised to disregard most of my
266 Posts

Profile of brucewilcox
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?".
...in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the B'Wave.
obrienmagic
View Profile
Elite user
490 Posts

Profile of obrienmagic
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.)
PICK UP YOUR FREE GIFT HERE!
http://www.obrienmagic.com/signup

Want to sell your own magic creations at O'Brien Magic Shop?
http://www.obrienmagic.com/communitymarketplace

Official Magic Products
http://www.obrienmagic.com/magic-shop
Ricardo Delgado
View Profile
Loyal user
230 Posts

Profile of Ricardo Delgado
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!
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1479 Posts

Profile of Cain
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?


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.


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 are equal. If nothing else, having a card signed can break-up the monotony in a set of card tricks.
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
View Profile
Inner circle
uk
2741 Posts

Profile of warren
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.
kaubell
View Profile
New user
80 Posts

Profile of kaubell
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."


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.
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
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. Smile Tbh, either way they solve the problem - so what dos it matter?
warren
View Profile
Inner circle
uk
2741 Posts

Profile of warren
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
Ricardo Delgado
View Profile
Loyal user
230 Posts

Profile of Ricardo Delgado
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?


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 Smile
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1479 Posts

Profile of Cain
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 Smile


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.
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!"
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
I'm not sure there's a trick devised that can cancel out every possible method a spectator might consider. All have weaknesses.
Harry Lorayne
View Profile
V.I.P.
New York City
7944 Posts

Profile of Harry Lorayne
I honestly think you might find a few in my books!!
[email]harrylorayne@earthlink.net[/email]

http://www.harrylorayne.com
http://www.harryloraynemagic.com
Ricardo Delgado
View Profile
Loyal user
230 Posts

Profile of Ricardo Delgado
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.


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.
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]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.31 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL