|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Kex Special user Arlington, Texas 577 Posts |
I have call of the wild and am curious if anyone else has that and royal scam. Which do you guys prefer? (thanks for the start on this AltonThrash)
Also a not on the Hamman Count. I find that it can't be rushed. What I see that makes it obvious is people doing the count faster than they can handle when it comes to the secret move. This causes a noticable break in the whole count and flags attention to the fact that something (unseen) happened. If you slow the pace of the count down a bit it looks great. I also use this with the Jordan count. I've heard many magicians say the move in the Jordan count is too noticable but if you slow the count down it can be done quite deciptively. Just my 2.5 cents worth. Kex |
|||||||||
Robert Kohler Special user Fayetteville, Arkansas 520 Posts |
I perform both COTW and RS and I have to say the Scam is better because of the color at the end and the examinable cards. See my post above for my storyline......
We judge ourselves by our intentions - others judge us by our actions.....
<BR> <BR>B. Wilson |
|||||||||
Kex Special user Arlington, Texas 577 Posts |
Thanks Robert... that helps. I may have to buy this one and put it to good use!
|
|||||||||
AltonThrash Special user Meridian, MS 589 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-27 12:13, Kex wrote: Your exactly right! No need to rush it. |
|||||||||
wespetty Regular user Georgia 139 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-23 17:24, robinr wrote: First, let me say that I am a huge fan of John Bannon and his material. However, sometimes magicians stop thinking a little bit too soon. Robin, if you really think about it for a bit longer you may find ways to improve the handling (as I have). What if I told you that it IS possible to alter the handling, only slightly, so that you can eliminate the discrepancies in John's handling (such as showing 7 rather than 9 aces at the outset, NOT being able to show all blue backs at the outset, and lastly merely spreading the cards (when 3 cards are left) and having one turn face up for seemingly no reason). I realize that many folks will say these are small points and discrepancies that "fly by" everyone. However, if you are like me then you probably agree that true magic is all in the "small details". You can choose to believe that spectators never notice these sorts of "small details", but the fact of the matter is that SOME people do notice these things (even if they don't verbally point them out to you while you perform... they are being polite). I concede that they are rarely noticed... maybe only 1 in 100 people notice... but you are lying to yourself if you think it's NEVER noticed. Would anyone else who is a fan of Darwin Ortiz's Strong Magic (specifically regarding conviction) care to chime in on this fact? So, IF a handling CAN be altered to eliminate as many discrepancies as possible... why not do it? Beautiful magic lies in the "small details"... it's kind of like how, immediately after performing the Charlie Miller drop through move (ball penetrating the top of the cup) the ball that has just "arrived" should be MOVING (not stationary)! It's all in the details, right? Cheers, Wes |
|||||||||
Levi Bennett Inner circle 1778 Posts |
Boy, I'm glad I read this thread. I was shown this trick at my local shop. As I'm pretty new to magic, I knew there was a problem with the count that was shown me, but didn't know what it was. It was just very obvious that not all the cards were being counted. Which I politely pointed out to the salesman at the trick's conclusion.
This made me not want to buy the trick. It had an awsome ending, but I was one of those people wespetty mantioned; I knew something was up, just not exactly what. Later, I wondered if I might not be able to perform it better than the guy at the shop and should buy the trick anyway. I have busted the guys at this store on several flashes and have performed some of the same tricks better myself. Reading this makes me want to give it a try. After some serious practice. The killer ending seems like it would be very worth it. Thanks for the information! If I do get it I might pm some of you for help because I've never done any false counts before and my glide technique is ok, but needs improvement. Preston-
Performing magic unprofessionally since 2008!
|
|||||||||
MagicMan1957 Inner circle 1445 Posts |
At the beginning I just say:
When I was a kid my Uncle was a card cheat and always told me to have a BUNCH of Ace of Spades on me to sneak into the game when needed. I then just do the Hamman Count. I NEVER mention how many Aces I have. Also after showing the first 2 or 3 Aces I pause and patter a second or two, then continue the Hamman count to break up the flow. No one has ever questioned how many cards I started with or ended with. Also as others have mentioned on the Café, when down to 3 cards do the Paul Harris Bizarre Twist for an extra kick. Its an eye popping move. |
|||||||||
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts |
I must admit I've put this in my repertoire now, gets good responses, and another 'uber' version of the effect springing from the Walton source material is Bob Farmer's "Mutanz" and for kids Aldo's "Shennanigans".
I'm not sure why Wes would want to show nine cards initially, considering in the main phase there are four cards on the table and supposedly four in the hand. Unless Wes has five cards openly on the table or in the hand which seems like major reconstruction of the routine to me. Eight cards would make more sense, (which people would assume anyway if you use J.B's possible "Glide" version he suggests). But with a Biddle of one card during the latter part of the count you can get eight anyway. I'm sure John took into consideration that packet tricks are easier to sell with fewer and more known moves, so purposefully kept it as simple as possible. The odd card turning face up toward the end rather than seemingly for no reason can be explained with a simple patter line, "Just for a change, instead of making them all turn togethers with a twist, we can do them one at a time with a snap." A change of pace after all the repetition. So its an different number of cards at the end? Isn't it possible the performer supposedly switched out four and switched in five? we're not actually in a card game after all. For those whose name spells with four letters, you could have a letter on each of the colored backed cards (or use blank backed aces) and patter about other than amazing people it's important the performer's name is remembered... Anyway, that's just a further few thoughts thrown in the ring. John's work is always worth a look. Paul. |
|||||||||
robinr Loyal user Greater Los Angeles area 226 Posts |
Wes, you did point out all the points I was trying to resolve. I was trying to do exactly what you mentioned, and didn't accomplish it. But then I also thought along Paul's line that if I had done it, that would itself create an inconsistency. Probably self-jusitification since I hadn't solved a pure card problem. I'd be interested in seeing how you did it. If you'd like to write me, just PM me and I'll give you my email address.
Robin |
|||||||||
DStachowiak Inner circle Baltimore, MD 2158 Posts |
I'm glad I read this thread, I just started learning this, and the advice on the Hamman Count is golden. I have never much liked the glide, but was resigning myself to using it, as I couldn't get the Hamman to look believable. Now, with the tips you guys have shared, there's hope.
Thanks Don
Woke up.
Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across m' head. |
|||||||||
AltonThrash Special user Meridian, MS 589 Posts |
Glad we all could help. This is a nice piece of close up IMO.
AT |
|||||||||
JSBLOOM Inner circle 2024 Posts |
After playing around with this, this has jumped up to my number 1 packet trick. It is as strong visually as COW, but they cn check the cards until the cows come home.
All I need to do find a presentation fitting my style which I already had with COW, but there are always tradeoffs, right? |
|||||||||
daffydoug Eternal Order Look mom! I've got 14077 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-04-02 12:42, Paul wrote: I always do that last turnover almost as a throwaway..(They have already seen you do it several times, and it's taken for granted by the time you get to the last one.) So I just do it as a little throwaway, make no big deal out of it, and it "flies." A little boldness, a little confidence here goes a long way.
The difficult must become easy, the easy beautiful and the beautiful magical.
|
|||||||||
JSBLOOM Inner circle 2024 Posts |
The nice thing is once you get down to the final three, there are so many ways you can end this master piece!
|
|||||||||
JSBLOOM Inner circle 2024 Posts |
Additionally, in regards to the count in the beginning. I was taught if holding the cards from above with one hand, 2nd and 3rd fingers on top edge you kick cut using 2nd finger when you have to do the switch and your 3rd finger secures the lower packet as the other hand takes the blocks of cards. Does this sound right?
|
|||||||||
J.Buddy New user 53 Posts |
Another very neat card effect from John Bannon.
J.
Rediscovering the magician inside.
|
|||||||||
andrelimantara Special user Surabaya, Indonesia 871 Posts |
It does looks good... I know similar routine but different ending...
This is good Cheers Andre
"Good performance comes from good practice, Great performance comes from the heart - Andre Limantara"
|
|||||||||
wespetty Regular user Georgia 139 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-04-02 12:42, Paul wrote: I'm not necessarily suggesting that you SHOULD openly call attention to the number of cards you have in your hands. I'm just saying that with the altered handling, one COULD call attention to that fact (if necessary as part of their presentation) if so inclined. Keep in mind that one's presentation for the effect may be quite different than the one Bannon uses (so for some it may be a more important fact, for others it may not). Personally, I wouldn't call attention to the actual number. I just like the fact that nothing looks "off" by passing 7 cards as 9 at the outset (so at the end of the effect astute onlookers aren't thinking "hey, he only showed 7 cards at the beginning... and there are 9 on the table now... what's with that?". Others may have different opinions, but I don't want "extra cards" appearing at the culmination of the effect. That doesn't exactly add some kind of "bonus effect" in my mind. More cards at the end (contrasting with the number shown at the outset) will be interpreted by onlookers as somehow BEING the method, rather than "oh wow, he somehow magically created a couple extra cards". I think ending the effect with the exact same number of cards STRENGTHENS the effect rather than weakens it. As Bannon himself states in Smoke in Mirrors (under the "Return of the Magnificent Seven" chapter), regarding packet tricks/gaffed cards, "spectators may not even think about gaffed cards, the may come to a much easier conclusion - that extra cards are used. If they can't get their hands on the cards then no number of counts or shows will make them think otherwise." That is precisely why one MAY want to openly call attention that they are using 9 cards. Think of some effect that uses the Ascanio Spread (5 cards masquerading as merely 4)... would it then add to the effect at the end if you showed that there are actually FIVE cards now!? I think not. Why else would magicians go through all sorts of gyrations to hide the "extra card(s)" that are so prevelent in many effects (particularly packet tricks)? Because ending an effect with more cards than you started with screams to the audience "this is how it was done" whether that is the case or not. It's not important whether the extra cards are ACTUALLY the method, what matters is that the extra cards will be PERCEIVED as being the method. Cheers, Wes |
|||||||||
wespetty Regular user Georgia 139 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-04-01 21:47, Preston68 wrote: Preston, I'm glad you had a change of heart. Welcome to the world of packet tricks (and the many counts that are involved). I can assure you that the time you spend mastering each of the various counts will be well rewarded. Don't feel discouraged and there are many people that will help you learn/perfect your counts. By the way, should you be interested (and not already have it) you may want to check out a book called "Counts, Cuts, Moves and Subtleties". It covers most of the common counts and is very reasonably priced (maybe around $6.00 I think). If I can be of any help, as you explore this new territory, please don't hesitate to send me a PM. Good luck! Cheers, Wes |
|||||||||
wespetty Regular user Georgia 139 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-04-02 18:27, robinr wrote: An inconsistency? How so? I don't seem to follow what you mean? What exactly would be inconsistent? Cheers, Wes |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » John Bannon - The Royal Scam (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |