That does look great! I wonder if its published. Going to try to find out.

Juan Colas is scary! Clearly he uses real magic. Toothless, please let me know if you find anything.

Bob

Did he flash the solution at about 1:35?

I guess when you have to handle each packet so drastically different to display the cards it is a serious red flag to me.

In the 14 years since that video was posted, you are the first person to point out the flash at 1:35. You deserve some kind of special recognition. Congrats.

He did not flash the solution... I was sitting front row at the castle taking that video with the permission of Jack Goldfinger and Max Maven. I assure you not a single audience member saw the solution as it was performed. I also have no clue what you mean by handling each packet so drastically different. This routine uses the Wisch-Wedge. I would point you to Jon Racherbaumers quote:Bills Wisch Wedge as applied to an Oil & Water routine gives Renes routine a run for the money.

But, in all seriousness, thank you for your opinion and insight. Cheers.

I’m sorry if you don’t see the difference in the way he handles the cards I can’t help you.

He lays one packet out on the table freely and spreads them. The other he hangs onto like grim death in his hands desperately hiding something as he counts them awkwardly. (Even as he is trying to do his inside joke act double.)

He only shows certain cards as he “mixes” them. There are red flags all over this. I’ll write the response for you. “Laymen will never notice that”. I propose they do. Why would you not just drop both packets down? The fact that you can’t, every time, is the difference I’m talking about. It is glaring. Not seeing this is odd.

I think the camera angle captured the flash only because of the angle. The ONLY folks with a chance at it were in the front row. It would be doubtful a Castle crowd would have seen it. Heck I doubt any audience would have caught it.

In not trying to bash here at all. But if in magic nobody wants to be realistic about what is happening all is lost isn’t it? Can you honestly tell me there is no difference in the way the two packets are handled? If the answer is yes then I fires that is all there is. But if you can acknowledge a major difference in the treatment of the packet hiding something then we can actually discuss. My contention is that while an audience may not know “what” was done, things like this show that “something” was done and hang a huge red flag on “when” it was done. For me personally this is just as bad. The flash is really meaningless as certainly nobody would have seen it and it was obviously an incredibly rare thing to happen and probably only happened for the camera. It was bad luck. The other stuff is ingrained in the handling.

The good news is that everyone's definition of "good magic" is subjective. Subjective being the keyword.

That said, you are extremely contradictory in your response. You say, "I propose (laymen) do (notice that)." Then say, "It would be doubtful a Castle crowd would have seen it." If you can't see your contradictions..... I also cannot help you. But, the good news, again, is that good magic is subjective. You also did not acknowledge the camera angle being the culprit in your original response. Just that "he flashed".

I appreciate your perspective, however subjective it may be. May I propose not being so "nitpicky" about this stuff, and just performing and seeing what works for you? Being nitpicky is NOT what makes good magic. The PERFORMER and performance makes good magic. And THAT fact (that the performance matters more to laymen than the solution/gimmick/sleight) is not subjective.

While you say you appreciate my perspective, I have my doubts as to if you know what that perspective is.

I do enjoy the way magicians have no compunction about the using of things others have written lol.

You’re right I should probably start performing so I understand the dynamics of a live audience. I’ll try to get out and do that more.

You seem to be fairly dug in so let me say my mind is changed. I’ve never seen anything quite this magical ever.

Could you explain the difference in “nitpicking” and just doing good magic? Where is that line exactly? At what point is Teller “nitpicking” the routines? I’m curious as to where that line is because it seems subjective to me.

Fantastic!!! So happy to have "helped" you!!! Be well and cheers!!!!

I love it here when guys have no idea who they're talking to. Danny's experience and legacy is well established and I challenge anyone to find someone with more performing experience here than Danny. Not only headlining in Las Vegas, Branson, and performing in 5 star resorts around the world, and co-creating and performing on Broadway seven shows a week (where attendees are pay $200+ per ticket and tables range from $3k on up!), I think his performing experience more than speaks for itself.

Plus, Danny's magical legacy is unmatched, which I would think Kevin should recognize and respect since his father has a similar legacy with Slydini.

There is a difference between being nitpicky and being a professional understanding that details matter, sometimes the most.

Sorry, but unless Danny has a specific endorsement/pedigree (like my father does) from either Slydini, Vernon, Houdini or any other magic legend, then my father's legacy is on a whole other level, MindPro. If this is the same Danny Doyle I am aware of, Charlie Schulien was a wonderful magician. But he was no Slydini or Vernon.

There is also a difference between being "nitpicky" to help and being "nitpicky" for nitpicky sake. Aka, being kind of a jerk. I think the fact that it took 14 years for Danny to point out the flash (and anything else that he felt was "lacking" in the presentation and effect) speaks to the fact that this was the latter and not the former.

With that said, I am going to move on. Cheers.

Nitpicky to be a jerk? Sorry but pointing out the truth is just that. I’m sorry it stings so badly. Me being the first to point it out speaks more to those you showed it to than me seeing it. But sure blame the truth for the shortcomings. Always a convenient method. I get it. “The string in any rebuke is the truth.”

“Legacy” is also subjective. (By the way I enjoy the way you edited your post after doing a few minutes of research to add Charlie lol. Nice foot ectomy from your mouth.) Just how many people in the Chicago area do you think know Slydini or Vernon who aren’t magicians? Not many is that number. Matt Schulien was on the cover of Life. Were the others? The Schuliens go back to the late 1800’s with close up magic. Does Slydini? Subjective is my point. Yes in the magic community Giants, but did Slydini or Vernon run successful restaurants that featured magic for over 100 years? An institution that is still spoken about to this day even decades after closing. One of the earliest places to actually perform close up magic as we know it today. (Note the qualifier.) But since YOU are the arbiter of what is and is not legacy it is meaningless. Slydini and Vernon were an incredible influence and contributors to magic as an art and each incredible legacy to say the least. Their influence on magic is incalculable. I am saying do your research and broaden your horizons a bit.

Meanwhile along with this legacy I’ve helped create an Off Broadway Close Up Magic show that has been running for 6 years that I perform in 7 shows a week. (You’re right, maybe I should learn how to perform in front of an audience. Oops.) In addition to traveling the world headlining with my own close up show. Care to back up a bit and perhaps admit you may have misjudged this situation a little bit? I’m guessing no but we’ll see. I’ll be very impressed if you can.

Now maybe we can stop the ridiculous measuring contest? He flashed! Get over it. Life goes on. Defensive much? He handles the packet undeniably differently and the “patter” is not riveting. These things are undeniable. Can we be done with the arguments and just admit that he drops one packet on the table and he holds the other in his hand EVERY time? That he shows only specific cards as he “mixes” them is also undeniable. Forget the flash. One time thing. Why do these undeniable truths bother you so much? Because I don’t care what excuses you make, it is the truth.

I will break my moving on to just reiterate one final thing:

Charlie Schulien was a very competent magician and sounds like a great businessman. But he was no Tony Slydini or Dai Vernon. In ANY way. Period. Good luck to you, Danny and all the best.

Wonderful subjective opinion.

Interesting how you have to move on without addressing 90% of what was said. Can’t ever handle anything except absolute gushing applause.

Just as expected.

How about that telling me to learn to perform for an audience? Wanna walk that back some? Oh no time to move on when mistakes are pointed out.

As I said before, Danny, I wish you all the best. Sincerely.

As to why I am choosing not to respond to the rest:

“Every man is a fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit.”
Elbert Hubbard

I have exceeded my limit of 5 minutes of foolishness in replying to you.

Yea and the inability to admit where you are wrong is a far bigger issue. The WAY you responded was what made you look foolish.

For the record I am certain when Bill shows you his clients are MORE than happy with having hired him and they get MORE than their monies worth for having done so.

This sounds out of control because one overreaction to the simple truth.

Bill must have a list of literally thousands of very satisfied clients at least. None of this is intended to be a reflection on any of that. I am sorry if it came off as such.

The list of issues is still true. But most are inherent with the routine. The cards must be handled fussy. Plus like all routines of this nature there is no real ending. No build. Once they do their thing it is done. The best thing about this is Bill does not do it to death! Wise choice.

I don't do Oil and Water (much prefer coffee!) but if I did I would perform Six Card Oil and Water as taught by John Carey in his Spotlight on Carey! Nice and clean.

Most O&W routines end with the cards spontaneously mixing (after several phases where they separate) so this provides a reasonable contrast for the conclusion. Some end with the whole deck separating, which I think is very dramatic.

If they mid they can unmix. It is a distinction without a difference. The whole deck? Meh. Not really that dramatic.

And you hit on my EXACT problem with a lot it magic. “Most X routines” follow a set formula.