|
|
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
I posted this in Secret Sessions and the responses were positive, (both of them, LOL) so I thought I'd share it here, too.
This is a quick trick that I've been having a lot of fun with. I like it because it gets laughs, and the "Wow" factor, too. I was told it's similar to Red Hot Mama, (or similar to part of Red Hot Mama) but I've never seen Red Hot Mama, so I wouldn't know. I came up with it when I was trying to create an interesting patter and revelation of a selected card. Anyway, here it is - The “Marked” Deck Effect: The magician explains that he will show the spectator how a magician can use a marked deck to find a selected card. The magician shuffles and then fans the deck, and the spectator points to a card. The deck is cut at that point and the spectator is shown the selection. The card can be signed, if desired. The two halves of the deck are put back together and the magician begins slowly thumbing through the deck, looking at the backs of the cards, explaining that by looking for the markings on the cards, he can find the selection. The magician encourages the spectator to look closely, because although the markings are subtle, the spectator may be able to see them. "It takes a keen eye so look closely." The spectator leans in and looks closely at the backs of the cards. At this point, something unexpected happens – a red-backed card appears among the blue-backed deck, and of course, it's the spectator’s card. The “markings” turned out to be a different color back on the selected card, even though the selected card’s back matched the rest of the cards when it was selected. Method: It's so easy, you've probably already figured it out, but PM me if you want my handling. Hope you like it! |
Cardic Regular user Finland 129 Posts |
I figured out 3 ways of doing that before I had read it through.
But I'd like to hear your method too PM? |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
Another idea I had is to actually mark the card. Using a sharpie, you could mark it with a large "x", or write something like, "This is it!"
It wouldn't be as visual, but it might be funnier. |
Hideo Kato Inner circle Tokyo 5649 Posts |
Or finger print?
If you make one way deck with finger prints printed on only one end, you don't need Force. Hideo Kato |
luvisi Special user 601 Posts |
If you use a DB card, you can find the marked card, turn it face up to show that it is the selection, and then take it away from the deck, give a little wave, and the markings disappear again. Cleanup is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
Luvisi, I like that idea. The day you posted it, I actually had just finished splitting some cards to make DB's. I'll give it a shot and let you know how it goes.
|
Roger Kelly Inner circle Kent, England 3332 Posts |
Sounds like the Dark Card (?)
|
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
Sounds extremely similer to Chicago Suprise patter.
Quote:
I was told it's similar to Red Hot Mama, (or similar to part of Red Hot Mama) but I've never seen Red Hot Mama, so I wouldn't know. Now that you know a similar effect exist, you should really investigate that before posting the patter, presenation and method that other's created and published way before you. I know you created it independently, but they were still created before you by others and published, and I don't think you have the right to give away their presentation and effect on a magic board. my 2 cents... |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
First, I'm not giving away anything of anyone else's. I came up with this independently and even if it's very similar to other effects, is it exactly the same?
And is it exactly the same as another marketed effect in patter AND effect AND method? If so, which effect? You'll need to be more specific. All I did was come up with a something that works for me and I decided to share. I don't think that constitutes exposure at this point. |
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-10-28 21:28, luvisi wrote: It goes quite well, at least it always did for Martin Lewis in his slightly longer Marked Card routine. See "Martin's Miracles" See also Bruno Canaldi's "Ghost of a Chance" etc. etc. Yep, little new here I'm afraid. |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-11-19 11:35, Paul wrote: Just to clarify, although I did come up with this independently, I was NOT assuming that the effect is new. Still, I don't think sharing an idea I had is exposure. And so far, only one person on this thread seems to disagree. |
JSBLOOM Inner circle 2024 Posts |
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Thanks for sharing. Jeff |
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
So lets say that you create something, spend lets say 5 years honing it and working on getting it released, and then after you do, (5 years after you created it), someone comes up with it independently and post the method and howto on a free magic board.
Do you think that is fair, right as your effect is coming on the market, to have it exposed to everyone? I am just saying that just because you independently created something, it does not give you the right to explain it, if it was previously published. I am speaking "policy" and not this specific case... There is no way to verify whether it was copied or indepentdently created, which is why credit and the rights to teach/sell goto the first person to create it, and anyone he chooses to pass those rights onto(even just saying "yeah you can work on that and publish"). Where would it end if we did allow free exposure of marketed effects? It would not be good for the magic encomony, which is why we have the so called Exposure Rule, which says you can't expose other people's effects. In this case, the effect and presentation have previously been published(yes very exactly the same), and shouldn't be exposed on the board. If you did it not knowing it was already created, that is one thing, but after you find out otherwise, you can't claim ignorance and shouldn't continue to expose someone's elses routine. |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
You have still not named the marketed version that is EXACTLY the same in EFFECT and Method and PRESENTATION.
You keep naming different effects that are similar in one way or another but not all three. Your case is weak. |
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
Quote:
Sounds extremely similer to Chicago Suprise It is exactly the same as the first phase of Chicago Surprise by Whit Haydn, happy? I am not making any "case". I don't need to prove anything, you are the one that needs to prove that yours is different. When you are creating an effect, you do not go around challeging people to prove that yours is the same. YOU do the research, you ask around, you make sure that the effect has not been published before. Only then do you go around selling the effect, or even giving it away. This effect is not yours to give away. You've been told in the past it is similer to things already published, and yet you continue to say "Well I haven't seen those, so I can't say". It is *YOUR* responsibility to research and check it out. Failure to do so is unethical and wrong. You cannot claim ignorance after previous effects have been pointed out to you. It is one thing to post "I created this effect, has it been done before?". It is another thing to post "Hey here is an effect that I've been told has been done before, but I still independently created it so I'm giving it away for free to anyone who PM's me" -daegs ps "You have still not named the marketed version that is EXACTLY the same in EFFECT and Method and PRESENTATION." Methods for the most part don't matter. If someone creates an effect with their own presentation, and you "create" the same effect with your own method, but keep the presentation, you've still just ripped someone's effect off. If I use a double lift instead of a top change, does that mean that I can rip you off now? |
Magix Elite user 432 Posts |
What about different versions of effects? Many people create different versions of marketed effects using different presentation and/or handling and then sell them. Is this wrong in all cases?
I'm not looking for money or noteriety. I'm simply sharing something I use. And methods DO matter. What about those who create ungimmicked versions of marketed gimmicked effects? Is that wrong too? I'm afraid your arguments are logically inconsistent. I think we may have to agree to disagree. By the way, in researching Chicago Surprise, although I haven't purchased it, it seems that it is also just one version of an effect. It is advertised as a version of Chicago Opener and/or Red Hot Mama - a rip-off by your logic. |
TaylorTheGreat New user 37 Posts |
Guys!
Stop this foolish fighting! It's teating us apart! Even if his idea is still exactly the same as another one, all of us who liked it will know which ones to pick up right? So, even if his is the same as one of the ones Daegs mentioned, all Magix has done is given them free advertising. Besides, it's magicians helping magicians, not magicians accusing other magicians of idea theft! Lighten up! Sorry, I meant to say "It's tearing us apart!" I don't know what "teating" means and I don't want you guys to take it in the wrong way! lol
-Taylor M
|
Julie Inner circle 3943 Posts |
Peace on Earth and to ALL card "Magicians"...
|
LR2 Regular user Humble, Texas 116 Posts |
This sounds a lot like Jay Sankey's 'resistance is futile'. At least his method can be used for this.
|
Justin2200 Veteran user 319 Posts |
I do this effect as well, except the card is not only red backed, but also turned around in the deck. I suppose you can do it either way, but both effects combined helped illustrate the points in my speech better. I can adapt it to whatever situation I guess.
The Presitidigitationist
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » My "Marked Deck" effect (0 Likes) |
[ 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 < |