Antinomy No 1

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Table of Contents The Antinomy Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Artful Ledger: Winning Winnowing – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The Spectator Seems to Really Think of any Card – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 A Card that Lies, a Deck that Tells the Truth – Bob Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Unambiguous Discernment – Edward Marlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Fish-Fry for Two – Tom Baxter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Three Change – Rick Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Only Three Away – Nathan Kranzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Cushion Shot – Max Maven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 The Gaffed Card Corner: The Clear Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 The Honest Liar: Gaffs Versus Skill – and the Clear Winner is... – Jamy Ian Swiss . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 In Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 There are two kinds of geniuses, the “ordinary” and the “magicians.” An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they have done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians... The working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. Mac Kac Cornell University mathematician Most decidedly NOT speaking about magic or magicians when trying to define the rarified genius of physicist Richard Feynman

ANTINOMY Vol. 1, Issue 1, Feb. 2005. ANTINOMY is published quarterly by Antinomy Magic. Subscription rates are $72 for Domestic postage inside the United States and $92 for International Airmail shipping outside the United States. Antinomy Magic is a Sole Proprietorship of Eugene Taylor. ANTINOMY™, the phrases “Perception & Deception”™ and “Appearing at your door four times every year”™ are Trademarks of Antinomy Magic. The Antinomy Half-Moon and star-field logo are copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic. Contents copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic and the authors and creators presented here. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or technological, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted in writing by the copyright owners. Submissions and subscriptions may be sent to: ANTINOMY, P.O. Box 39, Allenton, MI 48002. More information is available online at www.antinomymagic.com

page 1

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective In which our editor, experiencing his own unique mid-life crisis, decides not to buy the sports car, and instead goes in pursuit of thought, ideas, and magic that turns him on. The Journey, the Reason, and the Format About ten years. That’s how long it took me to take the plunge. If you count the vague glimmerings of adolescent fervor echoing behind some of the publications I read as a teenager, perhaps you could count three times that many years. But here we are, and I am sure many of you are wondering where that is. In this and future columns, I’ll try to give you a sense of where that is. To understand it better myself, I’ll also try to give you a feel for where I’m coming from. Simply put, I’m just trying to do something good here. This time, rather than go into the details of why I’m trying to do that, let me say a few words about the publication you hold in your hands. You’ll notice it’s larger than most publications of this type. It measures 11” X 11”, instead of the standard 8 1/2” X 11”. That’s so I can get more information on each page and more closely tie the photos of an action or step in a routine to the description of that same moment. It also happens that I like square pages. Of course, this kind of decision increases the cost of the venture I am foisting upon you all, but I hope that it will find favor with you. In addition to larger pages, you’ll notice that the standard text size of Antinomy is a little larger than some as well. That is less of a design decision, and more of a concession to the fact that I have moved into the land of bi-focals in the last few years. I suspect others will appreciate this as well. The Columnists Flashback to the 1970’s. A somewhat addled adolescent has dabbled in magic, picking up books at mainstream bookstores and at the semi-local magic shop. He has developed a somewhat unhealthy fascination with card tricks. This leads him to purchase a book at the magic shop. Not his first, and not his last, but this one was different. It was a bound collection called Kabbala. Its author tended towards long-ish words and lengthy footnotes, with references to texts that weren’t in the adolescent’s library, but hints at their contents that caused him to covet them. This book was very different from the mimeographed sheets clumsily folded along with many tricks, different from the comb-bound and stapled collections of material that sat poorly printed on his shelves.

Kabbala took its magic seriously, and not only that, it took card tricks seriously. I am extremely happy that its author still exhibits that serious side when expounding on the sometimes bemoaned card trick. For a reminder of that, read Jon Racherbaumer’s column, The Artful Ledger. Pay particular attention to the footnotes. And be careful what you covet. Later, I endured the hit and miss schedule and contents of Genii. That is until a certain book reviewer came on board. Again, this was someone who took magic seriously, and I would dare say, wasn’t afraid of what others thought about his views. These were true reviews. True in that they represented a viewpoint and were a departure from the more typical “Rah, rah, rah” of other supposed reviews of magic. These were reviews you loved or hated. The author didn’t care. He would, in fact, be sure you were wrong in your disagreement. Surety laced every word he wrote. And this certainty of thought weaved its way into his other column for Genii. Many know the phrase Shattering Illusions from the successful book of the same name published by Hermetic Press. But the first source for these stirrings was the pages of Genii.

page 2

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective

I am grateful that the opinions are still strong and that they have found their way into these pages. When you examine the choice presented in The Honest Liar, you will once again be forced by Jamy Ian Swiss to examine your own magic. The Tricks When Jon’s column came to me with four tricks in it, I knew it would be easier to fill out Issue #1. While I had estimated page ranges from 36 to 40 for this magazine, you’re looking at 48 pages of content. I’m not going to comment here on the tricks within these covers, but at the end of every trick, when you see The Antinomy Perspective, you’ll know that those are my comments and not those of the creator. In addition, every trick description will close with Touchstones and Crossroads. This section will list the starting points of the creators, but will also provide references for moves and related tricks. It is a nod to the kind of serious treatment of magic I first learned to appreciate in the earlier works of our columnists. Found things I’m always looking for things, whether it is something specific related to some obscure idea I have had, or whether it is inspiration itself, it seems that shopping expeditions are often turned into scavenger hunts. I troll through flea markets, antique shops, and dollar stores with an eye towards acquiring something interesting. Most of it sits. Occasionally, it actually gets molded into the idea that first sparked its purchase. If these found things seem particularly interesting, I will attempt to share them with you here. For this installment of Found Things, I refer you to the photos of a small, portable light source purchased at a Lowe’s store. This is a 360º Flex Light, manufactured by Coast Cutlery Co. I find it’s size and design intriguing. If any of you have any ideas on how to use this for magic, send them on. Thank You’s I wouldn’t be doing this publication even now if it had not been for meeting and getting to know another magician who was interested in pursuing his dreams. Rick Merrill has a coin trick in these pages and a bunch of magic awards tucked under his belt. I owe him my thanks for inspiring me both with his dedication and his ideas. Watch for the release of his lecture notes from Antinomy Magic later this year. It’s fair to say that this Issue wouldn’t be in your hands either if it hadn’t been for my wife, Sherrie. She is in charge of the administrative side of Antinomy Magic and is the one who keyed all of your addresses into a database so that we could print the mailing labels we needed. That means, quite literally, you wouldn’t have gotten this issue without her. I thank her for that and more. She is also the staff photographer here at Antinomy. Always remember: It’s a staff of two. And thanks to you. If many of you hadn’t signed on early, this Issue wouldn’t have happened either. I hope to prove myself worthy of your commitment to ANTINOMY. Enjoy. Gene Taylor Editor & Publisher ANTINOMY January, 2005 page 3

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger Jon Racherbaumer Winning Winnowing Winnow (wi’no) v.t. 4. to subject to some process of critical analysis and separation. - Random House Dictionary of the English Language

This paper is an introductory effort yearning to be a disquisition. Please forgive its discursive style. So far, this recondite subject has resisted an in-depth, organized treatment. The subject at hand is an exploration of reduction and the process of indirectly seeking information. Or, to use the jargon term, it is about elimination and fishing as applied to card magic—more specifically to the Think of a Card effect. Pinpointing when the Elimination Principle was initially discovered, devised, named, and published is difficult. An early source attracting significant attention was R. W. Hull’s “Mental Discernment.” Many magicians, then and now, recognized nascent possibilities in this effect and subsequently created many variations. Dai Vernon’s exploration in More Inner Secrets of Card Magic (1960) clearly sparked experimentation among the cognoscenti. 1 Fishing or Pumping is also quite ancient. This principle (if we can call it that) is used in conjunction or in tandem with the Elimination Principle. In this paper we call it the Pumping Approach. The primary difference between Elimination and Pumping is that the former is usually a physical process that gradually eliminates cards from a larger group of cards which includes the selection until only the selection can be unmistakably discerned. In other words, it narrows down possibilities. Pumping does the same thing, only it is primarily a verbal artifice. That is, the performer utters interrogatory remarks and conveys questions. The spectator’s responses to these questions reveal indicative information, eliminating possibilities from contention. Both techniques are reductive schemes. Pumping, as mentioned earlier, is also called Fishing. This exploration gives a few examples—models, if you will—of how the Elimination Principle can be used in conjunction with Pumping or Fishing strategies. These examples have come into being since Expert at the Card Table was published. Then slowly but surely these principles crept into the minds of thinking cardmen. And over the years we have discovered that these principles and tactics have broad applications, but for now this paper restricts itself to Think of a Card—a card trick that goes by different names, but the basic effect is the same: 1 This work was in Chapter Two – Think of a Card—that featured the now famous “Out of Sight—Out of Mind” presentation that still intrigues cardmen.

page 4

Photo: Erika Racherbaumer

A journal documenting the fringes of compelling card magic

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

A card is mentally chosen and the deck is mixed. The selection is then apparently determined by psychic means. That is, the mentalist, by observing subtle clues and asking a few, seemingly innocuous questions, is able to precisely name the selection. This effect seems to be the result of mind powers. Notice that I didn’t say “Psychic” powers. Most performers today do not claim to have paranormal powers. Instead they claim that the demonstrations, as astonishing as they seem, are the result of a deeper understanding of psychology and enhanced cognitive skills and capacities. The basic principle at work in Think of a Card is Restricted Choice, combined with Strategic Elimination. It is likely that the Elimination Principle predates Erdnase, and various experts have mooted the authorship of the Legerdemain Section in Expert at the Card Table to the max. 2 The basic notion was probably cribbed from an earlier book or article; however, how it was fixed and finessed is anybody’s guess. It is also important to note that at the outset of “A MindReading Trick,” the spectator physically selects four cards. Therefore, the “restricted-choice” aspect is obvious. The spectator then mentally selects one of these four cards, which are subsequently replaced (together) in the center of the deck. The deck is next ostensibly shuffled, using an Overhand Shuffle. During this shuffle, the four “possibilities” are controlled to the 9th, 10th, 18th, and 19th positions from the top.

Selected references regarding published sources of this trick: “A Mind-Reading Trick” in Expert at the Card Table (1905) by S. W. Erdnase, p. 194-196.

Ibid. Revelations (1984) by Dai Vernon and The Annotated Erdnase (1991) by Darwin Ortiz. “Shuffle, Force, Cut and Pass” in Greater Magic (1938) by John Northern Hilliard, pp. 163-164; “By Elimination,” pp. 344-345. “Streamlined Discernment” (a marketed manuscript) by Ralph W. Hull (1932?) “Streamlined Discernment” by Edward Marlo, published in Amazing, Isn’t It? (1941) and later in Early Marlo (1964) and (1976 – enlarged edition), p. 38. “Mental Discernment Improved” by Ken Krenzel, published in 52 Amazing Card Tricks (1949), pp. 14-17. “Out Of Sight – Out Of Mind” by Dai Vernon (written by Lewis Ganson) in More Inner Secrets of Card Magic (1960), pp. 14-15. “Out of Sight and Mind II” by Dai Vernon (written by Stephen Minch) in The Vernon Chronicles: More Lost Inner Secrets (1988), pp. 32-40. Please consult them at your leisure.

The Elimination was accomplished by asking general questions as a larger number of cards are shown. Once the number of “possibilities” is reduced to two, the rest consists of “fishing” (in the form of questions that suggest declarations or statements). The selection is eventually named, not physically removed or revealed. This is the version that inspired Vernon’s “Out Of Sight – Out Of Mind,” first explained and credited to Vernon in Greater Magic (1938). It reappeared in More Inner Secrets of Card Magic 22 years later, but Vernon-Ganson did not allude to Erdnase or Greater Magic. This is unfortunate; however, there is no reason to assume anything untoward or conspiratorial was intended by this omission. Stephen Minch later rectified this when The Vernon Chronicles were published. The initial fixes to Erdnase’s method focused on simplification and economy of movement. In this regard, Hilliard pointed out that the Erdnasian method involved 15 movements in the shuffle sequence. Vernon reduced this number to 6 movements. Hull used 9 movements. Therefore, the goal of most fixers was to streamline the effect during the shuffle sequence (distribution and control) and later during the elimination phase. 3 Economy of movement is a good thing. Slashing away with Occam’s Razor is the way to go. 2 The search for possible ancestral ties regarding this principle is another subject, another search. 3 This perhaps explains why the variations were called “Streamlined Discernment.”

page 5

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

For the record, this is the breakdown of shuffle “movements” in the cited versions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

“A Mindreading Trick” in Expert at the Card Table: 12 4 Vernon method in Greater Magic: 6 Hull method in Greater Magic: 9 5 Marlo method in Amazing, Isn’t It?: 2 6 Krenzel method in 52 Amazing Card Tricks: 2 7 Vernon method in More Inner Secrets of Card Magic: 7 8 Vernon method in The Vernon Chronicles: 2 9

This is a breakdown of the number of possibilities (selections) in each method: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

“A Mindreading Trick” in Expert at the Card Table: 4 Vernon method in Greater Magic: 4 Hull method in Greater Magic: 9 Marlo method in Amazing, Isn’t It?: 3 Krenzel method in 52 Amazing Card Tricks: 9 Vernon method in More Inner Secrets of Card Magic: 9 Vernon method in The Vernon Chronicles: 12

It has been argued, sometimes heatedly, that the important thing about the Restricted-Choice Aspect is giving the impression that the spectator has unrestricted choice; that any card in the deck can be mentally selected. If you can fake that, you are home free. If you can achieve this result by showing only 3 or 4 cards, then permitting 9-12 choices is unnecessary. Don’t work harder; work smarter. Whip out the razor! On the other hand, if you can actually permit 12 choices, then beat that drum. Be professorial and take advantage of this “wide range” and emphasize it in an obvious manner. 10 4 This entails only the shuffle aspects, not the replacement of the “possibilities.” 5 This is based on the explanation provided by Hilliard; however, it was probably based on the trick marketed by Hull in the 30’s. It’s peculiar that Hilliard did not cite any correlation among the Hull, Vernon, and Erdnase methods, although they clearly exist and appear in the same book. 6 Marlo restricts the “possibilities” to three cards, the 7th, 8th, or 9th cards, then shuffles off six cards and throws. 7 Although Krenzel only shuffles twice, there are other maneuvers executed to set the 9 possibilities in relation to a 3-spot. This combines elements of two Vernon tricks, the other being “Simple Arithmetic” from More Inner Secrets of Card Magic. Vernon used a 2-spot. 8 An important distinction should be made regarding this version. In the method explained by Hilliard, the number of possibilities was 4. In this version there are actually 9 possibilities. These are distributed by the insertion, shuffle, and final cut. 9 In this version Vernon increases the number of possibilities to 12 and uses Riffle Shuffles, instead of Overhand Shuffles. This necessitates preliminary and follow-up cuts, in addition to block transfers, but only two shuffles are required. This is a more sophisticated version and is explained in great detail, taking 9 pages of text and 10 drawings. Since Vernon apparently forgot his original handling, the one explained by Minch was reconstructed by Vernon with the help of Larry Jennings. Perhaps Bruce Cervon can shed further light on this handling and its history? 10 By the way, there are other, unpublished methods that restrict the number of choices to 4-6 and give the strong impression that any card in the deck may be chosen. Bob Farmer and Max Maven, to name two, have devised many solutions and stratagems to accomplish this end.

page 6

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The manner in which a card is mentally selected is important. As pointed out earlier, the method in Erdnase permits the spectator to freely select four cards and then think of one. This is a step in the right direction; however, the RestrictedChoice Aspect is manifest—clearly a 1-in-4 shot. However, what distinguishes the explanation in Erdnase is the presentation, patter, and verbal “fishing” that allowed the magician to eliminate the other three possibilities. This, in its day, was innovative. Since a definitive history on the Elimination and Restricted-Choice Principles has yet to be written, I cannot say with any certainty that the modern approach to “fishing” originated in Erdnase. I doubt it. It probably dates back to Ponsin and earlier? Elimination by Maneuvering is one thing; Elimination by Verbal Means is another. Physical sorting—as in “Mutus, Nomen, Dedit, and Cocis,” “The Twenty Card Trick,” “The 21-Card Trick, or as in the more sophisticated IntersectingSets form of sorting in “The Princess Card Trick” 11—is not the same as “fishing.” At this point I’m unclear about Hull’s role and contribution to what he called Mental Discernment. Many magicians now claim that Hull ripped off everything from Vernon. Maybe so, but I’m not convinced. This seed was planted by Stephen Minch in The Vernon Chronicles when he wrote: “As a historical aside, it is interesting to note that R. W. Hull’s ‘Mental Discernment,’ released in the 1930s, was based on the then unpublished Vernon method. Mr. Hull unfortunately neglected to mention this.” [My underlining] Stephen Minch does not allege that Hull stole anything; he was simply restating what Vernon had said regarding this subject and which was substantiated by others in the know. However, saying that something is devised on the “structural foundation” of another trick is a loose characterization that doesn’t take into account those aspects, if any, which are the same or different. Also, how and when did Hull get wind of the unpublished Vernon method or did Hull base his marketed version on the version eventually published in Greater Magic? If this is the case, then Hull added an important feature to the trick. Instead of having four cards physically selected, he used the old “process of eliminating various cards according to whether or not a spectator sees his card among them as they are shown to him.” [Hilliard]12 Hull also restricted the choice by showing cards in the deck by passing them from hand to hand, head turned away. Nothing is taken or touched. The impression that any card can be mentally selected is implicit. It is likely that Vernon used the same approach. Whether or not the other influenced either person is not clear-cut. Hilliard did not mention Vernon in Greater Magic and apparently did not think that the Erdnase-Vernon tricks were ancestrally tied. He wrote: “I have selected as the best of this kind a trick devised by Mr. Ralph Hull, of Crooksville, Ohio, whose name I have had frequent occasion to mention.” [p. 344 - Greater Magic] This was published in 1938 at the end of the decade wherein Hull marketed “Mental Discernment” for a mere dollar. As mentioned earlier, Vernon’s seminal method was published 22 years later without any attribution whatsoever. What remains for scholars and researchers to sort out and establish is the history of every aspect of this trick. In the complex and difficult-to-trace process of creating, cannibalizing, and integrating the various elements that make up a given modus operandi, so much is missing, undocumented, and buried. In some cases, the lacuna is enormous. Nothing is created in vacuo. There are countless conscious and subconscious influences. The process is collaborative and frequently results in the intentional and unintentional recycling of ideas, methodologies, tricks, subtleties, sleights, ideas, 11 One of the finest books written on this subject is Peter W. Tappen’s The Impostress Princess (1986). 12 P. 344 in Greater Magic.

page 7

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

and so on. What is galling to seasoned watchers and watchdogs of this recycling “circus,” is that many producers never take the trouble to research methods or presentations they pass off as being theirs. To pique your interest, here are four approaches:

Approach #1:

The Spectator Seems to Really Think of Any Card

The Artful Ledger Pumping and Fishing Tropes: These two figures of speech have staying power and are now part of our nomenclature. Both of course refer to verbal techniques that permit performers to gradually narrow down the number of possibilities to one. Those sensitive to words and word-play recognize that “pumping” has a more vigorous, forceful connotation. The primary difference between Elimination and Pumping is that the former is usually a physical process that gradually eliminates cards from a larger group of cards which includes the selection until the selection can be unmistakably discerned. In other words, it is a procedure that narrows down possibilities. The latter does the same thing, only it is usually but not strictly verbal. That is, the performer speaks and what he says is interrogatory. He conveys questions. The spectator then answers and his responses convey indicative information that removes possibilities from contention. Both are reductive schemes. Pumping is often called Fishing.

Most versions of “Mental Discernment” begin with the performer showing cards at the top of the deck. That is, cards are thumbed over one at a time and the magician asks the spectator to think of one he sees. Depending on the version being done, the number of cards shown usually range from 5-12. This number is comparatively small. Therefore, the performer’s casual attitude about the procedure is important and other inferential devices must be used to suggest that a wider choice is being offered; that it is not restrictive at all and all 52 cards are fair game.

Next, this “bank” of possibilities is strategically and methodically redistributed to key positions in the deck by cuts or shuffles. This sub-divides the possibilities into smaller “banks,” narrowing down the number of possibilities. When this is accomplished, “fishing” is briefer and less apparent. There are notable features that characterize this combinatorial method: • • • • • •

The deck is borrowed or new. The deck is mixed by the spectator. The performer does not look at the faces of the cards prior to the spectator making a selection. The spectator mentally selects a card in the center of the deck, not at the top or face. The deck is fair cut and riffle shuffled after the selection is made. The selection is not named until one card is clearly and unambiguously singled out by the performer as being the selection.

Bob Farmer is instrumental in my thinking about this card problem. He was the first magician to show me an approach where a “bank” of unknown cards situated in the center of the deck is shown to a spectator instead of spreading cards at the top. This more strongly suggests that any card in the deck can be thought of or that it’s unlikely that the performer could know beforehand cards positioned in the middle of the deck rather ones at the top or bottom (face). This is the approach taken in this method.

page 8

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Method: Have the spectator shuffle his deck. Take it and hold it face down in your left hand. Perform a straight cut and retain a left pinky break between the sections. Explain that you want the spectator to look at any card, adding, “It can be any of these…” As in “Unambiguous Discernment,” (described later) spread the cards face down between your hands as you approach the spectator. When you reach the break, raise the deck with the faces toward the spectator. The cards above the break should be more or less bunched together with your right fingers covering the indices (Fig. 1). By the time the spectator begins to focus on the cards, slow down the spreading action and add, “Just think of one…” The spectator will likely choose one of the next 6-8 cards he sees. Again, watch his eyes to see if they remain focused. Many spectators, once they note a card, will look away, look at the performer, or look disinterested. Most spectators are likely to select the fourth, fifth, or sixth card shown. Notice the exact wording of the patter. Finally, ask: “Do you have one in mind?”

Fig. 1

By this time most spectators will affirm. Close the spread and retain a left pinky break above the last card pushed over. Add: “Keep thinking of your card and remember: You could have thought of any card.” Casually cut at the break to maneuver the 6-8 possibilities to the bottom. Then fairly shuffle but retain the “bank” at the bottom (face). Hold the deck face up in your left hand and then start spreading the cards between your hands with the faces toward you. Look at the center of the spread and say, “Looking at the faces of the cards seldom suggests anything to me. It is more important if you focus piecemeal on the identity of your selection. First, think of its color. The color ‘red’ is warmer than black, more vibrant, less inert. Imagine the temperature of this color.”

Interjection: Mentalists usually depict telepathy as a slow, almost reluctant process where hints, impressions, suggestions trickle from mind-to-mind in piecemeal fashion. This ostensibly is to create suspense and give the impression that mind-reading requires concentration and effort. The metaphors have changed over the years, borrowing analogies from electronic media: telephone, telegraph, radio, and television.13 One of the legitimate reasons the process is gradual and impressions invisibly pass bit-by-bit is that it permits the performer to “pump” and “fish.” Many lay people have asked me, “Why is telepathy so sluggish? Why is the reception so bad?” The velocity of thought, the synaptic firing that occurs in the brain, is much faster. Why should telepathy be any slower?

13 There are books titled Radio Mentalism and TV Mentalism (Robert Nelson) explaining psychic effects to perform over radio or television, a curious venue insofar as the events are mediated twice.

page 9

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

As you apparently look at the center of the spread, also spread and glance at the 6-8 cards at the face or the top side of the deck as it faces you. You are now set to apply the Principle of Majorities, which was first explained in Orville Meyer’s excellent book, Magic in the Modern Manner (1949). Meyer did not take credit for the idea, but simply recognized its value. He wrote: “It is not a trick, yet it is a trick of tricks … It is ‘fishing’ at its best.” Bob Farmer, by the way, alerted me to this principle about eight years ago. Here is how he explained it to me: Scanning the cards, look for that which is in the majority. Ask yourself all of the following questions: Are there more red than black? …more odd cards than even? … more spot cards than face cards? … more high cards than low cards? … more … (cards of one suit) … than … (cards of another suit)? Try this: Shuffle a deck of cards and deal out five cards face up. For example, I just dealt myself the 2D, KD, 6H, 5D, 10H. Assume your imaginary spectator is thinking of one of these cards.

Remember: The object of a majority sort is to eliminate cards with each statement by making a true statement about all of the cards except the ones you want to eliminate. In my five-card “bank,” there is only one court card (KD). Therefore, four of the five cards are not court cards, plus four are under a Jack. To eliminate the KD from contention, I can say, “Your card is under a Jack.” If I get a “no,” the thought card must be the KD. If I get a “yes,” I continue. The remaining four cards consist of three even cards and one odd one. Therefore, I say, “Your card is even.” If the spectator says “no,” the selection is the Five. Otherwise I continue. Of the three cards left, one is a Diamond, so I say, “It’s a heart.” If the Diamond is eliminated, I’m down to the 6 and the 10 and I can say, “Your card is under an Eight.” Whatever the response, I will know the identity of the thought card. In our example, you can always make a statement that is true about all but one of the cards. The hardest cases usually involve four cards—say, the four Aces. Here, you have to use a negative statement. For example, place the AC down and say, “This card tells me your card isn’t a Club.” This is true of three of the four cards. If he says “no,” you know his card the AC. Another tough case is where all the suits are the same and the values are bunched together, like the 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Spades. If this happens, the best approach is to start with a value question. Example: “Your card is a Seven or lower than a Seven.” Only practice will give you the mental facility required to instantly create the correct kind of statement. Your wording is important. So, by applying what Farmer has just explained about the Principle of Majorities, here is a possible approach. First, determine which color is dominant, if any. Sometimes the colors are evenly mixed—about half being red and half being black. Occasionally one color completely dominates and all of the cards are red or black. If they turn out to be all the same color, rejoice. No fishing is then necessary.

page 10

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

For the purpose of this example, suppose that the 8 cards you see (from the top) are: 7D-KD-8H-JH-3D-QD-4D-8D. In this case, react immediately and utter a definite statement. Because all eight cards are red, say: “I can feel the vibrancy, the heat. You are definitely thinking of a red card.” Next, notice that 6 of the 8 red cards are Diamonds. The odds are then in your favor that he chose one of them, especially if they are situated midway in the run. In this case, however, there are Heart cards at the third and fourth positions, which are psychological-force positions. Therefore, do not risk being wrong. Always keep in mind to create statements that are declarative and positive without being clearly definitive if you cannot be definitive. In other words—there is lots of latitude and flexibility here—your statements must not be wrong. Example: The shape of both suits might have a similar characteristic. Hearts and Diamonds both have “sharp points.” Clubs and Spades both have “stems.” Therefore: Say, “Concentrate on the suit of your card.” Pause and say, “I’m getting the impression of something pointed…with angles perhaps?” Keep your eyes on the spectator as you say this, looking for affirmative body-language—a nod, smile, or gesture. If he is forthcoming in this regard, immediately add: “Yes, I see the four points of a diamond. You are thinking of a Diamond.” If the spectator is unresponsive at this stage, say: “This is strange. I’m receiving slightly mixed signals here. For some reason, I sense great affection, more warmth, perhaps desire? I’m seeing curves…Does this make sense?” Although you finally ask a direct question at the end, it appears as though you are seeking corroboration about something you have just said is so. Again, try to detect the spectator’s body-language. If he acts affirmatively, he is likely thinking of a Heart. If so, immediately add, “Yes, yes. I see a pulsating heart. You are thinking of a Heart card.” If you have successfully narrowed it down to Hearts, there are only two possibilities—a 50-50 proposition. Now it’s an easy matter to successfully conclude the experiment. Stay tuned. Let’s return to the stage where you know that you have narrowed it down to Diamonds. The fishing expedition must continue. There are six possibilities to address. Scan them and note if there are more odd cards than even cards. Unfortunately, in this case there are four odd ones and four even ones. This is a 50-50 proposition—not ideal. Therefore, move on and note if there are more Spot cards than Court cards. The ration here is 5 to 3 in favor of the Spot cards. These are better odds, but before asking a question, also note the high-low cards and the ratio between them. In this case, six of the cards are Seven or higher. Your odds are better here. Therefore, formulate your next question based on this ratio and ask: “I’m sensing status…I’m sensing that your card has a high value…” Watch for affirmative “tells” or responsive body language. If you see any, add: “I’m also sensing gender…perhaps something masculine or macho…” Pause here and watch for signs. If the word “masculine” evokes anything, the spectator likely thought of the King or Jack. If no signs are forthcoming, immediately add, “…no, no…I sense something a bit more yielding…something feminine.” If you receive a strong signal, you know he selected the Queen. If the gender comment turns out to be a “miss,” refocus on the high-low situation and say, “Wait a second….I sense a mid-range value…perhaps a lucky number?” This suggests a 7. Watch for body language. Add: “I see the letter ‘e’…” There is a letter “e” in both “eight” and “seven,” although the “e” in “eight” is more obvious. Wait for a reaction. In either

page 11

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

case, you know it is either the Seven or one of the two Eights and you can conclude.

Two Ways to Convincingly Disclose One of Two Possibilities Suppose that you have narrowed down the possibilities to the Eight of Diamonds and the Eight of Hearts. 1. Contrive to get the two possibilities to the top of the deck, with the Eight of Diamonds on top. Perform a Double Turnover to reveal the Eight of Hearts. Before the spectator can respond, flip the card(s) face down and deal the top card to the table, saying: “This is your card!” If you are correct, the spectator will affirm. Game over. If you are wrong, the spectator will deny what you say and will likely say that the thought of the Eight of Diamonds. Therefore, say: “I said that this was your card….” Turn over the tabled card to reveal the Eight of Diamonds, adding: “…the Eight of Diamonds.” 2. Contrive to get the two possibilities next to each other in the center of the deck, using any convincing Cull Displacement. Then spread the cards between your hands with the faces toward you. Separate the spread so that one of the possibilities is at the face of the left-hand section and the other possibility is at the back (top) of the righthand section. Keep the left-hand section tilted back and table the right-hand section face down. Ask the spectator for the first time to name his selection. The instant he does, either lower your left hand to reveal the face card of that section or turn over the top card of the tabled section to disclose the correct card. If you don’t mind that the spectator names his card before you reveal it, in Option (1) You can either turn over the top Eight of Diamonds or perform a Double Lift to reveal the Eight of Hearts. The key thing is to understand how to create logical, plausible, direct utterances so that it does not appear that you are not guessing or playing an obvious game of Twenty Questions. Farmer’s strategy is a mind-game worth practicing. Because of the variables and contingencies, quick thinking is essential. It is more challenging in this regard than Dai Vernon’s “The Trick That Cannot Be Explained.” In this case, the method can be explained, but execution is another matter. Playing jazz is not the same as explaining the melodies upon which the playing is based.

Approach #2:

A Card that Lies, a Deck that Tells the Truth Bob Farmer Effect: The spectator shuffles his own deck, cuts off a portion, thinks of a card he sees in that portion and reassembles the deck. The spectator confirms his card is hopelessly lost. The magician says that the other cards in the deck will give him clues about the thought card, because those cards never lie — only the spectator’s card will lie if asked a question. The other cards are always right and the spectator ends up holding his thought card. Method: Have the spectator shuffle the deck and cut off some cards. He must cut off less than twenty cards. If he cuts off more, simply have him cut some cards back onto the remainder of the deck. Next, have him think of one of the cards in the cut-off portion and then drop that portion back onto the talon.

page 12

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

At this point you know that his card is one of the top twenty cards. False shuffle the deck and then run ten cards to the bottom. There are now ten possibilities on the bottom and ten possibilities on top of the deck. Fan the deck, faces towards the spectator, ensuring that you expose all ten possibilities on the bottom, plus a lot of the cards in the middle of the deck, but none of the ten possibilities on top of the deck. Ask, “Do you see your card or is it lost?” If he says he sees his card, you know it’s one of the ten possibilities on the bottom of the deck. If he doesn’t see it, it’s one of the ten possibilities on top of the deck. Once you know the group it’s in, cut that group to the middle of the deck and take a break between each group of five. Now with the faces towards the spectator, spread all of the cards up to the break. Five of the possibilities will be seen in the middle of the deck (i.e. these are the cards above the break). Do not spread past the break (i.e., the five possibilities below the break are not seen). Say, “I want to make absolutely sure, do you see your card or is it lost?” If he sees it, his card is among the five above the break, if he doesn’t see it, it’s among the five below the break. Whatever he says, add, “So it’s lost in the depths of the deck!” Using a Double-Cut, Control the five possibilities to the top or bottom of the deck. Turn the deck face up so only you can see the faces and eyeball the five possibilities. Cut them into the middle of the deck, then fan the deck, still with the faces towards yourself, and locate the five possibilities. In what follows, you want to look like you’re pulling random cards out of the middle of the deck. Another method (looks like hands-off): Have the spectator shuffle the deck and deal two poker hands face-down. He selects either hand and picks it up. As he does this, you pick up the discarded hand and drop it on the top of the deck, secretly glimpsing the bottom card as you do so. After the spectator thinks of one of his 5 cards, he mixes the cards and drops them on top of the deck and cuts the deck. This places these 5 cards 4 cards away from your key card. Yet Another Method: You secretly glimpse or learn one of the 5 cards. This is your key card. Cut the key card to the top of the deck. Now either the 4 cards below the key card or the 4 cards on the bottom of the deck are the possibilities. Use the line about “Do you see it or is it lost?” to determine which group of 4 you need to work from. When you ask, “Do you see it or is it lost?” If they say they see it, say “Focus on it one last time because now it’s lost” (and false cut and shuffle). If they say it’s lost, say, “Lost and impossible to find, even for you.” Another way of glimpsing one of the 5 cards is to have the spectator shuffle the deck. If you get a glimpse of the top or bottom card as he shuffles use that. (e.g. Take a card from the top, bottom or middle. If he takes your glimpsed card, repeat this 4 more times. If he doesn’t have him take a card from one of the two places he didn’t take a card. Repeat this until he takes your card.)

page 13

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Or cut the deck and deal out 5 piles. The bottom card will end up on top of one of the piles. Or after he’s made the piles, pick up one, double lift the top two cards as one (without showing the face) as you explain that he’s to look at a card and remember it. Remember the card you glimpse. Replace the two cards and then bury the top card, ostensibly “because you saw it.” You now have your card. Still Another Pretty Cool Method (as in Vernon’s Cutting the Aces): Have the spectator shuffle the deck and cut it into 5 piles. Turn your back. Tell him to look at and remember the top card of any pile and then replace the card on any pile. Turn around, pick up a pile, and Double-Cut the top card to the bottom. Take this packet into right hand Biddle Grip, as your left hand picks up another packet. Bring the two packets together, right hand packet on top of left hand packet, a left little finger break under the top card of the left hand packet. Double Cut to the break. Repeat for the rest of the packets. The five cards are now together on the bottom. Glimpse the bottom card as you table the deck and invite the spectator to cut the deck as many times as he wants. Take the deck back and fan to your key card: It and the 4 cards above it are the 5 possibilities. THE PRESENTATION: “I’m not going to insult your intelligence by telling you I can read your mind. No, I’m going to insult your intelligence by telling you that the other cards will read your mind and tell me all about your card.

“The other cards never lie, because they’re on my side. There is only one card that will lie — your card. So if a card lies, I know it must be your card.” Look at the five cards possibilities and think (but don’t say yet) of a statement that is true of four of the five cards. For example, if four of the cards are red and one is black, you could be thinking that four of the cards are red. Now take the odd card — the black card in this example — and place it face-down on the spectator’s hand. Say, “The cards never lie and this card tells me your card is red.” Note that though the card is black, you’re saying it tells you the selection is red — and you do not show the face of this card. Now, if the spectator says the card is lying, then this must be his card (remember, you said only his card lies). If the spectator says the card is telling the truth, remind him that the cards never lie. Take this card and place it back in the deck. It isn’t used again. Look at the four cards you have left. Let’s say, three of the four are diamonds and the fourth is a heart. Remove the heart, place it face-down on the spectator’s hand and say, “This card tells me your card is a diamond.” If you get a “no,” reveal this card as above. Otherwise, remove this card and replace it in the deck. Assume that of the three cards left two are odd and one is even. Take the even value card, and say, “This card tells me your card is odd.” If a “no,” reveal the card, if a “yes,” replace the card. Now you’re down to two cards. There are alternate approaches you can use here. Assume the cards are the 6D and the

page 14

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

10D. You can continue the previous procedure by removing the 6 and saying, “This card tells me your card is higher than a nine.” If you get a “no,” reveal the 6 as the thought card. If you get a “yes,” you know the thought card is the last card, the 10, so you can replace the 6 in the deck, then remove the 10 and reveal it. Or you can use a variation of a Derek Dingle idea: Remove the 6 and say, “This card tells me your card is the ten of diamonds.” You name the card you’re not holding. If you get a “yes,” you end there, again without showing the face of the card. If you get a “no,” you simply say, “Then this card is lying and the only card that lies is your card,” and turn the card over to reveal it as the thought card. Finally, when you get down to two cards, cut the deck so one is on top and one is on the bottom. Place the deck face down on the table. Remove the top card and make your statement. If you get a “yes,” continue with, “and this card also tells me your card is right here.” Lift the deck and turn it over to show the thought card on the bottom. There is also another way to start the effect. After the card is thought of, remove the odd man out of the five possibilities and place it face-up on the spectator’s hand. Say, “The cards never lie and this card is speaking to me. Is it speaking to you?” If this is the thought card, the spectator’s reaction should tell you. If, however, this is not the spectator’s selection, then simply continue as above claiming this card has told you that the spectator’s card is (for example) black. Here you are showing the first card, but not the other cards, which are still placed face down as the cards “talk.”

Approach #3:

Unambiguous Discernment Edward Marlo Effect: A spectator thinks of a card in the deck. The performer then unambiguously states that he will take the deck out of sight and turn one card face up. He brings the deck back into view, the spectator names his mental selection, and the selection is directly and logically revealed. Marlo’s clever approach gives the impression that no “fishing expedition” is underway and its “multiple end-points” are not obvious. Set-up: Using the first six cards of your favorite memorized stack or, as Marlo suggested, use the Eight-Kings arrangement. Disregard suits and use the 8-K-3-l0-2-6 values. Arrange them in this order from the top: 10-2-6-8-K-3. Method: Introduce and table the deck. During a couple of casual riffle shuffles add three indifferent cards onto the stack. Pick up the deck and perform a straight cut and retain a left pinky break between the sections. Explain that you want the spectator to look at any card, adding, “It can be any of these…” Begin spreading the cards face down between your hands as you approach the spectator. Look at his eyes, not the deck. When you reach the break, raise the deck with the faces toward the spectator. The cards above the break should

page 15

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

be more or less bunched together with your right fingers covering the indices. By the time the spectator begins to focus on the cards, you are running past the three indifferent cards (Fig. 2). The spectator is unlikely to choose these three cards because you have not yet said anything specific. As you thumb over the three indifferent cards, add: “Just think of…any one…” The spectator will likely wait a bit longer, unless he is impulsively obedient. Watch his eyes to see if his eyes remain focused. Many spectators, once they have noted a card, will look away, look at the performer, or look disinterested. Most spectators tend to select the fourth, fifth, or sixth card shown. Notice the exact wording of the patter. You do not say to look at a card and you say “any one,” although at this stage you are restricting his choice to three.

Fig. 2 - Spreading into the first three cards of the stack

When you push over the third card of the stack, add: “Are you thinking of one?” If he says “yes,” you know that he is thinking of the 10, 2, or 6. If not slowly thumb over the 8, K, and 3. When the 3 is clearly pushed over, pause, and ask, “You have one in mind now?” (Fig. 3) By this time most spectators will affirm. This sequence is the opening action of Marlo’s “Streamlined Discernment” explained in Pasteboard Presto (1938). Some workers may prefer to slowly show the six principal cards of the stack, speaking only when the fifth card is pushed over, saying: “Do you have one in mind?” I prefer this approach for fast company. After you have pushed over the sixth card of your stack and know that the spectator has chosen one of them, add: “Keep thinking of your card and remember: You could have thought of any card.”

Fig. 3 - The second group of three cards in the stack

Close the spread and shuffle the cards, retaining the 9 card group on top. Use either an Overhand Jog Shuffle or Riffle Shuffles. Lose the three indifferent cards. Say, “I’m going to place the deck under the table and reach in and reverse only one card. Please notice that I’m clearly and definitively explaining what I’m going to do. Once a card is turned face up, I’ve committed myself.” When the deck is out of sight, thumb over and reverse the second (2) and fifth (K) cards. In other words, the central card of each three-card set is turned face up. Place the top three cards to the bottom of the deck. Insert the next top three cards into the center of the deck but obtain a left pinky break below them. Bring the deck above the table. Say, “Remember: Only one card is reversed in this deck. For the first time, name the card you merely thought of…” The next action depends on which one of the six possibilities is named. The ideal outcome is when the spectator names the King. If this occurs, say: “Although I could not see the card I reversed when the deck was under the table, I know that I turned your card face up in the center!” page 16

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

With the deck held face down with only your left hand lose your break on the central cards and then get a left pinky break above the bottom three cards. Then slowly thumb off cards onto the table, spreading them as you go, and using the fingertips of your palm-down right hand to aid in the spreading action (Fig. 4). When you reach midway the spectator will see the face-up King and the psychological climax is reached; the feat is essentially over. Keep spreading the cards until you reach your break and then hold the pose (Fig. 5). Slide out the King with your right hand and then scoop up the spread with your left hand to square the deck.

Fig. 4 - Spreading to the King of Clubs

The next best outcome is when he names the Two. If this occurs, casually cut the deck at the break and repeat the action just explained to reveal the face-up Two. Needless to say, if the spectator names the other four possibilities, the faceup card revealed becomes a locator-card. That is, you reveal that you placed a face-up card next to their mental selection. This will sound more specific than it actually is. Because you know the position of the named card due to the set-up, you can specify that it is above or below the face-up locator card. (The spatiality aspects are important. If you use a right or left description, then you must Fig. 5- Continuing the spread, keeping the last three cards square take into account where the spectator is sitting or standing. If he is positioned across from you, his “right” is your “left” and vice-versa. This can be confusing if you do not repeat this clarification several times before the cards are spread. The “above” and “below” spatiality is the same regardless of how the spectator views the spread.) Therefore, please note the wording used. If for example, the spectator names the Eight. As soon as it’s named, you know that the Eight is above the face-up King. Instantly say, “That’s fantastic! I know that I inserted a card face up right next to your card. In fact, I placed it just below it.” If he names the Three or Six, you would say: “That’s fantastic! I know that I inserted a card face up right next to your card. In fact, I placed it just above it.” If you want to push the envelope and risk violating the Too-Perfect Theory, then you can also name the face-up card you blindly turned face up and inserted next to their mental selection. Your patter would be slightly modified:

“That’s fantastic! I know that I inserted a random card face up in the deck.” (Pause) Actually, I’m getting another image. Yes, the card that’s now face up is a King…a red King… (Pause) …and this King is right next to the card you merely thought of… In fact, I placed the King just below your Eight.”

page 17

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Approach #4:

Fish-Fry for Two Tom Baxter Tom, whose reputation as a mentalist has increased over the past five years, performs several versions of Think of a Card, including ones applying the Fan Force and his own adaptations of the methods explained in Expert at the Card Table. When performing this effect, Tom noticed that at times when he asked one person to think of a card as they were spread, another person sitting nearby the spectator also watched the cards and thought of one. When it came time for him to reveal the thought of card, the second person would pipe up, amazed, and say: “Amazing! That’s the card that I thought of too!” While this was an additional hit, of sorts, Tom worried that some spectators might twig on the fact that he was leading or somehow inducing the spectators to think of a specific card. He then hit upon using the Smith-Myth Principle (or Roshamon Principle, as it has become known) to convert this weakness to a strength. Tom writes: “Now, if I sense that a second person has viewed a card when I spread them, I ask them outright if they have thought of a card, as well. If they affirm, I ask both spectators to concentrate on the color of their card. I then turn to the first spectator and state the color of the force card, asking him if it’s the color of his mentally selected card. If he affirms, I know that I hit the right card. “Next, I ask the second spectator if their card is the same color. If they also answer in the affirmative, I assume they both thought of the same card. If the second spectator answers that their card was the other color, I look for an opposite-colored card at a position nearby the first spectator’s card. That will be the second spectator’s card. “There is a chance that, when both parties have chosen the same color of card that the selections could be different. To make certain, I fish further, acting slightly confused. I nod to the first spectator, and state the suit of the force card, asking if his card was (for instance) a club. The first spectator should affirm that this is so. I then turn to the second spectator and ask if he thought of a club, as well. If he says yes, then there are two possibilities: He has thought of the force card or he is thinking of a club nearby the force card. In this case, I remove the force card and the nearest club, holding them slightly fanned. In the case the second spectator has chosen the opposite color, as mentioned above, I remove the nearest opposing colored card, along with the force card. “As I turn their faces to the first spectator, I say: ‘I’m not sure whose card is whose, but is your card there?’ They will answer in the affirmative. Immediately, I turn to the second spectator and fan the cards slightly further apart, asking: “Is the other yours? “As you can see, there are many avenues to take.” They will answer yes, whether their card is the force card or the other club. The obvious assumption to the audience and to the two spectators is that you have divined two separate thought-of cards from a normal pack.

page 18

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

BIBLIOGRAPHY Meyer, Orville – Magic in the Modern Manner (1949) – “The Principle of Majorities,” pp. 62-66. Farmer, Bob – Labyrinth: A Journal of Close-up Magic: Number Five (1995) – “Efficient Fishing,” pp. 17-21. Farmer, Bob – “The Optimal Strategy for Selecting One of Eight Things” –an unpublished essay. Farmer, Bob – “On the Fly Fishing” – an unpublished article written on May 2, 2000 and updated on August 12, 2000. Farmer, Bob – The Encyclopedia of Think-of-a-Card Tricks - an unpublished book. Waters, T. A. – Mind, Myth & Magic (1993) – “Tronic,” pp. 71-85. Waters, T. A. – Tronic (1981) Erdnase, S. W. Expert at the Card Table (1905) - “A Mind-Reading Trick,” p. 194-196. Vernon, Dai - Revelations (1984) Ortiz, Darwin - The Annotated Erdnase (1991) Hilliard, John Northern - Greater Magic (1938), “Shuffle, Force, Cut and Pass,” pp. 163-164; “By Elimination,” pp. 344-345. Hull, Ralph W. - “Streamlined Discernment” (a marketed manuscript - 1932?) Marlo, Edward - Amazing, Isn’t It? (1941) “Streamlined Discernment” Marlo, Edward - Early Marlo (1964) and (1976 – enlarged edition) - “Streamlined Discernment,” p. 38. Krenzel, Ken - 52 Amazing Card Tricks (1949) - “Mental Discernment Improved,” pp. 14-17. Ganson, Lewis - More Inner Secrets of Card Magic (1960) - “Out Of Sight – Out Of Mind” by Dai Vernon in, pp. 14-15. Minch, Stephen - The Vernon Chronicles: More Lost Inner Secrets (1988) - “Out of Sight and Mind II” by Dai Vernon, pp. 32-40.

page 19

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Three Change A trick where three coins change, but do not fly.

Rick Merrill Perception The magician produces three American Half Dollars. One by one, he changes them into three international coins. Then he changes them back.

Deception You will need: • A 2 Copper/1 Silver Coin English Penny on one side, Half Dollar on the other, with the copper coin forming a shell for the recessed Centavo on the other side of the Half • A Chinese Coin that will fit into an Expanded Half Dollar Shell A Sterling Chinese Coin happens to fit into a Johnson Products Expanded Shell • An Expanded Half Dollar Shell • A matching Half Dollar The Setup Place the 2 Copper/1 Silver Coin, copper side out, on top of the regular Half Dollar. Place these both into left hand finger palm position. The Chinese coin goes into the Expanded Shell. This goes into right hand finger palm with the Chinese coin facing out.

Fig. 1 - The Opening Display

The Production Give the audience a brief show of your empty palms (Fig. 1) and then proceed to produce the coins. The left hand goes first. Approach your right sleeve with the left hand, pinching a bit of cloth between your index and second fingers as your left thumb pushes the first coin forward, out of finger palm position and behind the fold of cloth you have pinched. Pull the left hand free showing the Half Dollar side of the first coin. Retain this coin at the fingertips of your left hand. Perform the same actions with your right hand on your left sleeve to produce the second coin. This displays the Half Dollar side of the Chinese Coin and Expanded Shell. Keep this coin at your right hand fingertips and page 20

Fig. 2 - Position of the first two coins after being produced

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 place the 2 Copper/1 Silver coin on the outer side of this coin, forming a two-coin fan at your right hand fingertips, with the Chinese Coin being the uppermost of the two coins (Fig. 2, prev. page). Perform the production sequence again to reveal the remaining coin in your Left Hand by pulling it from your right sleeve. Casually show both sides of this coin by rotating it around your left index finger using your left thumb and second finger. This coin remains at the fingertips of your left hand. Form a three-coin fan at your left fingertips by first placing the 2 Copper/1 Silver coin onto the outer side of the Half Dollar in your hand. The Half Dollar is the uppermost coin of this fan. Then place the Chinese Coin on the outer side as the lowermost coin of the three-coin fan (Fig. 3). This coin is held in place briefly before proceeding with the "Change" sequence. The Coins Change Coin Change #1 Take the lowermost coin of the three-coin fan into right hand French Drop position. Do this by slightly leaning the fan of coins, moving the uppermost of the three towards you. As your left and right hands come together, set the Chinese Coin, Half Dollar Shell side up, into French Drop position in the right hand (Fig. 4). Separate your hands, moving the shell and the Chinese Coin away in your right hand. You now perform The French Drop Sequence, which will be repeated two more times in the routine.

Fig. 4a

Fig. 4b

Fig. 4c

Fig. 3 - Position of the coins prior to proceeding with the French Drop Sequence

Fig. 4 - Placing the coin in French Drop position

Fig. 4d

The French Drop Sequence: Relax your grip on the shell in French Drop position and allow the Chinese Coin to fall into Finger Palm position. You should be able to do this silently. Immediately after this happens, lever the Shell Coin into fingertip grip by moving your right thumb upwards until you are able to "pop" it under the coin. This sequence is shown from the side in Fig. 4a through 4d. The third photo slightly exaggerates the angle of the coin prior to it snapping up into fingertip grip. This sequence will be performed two more times in this routine and you should be comfortable enough to perform it with either hand.

Reposition the three visible coins into a three-coin fan in your left hand so that the regular Half is the top coin, the shell is the second coin, and the Copper/Silver coin is the bottom coin (Fig. 5). The coins should overlap on Fig. 5 - Order of the coins in three coin fan

page 21

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 the outer side as they move down in the fan. This will position you to easily nest the regular Half into the expanded shell during the next step. After you have formed the fan, drop your right hand to your side and Classic Palm the Chinese Coin. Once palmed, move your right hand towards your left to feign taking the Fig. 6a uppermost coin. While your right fingers provide cover, slide the Half into the shell with your left thumb. Once it is nested, pretend to move the coin away with your right fingers (This sequence is shown in Fig. 6a and 6b). Continue your pretense by imitating the coin falling into your hand as you close it. Squeeze gently, and open your hand to show the Chinese Coin. Allow this coin to slide from your palm onto your right fingers where you re-grip it by its edge between your right thumb and fingertips.

Fig. 6b

Coin Change #2 Move the Chinese Coin towards the two in your Left Hand, overlapping the Chinese Coin briefly onto the Half and shell. Take these two coins away to the right with your right hand (Fig. 7), following them intently with your Fig. 7 - The two coins misdirecting away from the left hand eyes, as you say, "Watch the second coin." As these coins move away, drop the left hand out of frame slightly, simultaneously pulling the coin behind the left fingers with your left thumb. Pull it just enough so that you can clip the upper edge of the Coin between your left first and second fingers (Fig. 8a). This allows you to release the coin with your left thumb and move the thumb under the coin so that you can push it into view (Fig. 8b). As you push it into view, raise your left arm so the hand is back in frame and move your gaze Fig. 8a Fig. 8b back to the left hand. This whole sequence happens smoothly, but fairly rapidly. The audience should realize you’ve cheated them a bit by drawing their attention away and then back again. You can even call attention to this and comment about how the second change is "sneaky." You can now perform the Cummins’ Turnover Subtlety to (supposedly) display both sides of the copper coin. You apparently flip the coin around your first finger with your thumb, casually showing both sides of the coin, but in reality you display the copper side of the coin twice. Do this by pushing the coin up and over the first finger of your left hand with your thumb as you bend your first finger inward. Push it over your first finger far enough so that your second finger can pull down on its upper edge. The coin is briefly clipped between your first and second fingers as your thumb comes below the nearest edge, flipping it up to again display the copper side of the coin to the audience. This entire sequence is shown in Fig. 9a through 9d. This move is done casually, without calling attention to it. It mimics the true display of the page 22

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Fig. 9a

Fig. 9b

Fig. 9c

Fig. 9d

real half dollar as performed earlier in the routine. Move the Copper Coin to your right hand where it briefly becomes the lowermost coin of a three-coin fan. Again, the coins in the fan overlap on their outer lower edge as they move downward. You positioned this coin here to allow you to perform The French Drop Sequence with this coin in the left hand. Place the Copper/Silver coin in French Drop position (Fig. 10). Perform the sequence, allowing the Centavo to drop into finger palm position, and pop the Copper Shell up into left hand fingertip grip. The Centavo piece will be in left hand finger palm position with the Centavo side facing outward.

Fig. 10 - Preparing for the French Drop Sequence done in the Left Hand

Coin Change #3 Place the Copper Shell onto the right hand coins so it is the lowermost coin of a three-coin fan (Fig. 11). As you do this, drop your left hand to your side and flip the Centavo piece over so that it is Half Dollar side out. Bring the left hand back up and move the three coin fan toward the left hand. Leave the first and third coins (the Chinese and Copper coins) in between the left hand thumb and forefinger as you slide the Half Dollar coin from between them with your right thumb and fingertips. During this whole sequence, you retain the Centavo piece in finger Fig. 11 Fig. 11a Fig. 11b palm of the left hand (Fig. 11a & 11b). Display your empty left palm while concealing the Centavo piece (The Ramsey Subtlety). Perform a retention vanish of the Half Dollar and shell from your right hand into (and back out of) your left palm (Fig. 12a & Fig. 12b). As you close your left fingers on the supposed coin, allow the Centavo piece to flip down. Pause for a moment and then open the fingers to display the Centavo. During the open and close sequence of your left fingers, drop your right hand to your side and classic palm the Half Dollar and shell, shell side out.

Fig. 12a - Performer’s View

Fig. 12b - Spectator’s View

page 23

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Position your right hand palm up below your left hand, fingers extended flat (Fig. 13). Allow the Centavo to slide off your left hand onto your right fingers so that it lands Centavo side up. The classic palmed coin is concealed by the base of the right thumb and thumb muscle, in what has become known as the Malini Subtlety, during the dropping of the Centavo. Reposition the three coins into a fan at your left fingertips, with the Centavo as the upper coin, the Copper Shell as the middle coin, and the Chinese coin as the bottom coin. Fig. 13 The Coins Change Back Change Back #1 The first coin is changed back using the same method as Change #1 from the first sequence. With the Half Dollar (and shell) classic palmed in the right hand, bring the right fingers up to pretend to take away the Centavo. When the fingers cover the Centavo, slide the Centavo into the Copper Shell that lies in the second position. Execute the same sequence as Change #1 where you pretend to allow the Centavo to fall into the right palm, squeeze, and open to reveal the Half Dollar. Let the Half Dollar slide to your right fingers so it can be re-gripped by the right fingertips with the shell facing away from you.

Change Back #2 Briefly position the Half Dollar and shell as the lowermost coin of three in the left hand. The shell side of the coin should face the audience. You will now execute The French Drop Sequence again with this coin in the right hand. Once you have popped the shell to the right hand fingertips, place the shell so that it is the lowermost coin of a three-coin fan in the left hand. Then, move the uppermost coin so it becomes the lowermost (the shell is moved to the center position). This puts you in position to again nest the top coin of the fan into the shell in the second position. You will do this during the next sequence. Drop your right arm to your side and allow the classic palmed coin to drop onto the fingers of your right hand. Position the coin so you can clip the upper edge of it between the first and second finger of your right hand. Bring this hand back up and place these fingers in front of the top of the fan of coins (Fig. 14a). As the fingers cover the top coin of the fan, slide it into the Copper Shell in the second position using your left thumb. Immediately, leave the Fig. 14a clipped coin in place of the Centavo (Fig. 14b) and move the right hand away. The perception is that you have only lightly stroked the coin and it has changed back to a Half Dollar.

page 24

Fig. 14b

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Fig. 15a

Fig. 15b

Fig. 15c

Fig. 15d

Change Back #3 Move the fan of coins toward the open right hand fingers and lay the lowermost copper coin on your right fingers. The coin is copper side up. Move the two-coin fan in your left hand back and forth across the copper coin three times without touching it. This is not a waving motion as the coins are moved so that they Fig. 15f are roughly parallel to the surface of the right fingers (Fig. 15a, Fig. 15e 15b). As the coins come back toward you during the third pass, turn the inside of your right hand fingers (and the copper side of the coin) toward you (Fig. 15c). Clamp the coin in place with your right thumb (Fig. 15d). Insert the two-coin fan between the copper coin and your right hand fingers enough so that you can pinch the copper coin and the uppermost coin of the two-coin fan between your right second finger and thumb (Fig. 15e). Spread these two coins openly as you pull the third coin away from them with your left hand fingertips. You will end up in the open display position shown in Fig. 15f, revealing that all three coins have turned back to Half Dollars.

The ANTINOMY Perspective Reading the description of this routine, it’s easy to think the handling is “over-handled” at points. You might question the minor readjustments in the order of the coins, or the re-positioning of coins in preparation for the French Drop Sequence. If you try this routine with coins in hand, I think you’ll feel otherwise. The handling is very casual and the effect is direct. The chief appeal of this routine is how much it looks like what it purports to be. If you could change coins one at a time into other coins, it would look very much like this. The trade off, of course, is that the coins cannot be freely examined. But if you just put them away and move on, it is a visually arresting and pleasing trick to perform.

Touchstones and Crossroads Rick cites the Troy Hooser routine "Ex-Troy-dinary" as his inspiration for this routine. In fact, the opening production sequence and false take of the first coin are the same as Troy’s routine. Rick constructed the routine to try to fool Troy. When Troy first saw this routine, he was lulled into believing he was seeing a routine of his own. When the first coin changed instead of disappearing, Troy knew he was seeing something a bit different. Troy Hooser – “Ex-Troy-dinary,” desTROYers: The Superlative Magic of Troy Hooser, 2001. Written by Joshua Jay David Roth – “The Retention Vanish,” Expert Coin Magic, 1985. Written by Richard Kaufman Paul Cummins – “The Cummins Turnover Subtlety,” Outside the Box (DVD). Nathan Kranzo

page 25

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Only Three Away A playing card ends up three away from its destiny

Nathan Kranzo Perception The spectator freely selects a card and chooses where to put it back in the deck. They then shuffle the deck and the magician announces "I don’t know what card you’re thinking of, but I’m thinking of the Three of Hearts." The magician spreads the face-up deck to show that the spectator’s card is next to his card. In a second phase, the spectator selects another card and returns it to the deck away from the magician’s card. The magician spreads the deck again and the spectator’s card is NOT next to the magician’s card. Yet the magician shows that it is "Only Three Away" from his card. Further, the magician proves that his card knew the ending all along by showing the words "Only Three Away" on the back of the Three of Hearts.

Deception You will need: • A red back deck (white bordered) • A red double-backer to match the deck • A black magic marker (only for preparation) • Double-stick tape Remove the Three of Hearts from the red back deck and write the words "Only Three Away" on its back in bold letters (Fig. 1). Set this card aside momentarily. Take a piece of double-stick tape about one inch long and place it down the center of one side of the double-backed card. The tape should be oriented vertically along the card so that its longest sides parallel the longest sides of the playing card. Remove a second piece of doublestick tape about an inch long from the roll. This piece is divided into two vertical pieces, each one an inch in length, by tearing down the middle of the tape. You will only use one of these pieces. This piece is placed on the other side of the double-backer, but is positioned, again vertically, along the edge of the card where the red back meets the white border. The tape does not cover the white border, but extends from the white border onto the red area of the back. Fig. 2 shows the positioning of the double-stick tape on both sides of the double-backer.

Fig. 1

Side A

Fig. 2

page 26

Side B

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 Take the Three of Hearts you set aside and place it back down onto the side of the double-backer with the tape running down the middle (Side A in Fig. 2). You might want to prep the double-stick tape to be less tacky by pressing it with your fingers several times, or you could adopt David Regal’s strategy of using removable double-stick tape in combination with regular double-stick tape. Press the combined card to anchor the Three of Hearts to the double-backer. Place this combined card (which we will call the "double key card") face down onto the top of the deck. You’re ready to begin. Spread the deck face up and have any card selected. Turn your head away during this selection process. Once the card is removed, square the deck and swing cut a third of the face-up deck into the left hand. Place the remainder of the deck onto this packet, acquiring a left pinky break between the packets as you do so. This means you have a break below the double key card (Fig. 3). Turn your head away and cut small packets to the table, telling the spectator to say "Stop" at any time. Do not cut past the break you are maintaining during this process. Keep cutting small packets until they say "Stop." Once they say stop, have them put their card on the face-up portion of the pack that is on the table. When they have done that, return to the face-up portion in your hands, cut to the break, and place this entire portion on their

Fig. 4a

Fig. 4b

Fig. 3

Fig. 4c

Fig. 4d

card. Continue cutting two or three small portions of the packet in your hands onto the one on the table until all of the cards are on the table (Fig. 4a - 4d). While it appears that the spectator had a completely free choice of where to place their card, you have in fact placed your double key card directly above their card. This sequence is the "Vernon Key Card Placement." Turn the deck on its side in position to perform a quick overhand shuffle. While doing this, give the deck a squeeze, firmly anchoring your double key card to the spectator’s card. As you do this, say to the spectator, "Give the deck a quick shuffle." They can give the deck an overhand shuffle without the double key card being separated from their card. Take the deck back and say, "I’m not sure what card you’re thinking of, but I’m thinking of the Three of Hearts and my card can find your card." You can even make this statement prior to the beginning of the trick. Ask what their card is. Spread through the face-up deck until you come to the Three of Hearts. Give a little more pressure to separate the double key card from their card to show that the card you were thinking of is next to their card.

page 27

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Fig. 5a

Fig. 5b

Fig. 5d

Fig. 5c

Separate the deck between the two cards so their card lies on top of the left hand packet, slightly extended to the right, and your card lies below the right hand packet, slightly extended to the left. Swap the positions the two cards so that their card is now below the right hand packet, slightly extended, and your card is now on top of the left hand packet, again slightly extended. This just takes a quick motion, the purpose of which is to position the edge of your card that has the double-stick tape on it over the edge of the packet in your left hand. This quick sequence is illustrated in Fig. 5a through 5d. Doing this allows you to turn each card over to show there is nothing on the backs of the cards (Fig. 6). The narrow strip of double-stick tape on your card is easily covered with your fingers and the edge of the deck. They can even touch the backs of the cards if you wish to have them do so. You now proceed into the second sequence. Assemble the deck face-up so the first selection goes to the bottom and the double key card is on top by putting your right hand’s packet under the left hand’s packet. Push over the double key card and the three cards after it slightly (Fig. 7), obtaining a left pinky break below these cards. Do this as you explain that "Some people think that the Three started out on top or on the bottom of the deck and that’s how it ended up next to their card.” This time you will make sure that it isn’t on the top or the bottom by pushing it into the middle. Take the double key card and push it from the rear of the deck into the break you are holding under the top three cards (Fig. 8). You are performing the familiar "Tilt" move under three cards. Now you can spread the top three face-up cards to show that your card is not near the top. Turn the deck over and show the first few cards to show your card is not there either. Turn your head away and have the spectator cut off a portion of cards from the deck, remove the following card, and replace the packet they cut off. Ask them to remember the card and place it on top of the deck. Have them cut the deck and complete the cut. This will centralize your card and their card and put you in position for the final stage of the routine.

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

State that you are confident that your card has found their card. Turn the deck face-up and spread until you see your card, proclaiming the (wrong) card immediately after it as their card. When they say this is incorrect, ask them what their card was. Notice that their card is only a few cards away from your card. Leave all cards in the deck as you count the cards between your card and their card. As you count the cards, upjog them (Fig. 9). Say, "Look. Your card was only one, two, three away from my card. My card was a three. Does that count for anything?"

page 28

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 Probably not, but as you say this, remove the double key card and rotate the deck face down in your hands. Place the double key card face up on top of the face down deck. Say, "But what if my card knew your card would be only three away from it? Would that be a good trick?" As you say this, riffle up on the ends of the deck, dislodging the Three of Hearts from the double backer. The noise of the riffle will cover any noise as the double-stick tape is pulled off the card. Regardless of the spectator’s answer to your question, slowly turn the Three over and show that it knew it would be "Only Three Away." To reset, place the Three back on the deck face-up. Squeeze to re-attach the tape and flip the re-combined double key card face down onto the deck.

Fig. 9

The ANTINOMY Perspective I have somewhat mixed feelings about the effect of this trick. It is not truly a prediction effect, since the normal back of an openly displayed card changes to a “prediction” at the end of the trick. I think of it more as the card suddenly knowing where it would end up. Obviously, the back of the card at the end could also be a different color, but this wouldn’t add anything to the trick. As it stands now, the writing magically appears on the card. That wouldn’t be the effect if the card were completely different at the end. I think Nathan’s work with the double-stick tape and double-backer is interesting, as well as his handling for separating the card from the tape. It might be interesting if the spectator were able to name a single-digit number at the end and their card ended up exactly that number away from your card. But how to cause their number to end up as the “prediction” on the back of the card? Hmmm...

Touchstones and Crossroads Nathan credits a Max Maven routine from The Green Book of Mentalism as his inspiration. In this routine, the card the performer is thinking of ends up next to the card the spectator is thinking of. Max Maven – “Destiny,” The Green Book of Mentalism, 1977. Written by Phil Goldstein Also “The Key Card” chapter in The Royal Road to Card Magic, 1948. Written by Jean Hugard & Frederick Braue Dai Vernon – “Key Card Placement,” Ultimate Secrets of Card Magic, 2001. Written by Lewis Ganson Edward Marlo – “Tilt,” Card College, Volume 4, English language edition 2000. Written by Roberto Giobbi

page 29

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Cushion Shot A change, a vanish, and a magical rebound result in three selections being collected.

Max Maven in his words with minor revisions for formatting Perception In this routine, several time-tested methods are combined to produce a series of unexpected outcomes—sort of a perverse version of Roy Walton’s "Collectors" plot. The four aces are openly removed from the pack, and placed into a small opaque box. Three spectators each select a card. These are replaced into the middle of the pack. The performer explains that he’ll make the chosen cards vanish from the pack and reappear inside the box, interlaced with the aces. A mystical gesture is made, and indeed, the selections are no longer in the deck. However, when the box is opened, it contains the three chosen cards, but not the aces. The box is re-closed, then promptly reopened to reveal that it is entirely empty. Without hesitation, the magician ribbonspreads the pack to show that the aces have reappeared, face up in the center of the spread, interlaced with three face-down cards. These, of course, prove to be the previously chosen ones.

Deception You will need: • A pack of cards • Three gaffs: double-facers showing aces backed with indifferent cards. For this description, we’ll assume these are the AH/4S, AS/4H and AC/7S.These are standard combinations in the commercially available double-faced U.S. Playing Card sets. • A flap Card Box. Make and design are immaterial, so long as it will accommodate playing cards. It is not necessary that this be a locking model, although that wouldn’t hurt…

Fig. 1 - The setup from the top of the deck.

At the outset, the deck is arranged from the top: face-down AC, AS and AH; face-up indifferent card; face-up 4S, 7S and 4H (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2). The three double-faced aces plus the normal ace of diamonds are distributed in the deck (so that their ace sides will show when the pack is spread face up), with the double-faced AH closest to the face, the AD furthest to the back (Fig. 3). Begin by bringing out the Card Box and providing a presentational context (e.g., the classic "Locked Room Mysteries" of vintage detective fiction, or page 30

Fig. 2 - The setup shown from underneath.

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 dark-room séance phenomena). The box is left open and set aside. Bring out the pack of cards. Turn the deck face up, and openly spread through the cards, outjogging the aces as you come to them (Fig. 3). Square the pack in the left hand, as the right hand extracts the outjogged quartet. Use the right hand’s cards to lever the pack face down into the left hand. The left edge of the right hand’s packet is tapped against the back of the deck, ostensibly to square the packet, as the left wrist turns inward. What actually happens during this is a form of KM Move: The right fingers push the rearmost card of the packet (the normal AD) over to the left, where it is clipped by the left fingers, stolen atop the deck during this tapping action (Fig. 4a - 4c). The result is that the right hand now holds just the three double-faced aces; the AD is the top card of the remainder of the pack.

Fig. 3

Table the deck, and focus your attention on the packet, stating, "We’ll place these inside the mysterious room. Four aces, no more, no less." As this is said, perform Fig. 4a Fig. 4b an Elmsley Count, displaying four aces. (The AH is seen twice during this, but as the color distribution is correct, this discrepancy will not be discerned.) Set the aces onto the side of the Card Box that does not contain the flap (Fig. 5). Swing that side closed—thus causing the packet to turn over inside the box.

Fig. 4c

The Flap Side

Pick up the deck, and explain that you will have three cards selected. Here, Henry Christ’s 203rd Force is brought into play. A spectator is asked to cut the pack. The cut-off stock is turned face up, and replaced on top of the remainder. Now, spread through the pack, displaying assorted face-up cards "that could have been cut to." When you reach the first face-down Fig. 5 card, the right hand lifts away the face-up stock, and the left thumb deals the first three face-down cards onto the table. Ostensibly, these are the cards that were cut to. In fact, they are the force-cards (4H, 7S, 4S). Turn the right hand’s stock face down and drop it on top of the left-hand stock. Unbeknownst to the audience, the four aces are face up near the center of the deck. Have three spectators each take one of the "selected" cards, and remember it. While this is being done, riffle your right thumb up the back end of the pack, until the lowermost face-up ace (the diamond) flips past. Obtain a left little finger break above that card. With the right hand, retrieve one of the selections, and insert it into the break. As the card is pushed square, allow the card above it (another face-up ace) to drop, so that you can obtain a new break above this second ace. Retrieve another selection, and insert it into this break. As before, when that card is pushed square, allow the card above it to drop, obtaining a new break above the next ace. The final selection is inserted into this break. As it page 31

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 is pushed square, let the next ace drop, so that you are holding a break above the uppermost ace. The situation is now that the three selections are interlaced with the four face-up aces, somewhere near the center of the deck, and you have a left little finger break above the top ace. Now, we’ll use a Marlo move: The pack is levered over to the right, book fashion. The break point is retained during this, because as the deck pivots a small step is formed there (Fig. 6a). Square the pack, regaining the break (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6a

Fig. 6b

Give the face-up pack a complete cut at the break, as you state that the three selections are clearly lost in different places in the pack. Make a magical gesture, as if invisibly plucking the selections from the deck and tossing them toward the tabled box, as you explain that you will cause the chosen cards to vanish from the deck and reappear interlaced with the aces inside the box. You will now go through the pack and show that the selections have vanished, using an idea first put forth by Martin Gardner many decades ago. Spread over about fifteen cards, asking the spectators if they see their selections. They won’t. Take the spread-off stock, turn it face down, and replace it beneath the left-hand stock. Spread over another dozen or so cards or so; again, no selections will be seen. As before, turn the spread stock face down and replace it beneath the talon. Spread over the remaining face-up cards, allowing the participants to verify that their chosen cards are not there. This spread-off stock is also turned face down and replaced beneath the left-hand stock. You have apparently displayed every card in the deck, and the selections were not seen, so they must have vanished. The actual condition of the pack is that top seven cards now consist of the four face-down aces with the face-up selections interlaced. Comment, "Your cards are not here, and not here… They’re really gone!" With this, a Braue Turnover is done. Grasp the pack from above with the right hand (Biddle fashion), and Fig. 7a Fig. 7c Fig. 7b obtain a thumb break beneath the top seven cards, The right hand cuts off about half the deck. The left hand levers its stock face up, and drops it on top of the right-hand stock (Fig. 7a). The right hand now cuts off all of the cards above the break (Fig. 7b). The left hand levers its stock face up, and the right hand drops its stock on top of the left (Fig. 7c). This activity seems to merely emphasize the fact that the selections have vanished. The result is that the seven-card block of aces interlaced with selections has been relocated at the center of the deck, but with the orientation reversed. Turn the pack face down, and table it. Open the card box. The audience will expect to see the selections interlaced with the aces. However, instead they’ll see just the three chosen cards; now, the aces seem to have disappeared. Express mild consternation, and flip the box closed. This time, the side with the flap is the one swung closed.

page 32

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005 Make a magical gesture, then reopen the box, showing that it is now empty. Ribbonspread the pack to reveal the four aces face up at center, with alternating three face-down cards which are, of course, the selections (Fig. 8). You end with a clean deck—complete, and with the gaffs safely hidden in the card box. So, you can continue with whatever other straight deck material you so desire. MARKETING RIGHTS RESERVED

The ANTINOMY Perspective

Fig. 8

If you are like me, when you realized this routine utilizes a card box, you might have been initially disappointed. It’s important to think of the effect in the abstract though: The aces are isolated, they change into the selections, then they disappear, “rebounding” into the deck interlaced among the aces. It is the idea of all this that is appealing and, I think unique among approaches to the Collector’s plot. Aces have been isolated before, but they haven’t turned into the selections and then disappeared all together. Dig out your card box and try this routine, or if you’re like me, order a card box and try it.

Touchstones and Crossroads Roy Walton – “The Collectors,” First published in Abracadabra, with countless variations since. Roy Walton – “Finders Keepers,” The Devil’s Playthings, 1969. One of the originator’s early variations. Roberto Giobbi – “Catch 22,” Card College, Vol.4, English Language Edition 2000. And many other variations of “The Collectors’ plot. Martin Gardner – “Vanish and Spell,” Martin Gardner’s Table Magic, 1998. Tony Kardyro/Edward Marlo – “The K.M. Move,” Card College, Vol 3, English Language Edition 1998. Frederick Braue – “The Reverses: Fourth Method,” The Royal Road to Card Magic, 1948.

page 33

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Gaffed Card Corner

The Clear Exchange A card initially introduced magically changes to match another

From the Antinomy Vault In David Solomon’s book, Solomon’s Mind, the effect "Full-Face Universal Card" introduced a unique switching envelope. This envelope, while apparently displaying its contents as one playing card, allowed the magician to withdraw a completely different card, effectively switching these two cards while the spectator watched. The gaffed envelope allowed it to be displayed as empty once the card was withdrawn. The switched card is not revealed until later in the routine. The inspiration for David Solomon’s envelope was an earlier Roy Johnson creation. The David Solomon switching envelope is at the heart of The Clear Exchange. To present the idea of The Clear Exchange, it is framed at the center of a trick. Call it "Your Birthday Card."

Perception The performer explains that, unlike most people, his birthday falls on Christmas. As such, he has always received fewer birthday gifts than others, or perhaps more Christmas gifts than most. It is hard to know which is true. But this Christmas, a truly unique gift was left for him as the last gift under the tree. Everyone present denied having given it to the magician, so where it had come from remained a mystery. When he opened it up, inside was a magical "Birthday Card." The magician produces this gift and opens it up to display the "Birthday Card." This is a Playing Card in a clear plastic sleeve. On its back is written "Your Birthday Card." The face of the card is clearly seen to be a Joker. The card is withdrawn from the sleeve and placed face down in the spectator’s hand. The magician proceeds to demonstrate the magic of the card by having another playing card selected based on the spectator’s birthday. The magician explains to the spectator that he has learned that the birthday card is not "My Birthday Card," but is instead "Your Birthday Card." When the selected card is revealed, it is shown that the magical "Birthday Card" is no longer a Joker and now matches the spectator’s card.

Deception As already mentioned, the core of the method for this trick is The Clear Exchange switching envelope. Since it involves a gaffed card, you will need the following materials to construct it: • A clear plastic trading card sleeve. The one illustrated in the photos is an Ultra-Pro Stor-Safe 3" X 4" Toploader. The stock # is 81145 for the 25 pack. • A cardboard envelope with a flap large enough to easily hold the trading card sleeve. The envelope used here is made from a 6" X 9" priority mail envelope available for free at a United States Post Office. Many sizes will work. Once the principle is understood, the reader is encouraged to use the size best suited to their needs. • Some Holiday wrapping paper. The type is important. It must have a strong striped pattern to it. Holiday paper was used, as that was what was available in the Antinomy household this time of year. Birthday wrapping paper can also be used. It could be argued that using only Birthday paper will clear up the somewhat convoluted presentation given above. So be it. The photos show a particularly average Holiday pattern.

page 34

The Gaffed Card Corner

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

• Rubber Cement. • A self-healing cutting mat (or other surface to cut upon). • An X-acto cutting knife with a #11 blade. This is recommended for any detailed cutting involved with gaffed card manufacture. A sharp-edged pair of scissors is recommended for one minor cut in the manufacturing process described. • A smooth-edged straight edge (ruler) to cut against. The Principle The Clear Exchange uses the principle of "Camouflage." References for this idea as applied to Playing Cards are presented at the conclusion of this article. Before the construction of The Clear Exchange envelope is detailed, let’s explore the idea first. The Clear Exchange utilizes an outer envelope, covered in Gift Wrap. It is this Gift Wrap which serves to camouflage the card to be switched, effectively hiding it in plain sight. The back of this card is covered in the same Gift Wrap as the envelope. A second card is placed on top of the card to be switched, and both are inserted, aligned, into the clear trading card sleeve. By placing the clear trading card sleeve on top of the Gift Wrap, the top card can be removed while leaving the switched card inside the sleeve. This card is hidden since its back blends in with the Gift Wrap. The edges of the card are concealed by the sides of the trading card sleeve and the straight lines of the Gift Wrap pattern. This is the core of the idea, but the illusion is further enhanced by answering this question: How much of a playing card needs to be displayed in order for it to be perceived as a whole playing card? Look at the card displayed in Fig. 1. Does it look like a whole playing card? As revealed in Fig. 2, there is a large section of this playing card missing. This is the extreme case. This is about the largest amount of the card you can remove while still obtaining a reasonably casual display of the face of the card. The angle of the cut, when paired with the angle of the Gift Wrap pattern is what provides the strongest illusion of the trading card sleeve being empty. It should be pointed out that other cuts, at less steep angles, and at different points of origination on the card will work. It is left up to the reader to decide which angles result in the most casual display of the card at the beginning and again when the card is actually switched.

Fig. 1

The entire sequence of displaying the card, and then switching it is as follows: Note: The cards are referred to as being switched. That is not completely accurate. Two cards are displayed. The front one is left behind, while the rear one is pulled out of the sleeve, passed off as the front one. Fig. 2

page 35

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

Fig. 3a

Fig. 3b

The Gaffed Card Corner

Fig. 3c

1. The trading card sleeve is removed showing the back of a card with the phrase "Your Birthday Card" on it (Fig. 3a). 2. The front of the trading card sleeve is displayed showing the supposed front of the same card as a Joker (Fig. 3b). The missing portion of this card is hidden behind the fingers of the hand holding it. The angles shown here, of the paper pattern, and the cut along the card, would be the mirror image of the ones presented if left-handers use these methods. 3. The trading card sleeve is placed on the outer Gift Wrapped envelope still held in the left hand (Fig. 3c). The justification here is to gesture to the spectator to hold out their hand by doing the same with your own. 4. The top card is pulled out of the trading card sleeve (Fig. 3d, a thumb notch has been added to the sleeve to facilitate this process) and placed face down in the spectator’s hand. 5. Fig. 4 shows the brief illusion of the sleeve being empty. Fig. 4a shows the real situation. This pose is not held long. Instead, the sleeve is gripped with the right hand and rotated into position to be slid back into the envelope as the envelope is raised upward with the left hand. This sequence is illustrated in Figs. 5a through 5c. If the envelope is properly constructed, you can show the sleeve as empty again as you slide it back into the envelope. The clearance required is discussed during the description of the construction. The audience view of the sleeve sliding back into the envelope is shown in Fig. 5b. This action is not emphasized. You are getting rid of these items in order to proceed with the next phase of the trick.

Fig. 5a

page 36

Fig. 5b

Fig. 3d

Fig. 4 - The Clear Exchange Illusion

Fig. 4a - The true circumstance

Fig. 5c

The Gaffed Card Corner

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Trick Since the core of the trick is The Clear Exchange envelope and the process already detailed, that part will not be revisited. Instead, a couple of possible ways to achieve the required force are discussed. One of these is a sleight of hand method. The other is a sort of one-way forcing deck. The real idea is for the reader to come up with their own ways to utilize The Clear Exchange to introduce "Stranger Cards" into their routines.

The sleight-of-hand method The most direct way to tie a spectator’s birthday to the card selected is to deal down to the card by using both the month and the day of the spectator’s birthday. One sleight-of-hand method that can accomplish this is Larry Jenning’s "T.N.T" Bottom Deal. The use of this force in combination with a "Birthday" routine is taken from Michael Close’s Birthday Book routine in Workers 5. So, the force card (the one matching the card labeled "Your Birthday Card" in your Clear Exchange set up) is on the bottom of the deck. Perform whatever shuffles you think necessary while retaining the card in that position. Ask the spectator the month and day of their birthday. Point out that you couldn’t have known that prior to now. For example, if they say July 13th, you would deal down 7 cards for July and another 13 cards for the day. While, admittedly, Dec. 31st will produce a lot of dealing, people should appreciate the fact that the combination of month and day will arrive at a unique card in the deck. To continue with the force, push over the next card of the packet that remains in your left hand slightly. Then turn over the dealt pile of cards on the table and spread them out face-up, pointing out that if they had had "a different birthday, they would have selected one of these…" Prepare the bottom card for a bottom deal during this action by slightly separating it from the deck with your left fingers. Return to the left hand packet and feign taking the selected card, but in reality, the right thumb contacts the top of the pushed over card and the right middle finger contacts the bottom (force) card. Continue your previous statement "…or one of these." The right hand freezes, gripping the bottom card of the packet as the left thumb pulls the top card back in alignment with the packet and then the left hand turns the entire packet face up and spreads them along with the others on the table. You’re left with the force card in your right hand. Ask the spectator to extend their other hand and place this card into it. The Clear Exchange card and this one match, bringing the effect to a successful conclusion.

The non-sleight-of-hand method This force is taken from the trick "Rainbow Prediction" by Tony Griffith, in Semi-Automatic Card Tricks Vol. V. The dealing procedure described in the sleight-of-hand method is really a broad ranging force in that it will only produce dealt cards in the positions of 2 to 43 in the deck. That is, the combined total of values for month and day can only go from January 1st (1 + 1 = 2, the lowest value) to December 31st (12 + 31 = 43, the highest value). So, it is possible to take the easy road and create a deck where positions 2 through 43 consist of a single card, say the Queen of Hearts. I leave it to the reader to debate whether the “easy road” is the “best road.” The top card, and the last nine cards would consist of indifferent cards. This is, in essence, a one-way forcing deck, but it allows for a reasonably good display at the end that “proves” the deck consists of different cards. Take the deck described. You have some latitude in shuffling with the deck setup the way it is. Two overhand shuffles that begin and end with single card runs will keep the deck in order. A riffle shuffle that doesn’t expose the nature of the

page 37

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Gaffed Card Corner

deck is possible, as long as the top card and bottom stock are kept in place. Regardless of whether you shuffle or not, you deal the cards to the table as described in the sleight-of-hand method. Now, take the next card and place it face down into the spectator’s hand. To emphasize that a different birthday would have resulted in a different card, pick up the tabled packet with your right hand. The left hand retains its packet. Square the right hand packet and turn it face up. It will show a single card, different from the selection. As you do this, turn over the left hand packet and spread the first eight cards. Overlap this spread onto the single card displayed in the right hand while commenting that "if your birthday had been different, we would’ve ended up somewhere else." You are now in position to conclude the trick.

The ANTINOMY Perspective While I am enamored of the illusion presented by The Clear Exchange, I have grown to believe that the clear trading card sleeve is a hard element to justify within the context of the routine. After all, wouldn’t it be cleaner to simply withdraw a single playing card from the Gift Wrapped envelope and have it "change" into the desired card? I suspect that some of the areas explored in The Clear Exchange might enable just that, or at least the appearance of that, and I hope a future edition of The Gaffed Card Corner might explore that territory.

Touchstones and Crossroads My direct inspiration for this approach to a clear switching envelope was a marketed routine by Henry Evans. It was solidified after viewing the recent DVD of The Collected Secrets of Lubor Fiedler. Since the Henry Evans routine is still on the market, I am not going to reference the specific trick. Besides, if you see him do it, it will fool you. Henry Evans – A marketed routine Lubor Fiedler – “Flash Vanishing Exploding Card,” The Collected Secrets of Lubor Fiedler (DVD), 2004. David Solomon – “Full-Face Universal Card,” Solomon’s Mind, 1997. Written by Eugene Burger David Regal – “The Magic Book,” Constant Fooling 2, 2002. David Regal – “Special Delivery,” A Marketed Routine A Note: The reason I name the Regal routine and not the Evans routine is that Special Delivery is known to involve an envelope. This does not speak to method. If I cite the Evans routine, I potentially give away the method. Larry Jennings – The T.N.T Bottom Deal in “Any Ace Called For,” The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings, 1986. Written by Mike Maxwell Michael Close – “The Birthday Book,” Workers Number 5, 1996. Tony Griffith – “Rainbow Prediction,” Semi-Automatic Card Tricks, Volume 5, 2004. Written by Steve Beam

page 38

The Gaffed Card Corner

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Construction Once you understand the principle, the construction of The Clear Exchange is fairly straightforward. The gaffed card itself is easier to make than most and that is partly the reason it was selected for the debut of The Gaffed Card Corner. There are five things to do to make The Clear Exchange: 1. Find or construct the envelope 2. "Wrap" the envelope in the wrapping paper 3. Remove a portion of the playing card 4. Affix a portion of the Gift Wrap onto the back of the trimmed card 5. Cut a thumb notch in the trading card sleeve

Fig. 6

1. Find or construct the envelope As pointed out earlier, many envelopes will work once the principle is understood. It is possible to construct an envelope of an appropriate size from scratch. It is also possible you will find a satisfactory size pre-made. The one described here is easily made from the 6" X 9" envelope obtained at a U.S. Post Office. Lay the envelope down on your cutting surface and place the straight edge parallel to the bottom edge of it about 4" to 4 1/2" from the bottom edge (Fig. 6). Remove this bottom edge and seal the bottom of the new envelope with a strip of scotch tape.

2. "Wrap" the envelope in the wrapping paper Lay the new envelope on the interior of the wrapping paper. Note the position of the angles in the paper design in the finished product. You want to make sure that these angles run in the proper direction. Once this "test placement" is done, pick up the envelope and coat the flap side of it with rubber cement. Before it dries completely, lay it back down on the paper.

Fig. 7

Trim around the glued portion of the envelope, leaving a 1/2" margin on the left and right sides. Cut inward toward the bottom edge of these paper borders. This will free up the paper so you can easily fold it in over the envelope. Close cut the flap area. That is, cut along the edge of the flap area of the envelope with Fig. 8

page 39

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Gaffed Card Corner

your knife. You do not need to leave any excess paper there. Apply rubber cement to the 1/2" paper borders you’ve created and fold these over onto the body of the envelope. Trim the area attached at the bottom of the envelope so that it is big enough to easily cover the rest of the envelope, but small enough to easily work with. Apply rubber cement to the rest of the exposed body of the envelope. Fold the remaining piece of paper up and over the body of the envelope. You can carefully trim the flap end of the envelope by allowing your knife to follow the edges of the cardboard. Turn over the envelope and trim off the excess paper on the left and right sides. You’re done wrapping the envelope. Before and after photos of each side are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

3. Remove a portion of the playing card Lay the playing card on the wrapped envelope in the area where it will be hidden. Hold it in place and mark each side of the card where it overlaps the envelope with your knife (Figs. 9a and 9b). These marks will serve as guidelines for use in removing the section of the playing card. Remove the card and lay it on your cutting surface. Line up your cutting edge using the guidelines and trim the card by passing the knife along the straight edge a few times (Fig. 9c). It is sometimes easier to lightly cut a few times Fig. 9a Fig. 9c Fig. 9b rather than press too hard to try to cut the card in one stroke. 4. Affix a portion of the Gift Wrap onto the back of the trimmed card Take another large piece of the wrapping paper and find a section that aligns perfectly with the side where the card will be hidden. If you’ve ever attempted to do this sort of alignment while wrapping gifts in the past, you’ll be better equipped to perform this task. Regardless, you will need an area of the wrapping paper that exactly matches the area on the relevant side of the envelope. Once you have this area of paper, place it down on your cutting surface and place the trimmed card face down in the same position on this piece that it occupied on the envelope when you decided which area of the card to trim off. With it in place, you can either hold it down, or lightly tack it to the paper using re-positionable scotch tape. In either case, you will close cut along the edge of the card to obtain a piece of wrapping paper that is the exact size of the playing card. Once you have this piece, brush rubber cement on both the interior side of the paper and the back of the playing card. Allow both of these to dry. Then, carefully attach the paper to the back of the card, aligning each edge of the paper to the edges of the card as you do so. Once the card is completely dry, carefully remove any excess rubber cement by rubbing your fingers along the edges of the card. You can also use an eraser to remove the excess rubber cement.

page 40

The Gaffed Card Corner

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

5. Cut a thumb notch in the trading card sleeve To make it easier to remove the correct card and that card alone, a thumb notch is cut in the open end of the trading card sleeve. It is possible to "free-hand" this notch by cutting with a pair of sharp scissors. You could also draw the notch on the trading card sleeve with an erasable marker prior to cutting it. Either way, once the notch is cut (and it should not be deeper than the white border of a playing card), insert the trimmed card into the trading card sleeve so that its top edge aligns with the open end of the trading card sleeve. You will now remove the corresponding notched area from the playing card too. This Fig. 10 ensures that you will only remove a single card from the sleeve. It also helps to hide the card since the edge of the card follows the edge of the notch. Remove this area of the card by laying the trading card sleeve with card still inside down on your cutting area. Use your knife to carefully cut along the edge of the notch (Fig. 10). Several light passes may be required before the notch area is removed from the card. The Final Step You now have all of the required pieces. Remove your desired "Birthday Card" from a red backed deck and write the words "Your Birthday Card" on its back. Position this card on top of the trimmed card and insert both into the trading card sleeve. Insert the trading card sleeve into the envelope and you are ready to use The Clear Exchange. One last note: You may have to remove a portion of the envelope or find an envelope with a larger flap in order to achieve the clearance necessary to easily rotate the trading card sleeve and slide it into the envelope without revealing the trimmed card inside of it.

page 41

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar Gaffs Versus Skill And the Clear Winner is... If the effect is everything – as Dai Vernon often counseled – does method matter? If a gaff makes it any easier to accomplish a given effect, should the gaff be the choice? Sometimes? Always? Never? If the method doesn’t matter, then the easiest method must be the best method. Well, it doesn’t sound half bad for a while – until, that is, you get to that last sentence. Vernon was also fond of quoting Al Baker – or, it seems, of paraphrasing Al Baker – when insisting that "the simplest method is the best." But simple does not mean easy. At the risk of stating the obvious: The Side Steal is probably the simplest method for controlling a selected card to the top of the deck, since only one card moves. The shift is certainly among the simplest methods as well: You simply cut the target card to the top. Simple, yes. But one more point: You have to do it so that nobody notices. Ah … simple – but not easy! To suggest that the easiest method is the best is to ignore a long list of imperatives. For one, it disregards the fact that method affects effect. In other words, not all methods are created equal when it comes to the effect they produce. You can transform a card by way of a Double Lift, or you can do it with a Top Change. Which one is better? If you have a quick answer, you’re probably mistaken. This is a question that is neither simple nor easy. The Double Lift doesn’t require much misdirection, so many practitioners prefer it. But the Double Lift possesses a degree of difficulty that far too many magi ignore, and at their peril. The Double Lift, contrary to popular belief, is one of the most difficult sleights in all of card magic to do well – to do with consistency and total deceptiveness. The Top Change, on the other hand, is actually a very easy sleight to execute, mechanically speaking. But the misdirective requirements are beyond the skills of many magicians. Which move is more difficult now? But let’s put degree of difficulty aside. Let’s assume that a given practitioner possesses equal facility with both the Double Lift and the Top Change. Now which method provides a superior effect? Again, if you think the answer is obvious, I would dispute your conclusion. The skillful Double Lift may be clean, but even if the sleight itself is deceptive, it’s not much of a mystery how the two cards in question managed to get near one another. The spectators may not understand how the change was achieved, but they will certainly recall that the indifferent

page 42

Photo: Virginia Lee Hunter

Jamy Ian Swiss

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

card (displayed via a Double Lift) that changed into the selection was never far from the deck, now was it? The Top Change, on the other hand, if used expertly and hence deceptively, created an effect in which the indifferent card was displayed isolated and at a distance from the pack. Then, somehow, the card transformed under virtual test conditions. Truly a remarkable effect! Which method is better? The answer will only be found when due consideration is given to the notion that method affects effect. So much for a comparison of two sleight-of-hand methods. Let’s return to the subject of gaff vs. skill. Let’s posit for the moment that we are faced with a choice in which both approaches yield an identical effect – unlikely as this may be. Now what? If all else is equal, should the gaff be the default choice? I don’t think so. Such a conclusion fails to acknowledge the costs of using a gimmick, and there are two costs to consider – both potentially expensive. The first is the issue of management. A gaff is worthless by itself – no matter what the effect it manages to accomplish – until you have figured out how you get it in and out of play. The late Mike Skinner, one of the finest sleight-of-hand artists who ever lived – yet one who was not averse to using gaffs – once told me that you hadn’t mastered any trick until you had figured out how to clean up. He would always ask, "How do you get into it? How do you get out of it?" And the second issue – closely related and perhaps even more pressing – is this: What if you get caught with it? The answer should be obvious: If you get caught with a gaff, pack up your tent and go home. Show’s over. Oh, sure, you might be getting paid, in which case you have no choice but to stay and finish the gig. But you’ll just be going through the motions, because in the audience’s mind the show really is over. Now, everything you do will be attributed to gimcrack and gadgetry – whether it’s true or not. That’s not just a minor cost – it’s a deadly risk. Of course, if your sleight-of-hand maneuvers are obvious or flash or fail to be deceptive in some manner, you’re in the same boat. And the boat is sinking. Given those terrible risks – and they’re not to be minimized; they really are terrible – if I have any default preference, it’s for sleight of hand. With skill as a method, I can use ordinary props. I don’t have to concern myself about a gaff being noticed – a turn of events that, after all, doesn’t even have to be the fault of an uncooperative spectator. What if I just happen to drop it? Then what? If I drop an ordinary prop, the only thing I have to do to recover is pick it up – and proceed. I don’t have to concern myself with management, either. I don’t have to figure out how to sneak that gaff in or how to spirit it away. I don’t need that extra item consuming pocket space, and I don’t have to position it somewhere so that I can conveniently get to it, so I’m not left digging for it in a pocket already filled with other items. I don’t have to carry a single gaff for a single effect, when I’d rather carry items that serve multiple uses, or at least provide some running time.

page 43

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar

So sleight of hand is my default preference – not because it’s easier, but because, given the above factors, it’s simpler. But that doesn’t mean I eschew the use of gaffs entirely – far from it. It just means I have a tightly focussed set of considerations that will determine why and when I will resort to a gaff. For me, the only reason to use a gaff is if it achieves an effect I cannot match with sleight of hand. Sleight of hand is my preference because it does not have the risks and complications I’ve just described – but in some cases, the risk is worth it. With cards, for example, I believe that "Wild Card," and its immediate progenitor, Peter Kane’s "Watch the Ace"1 are worth it, since the sleight-of-hand solutions are invariably inferior. If you search through the literature for ungaffed solutions – notable entries include contributions from Bill Miesel, Derek Dingle, Larry Jennings, and others – most if not all ultimately come across more as interesting academic exercises in problem solving rather than effects that match the startling impossibility of the double-faced methods. (Derek Dingle’s "Impromptu Wild Card"2 is probably the best version available, but it is a lot of work, and still lacks the direct clarity achievable with gaffed cards.) Can you fool an audience with one of these methods? Probably. Will it match the clean amazement achievable by the gaffed methods? No. Similarly, there are many wonderful sleight-of-hand methods for the venerable Ace Assembly, but the so-called "MacDonald's Aces"3 is hard to beat (although the Hamman "Final Aces"4 gaffs are easily a match). There are beautiful sleight-of-hand solutions, especially for Vernon’s seminal "Slow Motion 4 Aces" from Stars of Magic,5 but only a top sleight-of-hand technician can really do justice to them. The gaffed method may be the only option for some – but then again, perhaps, like Ricky Jay, you may prefer the clarity of the effect delivered by the gaffs, regardless of the degree of difficulty. These gaffed cards achieve effects that can be approximated by sleight of hand, but in general, the effects are not matched. The point once again serves to remind us that method affects effect – and sometimes the gaffed method yields an unmatchable effect. It's the same with coin magic. I do use gaffed coins, but very selectively. I've seen countless gaffed methods for the copper-silver transposition in a spectator's hand. I believe they are all vastly inferior to the classic sleight-of-hand method. They all depend on contrived and illogical procedures that, while they may yield surprising results, can never wash away the stink of suspicion and unnaturalness, which ultimately detract from the overall impression made – that is, from the effect – even if the trick was deceptive. Why put two coins into a spectator’s hand, only to remove one of them? This makes no sense – and that illogic detracts from the magic. There is simply nothing better than the classic method with an extra, ordinary coin.6 Why put a gaff into a spectator's reach or hand when you don't have to? What could appear more natural and direct – and hence more magical – than 1 Richard Kaufman points out that the true first ancestor of "Wild Card" is Hofzinser’s "Everywhere and Nowhere (Third Method)" from Hofzinser’s Card Conjuring (1931) (i.e., Kartenkünste [1910]). 2 Derek Dingle’s Complete Works by Richard Kaufman (Kaufman & Greenberg, 1982). 3 Actually devised by Hofzinser; see "The Power of Faith" (ibid.). 4 Especially as applied by Scotty York and Tim Conover in their published manuscript, Revolutionary Routines with Aces. 5 Mike Skinner’s "Sentimental Aces" qualifies as one of the best. See Richard’s Almanac, issue 16, December 1983. 6 As described in Dai Vernon’s Tribute to Nate Leipzig; Vernon on Malini and His Magic; and The Stars of Magic

page 44

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

simply putting a single coin into the spectator's hand, and then changing it with another coin in your hand? Period. Just like you'd do it with real magic. And a gaff doesn’t always make matters easier. I use a shell coin for Derek Dingle's version of Coins Across.7 It's incredibly clean and more mystifying than any other version I know. However, for years I did a routine without a shell that came pretty close, but relied on an extra coin. The management issues are more or less a wash on that scale. But, among other factors, the Dingle routine is actually more difficult to do. These days I know exactly how the shell gets in and out of play, why they will never see it, and I have every confidence that they will never get their hands on it – even though it's in their possession twice in the course of the routine! The point is not that a gaff should never go into the spectator’s hand. Rather, in the Dingle routine, the benefit outweighs the risk, while in the case of the copper-silver transposition, it is not only unnecessary, but it isn’t beneficial – instead, it only makes the procedure more contrived, along with adding risk. Johnson Products first arrived on the magic scene when I was in my teens, and I salivated over their products. I watched at Tannen's, again and again, as they demo'd "The Hopping Half and Perambulating Penny,"8 which relied on a fistful of beautiful gaffs. I longed to own it, but I couldn't afford it. Necessity being the mother of invention, I went home and devised my first original sleight-of-hand trick – duplicating the exact effect, but accomplishing it with just four ordinary coins and only two sleights – the Classic Palm and a Click Pass (along with the Coin Toss finesse from Bobo’s New Modern Coin Magic). Years later it became the first trick I ever published, in Apocalypse.9 It's still a good routine – accomplished without gaffs; with none of the contrived, cozy handling of the gaffed version; with coins that can be handed to the spectator at any time; and without risk of being caught with a gaff. To pretend that these are not serious problems that require addressing is naive to the point of foolishness. I have often heard the term "purist" hurled as an epithet toward those of us who tend to prefer skill over mechanics. But the existence of such a chimera is exceedingly rare – I can only think of one worthy of note, and that is Martin Nash. Martin is a great artist and his choice is not perverse or haphazard. For him, this is an artistic decision, and one that is consistent with his public persona as a gambling expert; the price of being caught with a gaff might be even greater to him than to a different kind of magician. This stance informs and shapes his work, with extremely successful results. Jerry Andrus mostly eschews the use of gaffs, especially with cards and coins, but his "Linking Pins" would seem to be an exception. And perhaps back in our mutual youth, David Roth may have claimed to avoid all gaffs, but those days are long gone, and the man who transformed modern coin magic has since published much interesting work with shells, copper/silver coins, and the like. If the effect is the thing – as any great magician will tell you – then you should be willing to use what best suits the purpose of achieving a superior effect. But the answer is not always obvious – and ease of use should not be The Deciding Factor – albeit that, all other things being equal, it might turn out to be a deciding factor. In actuality, of course, this entire discussion so far has been based on something of a false dichotomy, because the 7 "Silver Quick" in the Complete Works (ibid.). 8 The actual creator of the routine and its clever combination of gaffs was Jim Boyd, who never gets credit for the trick (let alone a royalty). He published it in the April 1967 of The Gen and Harry Stanley marketed it shortly after. The Johnson Products version was released later, and many other copies have been similarly made since. 9 "Hippity Cop," Apocalypse, Vol. 7, #4, April 1984, issue #76.

page 45

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar

choice is not always so clear cut. Tommy Wonder, in his essay "The Three Pillars,"10 argues for reliance upon an equal balance of methodologies among the "three pillars" of mechanics, skill, and psychology. Wonder’s work in all three areas is remarkable and highly accomplished, and since he is himself a skilled builder, he possesses options in that realm that are denied many of us. But his fundamental premise is unarguable, and the fact is that the most deceptive magic is often achieved by combining both mechanical and skillful methods. (I take it as a given that psychology and misdirection are required elements in all magic.) Examples will come quickly to the minds of readers. The Egg Bag and the Linking Rings are classic tricks that combine a mechanical method with sleight of hand, and invariably the best performances are those in which the sleight of hand is superior (and the psychological requirements are well understood). Inferior versions quickly reveal their weaknesses when the performer fails to master the sleight of hand (and perhaps the psychology as well) and relies too heavily on the mechanical method. This is a common failing that can be found in all branches of magic, from conjuring to illusions to mentalism – whenever a practitioner makes the deadly mistake of thinking that the method is the trick. In fact, the method is part of the foundation – albeit a significant part – on which a mystery must be carefully constructed. But mystery is a delicate thing, and most methods, in and of themselves, are far too coarse to rely on in creating such a demanding and fragile composition as a thoroughly magical experience. Other fine examples of the elegant combination of gaffs with skill can be seen in the realm of close-up magic. In Geoff Latta’s "Copsilbrass,"11 a copper/silver coin is combined with Latta’s Han Ping Chien handling to provide a breathtaking moment of magic that cannot be duplicated by other means; David Roth called it the best use of a copper/silver coin extant. The Bruno Hennig method for the Card in Container, popularized by Fred Kaps, is also a fine example of the potential strength of combining sleight of hand with mechanical contrivance (a combination also typically relied on for the Card in Wallet). By concealing a duplicate folded card in the target container, the conjuror is required to steal the selection and secretly fold it, whereupon the duplicate is revealed in the container, and a relatively easy shuttle pass is executed, switching the duplicate for the actual selection. The strongest rationale for using this method, as opposed to a pure sleight-of-hand approach to the card-in-impossible-location plot, is not because it makes the trick easier, but because it provides flexibility in the type of container and other presentational options, as well as a degree of cleanness that some performers may find desirable for their particular goals and routines – providing the guidelines of the Too Perfect Theory are not overstepped, a tempting risk with this method that can lead to the collapse of the delicate illusion being created. Similarly, to return briefly to the subject of "Wild Card," the most deceptive handlings are those that combine the advantages of prepared cards with sleight-of-hand approaches and improve on simplified handlings such as those that rely on the Glide – as exemplified in Darwin Ortiz’s approach,12 and in an unpublished handling by Peter Samelson, who has long relied on the Second Deal in his notable version. The ne plus ultra of such synthesized versions is probably Tommy Wonder’s "Tamed Card,"13 which combines double-faced cards, the addition of a second mechanical method (wax), expert sleight of hand, and some remarkable psychology to provide a version of the plot that not only seems utterly 10 The Books of Wonder by Tommy Wonder and Stephen Minch (Hermetic Press, 1996). 11 Coinmagic by Richard Kaufman (Kaufman & Greenberg, 1981). 12 "Darwin’s Wild Card" in Darwin Ortiz at the Table (Kaufman & Greenberg, 1988). 13 The Books of Wonder (ibid.).

page 46

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

impossible, but appears to put all the cards into the spectator’s hands, a monumental example of building on three pillars. And this is a case in which some of the gaffs actually do go into the spectator’s hands, but there is a distinct benefit to be gained in the disarming effect of this action. At the risk of belaboring the point, no discussion of the value of combining methods should be completed without mention of Phil Goldstein’s "B’Wave."14 Eugene Burger has called it "the greatest packet trick of the 20th century," which is quite a claim – considering "Wild Card" – but one that I am disinclined to take issue with. Although Burger has himself devised and demonstrated a version with ordinary cards, the combination of gaffs with psychology – that is, equivoque – provides a far more satisfying deception. And while there may not be any sleight of hand required, some subtle physical handling can be used to help seal the mystery even tighter. Truly, "B’Wave" demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the methodological parts. Yet, it must also be acknowledged that sometimes combining methodological approaches can be pointless or even counter-productive; as Al Baker sagely warned, "Many a trick has been improved to death." But what is most interesting are those issues that fall upon the fine lines of division between overkill and finesse. The Chop Cup delivers some powerful possibilities in a one-cup routine (which typically also combines sleight-of-hand methods to accomplish the final loads, if not more). But, although Chop Cup gimmicks have been incorporated into more classical three-cup routines, none has ever achieved much notice, as the addition of the gaff approaches overkill and fails to provide effective improvements that make up for the costs in management and risk. A similarly gaffed version of the Three Shell Game is also available these days, which at first blush would appear to be an ingenious solution – but for a nonexistent problem. The Shell Game has been around for 150 years or thereabouts, and nobody has needed a magnet to date; the sleight-of-hand requirements of the trick aren’t even terribly challenging. Surely the likes of this sleight-of-hand enthusiast would reject such pointless gaffery. Right? Well, yes, for most applications – but consider this: What if, for the popular final phase – in which a glass is placed over the shell and pea to apparently render the pea’s secret withdrawal impossible – you reversed the situation? What if you were to place the pea onto a spectator's hand, put a shell over it, set the glass over an empty shell on the table, and then cause the pea to vanish from the spectator’s hand and arrive under the tabled shell beneath the glass? Pretty strong, wouldn’t you say? Well, for all practical intent, there is no way to do it without the gaff. Is it worth relying on the gaff just for this phase? Possibly. But you will have to make that decision for yourself. *** "The Honest Liar" column in Antimony is dedicated to the memory of my longtime friend, the late Vic Sussman. Vic made me a better writer, and life is less interesting in his absence. He also suggested the subject matter of this essay, and of more to come. You can find out a bit more about Vic at www.vicsussman.com and read something he generously wrote about me at http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/ll-martialart.html. 14 Pronounced, for the record, "bwa-ve," not "bee-wave." As when Elmer Fudd sings, "O’er the land of the fwee, and the home of the bwave," as Stephen Minch so astutely points out.

page 47

ANTINOMY Issue 1 First Quarter 2005

In Closing... And so it ends. Or perhaps begins? I close with a few comments about this issue and just enough to tease you regarding the next one. When Jamy discussed potential topics for his column here, he expressed a desire to relate it to the contents of the issue. Since he knew this issue would feature an edition of “The Gaffed Card Corner,” he chose to contrast the use of Gaffs with Skill. At the time, he had no idea (nor did I) how relevant his column would be to this issue. With the exception of the tricks published as part of “The Artful Ledger,” every trick in this issue relies on one or more Gaffs as part of its method. I think whether these routines find favor with you is really related to the journey we all must take. And that involves the decisions we make about not only what we choose to perform, but what interests us. I think all of the routines here are worthy of your interest. I hope you agree. Whether you choose to perform them is a different question. I have to say, the reliance on Gaffs is not necessarily going to be standard for the tricks presented in these pages. I’m partial to interesting gaffs, and particularly interested in Gaffed Cards. But the only thing, perhaps, more interesting to me than a new Gaff is a cool move. I already know that at least two routines currently scheduled for the next issue rely more heavily on skill as their method than the ones presented here. I’m interested to know what you think on the topic. As the “end user” of this magazine, you can help decide its direction. You can do that in two ways: By contributing your own creations and by offering feedback on what content you would like to see. In case you can’t read the fine print on the Table of Contents page, here is the mailing address for Antinomy: ANTINOMY P.O. Box 39 Allenton, MI 48002-0039 You can also reach me via email at [email protected]. Thanks for coming along this far. I hope you stay for the rest of the journey.

page 48