The effect is amazing, and it is a workable T & R compare with difficulty of legendary Reformation.

Like the above fellow members said, T & R routine not usual perform unless the situation is right. That includes audience situation, and your situation as well.

As for me, I do believe that situation like parlor will be more appropriate for most of the T & R effect as spectators get more exciting about each piece restored. We magicians are already busy in handling the effect both hands, it is not wise to do it surrounded with exciting audiences as less misdirection can be used within the whole routine time...

Just my 2 cents...

Peace

Clark,



I don't think it's a wasps nest, it is your opinion, that makes it valid enough. But I do disagree. I have seen and done a few torn and restored effects. The very first with the saved corner that fits the "restored" card. Mine was done at 10 years old with the little black box and the false bottom.
Once I started doing TORN, I got a much stronger reaction from lay people. I think a piece by piece restoration is visibly more dynamic. I can't compare to other piece by piece bits as I have not done any others. I am not certain about switching to an un-creased card as a closer to it. It seems both endings have merit. A clean finish is more magical, but a creased yet restored card seems more real, grittier, "believable". If that makes sense.

As I mentioned earlier , I too think that piece-by-piece restoration has a greater impact on lay people. but that is just my oppinion which I formed relating to my own experience.it is definatly not necessary so for everyone.
it depends on your style and personality and how you present the effect.i guess that is why some of you get better reactions with a flash restoration.
I disagree that T&R effect are better to be performed in a parlor situation.
I have performed TORN both ways and in a close-up situation the reactions are better. when I did it in a parlor type of situation some of the people in the audience said to me after the show while we were just having conversation that the T&R effect was very nice but they weren't all that impressed.
same thing happened to me with gene anderson's T&R newspaper. in close-up people flipped!
I am very satisfied with TORN and I find it to be a very ellegant solution for a T&R effect.

-Matt

p.s. DrNorth , I have PM-ed you regarding the angles.

Hello DrNorth,

first thanks for offering your opinion to the conversation. The "wasps nest" thing was just to point out that when you debate the merit of certain effects here that people tend to get pretty testy with what they see as "the best." I, in no way see my opinion as anything, but that, an opinion. I can only go off of my personal experience, just as everyone else, and as you know, that will vary tremendously.

I agree that the effect is more visibly dynamic, but I do not think that is the standard in which magic is completely appreciated in a laymen's mind...certainly sometimes, but not always. A visual retention pass of a coin is much more visually dynamic than a basic classic pass, but in my mind highlighting the move at a critical point like that creates suspicion, and thereby deconstructs the overall illusion a person is trying to create, even though it was indeed for visually arresting. I guess what I am saying is that I have a more subtle style with my choices, but that is just what I have found works best for me. There is certainly a place for every "tool in the box."

I have played with many T&R handling over the past few years, "Handsome Jack's" handling was my biggest success. I found in listening to people after the effect that there was frequent conversation along the lines of "there simply must have been two cards in play at some point" at least with the people that cared to try and reconstruct it, this occurred mostly after it was the only effect demonstrated. I mean, it is the first answer an intelligent audience would jump to. No one said they saw it, or that it was poorly executed, only that logic dictated that two cards had to have been there.

One the other hand, when using Wagner's method I can't ever remember hearing anything along those lines. I have heard many conversations revolving around, "could he have placed the last piece back on?", but none about a second card. It would seem that leaving them the last piece to question in their mind kept them away from questioning the most obvious, and correct solution...extra pieces. After Cody Fisher shared his brilliant presentational solution concerning the last piece with me I have never had any sort of guessing going on whatsoever, nor conversation about method at all.

I guess I should say that I have used David Williamson's method for more than eight years as well, and it always killed. It is a full restoration, but not done in a "watch this happen" type of handling. He even ends with the creaseless card that you mentioned at the end of his routine, but it flies by without question. This (IMHO) is due to his wonderfully subtle and off-beat construction. I do agree with you that this ending if superior, logically, when constructed as well a Williamson did it. It think it is curious (to say the least) how David's method involves three dupes, yet one never hears talk of even "two cards" from the audience. To me, this is proof positive that his (and Wagner's) approaches to the effect are more solid to a laymen.

No matter what effect we choose a spectator is going to be left with a question. I think their methods lead the spectators to a better quality of question. Just my opinion boss, and I appreciate you giving me the "food for thought."

Best,
Clark

Torn is pretty visual, but, in my view, he should have given more credit (a LOT of credit) to Yves Doumergue.

BTW, many of the T&Rs (depending on the method) work nicely as a follow up to an ACR. You've already got a signed card in play. The few times I've actually performed a T&R (mix of Torn and Ripped & Restored), it's been as an encore to ACR. That is, if it feels good at time, like you can tell they want a little more. It's kind of funny, because people really don't expect you to tear up a card.

I love Williamson's version, but you really need to know ahead of time that you're going to be doing it.

Ok, here is the deal. Magicians get bored. That is your answer to the torn and restored card.

Are there various versions of T&R cards out there? Absolutely. Are some better than others? Depends.

And it depends simply because of this...50% (give or take) of your magic you do for YOU. 50% (give or take) of your magic you do for laypeople. None of your torn and restored card tricks are done for laypeople. You do them because you saw them done and thought they were incredible and then you put the work in to learn it. This trick falls into that category, because I'm sure, almost 100% positive, that laypeople won't be able to tell you one T&R from the other, and could quite obviously care less about it, because the effect is the same to them. Now you may restore it piece by piece, you may flash restore it, or you may even leave a piece off, but, at the end of the day you should leave the spectator saying, "He just ripped my card up, blew on it, and it came back together."

The fact that you want to go back and forth about which is better, is magician thinking.

Well put Karbon, I agree that most variations are a quest for something to nullify boredom for magicians, but not in a quest for something better. Or more aptly put, they are better for the magi and not the laymen.

I also agree that laymen wouldn't distinguish between one or the other, UNLESS the construction of said handling forces them to make a distinction in a negative way. I believe that the condition the card is left in and how to you arrive there will certainly force them to make decisions concerning method, as it is in every other effect in magic. As I stated earlier, with magic one always leaves the audience with a question. What question you want to leave them with is of the utmost importance. I don't that is "magician thinking" as much as trying to construct a routine that fixes problems that only exist in a magician's mind is. In my opinion, most of the piece by piece handlings are trying to do as you say, make it better for a magician, not a laymen.

Unfortunately, I think in this case the process backfires somewhat. I don't think asking what handlings are better is magicians thinking, I think its a learning process. I do however think that an attempt to solve problems that don't exist to laymen is.

"I do however think that an attempt to solve problems that don't exist to laymen is."

VERY NICELY STATED!

I agree with you up to a certain point.
we experiment for our own satisfaction but not only.
I have tried several methods out including flash and piece by piece restoration.
first conclusion was that a piece by piece restoration impressed people a lot more than the flash one.
I did a flash restoration for one of my friends and later that they I did a piece-by-pice restoration for another friend.in the evening I met up with both of them for a beer and I listened to their conversation which went something like:"he ripped the signed card and in a second he restored it".then my other friend said something like:"oh well.that was nothing.he restored mine piece by piece right in front of my eyes".i guess I am proving my point here,lol, as I am really trying.
as for the different piece-by-piece versions,i guess I have to agree with you that most of our experimenting is for our own satisfaction.
I think we are going a little too far now as this belongs now in the "food for thought" section
I intended to keep everything focused on TORN when I started this thread but it's great to see that it is getting really interesting.

-Matt

Matt,

It will all be based on your personal experience, all I can say is keep going with what works for you my man.

I do apologize for the topic seemingly getting off topic, but it was really the only way to make the point.

Good luck with you magic. Sounds like from your reactions that you are doing great work.

Best,

Clark

Thanks a lot clark! I didn't mention the change of subject in a negative way.i am glad that it turned into something interesting.sometimes I miss that here on the Café.
also thanks for the kind words!
I wish you all the best!

-Matt

JC Wagner's T&R version for jumbo cards is in The Commercial Magic of JC Wagner.

Thanks for mentioning waltsal. I did some research because I've got pretty interested in that effect.
just need to save up now.

-Matt

Having not seen The Handsome Jack's or Wagner's T&R I can not speak to it. I have seen Williamson's ( I have to dig up that video now and watch it again) But how many times have you heard laymen "coming to a correct solution" with the jack's? I mean most laymen are at some point going to try and figure it out, what ever the effect. A big key to avoid that is I feel setting and presentation. There will always be people who will not see magic as magic no matter how well presented, but as a puzzle to be figured out. And like Hamlet's Infinite Monkeys,( that phrase has the sound of a great effect title for an illusion. Hmm working from a title to an effect) they are going to dumb onto the right answer. Of course one does what one feels works for them. I happen to love traditiona 3 card monte, so I don't bother with other methodes. But if I find one that works better I'll give a try. Hell I like TORN, and while I am still working on my angles, I'll keep at it. BUT, I want to see these others of which you speak. I am always open for change. I am trying to figure out a rational explanation for using tarot cards for a T&R.

Well I used to do Torn.. That was when I liked doing Torn/Restored Cards.. I don't really like them anymore... The way you are handeling the card, they know something is up... (The way you have to control your angles, only showing them the back of the card, etc)... I guess what I am trying to say is, the restorations look natural.. But the angles, and the way you handle the card does not. I think I liked Unripped better than torn besides the extensive set up that is required.. Because the angles are a little better, there are no bulky peices, you restore the first peice showing the face of the card, and they can examine the first 2 peices....

GeorgeMeck is have to disagree with you.
in my oppinion, if you practice Torn enough, the movements during the restoration look natural and make sense.
about the angles, why do you think that it would seem suspicious to the specs?
it is straight forward and in their face.well I guess this is just personal preference.

-Matt

I have one little question about the technique of the trick, could anyone willing to help me send me a private message?

I've seen several performances of Torn that have been sub-par to say the least. The biggest problem with an effect such as this, particularly one that's so aggressively marketed online, is that too many rookies are picking it up because it looks cool (guilty as charged, despite not being a rookie), and they're performing it after only a few attempts in front of the mirror. Garcia makes it look easy. And while it's easier than many of the torn and restored methods out there, it still requires an extremely percise handling. I'm beginning to regret buying this, as too many people are flashing in their haste to pick up some "street cred." Thoughts anyone?

I agree joesilver.
I can;t believe how many lousy performances I have witnessed online!
you are absolutely right about the handling. it may be easier than other T&R card effects but it requires a lot of thought and a lot of practice.
now the thing is that the majority of effects suffer this. not just Torn or the "aggressively marketed" effects. there are and always will be the kind of people out there that are only out for the method and that is all they care about.it is their loss after all. but if you plan do to something at least to it right.they don't even bother.anyways, I'm goin' a little off topic here ... woops
I don't think you should regret purchasing this effect Joesilver. I don't know about you but I don't have any reason to regret my purchase. I love the effect in it's simplicity and strentgh and my audiences really enjoy it.
all the best

-Matt

I don't regret purchasing Torn as it and other methods I've studied have inspired me to create my own method. It's taken a long time but I've finally got a method that is truly practical, with next to no angle restrictions (well, they can't be behind you) and the spectators actually see the final piece being restored with no real cover to speak of. It's also very easy to to. Easier than Torn, IMHO.

However, I would never have been able to come up with this if I hadn't learned the other methods out there.