Granted, Haunted deck effects have been out for a long time, but if you read the entire thread you would easily see that there is a common concern and questions pertaining to those that do not wish to use anything that in any way shape or form depends on the use of IT and I’m certainly amongst them! Therefore……the interest in “Haunted”.

The Haunted Deck has always been a favourite of mine and I've collected many versions over the years. It never fails to get a great reaction and with the right presentation, it can kill.

I think the best thing about "Haunted" is its always ready to go. Its the condom of Haunted Deck routines. Its there if you decide you need it, takes up no room in your pocket, the performance is smooth and it has a great climax. Safe magic!

Its not the best Haunted Deck, for me, that has to be Finn Jon's Esoteric. But, although "Haunted" is a slightly watered down version, its still a powerful effect and I highly recommend it.

Posted: Dec 2, 2011 3:34pm
3 posts in a year, that's disgraceful! I'm sorry but you guys always ask the right questions.

Considering Esoteric can only be done in certain situations,I don't think it really compares to a method that is self contained with no restrictions or fear of something being broken or seen.


Mike

Certain situations? What exactly do you mean by this Mike?

I have 2 packs (red & blue) that I purchased via Ken from the late 70's.

- Neither have ever broken (despite their age/use)
- Nothing has ever been seen (I've worked in enough establishments over the years where I'd have been told!)
- Esoteric is what I'd consider more or less self contained (nothing added or taken away)

So I have to disagree old chap. I don't think, if we are talking about comparisons, that 'Haunted' compares to 'Esoteric'.....but each to their own eh?

I’m in no way shape or form one who can give any knowledgeable input on the use of IT as I absolutely hate the freaking stuff! I believe the last time I messed about with it was sometime in the 80’s while under the influence of Michael Ammar, or was it Jack Daniels? Anyway, there is no doubt whatsoever that the use of IT can indeed work some really great miracles in the right hands, and I would imagine a good deal of practice in being comfortable in using that medium.

I remember Michael Ammar (someone who is quite adept in the use of IT ) telling the story of doing the Floating Dollar Bill all evening and then suddenly having some women slowly and quietly reach out, grabbing the thread and pluck it while he watched the bill slowly fall to the ground! The gist of it all was that one must always be cognizant of the lighting, and or the direction of the lighting while performing anything that uses IT. Most obviously IT cannot be used in every type of lighting so, would that not then be called the need of the magician being aware of evaluating the surroundings, i.e. lighting, direction of lighting before deciding to use an effect that uses IT as in “certain situations”?

I just received Haunted and I have to say that it is absolutely brilliant! I'm going to use it for ever!

Kevin

I'm a little disappointed - Not in the effect, but because I haven't received mine yet, even though I pre-ordered :-(

I should've been patient and ordered from World Magic Store and I would've got it a lot quicker.

Hey ho... Back to twiddling my thumbs.

*looks for postman*

I too ordered direct from Peter still not arrived, I could have driven 30 miles and picked one up from WMS
There's even 3 second hand ones for sale on magic week.

I noticed that this morning as well.

As somebody recently said, the 'For Sale' section on MagicWeek is probably the best place to go for a review of new products!

Well, I don't really find Esoteric to be practical for strolling/tablehopping.While the gimmick is not traditional thread,it can break & or come loose during the effect.Also the set up & clean up can not be done in all situations.While,yes Esoteric is self contained......but not in the way Haunted is nor is it examinable in any way.

Mike

I just got mine today from penguin magic! I can't wait to play with this!

Well I just watched the dvd and I have to say WOW! This is a great effect! Great job Peter!

Mike - I truly respect your points about 'Esoteric' - but ask Pete Biro what it physically did to him the first time that he saw it performed in Ken Brooke's Studio in 1975; with sun beaming through the window!

However, I truly think that if you are looking purely at a table-hopping scenario, then 'Haunted' is nowhere near as powerful as a similar 'card movement effect'; namely the Devano Rising Cards (or the similar Martini version) - whereby cards rise when (a) there is nobody near the deck and (b) ALSO when the pack is actually held by the spectator.

Now I know you may reply that even these versions are not examinable BUT I've got to ask - what is this bloody obsession that many people have on the Café with wanting to have props examined?! At the end of the day, the PERFORMER controls the audience and I just can't see why anyone would want their props passed around the table like a game of adult 'pass the parcel'; whilst they are left standing there like a gormless clown, waiting for things to be handed back. Do you call that entertainment? I certainly don't.

I've raised this point many times before and it's one of my pet rants so don't take it personally - I just don't get this crazy idea that magicians have for wanting to only perform tricks that are examinable. Did Fred Astaire stop halfway through his act, hand his tap shoes down to the audience and say "there you go lads, try them on for size - pass them along the front row and, when you've all finished, I'll carry on with my routine!" Of course he didn't - and NOR should magicians - IN MY VIEW.

Look fella, if this version floats your boat then happy days. However, as already mentioned above, for a trick that's only just hit the dealers shelves this side of the pond (as far as I am aware anyway) it is a little surprising to see at least 3 of these for sale on the MagicWeek website over the past couple of days; particularly so quickly after purchase. It just appears to send out a certain message.

Jeez!
our opinions vary,welcome to the world.

I was going to add something about the whole examiniability issue, but did not.
If something can be examined,it's nice,but not a deal breaker.

I know all about Pete's experience of falling backwards after seeing it,I'm glad he enjoyed it so much.


What it comes down to it fella,is we all have things we like & dislike,one mans garbage is another mans treasure.

Cheers

Mike

Ive got to ask... why is it so bloody important that inventors go to so much length, in order for a trick to be examinable? Answer... If the inventors, magicians etc didn't think or feel that it is such an important thing that props/tricks are to made 'examinable' then they would just construct the gimmick in a way that it wouldn't stand up to 'examination' It would sure make the inventors life a lot easier to manufacture and produce a trick/gimmick. So yeah, why is the 'examinability' factor so important??? The reason is which I don't think I will ever really get my point across enough, is because it is our job as magicians to fool (i don't want to get into the whole...'yeah but entertaining is more important etc etc and performance management etc etc rubbish) Yes I totally agree that the whole performance package is important BUT I stand with probably the majority of magicians who perform in the real world and agree that something being examinable is very important, and people who had the choice to perform the same effect but if one was made examinable and the other made non examinable ( looks exactly the same in performance) then people would choose to perform the 1st

I will give you a perfect example of the top of my head. Why did Dave Bonsall construct his ring flight revolution to be contain a 'locking' mechanism? Why did he want the spectator to be able to take the ring off themself. He could quite easily take the ring off and hand it back. The reason is that when the spectators think about what they just saw, they will think how they took the ring off themself, so if anyone on the table even had the slightest chance of working it out (if they perhaps thought that it was something to do with the key ring coming off or something) Then this couldn't have been how the trick worked because the spectator actually 'handled' the trick/prop making it more impossible for your audience to work out your magic - making you a more impressive magician (in the eyes of your audience).

And that's why it is important that we as magicians learn to know/or should know how our audience think, and through experience,knowledge and performing we then adapt this to our performance.

That's wise, I think. I've only been here a couple of months, and I've already seen the examinable vs. non-examinable argument hashed out three times. (Once was in this very thread, and it looks like we're about to see a fourth round in this same thread. ) The anti-examinable crowd's argument is the same every time, and boils down to "If you'd like to have a trick that is examinable, you're a poor and/or wimpy magician who can't control his audience."

There's also invariably some straw-man stuff about purely hypothetical magicians who don't want to do *any* tricks that aren't examinable, and about magicians who *insist* that *everyone* in the audience examine every prop after every trick. These hypotheticals make the pro-examinable position look absurd -- but only by introducing arguments that no one on the pro-examinable side ever said...

...and then, ultimately, somebody mentions a famous person who didn't even do magic, saying "_________ never stopped his performance so everyone could examine his _________." And that trips some kind of ridiculousness limiter, and the whole thing resets, ready to begin again in a week or two, at which point everyone will make the exact same arguments, as if the debate had never happened before.

It’s not really a question of having a trick that must be examinable, but rather a great option to have when, for all practical purposes, the effect is the same thing. Just because any given trick can be examinable does not necessarily mean that it must be given out for examination. There are some, for lack of a better term, those who seem to be “purists” and shout out; “The same effect can be done without any gimmicks and good sleight of hand”. Well, that’s great, but then why be so concerned over the fact that the trick is not gimmicked, as in….. EXAMINABLE! Like I said, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it must be given out for examination, but it sure as hell is a nice option to have.

Let’s assume, just quickly off the top of my head, that someone came out with a new Invisible Deck (well call it ID 2). Now ID 2 is fully examinable before and after and you can then directly go into other card tricks with the very same deck. Again, that certainly doesn’t mean that you have to go into another card trick, and or pass the deck out for examination, but it sure as hell sounds better to me than the original Invisible Deck! Which one would you choose? As for me, I’ll definitely go with the newer ID 2 but that’s just silly old me.

Examination is certainly not an obsession, nor is it always a necessity, but hey……isn’t it a great option to have!

I love to get this debate going!

However, first and foremost, I really think that if your prime intention of performing magic is to go out and FOOL people, then you are seriously looking at things from the wrong perspective.

A commercial magician IS simply an entertainer that uses tricks/magical principles to ENTERTAIN people - not to become a wonnabee celebrity smarta*se!

That's certainly the difference between the various magicians that I've worked with. Some have all the charisma of a lead pipe BUT have pockets crammed full of the most recent tricks from (e.g.) the Wizard Product Review. Ideally, they should be behind the counter in a magic shop demming - as that's where they truly belong. Good Lord, and I kid you not, I once worked with a guy that had so much stuff on his person, he was actually carrying around a cardboard shoe box (covered in black tissue paper.....yeah nice!) full of 'back-up material'?

On the other side of the coin, you've got a magician such as (in the UK) Paul Gordon. Now there's a bloke that is one of the busiest professional magicians that I've ever known in this country - that uses very little other than a normal pack of cards. However, he has personality, drive, enthusiasm, likability AND professionalism.

Onto the 'examinable' debate.

Look, if I'm down the pub on a Sunday lunchtime with a few of my friends, then yeah I may just chuck the prop on the bar when I've finished the trick. You are performing for fun; the pressure is off. Often, I'm just trying something new out to see how it goes over.

HOWEVER, blimey how can I get this point across......when you guys are working commercially (often for a lot more dosh than many people earn for a week's hard graft) HOW do you handle the scenario of handing your props out for examination? How long do you give people to try and pull it apart and find the modus operandi? Personally, and this is just my point of view, I just don't think that this approach looks professional. It's as if you have just performed a puzzle and you are now giving them an opportunity to try and solve it. IT ISN'T a magical performance! It's insulting their intelligence AND, I have to say this, if I took this approach I'd actually think I was short-changing the client. As I said above, you are booked and paid to entertain guests - not stand there like a lemon watching THEM! Another point I didn't touch on - timing. How do you manage your timing if you are giving props out for examination. Another point - keeping the natural flow of your act - surely this is interrupted? Blimey, I could go on and on. I'm not being patronising - I truly don't know. It's not something I've ever done!

Let me end this by saying the following (and I know I'm probably alone in my views). The greatest close-up magician that I've ever seen perform live during my lifetime was Albert Goshman. Albert didn't just have an agenda full of meaningless tricks - he was probably the first magician that ever brought a magic ACT into what we now term 'close-up/table conditions'. Every move was honed to perfection and the transition of effects was seamless; because he had a structure; and well thought out links from one phase into the next. Do you think Goshman EVER worried about giving out his Devano or Nudist deck for examination? Did he even say to people "examine the salt & pepper shakers; I'll just sit here and watch you". NO, he didn't. Because when Goshman sat down, his audience invariably KNEW that they were in the hands of a true master of a performer. They didn't NEED to examine his props because they were more into ENJOYING THE PERFORMANCE.

That my friends, in my honest opinion, is the difference between an ENTERTAINER that provides a magical performance, as opposed to a bloke who does magic tricks to 'fool' people......(and worries about handing them out for examination afterwards!)

Your right merc man.i feel the same way.
when I perform a effect. my audience knows
it wasn't real magic.what I want them to go away
with is man this guy is sweet with his hands or
that was a great performence.i then know I have did my job right.
I sure wish my haunted would get here.
todd

I really wanted to like this.

After practicing 2 days, I went out to "the real world" and this did not worked.

I don't know what to think, I am confused.

Is Haunted practical? Yes.

Is it reliable? No.

I really don't know if I LOVE it or I HATE it.

My thoughts about Haunted are confusing my mind.