It certainly does, in two ways: Bro. Hamman's No Get Ready D.L.
Ortiz Pinky Count

I'm having a bit of a time with the double push-off myself, first seeing it on "Born to Perform", and more recently on this page: http://web.superb.net/cardtric/sleights/dlift.htm
which gives a little more detail on how to actually do it, but I'm still having some difficulty feeling the 2nd card come over.
Would anyone care to post or PM some pointers on this particular move ?
thanks !

Two thinkings about the double lifts:
The external and internal life of this technique are the same, I mean, there's no aditional and hiden movements, so physical misdirection is not needed. To do a convincg double lift all you need is to be "natural":Is my opinion that every times you turnover a card ( a single one or a double one) yo have to do the same movement.

The pinky count is a get-ready.

I learned to do a push-off that I eventually refined into something that had already been created: Nash's Knockout Double Lift. I do end with an 'against the palm spin flourish' and then an 'against the left thumb display' like Blaine does.

Before I get rotten produce thrown in my direction, let me suggest several things:

1) If we are to do things like a laymen would, then turning a card over Stud style is the closest we'll get. That excludes Strikes or any variant where the double is turned over like pages of a book. This includes any push off where it is flipped over onto the deck like pages of a book. The only thing that comes close is a push off that turns the card over Stud style.

2)I've asked spectators and they say that they expect a Magician to a bit fancier in doing things than they are. The balance is struck between being smooth and natural in technique while not appearing too tense at one extreme or too studied at the other. The 'against the palm spin flourish' is a bit fancy but it's done in the context of cleanly pushing off and then turning over a card in a way similar to the way a layperson would. I feel like the spectators are more than willing to let it slide simply because the push off technique is natural and convincing in the first place.

3) Finally, the display that Blaine uses solves one of the greatest challenges any double lift faces-one that I believe Vernon raised. I don't know if the against the left thumb flexing that Blaine does with the double is original to him, but it is the only double lift display that I know of that takes care of the problem of why you would turn the card back face down in the first place.

Many have discussed how any layman would turn the card face up and then just hand it out/place it on the table/etc. rather than turning it back face down, back onto the deck nonetheless, and then doing whatever with it. There's really no justification for this and it is the weak point of most all double lifts. However, using the principles of the Knockout Double Lift while displaying the double ala Blaine solves it. Both hands are preoccupied with showing the double, and then you just turn it back face down while gesturing or explaining something with the right hand. The right ahnd then takes the top indifferent card and proceeds.

Any double lift that has you flipping the double face up onto the deck does not have this jutsification avaialable simply because the right hand is already free to gesture. Turning the double back face down onto the deck makes no sense in this context and, once you think about it, seems suspicious. Why wouldn't you just flip it over as you're giving it to them?

While Blaine's double display doesn't give perfect justification, it is the only double display I know that even comes close to solving it at all. The difference is subtle but I think worthy of notice.

*Engali*

Engali,

Interesting points you raised about the justification for turning a Double face-up and face down on the deck. It is NOT the DL that is at fault here, though. It is the plot of the effect and it's choreography.

For instance, the "Fingerprint Trick", originally Clyde Cairy's from "My Best", and later published with refinements in the Vernon Chronicles. Jack McMillen loved this trick, and did it so often that it was a signature piece of his. When he turned the cards over on the deck, it was to LOOK FOR FINGERPRINTS, and then to double-check himself before discarding the card he was checking.

We recently discussed the difference between a Double Lift and a Two Card Turnover. In some cases the trick is better served by using a DL. Search the forum for the recent thread that covers the differences in the two techniques. So, pick the right way to display 2 cards as 1, and make sure if you are using a TTT that there is a reason.

There are other tricks with built-in justification. For instance, "Liepzig's Opener" (Stars of Magic). You are checking to be sure that you didn't accidentally shuffle the spectator's card to the top or bottom of the deck before you cause it to appear in one of those places. Or..., well, I'm sure you can find a couple of other examples from your own repertoire. The point is, the technique itself is not the problem, it's placement and the surrounding material is...

Best, PSC

Paul Chosse,

I'd like to first point out that this observation about the double lift was first made by Vernon-I think. I can't take credit for such an insightful comment on one of our most used sleights.

Second, I would have to respectfully disagree. I am familar with the Fingerprint Trick. There is some justification for turning it over back on the deck. However, a layman would just keep it separate from the deck as it's being turned face down anyway. Why turn it back face down square on the deck ONLY to push it back off the deck?

The flaw is inherent within the double lift. You named a few effects that have built in motivation. I can name another effect that makes the double lift more natural: Fechter's Be Honest What Is It? Here the initial single is turned over ala the technique you would use for a double lift, handed to the spectator, and then the identity of it put into question. The spectator usually nervously guesses what they saw. When they see they were right, you do a triple on that relaxation because you've conditioned them to accept your logically unnatural method of turning over a card and back as legitemate.

However, just because there are a handful of effects that have motivation, justification, or convincers for the double lift does not mean that the flaw is in the construction of effects at large. I would say conservatively that 80 percent of the card effects in existence use a double lift and only about 1 percent of them have the logic of turning the double back face down. The double lift has to be the most popular card move in existence because there are so many good features about it. It's probaly the most direct, angle-proof, clean way of blatantly switching one card for another. The fatal flaw lies in the motivation to turn it back over and it is a flaw that infects most of our card magic. To blame the flaw on the construction of the effects instead of acknowledging the inherent flaws of this sleight is to blame hundreds upon thousands of brilliant card men who are far superior to you or me in creativity or cleverness.

I have already read the thread about the distinction between the double lift and double turnover and am not convinced. In either case you usually need to turn the double back down, either immediately or very soon after. The reason behind why your turning it over usually does not justify why you need to turn it back down onto the deck before proceeding. Again, why not just turn it over AS you're doing XYZ with it?

Ultimately, I'm making a very obvious argument: there are no perfect sleights. Every sleight has its downfall, whetehr it be angles, need for incredible skill, or need for misdirection to pull it off. I can't idoloize the double lift above other sleights and pretend it doesn't have shortcomings just like any other. I'm with Vernon on this one. The double lift has an inherent flaw, a significant albeit subtle flaw, that we have yet to correct. One method could be through construction of effect like you said. I think that this would lead to an incredible diminishment of the number of card effects we could create. I think we've all been hard pressed in the past to find a lot of card effects that don't use a double lfit somewhere in the effect. By 'a lot', I mean in comparison to ones that do use a double lift. The other is through changing the mechanics of the technique itself. I'd use both but favor the latter over the former.

*Engali*

Inspired by Engali's opinion that turning the double face down squarely on top of deck is unnatural, I conceived a new DL in which double cards are never turned over squarely on top of the deck, but the cards pass over the top of the deck leaving the lower one on the top. (Joint Work No.15).

However, I think turning over the double on the deck is not so unnatural, but leaving it on top for a while diminishes the effectiveness of DL. So Dai Vernon, Juan Tamariz etc conceived Shifting Replacement.

If you are too obsessed to make sleights look perfectly natural, you will tend to loose convincing factors.

In most cases, our audience don't know what are natural and what are unnatural. We should not be restricted by magicians logic.

Thanks Engali-san for the inspiration.

Hideo Kato

Hi everyone.

This is my first commet ever on the Café so please be gentile...

I know(think) that the push-off/ttt (they are the pretty much the same) are considerd to be the best DL ever but:
Many of you talked about the problem of the get ready(with 2 hands)
I think that ortiz's pinkey count works great here(along with jenning's snap double.)
No one see you get ready when you pinkey count 2 cards and from my experiense it is easy to master than the push off method and has many uses.
The secont thing is that sometimes you see a fellow magician preform the DL in the most bizzare way(count from the back of the deck 2 cards and lift them up in an obvious way) and still no one notice.

the conclusion from that is a very clear one-In magic and especially in sleights the "how" is much more important than the "what".
Do what Jhon Carney calls "Change of the moment"
in most of the effect dealing with the DL the moment of magic happens with the moment of the turnover.
change it.
Obtain a get ready(have I mentioned the pinkey count?) and than look at the spectator while ask him something like "What was your card?" and in the same time while you are looking at him-turn the card(s) face up on the deck.
and only then lower your gaze to the deck see that the card indeed jumped to the top(or any other effect)
Alex Elmsley discuss this sleight in his Collected works vol 1 in his chapter on misdirection.

have fun

Roi

Frankly, unless you're performing for magicians, I don't really see the point in learning many different (and sometimes difficult) double-lifts. After all, from the audience's perspective, all you're really doing is turning over a card - why try to bring more attention to that than necessary? As long as you don't worry about it too much and act natural, people will almost always fall for it. I just use a break and then turn it over as I would any card. The most important thing is, whatever technique you learn, to practice it until you don't have to think about it. In my experience, if you don't focus on whatever move you're doing, then neither will the audience.

Reminds me of a trick I did for a friend of mine who is also kind of into magic, I had made the 4 aces dissapear one by one with the last one dissapearing via erdnase colour change. My friend goes 'its under that top card isn't it?'. I had the other 4 aces hidden face up a few cards apart, so as a joke I did a double lift with about 26 cards, flipping over half the deck to show that the ace 'wasn't under the top card'. My friend somehow didn't catch on to the fact that the card was about 26 times thicker than normal and was amazed, but not as amazed as I was that he had not seen it.

D.L's need a lot of practice the worst mistake is lifting too many cards.

I am amazed at how many obvious double lifts/turnovers that I see done by well known magicians. Someone already mentioned Daryl's thumbcount, but I also see a lot of bad strike doubles. Actually, I think that the strike motion, even if well done, is, in itself, a dead giveaway. No one would naturally torn over a top card without some sort of push-off.

I agree that the best is Martin Nash's Knockout Double Lift with a stud pick-up and a casual easy flip back to an Altman trap. I have practiced the Nash move thousands of times for decades and it is well worth all of the practice because it is the only really effective no-get-ready double for all-around regular use. The old Nash Trilogy is hard to come by, but you can get the general idea from Greg Wilson's Double Take Vid.

I also agree with Paul that the Marlo one-handed double is very worthwhile and I have also practiced it for many years. But, as Paul said, it is not one that you want to do several times in a row.

In a completely different vein that is far from the Vernon "natural" school of thought, I really enjoy doing a few reps of Lenart Green's Windmill Double in my AC routine. It is showy , flourishy, and mindboggling. It must be done done with a tongue-in-cheek attitude as Green, himself, exemplifies so well.

I also agree that the double is the must difficult move to do well, and probably the most important move in modern card magic.

As always, I could be wrong.

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey

I both dissagree and agree with you on this. I agree with the fact that it's not any point in learning MANY different double-lifts. BUT as one progresses and gets better with cards, one strive to get more natural - thus often learning new double-lifts which fit ones needs.

As to the 'difficult or not' problem, I disagree. IMO, the two-card-pushoff is the most natural double-lift technique, and it is not an easy technique to learn. In the direct opposite is the 'pry two cards up, and get a break. Then put your finger in and turn them' technique incredibly easy, but again not natural at all. It looks awkward (in my eyes).

But then again, we are magicians and we know what to look for. I have done both these for people, and both went ok. The difference was that I had learned the two-card-pushoff much better, so it was more natural to me to do it. This made it easier for me to focus on presentation, not technique

So whatever one choose, practice it until you can do it almost in your sleep. Practice until you don't need to think about where the hands is supposed to be, where the fingers are supposed to go, and how you should turn/lift the cards. Make it natural to your own movement

-Samuel

Ah! But there's the downfall of many magicians. You need to think like a spectator. And spectator's don't think about why the card was turned face down and then dealt. There too busy trying to figure out what the trick will be, and trying to remember that card they just say.

As for me.
When I turn over the double I drop it face up on top of the deck, but I leave it out jogged maybe 1/2 an inch.

When I want to flip the card face down again I place my index finger on the front edge of the double (towards the right side - the non index side) and I pull down.
This caused the back right corner (the index corner) to flip up, making it easy to grab the double on the right edge and turn it over.

On turning it face down I replace it square with the deck and thumb it off, so there is a motivation for turning it face down (I want to deal it to the table). Although I never really gave it much thought.

-Rd

My double lift is bad too. I just need to practice with it to get it smoother.

I will also try the advice listed on many of these post. Thanks.

I didn't read all the posts, but, I am answering the very first question posted here. Yes, the DL gets better with practice, I am still working on mine. and that happens to me too. Some people say that Im holding two cards. Ive only flashed once that I can remember, but sometimes people just realize "hey, if the card goes in the middle and keeps poping up on top, he must be using 2 cards." So they just say that you holding two cards. It doesn't nessesarily mean that your DL is bad, maybe your audience just realizes reality, and can just tell that you are holding two cards as one in order to make that possible. just my thoughts.

Themagicman101...perhaps this is where DL "acquitments", some of which are on Greg Wilson's Double take DVD, help in handling a DL card as a card to create the thought:" can't be more than one if he's doing that with the card"! kenno

I do need a little bit of help when it comes to handling the DL, but that's not always the case, sometimes, they just watch for a while, then they realize that there must be more that one card to make that possible.

I think turning the card(double) is for the suspense. hehehe