Seen anything like this?

Mar 16, 2014
30
6
WV, USA
Just wanted to know if this effect sounds familiar to anyone. If not, I plan to publish the effect as my own with the title 'Stubborn'.

Basic description of the effect (note that everything happens in the performers hands unless stated otherwise):
The performer spreads through a face up deck to show that all 52 cards are present and in order.
The performer selects one card (2 of spades for example) and places the card in his/her back pocket.
The spectators freely names any playing card (8 of hearts), aside from the performers card.
The performer again spreads through the face up deck to show that everything has remained in order.
The two of Spades is not present as the second card (due to being in the performers pocket), as the deck is spread it is revealed that the 2 of Spades is in the position of the 8 of hearts. All the rest of the cards are shown, revealing that the named card is the only one not accounted for.
The performer reaches back to their pocket to retrieve the named card.

This is my effect. All cards are examinable, the named card could be signed (although I've found through my live testing that it throws off the rythm of the trick, there are no dupes or gimmicks.

If anyone has heard of or seen an effect like this, I would love to know. I do owe a great deal of my inspiration to Daniel Madison and one of his published effects. I hope you will all forgive me for the vague references and no description of the mechanics, I would like to keep the workings of this effect to myself until I know it is a true and new creation of mine. Hopefully no one will attempt to steal this effect as I hope to post it to the WIRE for you all to see and learn if you wish.

Cheers,

- Jake
 
In terms of effect, it is exactly the same as 'Gone' by Daniel Madison. I'm guessing that is the effect you are crediting.

Your method could be different, but seeing as you mention absolutely nothing about it means I have to say it doesn't seem to be original at all.

Maybe a comparison of the two methods (no exposure though) may help.

Rev
 
Mar 16, 2014
30
6
WV, USA
In terms of effect, it is exactly the same as 'Gone' by Daniel Madison. I'm guessing that is the effect you are crediting.

Your method could be different, but seeing as you mention absolutely nothing about it means I have to say it doesn't seem to be original at all.

Maybe a comparison of the two methods (no exposure though) may help.

Rev
You are right, Gone is Madison's effect that gave me the idea.

However, my version is meant to be entirely in the hands and doesn't need a table like M's. Not that his NEEDS a table but it helps.
But I guess you are right that the effect is literally the same thing as Gone. I couldn't see that since I had completely different handling and patter.

As for a comparison of the methods. Madison uses a more simple method whitch, I am assuming, you alreafy know.
Mine takes no set up as side from an in order deck, and doesn't use the "gimmick", not that it really is one but let's just call it that. I just use 3 moves to accomplish his effect.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I can't believe I didn't see that they would be nearly identical to a layman. But I suppose that happens once in awhile.

- Jake
 
You are right, Gone is Madison's effect that gave me the idea.

However, my version is meant to be entirely in the hands and doesn't need a table like M's. Not that his NEEDS a table but it helps.
But I guess you are right that the effect is literally the same thing as Gone. I couldn't see that since I had completely different handling and patter.

As for a comparison of the methods. Madison uses a more simple method whitch, I am assuming, you alreafy know.
Mine takes no set up as side from an in order deck, and doesn't use the "gimmick", not that it really is one but let's just call it that. I just use 3 moves to accomplish his effect.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I can't believe I didn't see that they would be nearly identical to a layman. But I suppose that happens once in awhile.

- Jake

Hmmm, you're not really selling me on this...

- Yours doesn't need a table, but then DM's doesn't either, so nothing different there. Not really a selling point

- I don't know DM's method, but you say it is 'more simple' than yours. Does that mean yours is more complicated? Again, not much of a selling point.

- Yours takes no set up. That would be an advantage if you were planning on doing this impromptu. However, given the deck needs to be in new deck order to begin with, performing it impromptu seems pretty unlikely, unless someone hands you a brand new sealed deck, and when does that ever happen? So again, not much of a selling point.

- No gimmick, but then you say DM's is 'not really' a gimmick. I'm assuming that DM's requires you to do 'something' to a card/the cards, but this doesn't really matter. If you're going to keep a deck in new deck order so you can do this trick you may as well do the other preparation.

Maybe your method is great, but from what I'm reading it doesn't seem like it. Maybe a video demo would be a good idea? At the moment your description makes it at worst sound inferior to DM's and at best, pretty much the same.

Not having a dig, just trying to offer some constructive advice.

Rev
 
Mar 16, 2014
30
6
WV, USA
You're right.

Madison does use a modified card for his effect.

I called mine impromptu because I always keep my deck in order, I'll make sure I adjust my wording in the future.

If you've seen Madison's effect he does it with a table. His handling makes it very difficult to do entirely in the hands. I've been doing this effect for over a year and I only just found this way of doing it in my hands.

I'll agree that this is not by any means a new effect and I didn't notice due to the method I use. If you want Rev, I could pm you my method and you could tell me what you think. I'll try to post a video performance of the effect this weekend (busy work schedule has been in the way).

- Jake
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rev
You're right.

Madison does use a modified card for his effect.

I called mine impromptu because I always keep my deck in order, I'll make sure I adjust my wording in the future.

If you've seen Madison's effect he does it with a table. His handling makes it very difficult to do entirely in the hands. I've been doing this effect for over a year and I only just found this way of doing it in my hands.

I'll agree that this is not by any means a new effect and I didn't notice due to the method I use. If you want Rev, I could pm you my method and you could tell me what you think. I'll try to post a video performance of the effect this weekend (busy work schedule has been in the way).

- Jake

I admire your attitude. By all means, if you're happy PMing me the method then go ahead and I'll take a look. Clearly the method is what's different here, not the effect, so discussing in PM is probably the way to go.

Rev
 
Dec 6, 2015
110
92
Canada
Gone uses a bit of misdirection, does your method get rid of that? If it does I'd consider it a good improvement over Madison's.
 
Mar 16, 2014
30
6
WV, USA
Gone uses a bit of misdirection, does your method get rid of that? If it does I'd consider it a good improvement over Madison's.
I think any method for any trick would still require some misdirection. Most of the work for my trick is covered when you pass the deck from one hand to another. Personally I prefer my method to Madison's because its more convincing from the beginning because I show them the first card in my pocket very fairly. I've had better reactions to my version.

- Jake
 
Even if your trick does use a different method, Theory11 might still reject it because it is not an original enough effect (It happened to me). So if you do try posting it, I'd recommend putting too much effort on making the tutorial perfect. And then, if it gets admitted, change out the tutorial for a better one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jake.g.c
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results