|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts 
|
I provided two links above.
You seem adversarial about this. I hope I'm wrong. I don't want to go off track here. Eugene Burger, and Mike Close were/are correct, ie. If you perform sleight of hand magic for paying customers without having mastered sleight of hand, you are directly, negatively affecting them and every other competent pro who performs for them next. If so many horrific doubles wernt being passed off as singles at restaurant tables around the world, I've no doubt Eugene would've used one strategically here and there. |
|||||||||
|
MattyMediocrity Regular user 169 Posts
|
I'm not even a little adversarial, lol. Honestly, it's how you've come off from the beginning. I've just decided that asking anons on the internet has literally zero value. It was a mistake by me that I won't make again.
And you obviously feel that your second vid looks good, frankly, we have very different ideas on what works as a double. That peeling motion is one of the reasons I say a lot of pros have a bad double. The first vid is spectacular. If you can do that every time on command, that's gold standard! IMO of course. Mine looks just like my single which I'm happy with... unless a trusted source changes my mind. I sent you a link and four days went by without hearing from you, so I deleted it. Nearly a week later you come back offering critique, which I'm not sure I can take seriously, since you think my double is flip floppy twisty, lol. It's nothing of the sort. I turn it over, then turn it back over. Exactly how I do my single. That's it. There are no shenanigans. If you're commenting on the other three that were in that vid,if you read one sentence you would have saw I never do those, I ONLY do that first one. So you obviously saw the vid when I first posted... I don't quite get responding a week later. Did it take you a week to film a 5 second clip? Anyways, I'm offering to jam with you in a friendly manner! That's the only way I can really respond to you feeling that my demeanor is adversarial. If we're really talking, you'll see I'm opposite of adversarial. I hope to see the same from you! I'm a light hearted goof ball. Literally nothing I say is mean spirited. If anyone reads that in my text, I guess I just wish they knew me. So let's jam. Show me that first one live! It's terrific. Luke Dancy uses that method and has it where he can do it every time. I've got a load of cool things I'm working on. I'm clip shifting with both hands now and I think my Raise Rise is just about ready. I do the first stage, but then I've got two double facers in the deck, then do a second stage face up!
Creator of Molly Mayhem's 25 Cent Tacos <ultra visual coin bend>
I try to treat others as if this were a small community where we're likely to be face to face one day 
|
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Like I said, I demonstrate dozens of different doubles or turnovers. Some are good, some aren't so good, some are manipulative, some are plain jane. I record them to help others see what they generally look like if they're having trouble interpreting the printed word. I have a large reference library so I try to use it to help beginners "see" things from books they may not have.
Anyway, good luck with all your magic. Have a nice day. |
|||||||||
KevinWisch Loyal user 203 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2022, stevevoltz wrote: Such a wonderful compliment stevevoltz! Showed it to my Dad and of course, he said thank you (and agrees!)  Thank you for the support.
- Kevin |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Here's another interesting one from Mr. Couture.
https://youtube.com/shorts/v0lLz4B4Wdw?feature=share |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5195 Posts
|
[quote]On Feb 6, 2022, stevevoltz wrote:
All that said, take a look at John Scarne doing it here repeatedly, openly, and with absolutely zero misdirection. And he pulls it off. (No pun intended.) I doubt I'd ever be so bold to do this -- at least without a one liner or two for misdirection to take the heat off -- but no one has or ever will accuse me of being John Scarne. .
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Here is Hamman's Double from a 4 Card Packet.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Vz9zv59jbkc?feature=share |
|||||||||
|
jkr Regular user Mn 149 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 13, 2022, magicfish wrote: Thanks for posting this Magicfish. I have really enjoyed seeing your videos in this thread. I’m currently looking for a good double from a small packet. Where can I learn this one, and are there any other doubles for small packets that you would recommend? Thanks, Jacob |
|||||||||
|
Einmaliger Regular user Germany 200 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, jkr wrote: It seems to be the one from "The Secrets of Bro. John Hamman". I found the description in that book pretty similar to Harry Lorayne's "No-Get-Ready Double Lift From a 4-Card Packet" from Best of Friends 3 (but probably also published in other Lorayne-books). Also, as usual, see the corresponding category from Denis Behr's archive: https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/category/892 |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, Einmaliger wrote: I'm glad you shared this link. It illustrates my main criticism of Behr's otherwise useful website. It is called an archive- and that is what it should be. I use it from time to time to confirm the tables of content in my books when I am not at home. Unfortunately, Denis goes beyond "archiving" and injects opinion as seen in his entry for Lorayne's Double from a 4 card packet, Quantum Leaps- 1979 where he credits Bro. Hamman. A Study of said book will reveal that Mr. Lorayne gives no such credit. If he had, I would expect it to be reflected in a true archive. However, Denis, injects his own, debatable opinion, and therefore is not archiving the literature as written. This doesn't mean I don't want to hear opinions, such as Kaufman's in Opus Magazine on this very topic. On the contrary, proper crediting is a favourite topic of mine. But should not be done in an archive. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3159 Posts
|
Which opinion of Denis's are we specifically talking about here?
|
|||||||||
|
MorrisCH Veteran user 394 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, magicfish wrote: Related does not mean author credited to or from the source, it simply means two things are either similar or related in one way or another. |
|||||||||
|
jkr Regular user Mn 149 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, Einmaliger wrote: Thanks Einmaliger! |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, The Burnaby Kid wrote: The one specified in my post. |
|||||||||
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3159 Posts
|
He references another text in order to clarify a credit. Where's his opinion?
|
|||||||||
|
Einmaliger Regular user Germany 200 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, magicfish wrote: In general, I think that correcting or clarifying credit should actually be done in Denis' archive. Other writers may use the entry to give sources for things they use, so they should get proper information about who created what. In this specific case, however, it probably would be more accurate to give the correction only in the "comment" field instead of changing the "creators" field. |
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts
|
The reason crediting issues shouldn't be sorted out in an internet archive is simply that no one source should be taken as gospel. Issues that relate to crediting should be brought to light in whatever forum makes sense and pains should be taken to deal with fact and not speculation. Making adjustments to archives is an under-the-radar approach in my opinion. Many of the infamous crediting arguments have benefited from subsequent revelations that were brought to light later on. So in my opinion, more sharing of information in public forums is better and is likely to draw out more facts.
Regarding Denis Behr's website, I quote from it frequently and I see great value in it. But that doesn't mean I believe it to be perfect. Denis does make statements where he tries to help the reader make connections and I find them helpful. But again, I don't presume they are without limitation or flaw. Nobody is perfect and that doesn't detract from his website nor its value. And finally, Denis, as the student he is, would surely appreciate honest debate. If there are facts which bring conventional assumptions into question they should be shared with him and the community at large to help sort things out.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Well said.
And I'd like to add that, of course, my previous post is simply my opinion. Mr. Behr is obviously free to do as he wishes and I appreciate the work he has put in. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2022, The Burnaby Kid wrote: 1979 Brother John Hamman Double-Lift from 4-Card Packet Quantum Leaps |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7116 Posts
|
If you're familiar with Denis' website, you'll know that he lists the originator (or unknown) then, underneath, the name of the item, then where it is published.
So you'll see as I've illustrated above, Behr credits the double published in Quantum Leaps to Brother Hamman. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Eugene Burger agreed that the Double Lift is at best a feeble device, at worst an abomination. (36 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 7, 2022 10:21 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < 
|