I've decided to try and start a blog on magic. I'll be writing articles about magic history and theory to begin with, but hope to write about a wide variety of topics in the future. I'll even share a free trick from time to time! Most of the initial content will be related to card magic because that's what I enjoy the most.

The first few posts will focus on Dr. Daley's Last Trick; I'll be discussing ways to improve the presentation, alter the method, and so on. Here's the link for those who are interested:

Daley Dilemma (Part 1)

Marty

Great idea, Marty!

Thanks Atom3339,

I've recently started teaching a "blogging for beginners" course at my University and I thought I'd better start blogging on a more regular basis myself! Hopefully many Café members will find what I have to say interesting.

Marty

I'm looking forward to part II (and subscribed) !

BTW : you sourced the trick's description, but forgot to do so with "Rick Johnsson’s Too-Perfect Theory". Can you give me/us a pointer on some literature about this ?

Hi Marty,

Are you only interested in non-gimmicked versions of the effect?

Jon

No Jon,

I'm interested in all versions and all approaches. In fact I'm already a big fan of Double Back! I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the good Doctor's trick.

Marty

Hi Steff,



Sorry about that. I've updated the post with the following information on the Too-Perfect Theory:

Rick Johnsson’s Too-Perfect Theory was first published by Jon Racherbaumer in his journal The Hierophant in 1970. The original essay was re-printed in the 2001 August edition of Genii magazine (Vol. 64, No. 8), along with a collection of reflective articles on the controversial theory by several well known exponents of magic. If you’re interested in learning more about the Too-Perfect Theory, I strongly recommend you read this collection of articles.

Marty

Marty,
Great idea. I will do some research and PM you at some point the reference for DDLT. Daley did not invent the effect. It is called his "last trick" for a very morbid reason. I have done some research on the effect already and it seems that the effect was either invented by or at least popularized first in the UK by Francis Haxton.

Fair winds and good fortune on your blog!

Vlad

Hi Vlad,

I'm aware the plot pre-dates Daley and I'll be posting the history of the effect in due course. Many magicians don't correctly understand why it is called his "last trick". I'm pretty sure you do though .



I look forward to any historical information you have on the lineage of the plot.

Thanks,

Marty

Thanks! Let me know what sort of contribution, if any, you'd like. You can email me at jallen@close-upmagician.com.

Cheers,
Jon

Just emailed you Jon.

Marty

Thanks Marty. I love Dr Daley. Do it a lot. Your ideas I found very helpful. I subsribed.

cheers
Tom Mason
Vienna Austria

Marty - that is a great post. Dr Daley was one of the first tricks I learnt which did not use gaffed cards, I still use it a lot and people love it (I think it helps that I am very comfortable with the moves and routine...!). John Bannon does the classic 'in hands' version on the Twisted sisters DVD.

Will check back - look forward to your next blog post!

PS - for more info on the psychology of tricks and a commentary on the 'too perfect' theory (which generally discusses mentalists), read 'Sleights of Mind' written by two neurobiologists (see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleights-Mind-ne......&sr=1-1).

Most overrated (and over-performed) trick. ever. (except maybe card warp)

I'm a fan of Bannon's blocking for the trick, his touches are excellent. Been meaning to read Sleights of Mind for a while, but not got round to it. The next post will be published tomorrow . I'll be collating a list of variations a some point and publishing that to my blog. Thanks for taking the time to read the article.

Marty

Would you mind justifying your position (you don't have to if you don't want to)? I've always got great reactions from this trick, so I'm keen to find out why you think it is over-rated.

Marty

I wrote a comment but it would not post

"Would you mind justifying your position (you don't have to if you don't want to)? I've always got great reactions from this trick, so I'm keen to find out why you think it is over-rated."

I just don't like it much myself, and it seems to turn up in great disproportion to how good it is intrinsically. While the double lifting seems too proximate to the effect, I'd love to be convinced to the contrary. And it sounds as if you've solved that in your handling/performance, or it just isn't the problem I perceive it to be.

@fonda57, your comment should be visible now (comments only appear once I've approved them to combat spam).

@R.E. Byrnes, fair enough. I certainly don't think it is the best trick out there, there are a lot of problems that need addressing hence my series of posts on the matter.

I've now published the second instalment in the series:

Daley Dilemma (Part 2)

Marty

All due respect to R.E. Byrnes, but, and I hasten to add that my rejoinder is based upon personal experience so what works for me may not work for our inestimable colleague - the misnamed DDLT is a very strong effect IMHO. I DO think that some magicians tend to overcomplicate the effect methodologically. Certainly I would not presume to try to convince Signore Byrnes. His argument is valid. I sense that he feels the same thing about DDLT as I do about Sam the Bellhop and effects of that type.

I would just say in defense of DDLT that when the effect is done in the spectator's hands, it takes on a whole new dimension and never ever has the effect - for me - failed to elicit that delicious strong reaction we crave from our spectators. Marty, I know you wrote a compelling argument that favors the original placing the cards on the table. So I will counter that actually, the weakness of the effect is in putting the supposed red aces for example on the table. Maybe it is a presentation issue, but, I perform the effect such that the spectators are led to believe that something ELSE is going to happen, so the transposition actually takes on a dual reality. What I mean here is that after I reveal that I have the aces - after a delay, a agree with you that the reveal as I have seen it done lacks that important beat of time - the spectator vdery slowly turns the cards over and is shocked to see the transposition. The dual reality if you will is that for some reason, the transposition registers but still there is the disbelief that the cards the spectator is holding have somehow changed. So the effect becomes more than a mere transposition. I place a little convincer in the spectator's mind by showing the second ace and either I will pretend to forget what color ace she is holding and have her remind me thus locking it all in, or, I asked what does the ace I am holding have in common besides being an ace have with the ace the person is holding. The spectator will tell me, they are both red. To me that is a defining moment in the effect: John Mendoza wrote in I believe John Verse Two that one of the weaknesees of transposition effects is getting the spectator to remember what is where. In fact, I got the idea for asking the little question or pretending to forget from reading John Mendoza's thoughts on this. If the spectartor tells me where each card/coin/whatever is, I know I have them hook, line, and sinker.

I like the idea of mixing as you wrote in part one of your blog.To a spectator, a casual mixing action is associated with a total randomization of the cards and so I always mix them and do a sort of crossing the hands display that shows they are well mixed. I need to read part two and all of the other installments. Your writing is excellent and though I may not agree with some of your assertions, you make me think and that my friend is the sign of an excellent writer.

I think that Scarne's classic transposition of two cards - the famous one you can see on YouTube that he did for Ballantine Beer - actually is a better example of the Johnsson/Wonder Too Perfect Theory. Yes it's magical looking but the effect telegraphs itself. If you are putting one card atop a glass or bottle and another underneath, there are fewer possibilities for what the effect could be and I feel the same about the original instructions in DDLT to place the cards on the table. But in the spectator's hands, they could be anticipating any number of possibilities. Only tangentially related to DDLT is Simon Lovell's Fingered which I would offer is an excellent exploration and support of the very weaknesses of the original method for DDLT.

But ...

To quote Harry Lorayne "do what works for you."