Hi everybody,


I like this glimpse; it would fit right into a trick I'm working on, and it's easy. But it seems to violate all the advice that people give about glimpses. First, I doubt many laypeople know about all-around square-ups, so a square-up might seem suspicious even without the glimpse.


Second, the magi has to look down briefly to accomplish the glimpse, rather than seeming to look at something other than the deck, while the deck stays in magi's field of vision.


Any thoughts about this glimpse? Does it fly? I don't have enough experience performing to make my own judgment, but perhaps some of you veterans can chime in.


To give you a bit of context: I want to control the card to the bottom. Eventually I'll use the convincing control or spread cull, but I'm not there yet. Instead I plan to use the Ellis/James Loading move. That move controls the selection to the top, but it's easy enough to then overhand shuffle to bring it to the bottom. Once the card is on the bottom I want to glimpse it without a lot of fuss. (Maybe there's a way to accomplish the glimpse during the shuffle, but if so I haven't found it.)


Thanks for your help!


Bob

The Mahatma shuffle allows you to shuffle the selected card to the top while glimpsing it at the same time. Having said that, the all around square up glimpse can be very deceptive if you don’t treat it as an important gesture , especially if you learn to get the glimpse in your peripheral vision.

What NicholasD25 said. Also, the AASUG should fly if you throw in a little misdirection at the right moment. You can tell the spectator to check the card box to make sure it's empty. Or tell them to hand you that pencil/magic wand/piece of paper/whatever. Use your imagination. If the spectator is pre-occupied, then a casual AASUG won't even register. Another thing that might help is to condition the spectator by doing the AASUG (but without the glimpse) once or twice in a previous trick, or at the start of this trick. Making the move familiar to them and making it look innocent and casual will get them to lower their guard. Good luck.

Thanks, R. S. Very helpful, as was Nicholas's post.


About the Mahatma control: I've practiced it, but not enough to notice at what point the glimpse is made. So now I'm intrigued to try it again and find out. I've read conflicting advice about whether the glimpse is a good idea here; it wouldn't be good if the spectator glimpsed his/her card at the same moment that the magi did!


The thought has occurred to me that I could just make it a habit to do the square-up a few times during each three-trick set so that it blends into the background -- as you suggested.


Another cafe member suggested a way to use James/Ellis to contol the selection to the bottom: instead of immediately coaslecing the two halves of the deck during the move, the magi could give one of the half-decks to a spectator to shuffle while the magi shuffles her half (and in the process controls to the botom). The spectator would be unlikely to notice the square-up while shuffling.

Hey Bob, hope you have been well.

I do not think you need to worry about anyone noticing the all around square up glimpse if done correctly. However, if it doesn't match how you normally handle the deck, there are plenty of ways to glimpse the bottom card. Merely pointing or gesturing is usually enough. Experiment with the deck in right hand end grip, making the gesture below eye level but high enough that the tilt required to see the index is minimal. The further away from your body the deck is, the easier it becomes to see.
You could also glimpse it while pushing up your sleeves - The deck starts out in right hand end grip. Left hand pushes up right sleeve. Right hand transfers deck to left hand mechanics grip, then right hand pushes up left sleeve. Catch a glimpse while the deck is transferred (much like the square up), or while the left sleeve is pushed up.
Determine what mannerisms or ways of handling the cards are natural for you, and adapt the glimpse to fit your style.

Regarding the Ellis/Stanyon move, would a bubble peek of the selected card after the switch work for your effect? As an aside, shuffling after doing the move seems to take away from the fairness of where the card is returned. And I would avoid turning the shuffling into a process wherein you and the spectator are each shuffling a half.

If your mere knowledge of the card is what makes the effect astounding from the audience perspective, you could always have a card forced and remove any need for a glimpse.

Unless you draw attention to it, hesitate, or appear unnatural, a glimpse is not something to sweat like a classic pass. Keep in mind the fact that they think the card is elsewhere anyhow, so seeing the bottom card should not raise suspicion for anyone.

Regards,
TJ

ThomasJ's last sentence of his post above speaks for me. I've done the all around square up peek hundreds of times casually and have never had an issue.
Don't overthink or run while not being chased. FWIW

Thanks, Thomas and David, very helpful indeed. Your comments about the all-round-square-up are just what I need: assurance from experienced performers that the move actually works. I'll go with that; just need to "practice being casual."


After some thought I'd come to the same conclusion that you did, Thomas, about shuffling not being a good idea. One OHS is needed to bring the card to the bottom, unfortunately -- until I learn one of the other bottom controls I mentioned. I like this point that you made: "They think the card is elsewhere anyhow, so seeing the bottom card should not raise suspicion for anyone."


The force is an intriguing idea that I'll keep in mind for other tricks -- once I've learned more than just the Hindu Shuffle force, which I already use in Chicago Opener.


You might be interested in why I need the glimpse. I'm doing the Biddle Trick, and I find that by the time I've finished the move I've already forgotten which card is theirs! By glimpsing early on, I do remember the card. Go figure...


Bob

Your latest post puts your original query in context. This raises a number of questions/concerns in my mind...

1. Firstly, on a general note, spectators don't need to "know" the All Round Square Up for it to be an effective technique. It should appear to be a casual, harmless, unconscious fidget with the cards. They shouldn't even notice it. The fact that you assume spectators must "know" it in order for you to get away with the move makes me concerned that you would execute it in an unnatural way that would be very obvious.

2. As for using this technique in THIS CONTEXT, I think it would be a bad idea. The problem is that the audience are likely to catch a glimpse of the card too. And this card matters to them, because it is the spectator's selection, that is supposed to be lost in the deck! The Square Up glimpse is great when the bottom card is not yet known to the audience. I.e. if you are going to force it or use it as a key card.
You would be wiser to use a different glimpse. EG the one mentioned by Thomas where you point with the hand holding the deck. OR preferably, one where you don't need the card to be one the bottom anyway.

3. You might consider getting a glimpse of any card then forcing it, rather than a free selection followed by a glimpse. To be honest, you seem to be going all round the houses to find out the spectator's selection. This makes your method way too convoluted, with multiple risks of getting caught. My advice would be to look for the most simple direct method to do what you need to do.

4. Which brings me to my final point(!) The Biddle Trick already has a built-in solution to identifying the selection. Your problem is you keep forgetting. Maybe you could just repeat it several times in your head? Or maybe you could do a version of the trick that doesn't require you to actually name the card. It's not actually an essential requirement.


Best wishes
Nick

Hi, Nick. Let's start with your point #4. I've tried repeating the card in my head, but that doesn't help. I just get too distracted by the other cards I have to name. Naming the card is important (see #3 below).

#2, last sentence: Coincidentally, I changed the handling so that I now control the card to the top and leave it there, rather than shuffling it to the bottom. This makes for a cleaner handling. If I decided to go with the all-around what's-it, I'd be glimpsing the top card; perhaps specs would be less likely to see that?


I'd be curious to hear what others think about Nick's concerns that spectators might themselves glimpse the card (whether bottom or top) during the square-up.


As for #1, I need, as I said to David Paul, to practice being casual with the square-up. I haven't been using it for all that long, so I need to work the stiffness out of it, so to speak.


#3. I've embedded the trick in a Sherlock Holmes story, so it may be longer than the usual performance of this trick. Not longer, I think, than Johnny Thompson's delightful presentation. I don't *think* I've shared enough for you to judge whether my method is convoluted. I'm adding just one move to the trick, the glimpse. When my presentation is closer to completion I may post a video and ask for feedback. One of the surprises, apt for a Holmes presentation, is that Holmes names the selection (the culprit) before he finds it.


By the way, I was interested to read the expression "all around the houses." I never heard it before; is it common in England? I've heard "all the way around Robin Hood's barn, which I find charming. I ask because I love language.


About the force, which Thomas also suggested: That may be the best idea of all. If the trick were an opener, for instance, I could have the deck placed with its deck facing me as I pull it from the card box. I'd thus immediately and innocently see the bottom card. Then I could shuffle or cut it to the top, a mix being a natural thing to do before beginning a trick. It would -- as I mentioned before -- require me to learn a force, but that isn't a bad thing. I might go with a riffle force, or even a Balducci or cross-cut force. Suggestions are welcome, including forces of the bottom card. But they need to be fairly easy or I'll never finish this trick!


Thanks as always for your interesting thoughts, Nick.


Kind Regards,


Bob

Thanks for the context, Bob. What version of the Biddle Trick are you doing? Elmer Biddle's original effect, Trancendent, did not use a glimpse. John Guastaferro's version, Biddleless, from One Degree does the peek from a smaller packet as it's held in right hand end grip.

Another note touching on your first post - I highly suggest learning a version of the spread cull or Convincing Control. It will is worth the time, and not hard once you get the "knack".

You're welcome, Thomas. I always appreciate your help! So I *think* I'm doing something like the original version. I based my handliing on that of Daryl in his Encylopedia of Card Sleights; I can look it up and be more specific about where it is in the Encylopedia if you like. No glimpse; I added that because I really need to view the selection twice in order to remember it.

A friend on the cafe suggested a modification that makes the trick much easier for me: instead of collecting four (not five) cards from the deck, I split the deck into three tabled piles, which represent buildings in London.


Lestrade apprehends four suspects from the three buildings. The Biddle move follows shortly; it represents a display of the suspects that Holmes interviewed.


The idea for using Sherlock and detention of suspects came from my love of the trick, but frustration that narrowing the selection down to a few cards seemed unmotivated.


I'll take a look at One Degree. The trick is "Biddless," I think. *Maybe* his peek will help me...


I'm working on the spread cull and will certainly learn the convincing control eventually. Thanks for the encouragement on that. They're both marvelous sleights. "So much magic, so little time...'


Bob

Hi, Bob. You may want to take a look at a Vinny Marini move called the giggle force. It is both a force and a control, and it's very likely within your skill level. I love this move and am grateful to Vinny for sharing it so generously. A search for "giggle force" here turned up this...

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......&forum=2

I think the move may fit what you are trying to accomplish very nicely.

Hi fritz, thank you very much for this suggestion. Vinny has lots of interesting ideas, and is indeed generous as you say. I could definitely do this.