Quick opinion poll : in a torn and restored card rountine is it better to have

the card with the face or the back to the audience?
should the card be restored leaving creases or not?

cheers

All a matter of personal preference. It makes it easier if you restore it with backs showing, but more magical with the face showing. torn does not require a dupe as it is backs showing, Reformation or something does require one as its face restoring. Reformation is seen as the best created (By Guy Hollingworth), as it is signed and ripped into 4 pieces, then with the faces showing, restored back to one card. whilst showing the back and front of the card during the routine. Though John Lovicks Reparation is an easier version of Reformation. My next favourite is ResurrXion by Nigel Harrison, and is not hard, and you show the front and back of the card pieces just before you restore them. Torn is HIGHLY visual T & R but is showing the back of the card, but, I use Torn A LOT, so it is all a preference really.
As for Folds and creases, well, I have yet to find a version that looks good where it ends with no creases. Im sure it would be a good T & R if it could be done a bit more visually, but I don't see it necessary IMO

Hope that helps

Chris have ypu seen Rannies Raymundo's Mental torn??? it ends with no creases
and is found on my dvd la famiglia.
vinny

Yes Vinny, I have seen it, but don't consider it a Torn and Restored effect per se. Rannies effect is brilliant, but when someone says to me Torn and Restored, I think of Ripping the card up and restoring it, physical actions, not mental

I like it better when the card ends with creases, because it shows a visual of having the card torn and restored rather then torn, and magically made into a new card. It is more believable that it was restored when the creases are there because it has a location of restoration.

Thank you gentlemen for the kind words. In Mental Torn, the ripping happens mentally and the restoration is done piece by piece physically.

Regarding the creases. I feel removing the creases would only make the spectators suspect more. IMO, the creases adds realism to the restoration.

In Mental Torn however, I chose to remove the creases in the end since it is not a T&R per se.I thought since it is a "Mental" themed "visual magic", the disappearance of the creases was fitting. The signed card is returned perfectly. Also the deck was never questioned since the concentration is on the card, and I do spread the deck later on.

Oh , I think for the reg T&R effect, the restoration done with the backs facing the audience, makes it more interesting. There is a sense of disbelief, anxiousness and suspence for the audience. Turning it over to show the signed card, acts as the climax.

Rannie Raymundo
aka The Boss
aka The Manila Enforcer

My favourite is having creases on the card, with the back towards the spectator. It leaves them much more stunned than the other combinations.

You have to leave the creases, it just adds to the effect. As to having the back or face to the audiance, it depends on what one they sign. If they sign the front, show them the front, if they sign the back, sign the back.

With Warped and restored the card can be signed front or back or both and can be performed either side facing the audience,,,and totally surronded,
the godfather

I think the creases in my opinion should be there because it does add a place of restoration as Cody had mentioned. As far as the front or back of the card facing during the restoration, I would say the face with signature facing the audience is more magical otherwise if they see the backs and after the restoration the card is turned around to be their card its more of a trick in the lay persons eyes. Remember the phrase "seeing is believing" well I think it definately applies to this effect. I remember Guy Hollingsworth performing his for me and was amazed at how I was visually watching my card with my signature restore itself. It leaves a lasting impression. but then again that's just my opinion.

I just had a thought. If you did a torn & restored card in a very intimate setting, you could restore your card, with creases, and then further restore the card by eliminating the creases. That would be a cool effect.

I believe David Williamson does that. Signed, torn, restored with creases, creases removed, then signature is peeled off REALLY RESTORING THE CARD to it original condition before you started the trick.

Blows all other routines away...

Okay, now I'm curious. Does anybody know where the David Williamson version might be found in print?

It's on his video set....and in his book Williamson's Wonders ....

Here is an interesting point to tighten up how we think of tricks like this. If you leave the creases the card is not actually 'restored'. It's healed in some sense, but not restored. To restore the card would be to put it back in the exact same condition as it was in the beginning. That's what it means to be restored. What we do most of the time is actually to 'heal' the card or half-restore the card.

Personally, unless you could restore to the point of creases and then visibly rub the creases out I would stop at the point of having the creases. The reason is simple, but difficult to explain. Essentially, I think that it is a better 'buy' for the spectators. I think that psychologically it just looks better.

If this seems like a trivial distinction consider that knowing there is a distinction will allow one to better present the effect. I have always had a problem with 'restorations' that leave the object unable to be used again. What good is it from the point of view of viewer logic? What if you went to the doctor with a severed finger. Surgeon looks at it and says, "No, sweat Mr. Burt, we can make this baby as good as new...exactly like you restored that card at the cocktail party last week!" Oh, crud! I don't want that!! I want my finger to REALLY restored. See what I mean?

Reattachment might actually be a better description. I bring this up, mostly because I am on a new diet, and very, VERY unhappy so I thought I would pick some niggling little bit of business and run with it...sigh.

But, also, because I think it would be really nifty if as the card is restored it really IS restored. Creases gone one section at a time, etc. For, now I can only think of a couple of ways of doing this and they are not pretty. Maybe there is one out there and I just am unaware of it? Let me know before this danged diet kills me. If I was 'real' magician I could make a one pound box of See's candy appear. Best,

Although I do a handling of Reformation that I love, I still think the problem is not with the creases, but rather the initial folding.

If you can show everything fairly enough when the pieces are torn, then I see no reason not to end with no creases.

Look at many good flash/all at once restorations. Aside from Paul Harris', in which the folding and what not all works, and goes towards the method allowing for the entirely impromptu aspect, I would say that if you can do the actual tearing without folding the card, then do so. In which case it only makes sense for the card NOT to have creases.

BUT in this situation, I believe it is truely imparative for it to be VERY clean and clear that the torn card is the card they believe it is. This does NOT mean funny looking over proving, but natural casual facts.

Like doing things dilibrately, and not rushed. Even if you do tear the card quickly, then pause and let it truely sink in.

The should be able to KNOW in their minds that the torn card is infact the x of x, which ever card they chose.

THEN it is best to restore it with no creases.

Otherwise it is too easy a path for them to jump to a different card was torn up.

You see in then end it actually makes no sense to fold the card to begin with. That is perhaps the true issue, not whether or not to leave the folds in the end.

A card is simply cardboard an VERY easy to tear. It is rather pointless to fold it first to "make it easier to tear." People only pre-fold something they wish to tear if it is truely difficult to tear, or if the need it to be a clean tear.

So, it begs the question, why does the magicia need such a clean tear??

Hence a natural suspicion is created within the spectator.

If you just asked the spec to tear a card, they would do just that, tear it up, no folding.

So this is how the magi should do it, yes?

Unless you can actually work in a natural and not forced reasoning to fold the card, then I suggest not doing it at all.
BUT make sure that the torn card is, in the spec's mind, undoubtably their card, with out being suspicious with over proving.

You only make a point of saying that your hands are empty when you are trying to hide something. You really should just let your empty palms speak for themselves.

So, in regards to the all at once/flash restorations, my opinion is to just do away with the folding all together, unless you truely have a reason to do it in the first place.


As for piece by piece, I personally feal the same way, which is why I normally just go with Seamless, which eliminates the folding alltogether, and also leaves no reason for the spec to think there could be a dup. Which is what all T&R's should do in my opinion.

But again, if you are going for the folding, and have a reason to do it outside of how it is needed for the method, then leave the card folded.

UNLESS you are doing a real full out show, then I say, within that context it makes perfect sense to iorn out the creases. It is a full show, and the effect should be brought full circle, it is also a far more convenient situation for the extra work, as apposed to the more casual setting.

So if you have a reason to fold the card, I say go with torn or reformation and leave the creases.

If you are doing an actual SHOW, not just walk around or casual stuff, then go the full montey. It makes sense as it is for a whole audience, and only one will have the keepsake reminder, so it is a different issue.

If you have one that works for you and you like, I suggest go for a T&R that uses no folds at all.




You really should not be doing anything that does not have a worth while reason in the spec's eyes. Don't do things just because they are for the method. Those things should not been notice. Everything the spec sees you do should be for a reason, and one that you do not have to justify.


I think there is too much magic now that magicians think is cool, but doesn't make sense to the specs unless the magician explains it. Things you do in magic should not require additional justification. It should be inharint in either what you are doing, or in the routine and any sort of pretext set up.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have the best of ALL worlds on these? Seems there is ALWAYS a trade off, sad to say. Now if we could do REAL magic, though.....