A Pattern I Have Noticed

Sep 2, 2007
1,182
119
31
Houston, TX
I have noticed something in my card magic performances. I have always thought that having a spectator sign a card, or a card being destroyed in some way is more powerful than a trick where this doesn't happen.

Over the past couple months that I have been performing, I have only done two effects that involve a card being signed or destroyed; ACR ending with card to mouth, and Paperclipped.

While yes, I get huge reactions out of these effects, I have noticed that with the Biddle Trick, Blindsided, and a number of other effects that do not involve me ruining cards get sometimes just as awesome of reactions, and I don't have to worry about ruining cards!

Has anyone else noticed this?
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
While yes, I get huge reactions out of these effects, I have noticed that with the Biddle Trick, Blindsided, and a number of other effects that do not involve me ruining cards get sometimes just as awesome of reactions, and I don't have to worry about ruining cards!

Nothing makes an effect more personal than having someones signature on the card. I have someone sign a card almost every effect I do. I believe it adds to the effect, and gets more interaction with your audience. Would French Kiss be the same without signing the cards? I don't think so.

Why do you have them sign the card for ACR? Obviously to let them know that you're only dealing with their card, and that all of this is happening with THEIR card.

Why should you worry about ruining cards? They're just cards... I've ruined money for a magic effect.

If you don't understand why this is a good thing, go read Designing Miracles and Strong Magic.
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,182
119
31
Houston, TX
I agree, and I do have them sign a card when it calls for it, but for instance the Biddle trick - I believe that is stronger without a signature.

I do agree, though, a signature makes the magic way more intimate but there are tricks that lose ALOT without a signature.

One example like Robert//Livingston said was French Kiss. Paperclipped would be just a card force without a signature.
 
Aug 31, 2007
61
0
Ohio
www.myspace.com
I think it all depends on your audience. Once i get to know my audience i can show them tricks and lead up to something i know they will react good to. But youre right some of the simple tricks get just as great of reactions.
 
Jun 6, 2010
796
0
Nashville, TN
I agree, and I do have them sign a card when it calls for it, but for instance the Biddle trick - I believe that is stronger without a signature.

I do agree, though, a signature makes the magic way more intimate but there are tricks that lose ALOT without a signature.

One example like Robert//Livingston said was French Kiss. Paperclipped would be just a card force without a signature.

Biddle Trick is obviously stronger without a signature. You're not supposed to know what the card is. It's like doing a mindreading effect where you figure out the card when it's signed. It's pretty pointless and a waste of cards. But for a lot of tricks, signing is pretty helpful, I do it all the time. But then again, I have plenty of extra cards, once I run out I will be a little less generous with card signing.
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
I agree, and I do have them sign a card when it calls for it, but for instance the Biddle trick - I believe that is stronger without a signature.

Obviously the biddle trick is stronger without a signature... The trick would be no good if you said "Now, I'm going to show you the top 5 cards, but don't make any faces if you see your card" and the card was signed...
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,182
119
31
Houston, TX
Well yeah, I'm just giving examples. Another is my ace routine. Doesn't involve signing or destroying cards and it gets great reactions
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,186
16
42
London
I think that the reactions you get are determined by the way you perform, and the meaning that you put on the effect. If your whole presentation is geared around "This is YOUR CARD, there's no way I could have switched it, it's the same card we started with, etc., etc.", then it's probably wise to have it signed as your insistence that it's the same card will make them question it. However, I've got great reactions with a card to wallet where I literally just forced a card and had a duplicate in my wallet. The reason being that the presentation was all about "showing them how misdirection works", and introducing the idea of pickpocketing. Therefore it's nothing to do with the identity of the card, that's just incidental.
 
Jul 13, 2009
1,372
0
33
I suppose a signing of the card is an easy way to get a spectator to feel more intimate. However, that is kind of an old way of thinking for me. Especially, if you are doing a pick a card, now put it back in the deck kind of effect. I have found, borrowing this from mentalism, that if you have a spectator peek a card, rather then pull a card out of the deck much stronger. Why? Because you are able to say things like, you have a card in YOUR Thoughts, that no one else knows but you. Then have them project their thought on a card that isn't the one they are thinking of, but then have it change into their thought of card. It's a hella more powerful then "Watch, this is not your card because you put it back in the middle. But!" Click "Now it is!" MAGIC! :p Course that is a very very bad script, but I am sure most get what I mean.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
There are ways to get around having them sign the card. You simply have them pick from a face up deck, that way they know for fact what their card is and everybody else knows. You could simply also do this for the ACR. Because they will know that you DON'T have duplicates or anything because they saw all the cards in the deck.

You could have them sign it, but often times this isn't really called for and there are ways to get around it, if you think about it.

As for destroying the card/restoring it. I am sure there a ton of good versions where they sign it. But to me, I don't see the big deal about doing it. At the end of the day, it's just a playing card restored.

The face up thing an be made personal because you could frame it so that they simply choose their favorite card. Now granted, not everybody has a favorite card, which if they don't you simply say "Pull out a card that calls out to you.", then you just go from there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 15, 2007
1,106
2
35
Raleigh, NC
As for destroying the card/restoring it. I am sure there a ton of good versions where they sign it. But to me, I don't see the big deal about doing it. At the end of the day, it's just a playing card restored.
While true, a playing card restored is immediately seen as using a duplicate, where as a signed version visibly torn and then restored is impossible, if done well, and will play stronger than some random card torn and then restored. Whether or not tearing up a playing card and restoring it is a worthwhile effect is for each magician to decide for themself, but if it's going to be done, a signature does strengthen the effect.

If you're going to have a card signed, you don't even need to it be a free selection, just pick one for them and have it signed. If the signature disproves duplicates then any card can be chosen for them, instead of wasting their time insuring it's a 'free' selection.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
Which is why my favorite TnR effect is pretty much Shawn Farquars. It's not a playing card that get's torn and restored, it's a photograph and at the end it's mismatched. So it has more of an impossibility. Go look up his performance of it on the Ellen show.
 
Sep 26, 2007
591
5
Tokyo, Japan
Do not just stick to the idea that having a card signed is the best way to make a trick personal, or hit hard. There are amazing magicians that never have a card signed, who are actually totally against the idea. The reason why is that they can think outside the box and have found other ways to personalize effects. They have found other ways to create bigger impacts.

In fact... there are some magicians who only have one "pick a card" trick in all of their sets, and they use lines like, "well I guess I need you to pick a card now, or else I wouldn't be a magician (with air quotes)."

Many works do not like "pick a card" let alone "sign a card" effects.

Don't trap yourself into one single mentality... ZOMG gotta have a card signed now! It will make it more awesomer.
 

JD

Jul 5, 2009
638
1
Longview, Texas
"Finally! I was wondering how long before somebody would bloody say it."

Indeed. I don't have any effects that use signed cards. Not necessary. Of course, I perform mentalism and rarely perform magic but cards are part of what I do in mentalism. "Nothing is more personal in magic than having a signed card" = Do magic with a wedding ring. See how fast you retract that statement. I'm not being mean so don't look too much into what I'm saying...
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results