I am not as enamored with this as some people. It involves quite a bit of patter which is appears
to be mainly intended to have the spectator look you in the eye so he or she isn't paying too much
attention to what you are doing. If anyone watches closely the jig is up. A long way to go for a
simple card trick. The effect can be done with ordinary playing cards but the use of the circus
animals is cute plus it does definitely help to conceal the secret.
You couldn't be more wrong. First off, the best "tricks" are simple ones that have beautiful storytelling (to weave a magical tale is so important to the art and craft of magic, and it's the thing most modern magicians are lacking.) But you don't have to do this according to the tutorial, you can get right to the trick.
And as for "if anyone watches closely, the jig is up." Completely wrong. The spectator can be burning your hands the entire time and there is absolutely nothing to catch at all. The patter, again, only serves to tell a beautiful magical story that fits the nature of the cards, which helps to enhance the experience... taking it from a simple card trick you would do with boring ordinary playing cards, to this beautiful experience for the spectator.
... And that's the thing, maybe you are used to being the type of magician that wants to "fool" your spectator to show how clever you are, but this is an effect that is meant to bring wonderment to your spectator, and I much prefer that!
I think that you 2 have different approach to magic.
I believe Peter was probably wrong in buying this effect as it doesn't seem to fit his style of magic.
And I believe Genshi's wrong in saying "to weave a magical tale is so important to the art and craft of magic, and it's the thing most modern magicians are lacking". Again, you seem to prefer this style of magic, but I personally refers to "pipe and sleepers" magic. A bit pejorative, I know, but that is simply not the style of magic that "amazes" or "excites" me. Eugene Burger was a fantastic magician, and created fantastic effects, but I always got bored during his performances. Again, no offense, this is a personal choice.
Genshi, your approach to magic has nothing wrong with it, and Peter's or mine neither. We're different types of magicians, preferring different types of effects. I like the more "flashy" / quick fire magic effects, as it fits my performance and personality. I have no wish to feel "more clever" than my audience. I just want to show them something impossible, right in front of their eyes, with a normal pack of cards.
Now back to Andy Nyman: fantastic magician and creator. I have purchased some of his effects, and love his ideas. This one is great, but personally not for me.
While I wouldn't have a problem paying $30 for such beautifully designed cards, and Andy Nyman seems like a really nice guy, I'm kinda with you on the routine itself. It's just not the sort of thing I would do. I'm not a big fan of the type of shuffle he does, and I'm pretty sure that none of my test subjects would be fooled by the "deal or mix" thing (not that it takes much to figure that one out, lol).
However, there's more than one way to skin a zoo animal. Even if I don't like Nyman's presentation, there are many ways of achieving the same result: some different false shuffles and cuts, some changes to the routining, etc. I always adapt tricks to my own style, which often means making significant changes. So I can definitely see some possibilities with this one (I can see the cards working for a drawing duplication, for instance). The only reason I'm on the fence about it is because I already have so many other picture-card tricks: AB See, Omnitool, AdSense, Snaps, and a couple of others.
I agree that it is so wrong to criticize a person because they don’t like the trick. Some tricks benefit from story telling and others don’t. And some tricks just aren’t for everyone. But these days when someone gives their honest opinion about a trick, and someone disagrees, that person somehow gets some satisfaction out of insulting them for giving a bad review. After watching this and seeing the “shuffle” deal the method was pretty obvious and since I perform a few variations of this trick I decided to give it a pass. Doesn’t mean it’s not good in the right hands with the right performance style, but to insult someone because they don’t like it is just uncalled for.
First off, I didn't insult anyone Rbaumdr, but I can always tell who are the new to magic/mentalism people when I read comments like "none of my test subjects would be fooled by the deal or mix" or "If anyone watches closely the jig is up"; it shows me that you are either new to all of this, or don't have the confidence and/or presentational skills to perform this very simple yet completely deceiving method that fools ALL laypersons.
This is a very well-known (to professional magicians) method known as the Paul Curry Swindel Switch that is used in many effects, including one of the most famous Mentalism effects, Bruce Bernstein's "Eat At Joe's" routine (even Derren Brown performs this!)
So I was simply pointing out to the OP to not discount the seemingly simple premise or the presentation, because that's what makes the trick work, and it WILL fool laypeople. Maybe not a fellow magician, but definitely your spectators, and you would know this once you gain more experience in this type of thing. The proof is; if it's good enough for Paul Curry, Bruce Bernstein, Doug Dyment, and even Derren Brown, then maybe you are just not seeing it for how good it actually is...
Add a comment
Cute But Simple
Report this review
