On 2008-10-23 03:53, Andrew Musgrave wrote:
The issue is not just whether or not the spectator gets a keepsake. We don't sign the card in an ACR or a card-to-pocket so they get a souvenir -- we sign the card so that a major suspicion can be killed from the getgo, namely duplicates.

The effect described here is thus. You name a card, it's removed from the deck, and your name is on the back.

Any skeptical spectator is going to have the following suspicions.

1. The choice of card wasn't free.
2. My name is on the back of all the cards.
3. Somehow he got my name on the back of the card I wanted.

The original method handles suspicions 1 and 2 fine. The original method doesn't handle 3, and it never will until they can inspect the card. They might not think DL, but they might think a personalized sticker of some kind. In fact, if they're not able to inspect the card, why not use that as a method anyway? It's all going to be the same to them.

This was a major flaw in the effect in the first go-round. If it was published with that flaw unaddressed, then that's a shame.