(Close Window)
Topic: Cards behind the back
Message: Posted by: paulierc (Jul 12, 2010 10:42AM)
Good day
Recently I have been looking at and studying older card magic, and one thing I have noticed is that some great effects require the magician to put the cards behind their back. I'm wondering if anyone has done effects like this before, and if so what are the reactions of the audience. Do they believe that you are doing what you say you are or are they suspicious. A lot of what I'm reading is Annemanns work, and it is some great stuff.

Paul
Message: Posted by: mtoth2008 (Jul 12, 2010 10:59AM)
If you scroll down a few threads you will find some discussion about putting cards behind your back in the JOHN BANNON TRICKS post.

Mike
Message: Posted by: Jaz (Jul 12, 2010 05:07PM)
I'm not a big fan of this.
However..there are a couple out there that I might actually use some day.
Message: Posted by: satellite23 (Jul 13, 2010 01:12PM)
These usually get different reactions from different people. Generally, adults will not believe you, whereas little kids will believe you and be amazed.
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Jul 13, 2010 02:35PM)
It depends on the context. If you put the cards behind your back for a good reason, it is just part of the trick and the experience for the audience. Nothing wrong with that. For example, you might tell them you're going to sense their card by feel alone. That in itself is pretty impossible and is a good reason to place the cards behind your back (if you just close your eyes or are blindfolded, they may think you could peek... not so behind your back).
Message: Posted by: danmarimba123 (Aug 15, 2010 07:13AM)
Seems pretty obvious that something untowards is happening when you put them behind your back
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 17, 2010 12:48PM)
I was just giving this some thought... Speaking of cards behind the back, what effects do any of you know of that involve putting cards behind the back where you would consider the procedure justified or not "fishy."

paulierc, you posted that some great effects require the cards to be behind the back. What are some of the effects you were referring to?

I can think of one from Scarne on Card Tricks. I don't recall the name of it, but the effect is a thought-of card ends up at a number selected by another person. I tweaked the effect a bit for myself, to appear that a thought-of card (and it really is one the spectator is only thinking of from a pool of several cards... nobody including the performer knows which card is being thought of) is going to be placed at a number specified by a member of the audience, all while I hold the cards behind my back. This way, the behind-the-back procedure is justified because I'm actually doing what I say I'm going to do. It is obviously very important that the spectators believe I can have no idea which card is being thought of and that the cards are thoroughly shuffled/mixed.
Message: Posted by: Picard (Aug 18, 2010 09:36AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 13:48, the fritz wrote:
I was just giving this some thought... Speaking of cards behind the back, what effects do any of you know of that involve putting cards behind the back where you would consider the procedure justified or not "fishy."

paulierc, you posted that some great effects require the cards to be behind the back. What are some of the effects you were referring to?

I can think of one from Scarne on Card Tricks. I don't recall the name of it, but the effect is a thought-of card ends up at a number selected by another person. I tweaked the effect a bit for myself, to appear that a thought-of card (and it really is one the spectator is only thinking of from a pool of several cards... nobody including the performer knows which card is being thought of) is going to be placed at a number specified by a member of the audience, all while I hold the cards behind my back. This way, the behind-the-back procedure is justified because I'm actually doing what I say I'm going to do. It is obviously very important that the spectators believe I can have no idea which card is being thought of and that the cards are thoroughly shuffled/mixed.
[/quote]
I will answer by quoting yourself:
"It depends on the context. If you put the cards behind your back for a good reason, it is just part of the trick and the experience for the audience. Nothing wrong with that. For example, you might tell them you're going to sense their card by feel alone."
This exact thing ("by feel alone") I tell them when I perform "What's in a name?" from Card Magic of Nick Trost. Check it out, it's a simple effect but people really seem to like it, more then I would expect. (maybe there is something in a name :)) !

Then there is "U find your card" by Lu Brent which is pretty much identical to "Get thee behind me, Satan", both can be found in Encyclopedia of Card Tricks. I've been doing it a bit differently then written, but anyway, I think it's a great idea to play with.
In Trost's effect it's easy to come up with a good reason for putting the cards behind the back, but "U find your card" requires a bit more thought.
I have my own way of doing it, and it has gone by very well. I can share if you wish, but maybe you can come up with something even better.

Btw, the effect you mention from Scarne, could you check the name of it please? Would love to compare it to the effect I do that seems to be similar (one spectator thinks of a card, another gives you a number and the card is there) but this one doesn't require putting the cards behind the back at all, even though the principle could be the same. It's from Rufus Steele and also self-working.
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 19, 2010 02:00PM)
Hi Picard,

Thanks for the input. I'll check out those sources. Also, I will look up the name of the effect in the Scarne book when I get a chance. Where can the Rufus Steele effect be found?
Message: Posted by: Picard (Aug 19, 2010 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-19 15:00, the fritz wrote:
Hi Picard,

Thanks for the input. I'll check out those sources. Also, I will look up the name of the effect in the Scarne book when I get a chance. Where can the Rufus Steele effect be found?
[/quote]
In Last Word on Cards by Rufus Steele. Name of the effect is "They tell you nothing".
I also have a small improvement which allows you to also know the thought-of number at the end in case somebody wants to challenge you.
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 20, 2010 01:44PM)
The name of the effect in the Scarne book is Add-Lib. It's an Oscar Weigle trick if I'm not mistaken. I'll PM you with my handling of the effect. The nice thing is, the trick is sort of modular. In other words, with the slight change in handling you can discover a truly thought-of card and have it at the bottom of the deck ready to go for whatever without any sleights.
Message: Posted by: Picard (Aug 20, 2010 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-20 14:44, the fritz wrote:
The name of the effect in the Scarne book is Add-Lib. It's an Oscar Weigle trick if I'm not mistaken. I'll PM you with my handling of the effect. The nice thing is, the trick is sort of modular. In other words, with the slight change in handling you can discover a truly thought-of card and have it at the bottom of the deck ready to go for whatever without any sleights.
[/quote]
I have always liked Add-Lib, but in fact it's very similar in handling to Trost's effect I mentioned.
Trost does it with spectator's name, and it has always worked nicely for me so far.
I'd like to see your handling for Add-Lib!
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 21, 2010 07:43AM)
I'll PM you with a specific handling.
Message: Posted by: tltq (Aug 21, 2010 04:45PM)
I see no difference in U find your card and Get thee behind me, Satan.

I think U find your card is not the type of trick that the original poster is referring to, even though cards go behind the performer's back (or the performer turns away). From the spectator's point of view, the important thing is that they located the selection with the cards are behind their own back.

I have come up with a handling for this effect in which the deck is not separated, the spectator removes only one card when the deck is behind there back, and only regular cards are used.
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 22, 2010 08:10AM)
Tltq,

Don't make me conjure up Scarne's ghost to come beat your handling out of you!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Aug 22, 2010 09:10AM)
Like any genre of effect, there is good and bad. Cards behind the back can be an eye-roller to an audience- but that can be exploited for its comedic value.
Or it can be done straight to great effect. Harry Lorayne tells a great story of how Slydini used to fry him with one of these. Harry made him do it over and over.
Going behind the back gives you some real opportunity for deception. Present it well, and it won't matter that you've gone behind the back. And like Ammar says, show no mercy.
Rodney
Message: Posted by: the fritz (Aug 23, 2010 10:59AM)
Magicfish,

Agreed!
Message: Posted by: Markkuhn2 (Aug 29, 2010 04:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-22 10:10, magicfish wrote:
Like any genre of effect, there is good and bad. Cards behind the back can be an eye-roller to an audience- but that can be exploited for its comedic value.
Or it can be done straight to great effect. Harry Lorayne tells a great story of how Slydini used to fry him with one of these. Harry made him do it over and over.
Going behind the back gives you some real opportunity for deception. Present it well, and it won't matter that you've gone behind the back. And like Ammar says, show no mercy.
Rodney
[/quote]

Great advice. I'm a little leary about cards behind my back, but maybe I'll find something interesting.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 29, 2010 05:04PM)
Paul-

If the premise for putting the cards behind your back is solid, there should be NO trouble with it, be it for children, adults or magicians (whichever prior group they fit into).

Jay Sankey has one that is a bit mentalism a bit magic but always amazes my audiences. Don't let the simple clarity of the secret cause you to question the effectiveness of the effect. I believe it is a free item on his web site. Well worth the look.

13 Steps to Mentalism has one that is even stronger- in my experience the idea really works...

Jim
Message: Posted by: Jim Oliver (Sep 18, 2010 02:48PM)
To The Fritz,

I taught my daughter how to do Faro shuffles BEHIND HER BACK when she was about 9
or 10 years old and now that she is almost 30, she's pretty darn good at it.

Jim
Message: Posted by: J.Warrens (Sep 19, 2010 02:26PM)
Faro shuffles behind the back? Wow. Now THAT is crazy!

Cheers.
Message: Posted by: Alysson Nishiyama (Sep 24, 2010 03:57PM)
I know this is the inverse situation, but there's a good trick by Eric Ross called Election where two spectators each puts a deck behind their backs to select a card and return face up in the middle. In this case there's a good reason for putting the cards behind the back so they cannot see each other's selection.
Message: Posted by: J.Warrens (Oct 2, 2010 07:10AM)
All that matters is that you have a reasonable and logical motivation - that's all.

Cheers.
Message: Posted by: DomKabala (Oct 11, 2010 11:28AM)
Derek Dingle's "Quick D Way" (The Complete Works of Dereck Dingle by R. Kaufman pp 8) requires that you put the cards behind you back after a spec peek...

I've never really liked putting cards behind my back but, Dingle's effect is an exception. Does anyone do this differently? :hmm: :confused:

Cardamagically,
DOM :) ;)