On 2007-09-09 21:17, MickeyPainless wrote:
Never saw the first one but this one is cool, Nice job!

On 2007-09-10 09:04, Y2John wrote:
I thought it was pretty good... I can see why you had the cut away but can see this playing well to laymen

On 2007-09-10 09:36, magicandsoul wrote:

Quote:

On 2007-09-10 09:04, Y2John wrote:
I thought it was pretty good... I can see why you had the cut away but can see this playing well to laymen

I can clearly see why the cut away edit was done. The method seems absolutely obvious.

M&S

On 2007-09-10 20:13, THEGUY26 wrote:
It literally falls through?

On 2007-09-10 22:40, MickeyPainless wrote:
Hey BlackDove, I'm an old rocker and have been bending strings for over 30 years so I feel qualified to tell ya that I think the song works well with the trick! Hats off to ya mate!
Mick

On 2007-09-11 18:02, Nordatrax wrote:
Is this effect for sale, or did you just want to make a cool vid?

Ben

On 2007-09-12 03:19, Thomas Wayne wrote:
This is a great example of a new “trick” that is being promoted with a deceptive demo video by an enterprising magician hoping to score some dough. As "magicandsoul" said above, the method is absolutely obvious. The only nice thing is that the video is so clearly edited to avoid showing the weak points that anyone who's been burned by this type of promotion/hype will surely see through it. I am especially disappointed in the end sequence (shot from underneath), which is meant to suggest strengths that this trick doesn’t actually have.

Now, I realize there may be a few forum members who may not actually recognize what's going on here, so I'm gonna save those poor souls a little money. The signed selection is switched out for an indifferent card, and it is that "x" card that is placed on the top of the glass surface. The real selection is then secretly stuck to the bottom of the glass in some way, and revealed as the top card is stolen away.

This switch-out can be accomplished any number of ways; in the "demo" video it happens via a double turn-over (Lee Asher's "Diving Board Double", to be exact)

So - during the portion of the routine that has been edited out of the video - the switched-in "x" card is sitting on the glass surface and the actual selection remains on the top of the deck. In an act that is almost certainly poorly motivated (or not even motivated at all) the entire deck is momentarily placed under the table and the top card (signed selection, remember) remains behind, directly underneath the "x" card. How it remains behind may be due to some magicians' wax, saliva "secretly" applied to its back or some other temporary means of adhesion.

The rest is pretty self-explanatory: The "x" card is slid out of the way simultaneously with the reveal of the "penetration" and is secretly placed back onto the deck (or otherwise ditched). Presumably the hope is the audience is SO overwhelmed with this miraculous penetration that they will never think to consider that there may still be a card under the performer’s other hand.

And therein lies the “rub”. “BlackDove’s” contention – as noted above – is that anyone who figures this out is “thinking like a magician”, and that the gaping flaws in the construct of this trick are completely missed by “a layman”. Right. Maybe the “laymen” YOU perform for. The audiences I see are generally a pretty smart bunch, and I can’t see this fooling many of them. Magic literature is FULL of poorly conceived tricks that rely far too heavily on the claim that the weak part “goes right by them”.

The reasons for the edits are obvious; had they not been there the glaring weaknesses in the trick would have been exposed. I am sure every magician who watched the demo noticed the double turn-over. Had the video also shown the required step of placing the entire deck underneath the glass (in perfect alignment with the topside “selection”), I am also sure that every magician would have immediately understood the entire method.

I have news for you, “BlackDove”: many, many laymen are likely to arrive at the same conclusions. And here’s another flash for ya – if you edit major steps out of a routine for demo/sales purposes, but your customer base still knows how you did it… it might just be a lame trick. I can pretty much guarantee buyer’s remorse for anyone who pay for this “secret”.

That’s just my take; I could be wrong… but I wouldn’t bet on it.

TW

On 2007-09-12 08:04, BlackDove wrote:

You have the entire method wrong.
Please, keep your comments to your self, I wanted constructive critisism, not
some guy trying to give away my effect.... I'm almost certain no exposure is a rule here..
while that isn't my method, I don't like the fact that (say it was) you would expose it so openly.