I just picked up Joker Joker, The New Limited Edition, Temptation Set by Gordon Bean all for one price.

Would you please post a review of Temptation and Joker, Joker? I've read the promotional material in Genii and Magic, but would like to get the opinion of someone who has purchased the effects.

Thanks -

Mark

I, too, would welcome more substantive reviews of these effects -- not revelation of their methods, obviously, but discussion of what happens and what their strengths and weaknesses are beyond "they're great." I've read the descriptions in the advertisements; of course they sound good, as most advertisements do. The value of a review would be an account of the good and bad points from a consumer's perspective, comparisons to other similar effects, etc.

Hank Lee has a description of the effects on his "hot list" at http://www.magicfact.com
I know the original Limited Edition was good, and the new one sounds even better. The other two effect sounds interesting, also.

Joker Joker is a great trick. You begin by removing one joker (the guarantee joker). You then riffle through the deck and allow the spectator to stop you when they think you have reached the second joker. You pull the card out and reveal that it is the second joker. I should mention that you have to be quick when you reveal the second joker (you don't want to give them enough time to really think about it). The trick also comes with "The Los Angeles Open" (I actually like this one more than Joker Joker). This effect uses the same force as in Joker Joker. You start by making an open prediction of the card you think the spec will choose.Once the spec points to a card it is placed face down into a pile of face up cards. The cards are fliped over and the only card showing is a match to your prediction. The trick can then be repeated with a whole new prediction. Both tricks are easy and require little preperation. I hope this helps.

Ferretface, according to your description of Joker Joker, it can be done with two ordinary jokers and a deck. What makes this marketed effect different?

Cardguy - I see where you're coming from. It could be done as you stated. The only part of Ferretface's description I would change is "you then riffle through the deck..." Actually, the cards are displayed in a face down fan from one hand to another from the face down deck slowly until the spectator calls stop. The cards are flipped over to show that they are all different. The face down card left on top of the deck turns out to be the other joker. The rest of what Ferretface says is an accurate description, in my opinion.

But I also prefer the Los Angeles Open that is provided with the effect.

Joker Joker cannot be done with two ordinary jokers. Joker Joker includes two gaffed cards, and a third gaffed card is provided for The Los Angeles Open. Cgscpa, in the instructions (above fig. 3) it says to riffle through the cards. You are not wrong ,however, because it does mention your method as an alternative on the second page.

Temptation is pretty good, but there are better versions of 3-Card Monte in my opinion. The best version for laymen IMO is Skinner's Ultimate 3-Card Monte. It's more visual and magical. The strenth of Temptation is that it can be done entirely in the hands, whereas Skinner's routine cannot. If you must perform an in-the-hands version, there are two better versions than Temptation IMO. The best is Bloom's Escorial Card, and the 2nd best is the routine in Allan Hayden's booklet Haydenism's. I've performed a variety of versions professionally for laymen hundreds of times, and that's what these conclusions are based on, but what works best for me might not be what works best for you and vice versa.

Ferretface - oops! You are right, sorry - it does say to riffle down the deck then to flip the cards over where they say "stop" and then spread them off to the table. I should have waited until I had the instructions in front of me instead of going off memory!

Joker, Joker is a good, simple, quick, one-off effect to open with. It's pretty nice, but the Los Angeles Open, as mentioned, is probably more workable into a routine.

Temptation is a 3-Card Monte routine that's more live -- you put cards in a jacket pocket and in a spectator's hands. Somebody else wisely commented that a different colour for the money card would have made the effect easier to follow.

New Limited Edition is a strong variation on the Princess Card trick, involving one card that turns blank (or the back actually fading first as one of the variations) and a corner that is missing and the pip revealed correctly when the spectator reveals her selection.


Brian

I still don't see why anybody would buy Joker Joker. If you have any basic skill in card control you can duplicate this effect very easily. I must be missing something?

The Los Angeles Open is by far the better routine and should have had top billing. It's a very clean way of doing the Curry open prediction type effect. Didn't care for Joker Joker so you have a point there Cardguy. Check out the alternative effect, you won't be disappointed!

I agree with card guy. By one of the posts it doesnt seem like u can cleanly show them thje card they stoped on.

>I still don't see why anybody would buy
>Joker Joker. If you have any basic skill
>in card control you can duplicate this
>effect very easily. I must be missing
>something?

You're absolutely right, and a gaff shouldn't be used just to make a trick easier. But using the same principle as Joker Joker, the Los Angeles Open (Prediction) can theroetically be performed in a spectator's hands, and this is the strength of the gaffs. Both effects can be performed by even a beginner, yet the effect of the Los Angeles Open is much more advanced.

Now, Runaway Joker by Peter Nardi (honestly, I keep getting confused between these four effects by their nondescriptive names) has a different sort of effect that can't be duplicated by sleight of hand alone (although you need certain sleights to accomplish the effect). An amusing trick of the joker vanishing from the face, appearing on the back of a previously signed card, then disappearing again and finally appearing as a cutout that falls out from the card box. Has potential for patter.


Brian