Just my 2c on doing moves that look 'natural'....

Just think about how often, during a card game or other natural setting, any layman wants to show the rest of the people a card? doesn't actually happen very often. you don't flip the cards over to show the faces when you are dealing a hand of poker!!

Therefore, the entire action of turning a card over to show its face is not exactly a natural one to begin with, which makes it very hard to do a 'natural' looking DL no matter how hard you try!

Well, first off, there's no such thing as a "natural" way to turn over a card. Cards don't occur in nature. Laymen don't analyze how you turn over a card unless you call attention to it by concentrating really hard, straining your pinky and holding your breath.

More DLs are tipped by magicians focusing their own attention on an act that doesn't (for most laymen) require such concentration.

So let's instead talk about suspicious vs. non-suspicious ways of turning over a card.

The laymen that I've studied generally turn over the top card in the manner of a stud deal. That is, they approach the top card with the hand palm down and drag the fingers across the top of the pack moving the card mostly sideways and in towards the chest just a bit. The card is rotated back outward in an action designed to bring the face of the card into their visual range in the most direct manner possible.

A close second is a similar technique except that the card is dragged off of the inner narrow end of the pack instead of the side.

So if you want to look unsuspicious I would recommend emulating this method.

I don't agree that flourish DLs are suspicious. Flourishes call attention to themselves. In the context of the lay mind, where they assume we do sneaky things, wouldn't it make sense that something that attracts attention to itself must be innocent? Pickpockets hardly ever yell "hey look at me!" afterall.

I use the D'Amico double for laymen and it's never been questioned. Not because laymen think "it couldn't be two cards" but because the idea off two cards doesn't occur to them in this context.

cheers
bill

How about blackjack? Cards are turned over there. In every game of poker, cards MUST be turned over everytime. Watch how they are handled then and try to emulate that type of a concept with a "move".

I don't even look at the cards unless I have to. I just flip it over while looking into the eyes of the spec and patter. When it's over I'll just call attention to it, then go back to the way I was before.

To my mind, turning over a card with one hand shows an audience member

a) you know your way around a deck of cards.
b) you only have one card.

Ask a spectator to turn over the top card with one hand and then try and creat a DL that looks like a smoother version of what they did.

I tried to learn it from the video "Twenty" but he just rushed by it so quick. Although, I am making a method of shooting 2 cards off of the top of the deck as one..We'll see how that goes..

What if your other hand is occupied doing something, like spreading the rest of the pack, drinking, smoking, etc?

In addition to looking incredibly honest, the lavand maneuver has the major advantage of no turndown. There is absolutely no delay (or unmotivated action, or action of any kind) between showing the face of the card and using the top card for whatever devious purpose you wish. This absence of any delay can increase the deceptiveness of the DL in some situations, and gives the sleight greater versatility.

Also, why does "naturalness" mean that things have to be done in the same way as someone who has no experience handling cards?

"I'm fairly new to magic but I've seen a one-handed double lift that just freaked me out the first time."

My bet is that this was the D'Amico Double Lift. It can be found in Buckley's Card Control (Dover Pubs.) at page 15. It may well be in Card College also, but I haven't looked for it there.

"Is this something that is common? Is it rare? Is it something that is as usable as a standard DL?"

I don't believe it is common, partly for the reason that many magicians try to draw as little attention as possible to the double lift, going for naturalness. But I believe it can be very effective.

Keep in mind that you should not be doing trick after trick with the DL. Using this DL occasionally will, IMO, be completely disarming. Laymen do sometimes suspect a DL even if perfectly executed.

I believe I saw Jamy Ian Swiss do this DL on the Art of Magic (PBS TV program). It floored me at the time, and even though I suspected that a DL was called for at that point in the routine, I thought "no way could that be a DL!"

--Rick

The way I see it is this. There are three kinds of DLs. There are the natural looking ones, the weird looking ones and the flourishy ones.

I would never do the weird looking ones. There is one for instance where you turn the cards short end for short end. I think it's very unnatural and it is not flourishy either.

I think flourishy DLs are a nice addition, but it depends on the kind of routine you are using it in. They would work in a gambler type of routine while they wouldn't in a bizarre routine or sory telling. We cannot put off such DLs just because they are not natural. There is also a way to turn a single card with one hand to deal it on the table while using the forefinger of the hand holding the deck. It's just a nice way to turn over card. Not every layman is able to do a riffle shuffle. But tht doesn't mean we cannot do it. At the right moments these flourishes are great eye candy and also sometimes help to disguise an important sleight. On the other hand, too many flourishes imply you are doing tricks rather than Magic. One has to stay on the line. What do you think?

And finally, in this topic everyone thought in the back of his mind about doing a DL for a magician. Because Laymen do not know anything about such things as DLs. So what the heck? You turn the card the way you like (unless it is a weird position of the hands) and just be careful not to give it too much attention, by looking intently at your hands etc... Eugene Burger says that Magic teaches us not to be guilty . Relax and go to sleep now.

I've said it before..i'll say it again....

Fancy handling of the deck is entertainment...in the same way a juggler entertains but it isn't magic.

The reason for this is that the fancy handling of the cards gives the spectator a possible solution, ie: "I don't know what he did but with the way he handles those cards he did something". The end result is attributable to the skill of the performer, like juggling.

Magic has to be unfathomable....you have to leave no idea as to how it could have happend. We do this by stopping any reverse engineering by doing things unseen and unsuspected....so when the spectatoor tries to go back and figure it out all thought lines end at "No he didn't do that". The end result will be that it must be magic because he does everything just like everyone else.

Cards are turned all the time in the real world...find out how by watching. A push off may be the most often used..but then the way it is turned is important...lay people don't do it with one hand or make it do a full gainer with a half twist..they just show it with no fanfare.

If one wants to reduce his "magical" performance to a juggling act I have no problem with it...it's a personal choice but don't be deluded into thinking it will perceived as magic.

Maybe nothng we do will be considered "Magic" but we can leave em with a mystery without any clues, workin on the night moves....oops this is not lyricks r us....lol

well that's my 26 1/2 cents worth,

Bryan

But that most definitely IS unnatural. It appears that you have no interest in the cards when, much of the time, you want your audience to believe that the card face is the MOST important thing in the world to you.

Also, Niva brings up a good point about 'what is natural'. A riffle shuffle isn't natural. If you want the cards to become 'random' it takes about 43 riffle shuffles. Dropping them on the table and picking them up in a random order is a better, easier and possibly even more 'natural' way than a well-executed riffle. But I know which I would rather do!

And again, yes, I have agreed that a fancy flourish might not be the best way to disguise a DL, but the whole POINT is that this is a LESS suspicious way of taking 'a card' from the top of the deck. It is less of a 'flourish' than a standard DL and therefore attracts LESS suspicion.

BryanDreyfus, sorry, but I don't agree with you. Many artists, or let's say many performing artists use other disciplines to enhance their acts. So are we saying here that we can't fan the cards or that we cannot do a springing of the cards? It's a fact that if a person does a living with a deck of playing cards, even a magician, this person will acquire some great skills with the deck. I, as a student, with many years handling a pen, I am able to twirl between my fingers, unconsciously.

So I say, flourishes are best if used appropriately and in the right moment. We are not talking about Butterfly cuts and Cobra cuts here. Although I like them a lot, but IMO they musn't be used in a magic act.

The D'amico (or Domico) one handed DL is a beautiful move. I struggled with the description in Card Control by Arthur Buckley for a while but I've given up on the D'amico DL for now. It just isn't as important enough to contribute a lot of time too. Is this DL practical?-yes, but this shouldn't be your workhouse double. Maybe once in a routine. Is there anyone else that doesn't consider this move completely one handed? The other hand needs to take the cards and turn them face down.

Jonesc2ii, I think what he said/wrote was right. There's is difference between calling attention to the face up card and calling attention to the way it got that way!! This was discussed at length recently in another post in this forum. You may want to read some of Lance Pierce's posts in this area.

This appears to have evolved into an instance of the infamous "To Flourish or Not To Flourish" debate. Here are some thoughts:

The oft-quoted Vernonism "Be Natural" is misunderstood about as often as it is cited. The Professor was NOT suggesting that in order to "be natural" a magician must handle his apparatus in the same manner that a layperson would, or that his overt actions must be consistent with what anyone would do. Nor does "natural" in the Vernon-esque sense mean "appearing to be unskilled". Vernon was teaching us that an action is natural if it appears to be what you are comfortable with, that is, if it is naturally what you (the magician) would effortlessly do.

As an analogy, think of the difference between acting and over-acting (histrionic behavior, melodrama, etc.) Acting appears as unforced behavior, whereas over-acting appears as forced behavior. Over-acting has an air of effort, and it induces a sense that the over-actor is not really feeling what he is emoting. Acting does not induce such feelings - everything appears natural, and feels just right (both for performer and spectator). Magical performance can be construed along the same lines. A "natural" magican (not to be confused with "wiccan") acts without appearing to put any effort into the actions.

So, it is not the actions per se, but the relations between actions (what I have dubbed the "action intervals") that determines whether or not they appear natural. The objective reality of a sleight or secret move must be perceived by the audience as being consistent with every other action that the performer makes, and as equally motivated as every other action. This is what "Be Natural" really means.

Thus, I've always thought of "Be Natural" as saying "Be Internally Consistent".

Apply this to our discussion of one-handed/flourishy DL's: If I always turn cards over with one hand, a one-handed DL will appear "natural" in the Vernon-esque sense (this is an example of what I call a "consonant action interval"). If you turn cards over like a layperson, and mid-effect you perform a one-handed DL, do not be surprised if the effect falls flat (as this is a "dissonant action interval").

If you can imagine a spectator saying to herself, "Why did he do it THAT way?", you are not being natural. There is no need to generalize about the pro's and con's of flourishy actions, if one learns this most important lesson about natural action. Flourishes can be as natural as any other action, and when this is accomplished they do not tip-off skill level in a manner that reduces magic to juggling, but rather they appear as magical as any well-executed color change.

Matt:

Although I would agree for the most part
with what you've written, I think you may
have projected your opinion into a Vernon quote.
Did Vernon explain what he meant
to you personally or was this interpretation
from a third source?

Steven Youell

You are right, Matt. Vernon's "be natural" is as misunderstood as Mies Van der Rohe's "Less is More". I got to know Vernon a little in the 1970's when I did a painting of his cups (it hangs in the castle just over the bust of Vernon).

We need to remember that Vernon was reacting against the overly dramatic gestures of late 19th century magicians. He certainly didn't mean that appearing to be inept makes magic stronger. Vernon loved to sit for hours just playing with a deck of cards and he did plenty of flourishes. After all, what is the Wand Spin Vanish? Not exactly the way your macho buddies around the home poker table would handle things.

When a lay audience sees a magical effect, they think one of three things:

1) An illusion was created by the magician's skill...
Or
2) Something you can buy at a magic store created an illusion...
Or
3) The magician is a supernatural person who did real magic.

Number three is out: no sensible, modern audience will believe that you did real magic. True, the David Blaine crew has found a few individuals who react as if Blaine is supernatural, but those few are invariably culturally deprived: few of us will be performing for them.

Which would you rather your audience believe: that you are skilled or that you just bought mechanical apparatus that they (the audience) could do just as well themselves if they had access to the trick equipment?

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey

Steven Youell,
I never met Vernon, but this should not be construed as a reason to dismiss my thoughts, or consider them mere opinions. What I have offered is an informed analysis of Vernon's teachings (based on his and other's writings). I've never met Plato or Aristotle, but that does not mean my thoughts on "The Republic" or "Nicomachean Ethics" are mere opinions.

Glenn Godsey,
Here here! Well said!

Glenn I agree with much of what you wrote (especially about the Blaine audiences , certainly never get that kind of reaction in England even if you COULD levitate three feet off the ground .

BUT there is another type of audience who, although they can't do it themselves, still aren't impressed by seeing something they THINK they could do if only they had the time and patience to practice it!

So, I'm not convinced that it is ALWAYS better to make an audience believe you are a practice, skilled magician. Look at Tommy Cooper who acted like he was totally incompetent but clearly wasn't.

I'll second Alan Jackson's suggestion to investigate Ian Rowland's Flexicon one-handed double lift and turnover. He'll be back from his US tour in a couple of days, so his lecture notes should be available on his Website by the end of the week.

The sleight is not only fairly easy to learn, but it gives you a very clean card change as well. The lecture notes also teach Ian's excellent no-get-ready card scaling technique, so are well worth having.

... Doug