Signing Props

[MohanaMisra]

Does that make any sense, really?

In the book Maximum Entertainment, I came across this point, that maybe by signing something we are increasing the 'dead time' in our performance and thus adding a weak spot in our act. But the more I thought about it, I also realised that having somebody sign something brings attention to that specific prop. And sometimes, that might not be preferable.

Also, it seems like one of the things I'd do if I'm performing for magicians, perhaps. Because I haven't had anybody suggest duplicate cards as a solution to my performance, neither have they suspected it very often.

When they did, then they promptly looked through the deck (it was one of those ''I'm performing for friends so you can clearly break the rules of accepted social conduct and seize whatever I'm performing with" situations) and realised that I do not have duplicate cards.

What's more, is that some people I have performed for had very little knowledge about cards and so they think that a deck naturally has duplicates for every single card, before they realise (or I point out) that the suits are different (as in, a Jack of Diamonds isn't a duplicate for a Jack of Hearts).

All in all, I don't see the purpose of having something signed. I have found it unnecessary in my performances, I can clearly see that they create a 'challenge' atmosphere, and Ken Weber (vastly more experienced than me) thinks they are unnecessary too.

Why do people do it so often then?

 

[ayc1206]

It completely destroys the possibility of a duplicate, in cases like a Card to Impossible Location. It could increase the impact of a trick too. And at the end, the spectator is also left with a souvenir.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Why do people do it so often then?

I think it's a combination of magician's putting too much emphasis on the wrong thing, and advertising gone awry/magicians trying to guess methods before purchasing something.

Advertising often emphasizes certain aspects of the method to entice people. "Card can be signed!" is meant to prove that it's a totally normal card to the person who might be purchasing the trick. Who has likely watched the demo video a dozen times in an attempt to suss out the method without paying.

But magicians often just worry about the wrong stuff. They think a laymen will automatically think about duplicate cards, or magnets, or whatever. This is caused by magicians knowing about these things and not being able to separate their knowledge from what normal people know. All knowledge is specialized knowledge.

In my experience having something signed is completely unnecessary most of the time. If the sole motivation for having a card signed, for example, is to disprove the possibility of duplicates, then it's probably better not to do it and not plant the idea of duplicates in the audience's mind at all.

An example of a time to use signing a card - it creates a massive amount of focus away from you. When I used to do my ACR I would have the card signed for the final phase, because while they are signing the card I'm switching the bulk of the deck out for something else. Now that I no longer do that phase, I don't have the card signed at all and no one mentions anything about the possibility of a duplicate.

This assumes, of course, you're not performing for magicians. I don't worry what magicians will think of my performances because I they aren't the ones paying me.

 

[RealityOne]

Agree with @MohanaMisra and @WitchDocIsIn. In most instances, signing a prop isn't necessary.

There are three card routines where I have someone sign a card:

The first is a Stranger Card routine where I hand a spectator a blue back card and have another spectator pick a red backed card. The red back card is lost in the deck. I think pick up the blue backed card and turn it over showing it to be the signed card. That has a direct impact on the effect because showing the blue card that is in the hands of the other spectator IS the signed card has a stronger effect than showing the card is the same card.

The second is Jay Sankey's Carbon Paper. The effect is that the spectator holds their signed card between their hands and the burn mark from another card gets transferred to the card they are holding. The signing helps confirm that that card they selected didn't have a burn mark when they selected and signed it.

The third is the Omni Deck. The signature gives me an excuse to get the pen out of my pocket and do other things that need to be done.​

Those are all standing, close-up effects ("street magic", if you insist on using that term).

For parlor shows, I don't have anything signed. I do a card to bottle with an unsigned card. The spectator choses a card from a shuffled deck, shows it to the audience, puts the deck in the box and holds on to the deck. When the card vanishes, the open the boxed deck and verify the card isn't there. Another spectator takes the empty bottle out of the paper bags they put it into and the selected card is there.

In my kids show, I'm working on a routine where a kid selects a postcard from a vacation destination. They address the postcard to themselves. The postcard magically vanishes from where I'm standing and ends up in a wooden mailbox across the room. The addressing of the post card makes sense in the routine and provides a neat souvenir for the kid. I used to do Spellbinding Coins where a coin vanishes from a spectator's hand and reappears in a nest of brass boxes. In that instance, I think it is necessary to avoid the perception of there being a duplicate coin to make the effect more powerful.

 

[Arconik]

Why do people do it so often then?

When I have performed, people just like signing a card. Idk whether its because it makes the trick more personal or they want to show off their signatures - but some peoples face visibly lights up. I get what your saying about spectators not having little knowledge of cards (the amount of people who don't even know suits or face cards actually blows my mind), but on the odd occasion the person will know a little about magic you might as well. Maybe if they try and guess at a trick and come up with a reasonably good method for the trick I'll make sure to make everything as fair as possible.
And finally, it's a souvenir, you could leave them with a basic cards, but they'll probably throw it away. But a signed card is a better image for them to remember.

 

[MohanaMisra]

When I have performed, people just like signing a card. Idk whether its because it makes the trick more personal or they want to show off their signatures - but some peoples face visibly lights up. I get what your saying about spectators not having little knowledge of cards (the amount of people who don't even know suits or face cards actually blows my mind), but on the odd occasion the person will know a little about magic you might as well. Maybe if they try and guess at a trick and come up with a reasonably good method for the trick I'll make sure to make everything as fair as possible.
And finally, it's a souvenir, you could leave them with a basic cards, but they'll probably throw it away. But a signed card is a better image for them to remember.

Ah, I get it. I guess I ignored the fact that people might just like signing on a card, plain and simple.

But as for the last part, and many magicians point that out not only for signed props but for stuff in general, we talk a lot about souvenirs. I'll be honest, I don't really see anybody keeping a signed card as a souvenir of that ONE TIME an unknown magician (say, like me) performed a card 'effect' for them, unless that magician was David Copperfield, or their magic literally had an emotional significance to them (not very usual in the magic world, sadly).

The first is a Stranger Card routine where I hand a spectator a blue back card and have another spectator pick a red backed card. The red back card is lost in the deck. I think pick up the blue backed card and turn it over showing it to be the signed card. That has a direct impact on the effect because showing the blue card that is in the hands of the other spectator IS the signed card has a stronger effect than showing the card is the same card.

The second is Jay Sankey's Carbon Paper. The effect is that the spectator holds their signed card between their hands and the burn mark from another card gets transferred to the card they are holding. The signing helps confirm that that card they selected didn't have a burn mark when they selected and signed it.

The third is the Omni Deck. The signature gives me an excuse to get the pen out of my pocket and do other things that need to be done.

I see... this are actually valid reasons for having something signed. Thanks!

And I also appreciate what you said about the card to bottle routine's card not needing a signature. I mean, whether you put my card in a bottle or some random card, the effect remains pretty awesome!

I used to do Spellbinding Coins where a coin vanishes from a spectator's hand and reappears in a nest of brass boxes. In that instance, I think it is necessary to avoid the perception of there being a duplicate coin to make the effect more powerful.

Aren't you using a signature then to identify rather than prove something, however? Sorry if I misunderstood.

I think it's a combination of magician's putting too much emphasis on the wrong thing, and advertising gone awry/magicians trying to guess methods before purchasing something.

True. I have a lot of magnets at home and I've barely worked out ONE way to use them for magic, and even that needs a camera cut.

An example of a time to use signing a card - it creates a massive amount of focus away from you.

I guess if the magician uses it deliberately, it definitely makes sense. But (and I'm forgetting who wrote the essay where they pointed it out) if the magician isn't aware of how the attention shifts when they're having something signed, I think it will not only create dead time, but also misdirect when misdirection isn't needed, hence the audience can then conclude that the magician did something ''sneaky'' when nobody was looking at them even if we did nothing.

It completely destroys the possibility of a duplicate, in cases like a Card to Impossible Location. It could increase the impact of a trick too. And at the end, the spectator is also left with a souvenir.

If the impossible location is one where we could otherwise easily reach, or it's a location which maybe a secret assistant of ours could reach while we performed, I see the point. But for effects where they show a container (or a wallet, a plastic pouch, etc) empty, let the spectator hold it and have a card appear in it, I think it's not required (unless of course, it is put in deliberately to misdirect).

And again, souvenirs?

 

[Arconik]

And again, souvenirs?

(I know we are getting further away from the original thread), but I write my magic Instagram on the back of an old playing card (pre-trick) then do a card trick using that card which they keep as a souvenir. Can't remember the name of the trck in-particular. And I let the spectator keep that card, as sometimes they don't have time to search me up on Instagram, and it's more subtle then just saying, 'Can you follow my insta ...'

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Aren't you using a signature then to identify rather than prove something, however? Sorry if I misunderstood.

In this case, both motivations are ultimately the same - you're identifying the item to prove it's not a different item that just looks similar.

When I have performed, people just like signing a card. Idk whether its because it makes the trick more personal or they want to show off their signatures - but some peoples face visibly lights up.

I will admit, this is a reaction I have never seen. What I've seen is either indifference or someone being slightly uncomfortable about it, or indifferent. Which makes sense to me - For most people cards are for playing games, and if one of them is written on the whole deck is ruined for that purpose.

But as for the last part, and many magicians point that out not only for signed props but for stuff in general, we talk a lot about souvenirs. I'll be honest, I don't really see anybody keeping a signed card as a souvenir of that ONE TIME an unknown magician (say, like me) performed a card 'effect' for them, unless that magician was David Copperfield, or their magic literally had an emotional significance to them (not very usual in the magic world, sadly).

People keep souvenirs that are meaningful, or useful. Playing cards are rarely either (though they do make good bookmarks).

but I write my magic Instagram on the back of an old playing card (pre-trick) then do a card trick using that card which they keep as a souvenir.

This is not a bad idea, but I do wonder how many people have actually followed you as a result? Probably no way to get any reliable data there, though.

 

[RealityOne]

Ah, I get it. I guess I ignored the fact that people might just like signing on a card, plain and simple.

Most people seem to think that being asked to sign a card is a strange request.

I mean, whether you put my card in a bottle or some random card, the effect remains pretty awesome!

There are two things that allow this to work. First, the card selected is one in 52. The audience must believe it is a fair choice. The second is that the card disappears from the deck which I don't touch after the card is selected. That results in the audience considering the full effect -- a freely selected card vanishes from a deck (held the whole time by one spectator) and appears in a previously empty bottle (held the whole time by another spectator). Unless you are trained to think like a magician, you aren't going to break the effect down into components to figure out the method. Further, the "it's a duplicate" explanation doesn't go too far because it doesn't explain how I knew what card would be selected, how the card vanished from the deck that was held by the spectator and how the card appeared in an empty bottle held by the other spectator.

Aren't you using a signature then to identify rather than prove something,
however? Sorry if I misunderstood

Both. With any routine where a borrowed object like a coin or bill goes to an impossible location, there needs to be some proof that it is the same object. Just ask @Scodischarge. Having a dollar bill vanish and another bill appear in an orange isn't that impressive. Having the same bill vanish and appear in an orange is very impressive. Now, that doesn't mean you have to sign the bill, it could be that you tear off a corner or that you write down the serial number.

So the question is, does the signature make the effect more impossible for the non-magician spectator? Or better yet, are there other methods that work better (e.g. showing that the deck doesn't have all the same cards in an ambitious card routine).

And again, souvenirs?

Jeff McBride has someone write their name on a card (directing them to the top middle of the card) and then writes "To" in front of their name and then writes something like "Stay Magical" underneath and signs the card. That is much more of a souvenir than a card with the spectator's name on it the rose to the top of the deck 25 times while the rest of the audience left the room in sheer boredom.

People keep souvenirs that are meaningful, or useful.

I've often thought about giving the spectators (typically a parent and child) the deck and bottle from my card to bottle routine. I think I have to become more famous before that makes sense.

 

[MohanaMisra]

(I know we are getting further away from the original thread)

It's fine. I must point out, in most of my threads I myself seem to veer away from the topic (I have the attention span of a goldfish (fruit fly, if you nitpick)).

But then all discussions on theory seem to merge at some point (the vanishing poi-- forget it. Enough with bad puns.)!

And I let the spectator keep that card, as sometimes they don't have time to search me up on Instagram, and it's more subtle then just saying, 'Can you follow my insta ...'

That's really cool! No offence at all (I'm sure you're a really brilliant magician, judging by your posts ), but do you think the spectator keeps that card?

People keep souvenirs that are meaningful, or useful. Playing cards are rarely either (though they do make good bookmarks).

Well, at least that point is refuted then.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to sign the bill, it could be that you tear off a corner or that you write down the serial number.

The serial number business--- is that more cumbersome however?

There are two things that allow this to work. First, the card selected is one in 52. The audience must believe it is a fair choice. The second is that the card disappears from the deck which I don't touch after the card is selected. That results in the audience considering the full effect -- a freely selected card vanishes from a deck (held the whole time by one spectator) and appears in a previously empty bottle (held the whole time by another spectator). Unless you are trained to think like a magician, you aren't going to break the effect down into components to figure out the method. Further, the "it's a duplicate" explanation doesn't go too far because it doesn't explain how I knew what card would be selected, how the card vanished from the deck that was held by the spectator and how the card appeared in an empty bottle held by the other spectator.

True. I think it's the old problem of magicians thinking like magicians instead of the audience (though if the latter is truly possible, I don't know).

Thanks a lot everybody! I won't ruin my cards with random strangers' names then (my card isn't a historical monument or statue. Go figure!).

 

[RealityOne]

The serial number business--- is that more cumbersome however?

For close-up, yes. For parlor or stage, it can make the effect "bigger" if it is written down on a large pad. The use of corners or serial numbers may work better with certain methods.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

(though if the latter is truly possible, I don't know).

It is, it just takes a different approach.

First thing - train yourself not to look for methods. Or, perhaps more accurately, train yourself to be blind to methods. This is tricky - once you learn a method it's difficult not to see it (sometimes, even when it's not what's happening). When I watch a performance I have what I think of as observer mind. I just try to watch the show and enjoy it. In time this becomes easy, assuming the performer is any good.

Second - don't completely surround yourself with magicians. It's good to have people that you can talk shop with, but don't make that your primary friend pool. Keep people around that don't know magic, and talk to them about what they experience when they see magic. You'll probably be surprised to hear what most of them say when genuinely engaged.

 

[MohanaMisra]

For close-up, yes. For parlor or stage, it can make the effect "bigger" if it is written down on a large pad. The use of corners or serial numbers may work better with certain methods.

Thanks a lot!

Second - don't completely surround yourself with magicians. It's good to have people that you can talk shop with, but don't make that your primary friend pool. Keep people around that don't know magic, and talk to them about what they experience when they see magic. You'll probably be surprised to hear what most of them say when genuinely engaged.

Great Advice 101!