A gathering of magicians meets Saturday evenings at my restaurant. They range from experienced to novice, pro to amateur. A seasoned performer from the group did a prediction effect where he showed a face up card and placed it on the table as a prediction, still face up. A card was then selected from the deck and placed face up next to the face up prediction card on the table. Although the faces didn't match, the magician triumphantly explained that his prediction was correct. After allowing for a few seconds of confused looks, he explained magicians never let you actually see the prediction card before the card is selected. With that he flipped the prediction card over revealing the opposite side of the prediction card to have the same face as the selected card.
A few of the guys were concerned that this exposed an important gimmick (DF card) that can be used in many card effects. Others felt that using the DF card in this context would not lead a spectator to assume that double faced cards could be implimented into other effects. It created quite a stirring conversation!
Any thoughts from Café members?
Love,
Rocky

I'd be happier to see a miniature card stuck on the back that matches.

Was this for "The Guys" or was this intended for lay audiences? I would think the effect would be stonger if the whole card was under the face up card, or anywhere else. It feels really anti-climactic. Mabybe a work in progress? As a seasoned (Is that a resturaunt joke?) performer he might have been just toying with the idea and wanting feedback. That's my guess.

Rocky:

I think the protests are misguided, although they do raise the oft-discussed and ever-interesting topic of exposure.

Take an effect where a spectator picks a card, and during the course of the patter, the magician asks, "did I make you pick that card?" Is exposure risked by introducing the concept of forcing to the audience?

Or what about the example where a stage effect is performed, but the perspective is that of the audience seeing the performance from the point of view of backstage. And maybe during the course of the trick, the audience sees an assistant hide behind a prop. Is there an exposure issue here in suggesting that assistants “hide’ behind things?

Or what about the die box and the weight that audibly shifts from side to side as the magician tilts the box? Is exposure risked here by acknowledging to the audience that gravity can be used in an effect?

For the most part, and in the context of the concern raised by some in your group, aren't we really talking about time-honored "sucker effects" here? Audiences aren't that stupid.

To be sure, my argument has its limits, but IMHO and in the case of the effect you described, I think the concern about exposure is overblown.

A good argument has been made concerning the use/exposure of a DF card. I truly believe that context has everything to do with whether or not the exposure is appropriate.

In a trick such as Duvivier's Printing, the DF cards are created as a result of the effect. Steve Beam did a trick in which one was openly shown and explained off as a very rare factory misprint. Anniversary Waltz uses one openly at the climax.

Of the above, the only one I can truly accept in open usage is Printing. While Printing is merely a form of the Wild Card plot, it would not be appropriate to expose the DF cards in that effect (at least every standard version I have seen). However in Printing, the creation of DF cards (albeit quirky) -IS- the effect.

Anniversary Waltz, while similar in regards to the card becoming what it is because of the effect, pushes the envelope a bit too far. Once the audience satisfies themselves that you didn't somehow stick two cards together with some kind of glue or tape, the only logical answer is exactly what really happened. I realize I'm stepping on many toes here, but I hate that trick. In answer, to what -IS- a worthy concept, I perform a jumping signature effect that concludes with two signatures on opposite sides of the same card, and I really believe it to be a stronger trick.

Concerning the Steve Beam trick, the justification is a bit more plausible, but it does say to the spectators that a card such as that does exist... straight from the factory. For me, that walks a very thin line.

Concerning the usage mentioned in the original post, I was expecting to hear the finish to be that the backs of the prediction and selection matched, while the rest of the deck's backs did not. That would achieve the same effect of a correct prediction with a sort of sucker-like twist, but without the blatant exposure of a time-honored gimmick... and I believe, somewhere, that trick already exists.

Now granted, the DF card has made it's public appearance for decades in the 2 Card Monte, available in many beginner magic sets, and it isn't a concept too far removed from reality that more than one spectator hasn't looked for that kind of card, even if none were in use. But I think that in a routine coming from a more advanced student of the art, a little more care should be exercised.

If this was, as mentioned above, for "The Guys", then my argument falls apart. I have seen far stranger things happen in the world of esoteric magic. But, if intended for public consumption, my vote is not in favor.

I've heard the debate specifically revolving around Anniversary Waltz in many places and am, honestly, unsure how I feel about it...

On one hand, I can see how we can feel a bit...concerned about using a DF openly in an effect (and especially in AW, as you end up GIVING them the card). However, that being said, I'm still not sure...

Just because a layman knows that specially printed cards exist, that doesn't mean they can logically figure out when and where they could or would be used. I mean, I certainly know about DF, DB, misprinted cards, etc...but I've been fooled a good number of times my effects utilizing them because the effect was presented well.

I guess, following this line of thinking, one-off humor tricks like the Tree of Clubs or Three and a Half of hearts should not be used, because the spectator can extrapolate the specially printed card into seeing how other cards could be specially printed?

I don't know...I see the risk, but I really don't think it's as big of a problem as we fear...

To the original effect mentioned, I do agree that it sounds a bit lackluster and a minicard or something would be better.

E

The best argument I have heard before in response to this, is that a magician may know how 90% of a trick works, and feel as if he does not know how the trick works. Conversely, a layman knowing only 10% of the secret feels as if he has discovered everything.

I would suggest that those giving the DF away in Anniversary Waltz should tear the card in half and give one half to each of the couple.

--Chris

It's possible to buy a packet of Harry Potter Magic Cards in almost any toy shop. These feature DF, DB, BF, and BB cards - amongst others. Our audience these days are aware that cards can be specially printed (cf Black Tiger Deck). They're not stupid.

It behooves us as magicians to ensure that if we are using a DF to achieve an effect that the audience should remain ignorant of its existence. But let's not kid ourselves - they know such things exist. It then comes down to how well we present our effects so that they don't jump to the correct conclusion about we brought about the miracle they have just witnessed.

Personally, I didn't think the effect described at the start of this thread sounded at all promising. I would prefer to tackle it like this (although it will be obvious that it then isn't a simple DF being used):

Face up "prediction" is tabled.

Volunteer chooses "indifferent" card.

Magician points out that the prediction was accurate because the cards match - and turns both cards over to show that they have the same back.

Cards are turned around again, and the "prediction" has changed to match the "indifferent" card.

I think I'm getting off-topic though. Somebody stop me.

Rocky
is that an effect created, by another magician or was he just using a df card? I actually like that trick, but have a diffrent way of revealing the second card. Please let me know so I can check out the actual source.

Paul

Unlike in Anniversay Waltz, I see no reason for the need of a DF here, as it enhances the effect in no way. As far as the description of the effect goes, Johnathan's idea of attaching a miniature card seems to make much more sense.

Though perhaps, using a DF here would not speak to its great utility, it also adds nothing to the effect.

And if surprise was all the performer was after, just writing the name of the predicted card on its back would also do quite nicely. That sort of thing has been done before with certainly no outcry from fellow magicians.

Derrick