Search results

I know this is an old thread, but I recently came across a blog and later a magic forum with people complaining about this trick not being impromptu at all and I see people here say it's not too so I am a little confused. I figured it out and it clearly requires a decent amount of set up. So...

True, customs can really drive up the price. If you can't get them for a somewhat reasonable price, just keep using bridge cards. I use bridge cards any time I have a routine that requires a palm, since my hands aren't wide enough to conceal a poker-sized card.

There's nothing wrong with using bridge-sized cards. However, you can get bicycle decks cheaper than $10 a deck. What you need to do is go on eBay and buy them in bulk. Even with shipping, if you buy 12 decks together, they'll be cheaper than $10 per deck.

You can try acekingplayingcards.com or bmpokerworld.com. They're usually a little cheaper than the1eyedjack and they also have eBay stores you should check out.

WOW! Those look absolutely incredible, especially the white ones. I'd definitely buy a lot of them if you ever make them available.

Yes, I've been watching A LOT of his material lately. I perform mostly card effects, and my style is very classical and natural. I stay away from really bold moves or anything that looks funny. And I'm a big fan of old card magic, especially from Harry Lorayne.

You can start out with cards if you do a really strong and snappy effect. It's better to do a strong card effect than a weak effect with a different prop.

1) The Intuition Speller 2) Michael Vincent's handling of Brainwave. 3) Pandora's Paradox

Brown Wynn decks typically go for about $30 on eBay these days, if you buy them individually. So expect this auction to end at around $30.

NEVER take it personally. There are tons of reasons why you get can rejected, and a lot of them have nothing to do with a person not liking you. They might be in a hurry, or they're having a really bad day and just aren't in the mood to interact with anyone. Just tell them to have a nice day...

When you get more advanced, I recommend you check out Michael Vincent's online magic shop at http://www.michaelvincentproductions.com/ You'll learn some incredible classic card magic, especially from his DVD series, "The Classic Magic of Michael Vincent". Everything from his shop is...

I'll usually just pinky count three cards and them turn them over. It works fine and it looks exactly the same as my double lift. So I like the triple turnover better, but from what I've seen the push off triple lift works fine too. I think it's just more sensitive with angles.

You should learn the one-hand bottom deal. It's a fantastic move where it looks like you're just pushing off the top card onto the table when you're really setting down the bottom card. It looks so genuine and is probably one of the most visually deceiving moves in card magic.

I agree with starthelegend and JButterfield. Don't try to act like you can do actual magic. Make it seem like you can do cool things that SEEM magical. It will make it where your audience won't always be trying to disprove your "magical" abilities. I do think cards are okay to open up with...

What were the answers? I had almost the exact same guesses as the winner, so I'm curious what the answers were.

1) Blake Vogt 2) Mike Hankins 3) Calen Morelli 4) Dan White 5) Eric Ross 6) Alex Geiser 7) B. Smith 8) Chris Mayhew 9) Andrei Jikh

I gave credit where it is due. I changed my original opinion because it's more logical, and it acknowledges the people who pushed cardistry as a non-magical art. But I also like to acknowledge to creators of the word, and give them credit. You keep telling me to make a new thread if I want to...

You truly have an issue with admitting that I'm right about anything. "Flourishing is a different discussion, make a new topic in the forums if you want to discuss that." Good job completely evading a valid point that I made, because you know that you can't possibly come up with any good...

It also makes sense to refer to card flourishing as just 'card flourishing', rather than cardistry. I remember that there was a poll held somewhere (it might've been theory11, but I'm not sure) asking how you would define the non-magical manipulation of playing cards. Magic and XCM were...

Yes he definitely did acknowledge it, but I think he was trying to say that because very few people view cardistry as magical, it's incorrect to view it as magical. Which makes no sense. Even if most people view it as non-magical, the magical definition has to at least be a correct, alternate...