Signatures in Magic

Mar 21, 2010
154
0
When you perform, do you have the spectator sign the card or coin, depending on the factor of the effect?

I believe that when a spectator signs their initials, or their signature on the card, or coin, it does enhance the impact of the effect.

Why?

Because there would be no other signed card, or coin like that in the world - it also shows that there could only be one signed card or coin like that in the performance.

A good example would be the Coin Bend, some versions out there require a coin not to be signed, while others are devices intended to bend the signed coin in real time.

Now even with a strong presentation, and you perform the Coin Bend via a switch - without the spectator signing the coin- do you believe the spectator will not backtrack the effect, no matter how clean the handling, and try to convince themselves that you did switch it, just to ease their mind? I think so... because to the spectator, there could be no other explanation, as they'll begin to wonder, why didn't he have me sign, or make not of the date on the coin? No doubt it's a strong effect, but is it believable?

Now, what happens if we could perform that same effect, except with a real time bender in play, without switching the coin, and having the spectator sign both the front and back of the coin, I belive the reaction would differ. Because at the end of the day, they could have no explanation - no switches could have happened, there was only one coin in play that had their initials on it, and they are left with their signed, and bent coin forever. And when you have the spectator sign the coin, it becomes THEIRS - it becomes a 'personal' possession - and it creates a 'bond' with the spectator because there's only one like that in existence.

So, do you have the spectator sign the card or coin when you perform, again, depending if the effect asks for it?

And do you believe it enhances the impact of the effect?
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
I agree with you to an extent. Obviously signing an object elimantes the idea of duplicate or switched in objects. It also makes the effect have slightly more meaning. The real question I feel that should be asked is how can I eliminate these procedures.

I feel that if I ask a spectator to sign something that is not normally signed eg card, coin etc. I am opening myself up for the spectator require a questionthat does not need to be asked. If you respond with something along the lines with so I cannot switch it out or just incase I don't have two you are giving them possible methods to acomplish the effect. Dee Christopher does a lot more metal bending than I do and I am sure he will attest to nothing being wrong with switching out coins. In Dee's work along with mine and others we focus more on presentation and sublte points to eliminate these ideas as to the method. The idea of overproving is a fault magicians make, and especially when they are trying to perform mentalism. (I can see by your posts you enjoy mentalism, I'd love to have a chat about it.)

Back to the coin bend the two strongest bends I have seen in print are Ben Earl's skin (requires a switch and amazing presetation) and the one on Manchuran Approach (requires no switch just the ability to hypnotise someone.) Although I personally feel that skin is over selling the idea of suggestion to the point that a few of the phases detract from the bend (the numbers appearing on the hand for example). Anyway I have shared a few ideas and I might share a few more later.
 
Mar 21, 2010
154
0
@AlfieWhattamMagic - That's a valid point (?) :S

But let's another example... let's take the Extractor Rob Bromley & Peter Nardi. Now what seals the deal, and sells the effect is because it's THEIR SIGNED card that disappears from the deck and reappears to your liking.

Now, let's same I was to perform the Extractor but without the spectator signing the card, they would conclude that I did have a duplicate on me, even though they pushed the card into the deck, because there's no proof that it's the same card that was selected, pushed into the deck, and somehow produced.

Now, just imagine, which scenario do you believe would garner more reactions?

But each to his own.
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
Yes card to impossible location is much better to have the card signed.

If we were to take a similar effect Angle Zero would this effect be that much stonger witha signed card?
 
Dec 5, 2009
84
1
I like what I heard at Kozmo's lecture. When you have a card signed, this is no longer a card trick. The card is completely unique, and is an "object" completely separate from the rest of the cards. I feel the same way about signing coins.

Happy Easter!
Jesse
 
Jul 14, 2008
936
0
Signing a card, for me, personally allows to make the magic more meaningful and therefore, it eliminates the "possibility" of duplicates.
 
Mar 21, 2010
154
0
@D ICE R - Indeed that Angle Zero is a strong effect, despite that it doesn't have the card signed, but remember, we have the card with the missing corner receipt as 'proof' for later that it is, in fact, the only card that the corner will fit - much like in Paul Harris' T&R Ultimate Rip-Off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 21, 2010
154
0
@D ICE R - Regarding your first post, I, too, do agree with you.

When asking a spectator to sign something they've never done before, they occassionally answer back with, "(You) want me to sign it?" Partially, because they've never signed a card or coin to begin with.

And that is true too. When he have our spectators sign the said object, it's no longer a trick, but has gain more meaning. I mean why watch the magi pull a 7ofSpades out of his wallet, when you can instead see him pull out your signed 7ofSpades from his wallet.

It has suspense, per se, to the trick, and once the effect is done, you'll recieve everything from, "THAT IS MY SIGNED CARD!" or "Wait, wait... but... it was in the deck... my signed card."

I've seen some of Dee Christopher's work, and I am a fan of his work. His Coin Bending work is phenomenal - and I, also, like to focus more on presentation and sublte points in my Coin Bend work. I have used his Coin Bends before, with great reactions.

But my real problem is, will the spectators believe what they saw was real. Because we know our spectators, well at least some, like to backtrack effects, but what I meant is, JUST to ease their mind they will most likely just say that you switched it. But I've had no problems with this in the past.

Ben Earl's Skin is another breath taking Coin Bend Presentation, as it doesn't only focus on the coin, but rather works on many phases with the coin.
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
The point I was trying to make is that you can use a better created method to achieve the same if not a better effect without the need for over proving through signing a card.
 
Mar 21, 2010
154
0
@D ICE R - Ah, I see your point, and I see it has being very true. Because what matters is not the method, but rather the presentation we give to that feat. But if we add a few things in, then it can make this feat a lot better at the end of the performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
In your first post you talked about the coin bend and I have seen a lot of magicians butcher that effect whilst trying to be mentalists.

As for the card to impossible location intellectually it is better to have the card signed. However if that is the case then for most methods you need to palm the card off. The problem with that is that the move happens when the audience expects it to. If you were to use a dupe a force a control and a palm you could have a real miricle on your hands. Because you could palm the card off on an off beat as they are checking your wallet or envelope or what have you they can freely examine the deck there after.
 
When you perform, do you have the spectator sign the card or coin, depending on the factor of the effect?

I believe that when a spectator signs their initials, or their signature on the card, or coin, it does enhance the impact of the effect.

Why?

Because there would be no other signed card, or coin like that in the world - it also shows that there could only be one signed card or coin like that in the performance.

A good example would be the Coin Bend, some versions out there require a coin not to be signed, while others are devices intended to bend the signed coin in real time.

Now even with a strong presentation, and you perform the Coin Bend via a switch - without the spectator signing the coin- do you believe the spectator will not backtrack the effect, no matter how clean the handling, and try to convince themselves that you did switch it, just to ease their mind? I think so... because to the spectator, there could be no other explanation, as they'll begin to wonder, why didn't he have me sign, or make not of the date on the coin? No doubt it's a strong effect, but is it believable?

Now, what happens if we could perform that same effect, except with a real time bender in play, without switching the coin, and having the spectator sign both the front and back of the coin, I belive the reaction would differ. Because at the end of the day, they could have no explanation - no switches could have happened, there was only one coin in play that had their initials on it, and they are left with their signed, and bent coin forever. And when you have the spectator sign the coin, it becomes THEIRS - it becomes a 'personal' possession - and it creates a 'bond' with the spectator because there's only one like that in existence.

So, do you have the spectator sign the card or coin when you perform, again, depending if the effect asks for it?

And do you believe it enhances the impact of the effect?
signing is great. But you are all wrong when you think spectators wish to sign coins and cards. They could care less, if it looks like its theirs to them, then its theirs....they why magicians borrow objects to sell that its their coin or card...

Actually signing is a magician's thing. They more items we have the spectator to sign and perform our magic, helps our reputation towards others... Just sit back and ask yourself when was the last time a spectator told you hey let me sign that object???
 
May 8, 2008
1,081
0
Cumbria, UK
I'm going against what everyone else is saying here, because I believe you should absolutely not get people to sign cards. Firstly, I have never once had someone ask me if they can sign the card/coin/whatever - in my experience, it just doesn't occur to them! However the problem then arises if you ask people to sign a card for one trick, and not for another. It's comparable to doing a really flashy aerial double lift, and then just turning your singles over. When you do a trick that involves a dupe, if people have signed things previously, they may want to sign it again, or at least note that you didn't ask them to.

Magicians often try to over prove things that spectators don't even think of in an effort to make the effect seem 'fair'. If they didn't go to such lengths to make it appear fair, the spectator would have no reason to assume it isn't. A great example of this is Derren Brown. Watch any of his stuff. Rather than going to great lengths to make sure every possible explanation is covered, he simply tells you exactly what he's doing (which is, obviously, a load of bullsh**). There, you now have no reason to look for a method, and can simply sit back and enjoy the show.
 

Luis Vega

Elite Member
Mar 19, 2008
1,838
278
38
Leon, Guanajuato Mexico
luisvega.com.mx
I'm going against what everyone else is saying here, because I believe you should absolutely not get people to sign cards. Firstly, I have never once had someone ask me if they can sign the card/coin/whatever - in my experience, it just doesn't occur to them! However the problem then arises if you ask people to sign a card for one trick, and not for another. It's comparable to doing a really flashy aerial double lift, and then just turning your singles over. When you do a trick that involves a dupe, if people have signed things previously, they may want to sign it again, or at least note that you didn't ask them to.

Magicians often try to over prove things that spectators don't even think of in an effort to make the effect seem 'fair'. If they didn't go to such lengths to make it appear fair, the spectator would have no reason to assume it isn't. A great example of this is Derren Brown. Watch any of his stuff. Rather than going to great lengths to make sure every possible explanation is covered, he simply tells you exactly what he's doing (which is, obviously, a load of bullsh**). There, you now have no reason to look for a method, and can simply sit back and enjoy the show.


I disagree with you...

I don`t want to be like other magicians....the other day an spectator told me..."oh, you did the same trick of a magician I meet the other day, but you let me sign the card and he didn`t...guess he was cheating"

and also I love to give souvenirs in my shows!!! I think that one of the points of signing cards or coins or whatever...

edit: I now it doesn`t occur to them to sign the card, but who you think they will remember? the magician that just did a card trick and just left...or the one that conects with them and gives them a souvenir for them to remember? think about it...
 
May 8, 2008
1,081
0
Cumbria, UK
I disagree with you...

I don`t want to be like other magicians....the other day an spectator told me..."oh, you did the same trick of a magician I meet the other day, but you let me sign the card and he didn`t...guess he was cheating"

and also I love to give souvenirs in my shows!!! I think that one of the points of signing cards or coins or whatever...

edit: I now it doesn`t occur to them to sign the card, but who you think they will remember? the magician that just did a card trick and just left...or the one that conects with them and gives them a souvenir for them to remember? think about it...

I do quite agree that being different to other magicians is good, and giving out a signed card as a souvenir is a very powerful way of making sure they remember you. Indeed, I used to get spectators to sign cards quite a lot. But then I started using duplicates more and more, and realised it wouldn't be practical for me to get spectators to sign cards, so I stopped. I can quite see why you might want to, but in my opinion, it is more effective for someone in my circumstances to not get cards signed. Though to be fair, I only regularly perform one trick in which it would be appropriate to actually have the card signed anyway. I try to keep my 'magician finds spectator's card' tricks to a minimum.

Still, to each their own. I was merely trying to make people think about what they're doing and offer a different view to the topic at hand. If it works for you, and you feel it enhances your magic, by all means continue :)
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
I've always wondered about having a spectator sign their own card as a souvenir. Why would someone want a card with just their own name? I know I wouldn't. My idea is to draw a line about the middle of the upper half of the card and ask them to sign there. Then write it out like I was signing the card to them. You know, "To Stefany, thanks for watching! Christopher (date)" or something like that. Haven't really thought it through yet.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results