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?
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?