|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
soleil Loyal user 294 Posts |
What is the name of the one using a TT?
"Art is the Artist. The Artist is God."- Goete
|
|||||||||
Shurikenstorm5 New user South Carolina 75 Posts |
Phantom card work really well, they aren't really an invisible deck but they are strong and gives the image of a card flipping because of the spectator's imagination.
|
|||||||||
Jacob3 New user 51 Posts |
Unbound: Gimmickless Invisible Deck by Darryl Davis. This is one of the best DVDs I've ever bought
|
|||||||||
I.M.Wright Regular user 117 Posts |
Quote:
On Dec 4, 2015, Jacob3 wrote: When you ask for no props it limits how clean you can hope for it to be. But still... This one is almost as clean as the standard gimmicked version. |
|||||||||
TheMagicHacker New user 26 Posts |
I just got Unbound by Darryl Davis, and I agree with you guys. It is a great DVD, and though I haven't performed it yet, I really like it.
|
|||||||||
Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse Inner circle 1513 Posts |
I'm not to big of a fan of this effect, my protégé is, but I like Paul's version
|
|||||||||
Forty Six & 2 Regular user Three cheers and some toasts for my 107 Posts |
Not totally un-gimmicked, and not exactly 'Invisible Deck', but Richard OSterlind's 'Richardwave' has served me very well. You can give the deck away at the conclusion of the routine, and the kicker at the ending really sells the impossibility and the 'cleanliness' of it all.
Ask, knock and seek
|
|||||||||
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts |
Asi Wind has a great one in Chapter 1. It's semi-gimmicked, in that you do need a single odd-backed card prepared a certain way. But you start and end with an ungimmicked deck that the audience could inspect.
|
|||||||||
dsleasman New user Greensburg, Pennsylvania 23 Posts |
I have been looking for this new "invisible deck killer" for ages, and I have found that most of them are very impractical as you must have a stack or some other weird thing. These are a couple things I have found:
Gone by Daniel Madison- Very good effect, only problem is some palming is involved and a gimmick is used in the original handling, but you could eliminate the gimmick by using the SAC move. Kollosal Killer by Kenton Knepper- Not really with a deck, but it allows you to end pretty clean. Overall, if you are in the right situation, I personally do not think you should discount the invisible deck. Just add some touches that you would not otherwise be able to do, such as Sankey's X deck or an idea I saw Joshua Jay use where that was the only card with a corner torn off. My point is, you should combine multiple subtleties together with the Invisible deck that you otherwise could not do with a normal deck or have a nice variety of stack tricks for the non-gimmick version. Sorry for my incoherent ramblings.
"If you want something from an audience, you give blood to their fantasies. It's the ultimate hustle." -Marlon Brando
|
|||||||||
Sanks New user 62 Posts |
Patrick Kun at the table lecture (Murphy’s Magic) has a nice invisible deck idea which require only an ordinary deck of cards. Also has other effects.
|
|||||||||
Rjellinger New user 4 Posts |
I’ve been losing sleep over the version I saw Dani DaOrtiz perform last July when he was in Australia. It wasn’t his imaginary deck taught in Utopia, although the presentation themes were the same. But instead of the imaginary deck method it really was just ‘name a card’, and it was reversed in the deck that he was nowhere near.
Seriously. I’m losing sleep over this! |
|||||||||
pedro95 New user 37 Posts |
Do you know where we could see the trick in a video ? Or can you discribe the more accurately you can what happened ?
|
|||||||||
Rjellinger New user 4 Posts |
I’m deepy suspicious of my own memory - especially since Dani makes a real point in his teaching about how what the spectator sees is not always what the spectator remembers - but I’ll try my best. I’ve searched high and low for video footage but to no avail.
He had been lecturing for 45 minutes or so, mostly at the table. And he hadn’t explained anything as yet, just showing various tricks. He then launched into a fairy standard invisible deck routine. As he started the trick he got up from the table and walked in front of it. He pointed to a spectator, held up an invisible card, and asked the spectator what card it was - from memory it was the 7 of diamonds. This invisible card went into the invisible deck, again all quite standard. He then explained that the invisible deck contained the souls of the deck, walked back to the table holding the invisible cards aloft, and put that hand over the deck. If you’ve seen his presentation of the Imaginary Deck from Utopia or his first penguin live lecture it was very much the same, only there was only ever one card named, and none of the other verbal method that makes Imaginary deck work was in Play. It really was just a named card. As far as I remember. Anyway, with the soul in the deck he then spread the cards in the table, and again, as far as I recall, his hands were completely empty l- it was really clean. And in the deck, the only face up card was the 7 of diamonds. I remember being particularly struck because it was a deck that he’d been using, and I’m fairly sure it was borrowed. I was also struck because all the cards were face down barring one face up, which immediately distinguished it from the classic invisible deck. A day later at his masterclass I saw him do the same thing again with a different freely named card. This was definitely a borrowed deck because the back design was somewhat fancy.. It was the one trick he declined to teach, and the one trick I was desparate to learn! Obviously what he does and doesn’t teach is absolutely his decision, and he was so kind and generous throughout the weekend, tipping huge amounts of material. But ***... I have a few theories, none of which are completely satisfying. One is some form of pre-show or instant stooging. Dani is amazing when it comes to turning chosen cards into thought of cards with a bit of psychological misdirection. To my mind this seems most likely, and most in keeping with What I know of his style. Another is that he got really lucky, and would have used the Imaginary Deck as an out if he needed to. Possibly a combination of these two elements would work. But I’m only speculating here! Finally there could be elaborate switching at work with indexes and all sorts under the table. Having studied his Lap DVDs it seems possible, but not necessarily plausible. I’ll just hold out hope that he releases it sometime, and I’ll be able to rest! Either that or if video of that performance crops up I might be able to see how faulty my memory is. |
|||||||||
Rjellinger New user 4 Posts |
Okay well I’m excited to present my own take on this effect after mulling over a method for the past year or so
http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/10726 |
|||||||||
Maxyedid Special user Panama 843 Posts |
The DaOrtiz version is "simply" a verbal force of a card. You sure don't have a good memory 😀
The explanation is in his first Penguin Lecture, among other places 😀 Personally I don't feel it is as strong as the original one, but it fools magicians
NEW BOOK! "Semi-Automatic Miracles" - INSTANT Best-Seller at Lybrary.com
https://www.lybrary.com/semiautomatic-card-miracles-p-925333.html chaos handlings, out of hands effects, and more |
|||||||||
Maxyedid Special user Panama 843 Posts |
The problem I have with some of the versions mentioned is that, although they are technically "ungimmmicked", they still need a special deck (or stacked deck) for it. So what's the point? You still need a separate deck to perform an inferior version of the effect. IMO only of course.
In regards to Unbound: it is not exactly an "Invisible Deck" routine. The ID (the original) is a PREDICTION type of effect. That card was openly turned over by the magician outside the time-frame of the performance. Now the card is revealed. In Unbound a spec is asked to look at the spread of cards and think of one. Then that same card appears turned over in deck. The turning over of the card happened "magically" and is part of the effect. So it's more a "magical" effect rather than a mental effect. IMO only of course. SO - The closest thing to an ungimmicked, unprepared, impromptu ID is Sam Wooding's "Impromptu Invisble Deck". It's available as a free PDF in Penguin Magic. Combine that with "1 in 52" by J. Carey (Sweet Something) and play with that. That's what I'm doing right now 😀
NEW BOOK! "Semi-Automatic Miracles" - INSTANT Best-Seller at Lybrary.com
https://www.lybrary.com/semiautomatic-card-miracles-p-925333.html chaos handlings, out of hands effects, and more |
|||||||||
Maxyedid Special user Panama 843 Posts |
By the way - I have also seen J. Carpenter (on video) spread a deck of cards face up om the table and have a spec think of one. Then he shows that's the only card with a different color back. The cards are not stacked, no gimmicks, no R&S, and the method is very basic BUT the reaction was incredible.
NEW BOOK! "Semi-Automatic Miracles" - INSTANT Best-Seller at Lybrary.com
https://www.lybrary.com/semiautomatic-card-miracles-p-925333.html chaos handlings, out of hands effects, and more |
|||||||||
countrymaven Inner circle 1425 Posts |
You must check out Bob Solari's ultimate brainwave, then let them inspect the deck. hehe.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic...at a moment's notice! » » Un Gaffed/ Ungimmicked Invisible Deck (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ 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 < |