Gaffed Tricks

[Shawn Allison]

Hi,

I have the artifice gaff system and I'm trying to come with routines that include 3 or 4 of the gaffs. What I'm wondering is, how much will be too much. What I'm saying is how many gaff tricks should you perform before the audience starts thinking that you're using trick cards? I'm kind of afraid of that.

Thanks.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Hi,

I have the artifice gaff system and I'm trying to come with routines that include 3 or 4 of the gaffs. What I'm wondering is, how much will be too much. What I'm saying is how many gaff tricks should you perform before the audience starts thinking that you're using trick cards? I'm kind of afraid of that.

Thanks.

Depending on the length of the performance - one. Maybe two.

 

[Shawn Allison]

Depending on the length of the performance - one. Maybe two.

Why does length of performance matter?

 

[RickEverhart]

To me I enjoy using gaffed cards like the old style flapper gimmick that changes the middle card in monte routine. I like gaffed cards like the ones in Bannons Twisted Sisters. Ones that "we" know are gaffed but the spectator has no clue.

Now, cards that look completely unrealistic to the spectators "can" be entertaining and provoke a smile on a spectator but they know if a card has three or four diamond pips merged in the bottom corner of a card...that it is a fake card. Does that make it bad, not necessarily because you are still providing entertainment, but if you are trying to "fool" or trick your spectator...then the cards that look really bizarre with zipper marks and such just look a bit too ridiculous.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Why does length of performance matter?

Because the longer you perform, the more material you can put between the gaffed tricks which will inherently convince them that gaffs are not being used.

 

[Shawn Allison]

To me I enjoy using gaffed cards like the old style flapper gimmick that changes the middle card in monte routine. I like gaffed cards like the ones in Bannons Twisted Sisters. Ones that "we" know are gaffed but the spectator has no clue.

Now, cards that look completely unrealistic to the spectators "can" be entertaining and provoke a smile on a spectator but they know if a card has three or four diamond pips merged in the bottom corner of a card...that it is a fake card. Does that make it bad, not necessarily because you are still providing entertainment, but if you are trying to "fool" or trick your spectator...then the cards that look really bizarre with zipper marks and such just look a bit too ridiculous.

Do you think the cards in the gaff system are realistic or unrealistic?

 

[ChrisWiens]

As Rick said, there are tricks that make use of gaffed cards in a subtle way, so that the idea of a gaffed deck shouldn`t even come to mind.
For example the subtle use of double backers, or false index cards.

"Unrealistic" cards differ from the standard appearance. Cards with artwork of any kind that you can`t have done "on the fly" or explain otherwise (blurred artwork of the standard appearance could be explained by wet ink for example).
They make a trick too "impossible", so that the only solution which comes to a spectator`s mind (trick deck) finally is the right one.
An exception is the introduction of a gaffed deck. For example Dan Harlan`s "Card Toon" or variations of it. You introduce an animated deck and don`t hide the fact that it is not a "normal" deck. Nevertheless the final effect is stunning and can be magical.

False index cards, double backers, double facers, split face cards etc. are not unrealistic. Done right, they are looking normal in the context of the tricks. This adds an additional layer of deception to hide the fact that you are using gaffed cards.

In the end it all depends on the trick and how convincing you are.