Gary Dickson
|
Sneak PeekHi everyone
I came up with this a while ago. As far as I'm aware it is original, although I could be wrong. Anyway, I hope you find it useful.
Spreading the pack from the left to the right hand invite the participant to touch a card. Outjog this card halfway. Reassemble the pack leaving the card outjogged. Raise the pack so the participant can see the card. Lower the pack. Push the card into the pack on the left corner so that the card ends up at an angle to the rest of the pack (think Mike's Move in DPB or the Tamariz Perpendicular Control as detailed in Mnemonica and Sonata).
The left index finger (the one next to the thumb!) contacts the outer right corner of the selected card and swings it to the right. Move the left hand away. The outjogged card is concealed by the right hand which holds the pack in a sort of biddle grip.
The right hand twists so that the thumb is on top, fingers on bottom, face card facing left and the back of the pack facing to the right. If you look down you can see the index.
The left hand takes the pack on the long sides, pushing the selected card flush and rotating the pack so it ends up in mechanics grip. The whole operation, from pushing the card in to resting the pack in the left hand should take no more than a couple of seconds.
The move is slightly angle sensitive. You don't want anyone on your immediate left and you don't need the card outjogged that much.
Try it out. I hope you like it.
Best wishes
Gary
|
Michael Kras
|
Very nice idea Mr. Dickson! Sounds very useable and deceptive. My knowledge of peeks is limited so I am unsure of whether yours is original or not. To my knowledge, it is.
|
LIVR
|
Erdnase, Legerdemain section, "To Get Sight of Selected Card"
I think turning the pack is a Vernon idea based on Leipzig's twirl cut.
You'll find the Erdnase method of pushing the card through at an angle much more deceptive than using the left first finger.
|
Gary Dickson
|
Don't have Erdnase. Would that be Expert at the Card Table?
|
LIVR
|
Get it. It's in the public domain and available free online from a number of sources.
|
Ben Train
|
LIVR is correct- it is DIRECTLY from Erdnase (shouldn't come as a surprise- it's the source that gave us the DPS, and as seen by the pass work he CLEARLY spent a lot of time thinking and experimenting with the different tools in the book...)
But, on a positive note, any time you recreate something from Erdnase you are on the right track!
Ben
p.s.
LIVR, are you Andru?
|
Michael Kras
|
Erdnase... you'd think it is thousands of pages long if you don't physically own a copy!
If I had to choose between creating a mediocre effect that is new in method, or creating something awesome that's already been done before, I'd choose the latter. Like Ben said, it lets you know you're on the right track and thinking creatively!
|
LIVR
|
Or you could take the unspoken third option. Try to learn some magic instead of obsessing over creating new magic. It's not quantity, it's quality.
There are six essentials to card magic. If you can do all of them well, you can outclass 99.9% of magicians in the world.
If anyone can get all six, I'll send them a free copy of a little-known commentary on Erdnase - post paid.
|
Ben Train
|
| LIVR wrote: | Or you could take the unspoken third option. Try to learn some magic instead of obsessing over creating new magic. It's not quantity, it's quality.
There are six essentials to card magic. If you can do all of them well, you can outclass 99.9% of magicians in the world.
If anyone can get all six, I'll send them a free copy of a little-known commentary on Erdnase - post paid. |
You'll have to clarify the question if you want someone to take a stab at it.
Qualify "essential" and "card magic". I can think of numerous "essentials" for doing card magic, and also examples throughout history of people who have succeeded (professionally, artistically, and in creating memorable/strong magic) withOUT doing these things.
I have MY criteria, but I need some clarification before we can rock and roll.
Ben
|
LIVR
|
techniques... essential techniques
|
Ben Train
|
| LIVR wrote: | | techniques... essential techniques |
Essential to WHAT? performing card magic (we KNOW you can do some amazing things without sleight of hand)? Being a technician (no need for charisma or performance ability)? Etc.
We need to know WHAT the objective is (performing card magic for people in general?) and,
When you say "technique", what do you mean? A palm? Rhythm? Timing? Charisma? Are we talking moves, concepts, what?
Not trying to be difficult, but I would happily provide you with the best answer I could if I knew what was being asked...
Ben
p.s.
I'm guessing you are NOT Andru?
|
LIVR
|
sleight (n.)
A clever or skillful trick or deception; an artifice or stratagem
And we're looking for six of them.
And no... not Andru
|
Ben Train
|
| LIVR wrote: | sleight (n.)
A clever or skillful trick or deception; an artifice or stratagem
And we're looking for six of them.
And no... not Andru |
So the correct answer is... there are none. No matter what sleight someone names I can name a succesful card performer who does NOT use that technique.
Now, as far as the answer if I was FORCED to give it-
I suscribe to the Shulien school of though, though I've modified it a little. I don't think there are SPECIFIC techniques you need, but CONCEPTS. Let me explain.
You should be able to do multiple lifts. Not a specific one (like Gordon's or Vernon's) bu SEVERAL.
You should be able to do palming.
You should be able to control cards.
You should be able to force cards.
From this point on people's list differ. Occasionally (From the 50s-70s when these types of lists were being published by Hugard, Leo Benke, and others) people would put on the top change. I think including CHANGES would be a better idea, but since I can only have 6 techniques, and I already have palming (which of course can be used for changes) I decided NOT to include it. Instead, my remaining two are-
Shuffle and cut work. I'm an Erdnase boy at heart.
Cull work. Yup, cull work.
Of course, one doesn't want to limit the tools at their disposal. Luckily the "enthusiast will not rest until every sleight in the calendar has been perfectly mastered, so that he may be enabled to nonplus and squelch that particularly obnoxious but ever present individual, who with his smattering of the commoner slights always knows exactly how it is done."
I look forward to your disagreement.
Ben
|
LIVR
|
Five out of six... there's a boy who thinks!
Though I'd let other people have a chance to play since I'm betting you already own the book in question.
|
Ben Train
|
| LIVR wrote: | Five out of six... there's a boy who thinks!
Though I'd let other people have a chance to play since I'm betting you already own the book in question. |
Well, feel free to pm me! I would LOVE to hear you thoughts.
Ben
p.s.
Depends which book we're talking about!
|
Michael Kras
|
In my opinion, the six are:
1. Knowing many effective methods of card forcing
2. Knowing numerous deceptive controls
3. Knowing a few different double or multiple lifts.
4. Different shuffling or mixing methods.
5. Different palming or copping techniques.
6. Knowing some deceptive peeks.
|
LIVR
|
| Michael Kras wrote: | In my opinion, the six are:
1. Knowing many effective methods of card forcing
2. Knowing numerous deceptive controls
3. Knowing a few different double or multiple lifts.
4. Different shuffling or mixing methods.
5. Different palming or copping techniques.
6. Knowing some deceptive peeks. |
It's a good selection but you're back to the fallacy of quantity over quality. You also need to learn the distinction between "knowing" and "doing".
In the past year I've made use of one force, one peek and one multiple lift (I admit I personally splurged and used four controls and two palms: one for each hand).[/i]
|
Michael Kras
|
That's very true... I definitely misworded myself. I personally think a card worker should have knowledge of a few techniques for a multiple lift, force, control, etc.... but do one or two of each really really well. That would allow the performer to completely commit so specific moves and master them. Of course, it definitely does hurt to know the technique behind other version's of the essential sleights and utilities, as well as the ability to at least execute them adequately.
|
LIVR
|
3~4
Ben was closer.
Any other contenders?
|
Michael Kras
|
| LIVR wrote: | | Ben was closer. |
Ha, I don't doubt that for a second! 
|
Liam
|
Last i heard, there where three...
Palm
Control
Force
but the three others might be....
Multiple Lift
False cut (or shuffle)
and peek?
maybe?
|
LIVR
|
That's just Michael's list with fewer words.
|
Gary Dickson
|
| Quote: | | Try to learn some magic instead of obsessing over creating new magic. It's not quantity, it's quality. |
Er, right. Who's obsessing?
|
Reuben The Great
|
I don't know who you aare, but I'd watch out calling Ben "boy".
Is 'to convince' one of them? I guess that would be an overall good quality of any magic I guess.
|
Ben Train
|
My dad actually calls me boy...
Are you my pa?
|
Michael Kras
|
He's referring to card technique Reuben. Plus, convincing isn't near being one of the most important qualities in magic... also, in my eyes, there is a fine line between convincing and over proving. Convincing may also seem a tad insecure in the wrong magical hands. You're not trying to convince, you're trying to entertain.
|
Ben Train
|
Well, yes an no.
Our job is to entertain... with a specific medium (in this case magic). And, for magi to happen we MUST be able to convince an audience of THINGS.
I love this simple definition (which I'm summarizing) of what magic IS: Magic is when there is a change from State A to State B WITHOUT an explanation.
In order to accomplish magic then, we need to be able to convince an audience of three things: first, the condition of the initial state. Second, that nothing to explain the change has occurred. Finally, we need to be able to convince them that a change has occurred.
So, "convincing" is FUNDAMENTAL to what we want to do.
Anyone disagree? Find a flaw with the concept I provided?
Ben
|
Michael Kras
|
Nope, it looks to be pretty much spot on, at least to me. That is an awesome definition of what magic is Ben! I agree, you definitely do have to convince spectators of certain things, such as, for example, that the four aces are really going onto the table (of course, without directly pointing it out and emphasizing it, that's overkill and very suspicious).
|
Ben Train
|
Hey Mike,
I really like that definition as well. Yes, it's a little cold, and loses the emotional and spiritual quotient that is inherent in good magic, but as an ACADEMIC definition it's pretty good.
Something I want to point out though- you don't want to PROVE, you want to convince. Thoughts?
|
Michael Kras
|
Proving is more blatantly obvious and suspicious, while convincing can be presented in a more subtle, natural manner without directly pointing out any point in your effect.
|
Ben Train
|
I think it's more then that.
Convince is the objective, prove is how you get there. If one is proving you can UNDER prove or OVER prove. You either convince or don't. There's no in between.
|
Michael Kras
|
True. And I think the line between proving and over-proving can be crossed by an unnatural break in effect timing to slowly and deliberately prove the fairness of the situation. Also, verbal proof is VERY easy to muck up if you're not careful. Of course, it's also quite possibly to under-prove if you rapidly move from one action to the next in a way that projects suspicion on account of your body language.
|
|
|
