Biddle Trick - Take II

adjones · Feb 17, 2008

Before you watch this, I want you you to bear in mind that since this video was made (less than a week ago), I have already changed it up and upgraded it... and I'm going to reshoot tomorrow. I just wanted you guys to see that I am making progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8i77wYmec

Johnlawl · Feb 17, 2008

haha, oh there it is!. It was okay. You Corkscrew closer was okay too.

adjones · Feb 17, 2008

At first when you said Corkscrew Closer I didn't know what you meant... I forgot the name of it.

Heck, I didn't even like it that much, so if you hated it... tell me! It's being re-shot tomorrow or Tuesday, anyway.

Carlos Giraldo · Feb 18, 2008

Good job. The effect of the revelation isn't that great since you initially "find" their card with them picking a number between 1-5. When that happens, the second revelation with the card found face down in the deck is very anti-climatic.

If you can manage to get their card to appear face down in the deck while they are holding it and you are holding the 5 cards (without you "knowing" what their card is), then you have yourself an incredible effect.

PM me for more information as to how you can accomplish this.

manipulation4food · Feb 18, 2008

I like the idea, but needs a tad bit more practice, your getting a break in the beginning was way to obvious. Besides that i like the handling (but not the pass you did) i like it though very good idea done well ehh 4/5.

Shodan · Feb 18, 2008

Carlos, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The CAAN phase is a very effective way to reveal the selected card and to some extent provides justification for having a packet of 5 cards in the first place - justification which is often lacking in this style of trick! Once the card is found, itis made to "teleport" from one location to another - if you don't think of it as a "revelation" (because it's not!) then the whole thing hangs together very nicely.

I use some similar ideas in my own performance - although admittedly I stick more to the original handling for the first phase - and the CAAN phase never fails to get a strong reaction. Not only that but it builds conviction that the card really and truely is in there, which makes the subsequent vanish and reappearance that much more amazing.

adjones · Feb 18, 2008

Yes, them holding the deck is a lot more powerful... I couldn't agree more! That's why in some cases I use a duplicate. It's a lot cleaner, and I know a lot of magicians feel "dirty" doing this, but I really have no problem with it. These versions where there's no duplicate are mainly for when someone hands me a deck and tells me to do something. When I have my own deck, odds are the deck will be in their hands for the reveal.

Thanks for the feedback guys, keep it comin'!

Somnilocus · Feb 18, 2008

Huh? I don't get it, because 1. using no dups is a lot cleaner and 2. this can easily be done with them holding the deck. I think Oz does this in his performance - can't remember for certain, but you should check it out, because it's a great method.

adjones · Feb 18, 2008

Yes, Oz's method is what I originally used, and, in fact, why I came up with this method. I like to be able to show the card before I vanish it, that's all. This can be done with them holding the deck, yes, but I would have to do the reveal. Yes, I normally use dupes, but, like I said before, this is for when someone hands me a deck and tells me to do something.

Shodan · Feb 18, 2008

Its worth considering the point that magic happens in the mind of the spectator. Showing the card before vanishing it serves only one purpose - to reassure your audience that you are in possession of the card before it vanishes. There's more than one way to build this into your routine - duplicates, the transfer method in this video...

The problem does have a simpler solution though. The use of a miscall before vanishing the card serves the same purpose as the methods discussed above but leaves you in the position of ONLY having four cards with the selection already reversed in the deck - the original "biddle trick". Drew has hit on an essential sticking point with the original routine and has invested time thinking about how to smooth it out, which is great. Best advice I ever got on being creative though - never stop thinking

adjones · Feb 18, 2008

Right. The spectators will, without a doubt, describe both the original and this as the same thing:

"I saw a card, it was in the middle, he estimated where it was, gave me the rest of the cards except 5, found my card, vanished it, and it reappeared face up in the deck... in my hands."

However, my version, which admittedly is still pretty rough, re-emphasizes the fact that their card is really the card that vanishes into the deck. It's not necessary at all... just something that I thought was a nice touch.

Shodan · Feb 19, 2008

That's exactly my point - that re-emphasis is important, but there are different solutions to it which are just as effective in terms of audience perception. Having a duplicate, using a transfer move, or using a miscall all have equal weight in the eyes of an audience.