So there I was, with half our discretionaries spent on a single card trick, hoping like hell that I could get a good review out of this. That would count as being a professional magician, right?
Héctor Mancha is selling “The World’s Greatest Card Trick”, his Fool Us fooler routine, on Vanishing Inc. for a cool half grand. What justifies the price, you might ask? Well, he’s going to teach you himself, live, over video chat.
The Q&As about this product are not being answered on the store page, with a direction to email them for any questions. Emailing them doesn’t allow for any details about anything really, besides the contract and scheduling the call. Nothing to do with the trick itself. That’s understandable, though.
However, for a trick that you can probably have an idea of after rewatching that cut a few times, it’s a little worrying. Not something I would purchase normally, especially since it’s supposed to only be for professionals, and it’s far from a normal product.
But somebody has to review this thing. So there I was.
And no, Steve Faulkner’s review doesn’t count. If any product needs a review from an unknown, it’s this. I paid full price and owe nothing to anybody. Besides, I trust that Héctor wouldn’t intentionally do this, but I’m sure that his session with Faulkner went a little differently than it would have if he didn’t know that there was a review happening.
Héctor is very responsive over email. He was also flexible, allowing me to reschedule. Overall, the communication between him was personable and enjoyable despite being to the point.
As the meeting approached, I grew more and more nervous. When the day arrived, I frantically tried to reorganize my desk so it would be suitable for learning the trick, propping my laptop up on a dresser and grabbing a cup.
Héctor was on time for our call, coming online 3 minutes before the scheduled start of our session. He spent a full 7 minutes getting to know me, after which we got right into things. He took care to address any questions I had, asking if I had any more to make sure on more than one occasion.
The call lasted 50 minutes, with most of it after our introduction being dedicated to the basic handling, but for the last 15 minutes we covered the “pro” version, which was not performed on Fool Us. He was his usual charming self, and I had the impression that the call would have been more like an hour or an hour 10 if I had had more questions.
What I was most surprised by was the smoothness of the move that was cut from the Fool Us performance. Why the fuck is there that awkward cut in the episode?
This is not a move you’re going to catch. I have no idea why they cut it from the performance, it’s slick as hell, at least when Mancha does it. The card had been switched well before I thought it had been. When he first showed me, I was surprised. When he showed me the “pro” version? I was flabbergasted. I haven’t been fooled like that in a long while. Very, very clever.
He used a mannequin to represent the spectator when he demonstrated the handling, which worked out well enough for the most part.
And then he taught me the version that fooled me harder than the cut Fool Us performance, and guided me through it. And then he fooled me again even harder with the “pro” version after teaching me the version he did on Fool Us! And then taught that!
Somebody on Vanishing Inc.’s unusable Q&A section for the trick seems to think the gimmick for the advanced version is “complex”. The description says “more complex”. This does not mean complex, and it isn’t very complex. You may have to buy something, but anyone can make this gimmick.
Before we go any further, I should note that I am not a fan, and he has no idea that I’m reviewing this. I actually struggled to think of any questions to ask him, because all I had seen of him was his FISM-winning performance and his Fool Us performance. I stand to gain nothing based on the outcome of the review, from anyone. I might be better off writing something really controversial, honestly, but instead I’m just going to give my candid thoughts.
So we get to the question at the crux of this thing, the question anyone seeing that price tag must wonder. Is this product concept worth it? Does the live personal instruction add that much that a video or book couldn’t?
Well, if you’re a fan of Héctor, of course it is, if you can afford it and are a pro who will actually use it. It wasn’t just about business, he was very willing to engage you and wanted to get to know me a little before we got into it. You do get something in the mail, but I can’t say any more about that.
Outside of that, if you just want to know the secret, no, it isn’t worth it. If you are a professional who loves the routine and intends to put this into their act as a closer? Yes, it is. It’s much more deceptive than the edited Fool Us performance shows.
The personal instruction is invaluable, with a FISM Grand Prix winner giving you live advice on how you look performing the move. I have a good internet connection, so your experience may vary, but Héctor had a good internet connection too, so there was very little latency even though we were talking across the Atlantic Ocean.
It could be argued that this is underpriced, if you’re really going to get use out of this trick. A FISM Grand Prix winner is willing to do multiple video sessions with you, indefinite instruction until you can satisfactorily perform the trick, and he’s ONLY charging 500 dollars? You may wonder at this about-face, but there were two serious misconceptions I had at the outset of this undertaking.
First, I wasn’t aware of how deceptive the part cut from Fool Us was. Everything I was worrying about with regards to that was irrelevant. Second, I hadn’t realized that you could schedule multiple video chats. I was under the impression there would only be one, with email only after that. Considering these two things, my opinion of the price has changed significantly.
Overall, not a purchase I can see anyone who buys it for the right reasons regretting.
The big budget post is coming tomorrow, in about 8 hours. We hope it helps the professionals and satisfies the curiosity of the amateurs.
Email subscription is available as an option on the homepage now, if you’re interested for some reason. We’ll only email you when there’s a new post unless you say otherwise, except for exactly once a year.
Also, we’ll probably forget to send email blasts out when there are new posts a LOT, so don’t rely on them. Alternatively, if you were worried you’d be getting emails for every new post, don’t worry.
We will be moving themagicoval.com over to WordPress from Squarespace at some point here, there will be some maintenance and it might look slightly different afterwards. The site shouldn’t be down very long, and we’ll update you about it again as it comes up. With any luck, RSS feeds will still work.
Thanks a ton for the support. We couldn’t have done it without you. Or we could have, but it would have been a lot more depressing.
This idea for a word reveal presentation stemmed from jamming with a friend of mine. Before it released and things died down, we were speculating about the notorious trick “Enigma” by Christian Grace.
Anyone that has spent longer than a decade on the internet would remember the “Akinator”. It’s essentially a website that has a little genie that tells you what person or character you are thinking of through a series of questions, similar to 21 questions.
I’ve always found that interesting, because people know how it can do that, yet it is still considered “impossible” or “scary” because of how accurate it is and what sort of questions it asks. If you’re thinking of Harry Potter and someone asks you “The character you’re thinking of, does he wear glasses?”, this would get a reaction out of you.
Analyzing it some more, I realized questions aren’t perceived as questions per se, but as statements regardless of the wording if they assume the correct answer. I believe that is why the Akinator was always praised and seen as “mind-reading”.
I wanted to take people’s pop-cultural understanding of the Akinator and flip it on its head for a one-on-one effect. Give them a billet and impression pad to write the name of someone famous. Then you have them fold it and place it in their pocket. Explain that you don’t want them to forget who they picked because they’re going to pick someone else too, and start off going through the Akinator experience by having them think of someone different. During this, you get your peek. Or, you can use a peek wallet, and get the peek earlier on.
After this, you start explaining that there is an algorithm programmed into the Akinator that can cause it to very efficiently fish through tens of thousands of people/characters to narrow it down to a select few. You can explain that through an email exchange with the creator, you have managed to memorize this highly intricate system for a magic trick. Because you’re a nerd and magic dork.
Now you reveal the information through Akinator type questions, optionally using the amazing poses he does. I try to ask oddly specific questions, like I am making a point. For example, if they were thinking of Harry Potter, after a few questions like “Is this person male?” and “Is this person fictional?”, you could move onto very specific questions like “Does your character know magic?” and “Does this person have a scar?” before you reveal. It is true that these are questions, but they act more as statements, given that they’re all answered with yes.
Just a fun thing you can do with a couple props (or just a billet, if you do a traditional billet peek) and a phone.
We’ll have an extra post for you coming over the next week, and it is a doozy. Ironically, it also ideally won’t be of much use to anyone but professionals. But, we felt someone had to do this, and it was expensive as hell, so you’ll have to make do.
Speaking of expensive things, Brian Brushwood’s book tests, featuring authentic copies of The Shining, The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, are 50% off if you buy the whole set and 25% off individually at scamstuff.com. This isn’t a sponsored message obviously, I just like the book tests, and it’s the best deal I’ve seen this Black Friday.
Something I like to do is have them pick a hardcover book from a bookshelf, not counting the magic books on the lower shelves since those would obviously be tricky. The only books on the upper shelves that are hardcover, besides smaller less appealing ones without dust jackets, are his book tests which are seemingly unrelated popular books. I haven’t purchased Harry Potter because the books on this shelf do not fit a random volume 4 of an outdated children’s series, and barely allow for Da Vinci, but it costs the same to buy the full set or just two books right now, so you’ll have to make that choice for yourself if you go for it and are also only interested in two of them.
As I talked about in Odds and Ends #1, there’s a whole world of collectible card magic out there, ripe for the taking, that I have no interest in. It seems Penguin Magic does on the other hand, as they’ve started selling the gimmicked collectible card sleeves from Uncommon by Josh Burch on their own.
We may bring back the email subscription option. We’ve collected a fair few RSS subscribers, but most people don’t use RSS anymore, and I suppose it would be good to have the option available if people want to be spammed.
If you can watch the entire video above I applaud you, but it is merely used to serve a point. Method aside, there is one presentational thing I primarily dislike here (despite it being an awful video overall).
I hate the use of mates. Whenever I see a magician use a “mate” card as a prediction or an out in a trick I feel disappointed.
Yes, the point is to use the existing cards in the deck to form a prediction of some kind while leaving the target card in the deck. But you can do this in a much more effective manner by adding just a few cards. Take a look at the two pictures below.
I think using other cards such as the remaining 3 cards to make a four of a kind, or an incomplete poker hand is much more effective. Not only do you have to explain what mates are to people (not the most riveting experience in a trick), the concept itself is very contrived.
Think, just by adding 2 more cards to your prediction, there is no further doubt that only one card will be correct. Otherwise, while technically you can explain it has to be the same color and value, the sense of theatricality when using a mate is dead. Consider the picture below.
I don’t have to explain to you what completes the set of cards above, you know just by looking. This is what you want to achieve in doing these sorts of predictions. Instead of setting one card aside, set aside a handful like this one.
I understand that not all tricks that use mates have the opportunity to utilize this way of thinking. Gemini Twins by Karl Fulves is a great example and a great trick. There’s not much you can do there. But, certainly, many do. I encourage you to try it.
The debate to use sleight of hand or gimmicks has been alive and well before any of us were born, and will likely continue after we die.
But…
If there’s tricks you can do with both sleight of hand and gimmicks and you can’t decide which to use, this is a great way to test that out.
I used to like to ask participants if they “saw the move” when I was doing flashy visual magic with a gimmick, like a coin vanish. There weren’t any moves, so of course they didn’t. If they claimed to have caught a move, I wouldn’t dismiss it, I’d encourage them.
Unfortunately, I realized eventually that I was also encouraging them to view my magic tricks as a puzzle. It may have worked for Slydini, but I’m not Slydini. So I don’t do this anymore. But there is an approach I still do, that was borne of that misguided habit.
Ask them for some help with something. Say you’re testing out a trick, and you have two versions, but you’re not sure which is better.
Essentially, you just show it to them with sleight of hand first, and then swap in the gimmicks and show it again with the gimmicks. You want to do it with sleight of hand first, so that there aren’t many moves to catch the second time around.
Presumably, they’ll prefer the second one, but maybe you’re just that good at the moves, which would also be good to know.
You can also do this while having them video record the performances on their phone. You can have a control alongside your two versions this time. Have them record yourself legitimately placing a coin in a hand with one other coin in it, then they record as you do it with a false transfer, and finally they record you doing it with a shell, moveless.
Perhaps you could not let them see where the coin is at the end of each of these, and then they can watch the videos over and try to figure out which is which.
Now it’s not about a puzzle, but rather about comparison. The “did you see it” hook I went with originally is kind of implicitly embedded, but without the puzzle aspect. This way they feel like they’re giving legitimate input. Plus, a lot of people probably felt like I was fucking with them. Did they see it? No, of course they didn’t fucking see it.
One of the most harmful aspects of the challenge approach is that it undermines the illusion of magic. Every time Slydini chided a spectator for not catching him, he reminded the audience that there was something to catch — that it wasn’t really magic.
The new iPhone has an action button feature now, instead of just a mute switch. A lot of people online have talked about using it to activate shortcuts that do certain actions in apps.
The untapped potential for this button’s use in magic is probably near limitless. You can create shortcuts that would be very convenient for certain effects.
Ironically, this could be a disadvantage to magic in general as well. As technology improves, we have to do more to combat false methods that people may come up with when watching us. It’s a bit of a double-edged sword.
If you happen to have an iPhone 15 model and perform routines such as DFB, I have a quick suggestion for you. If you’re performing for a tech-savvy friend and you can’t hand your phone to them for a routine for any given reason, try to handle your phone in a way that clearly communicates you couldn’t have touched that button.
Savvy friends who watch you perform might come up with a false method in their minds when watching you perform app-based effects that don’t require the use of the action button. I think doing these little adjustments in performance are worth it.
Just a heads up and a precaution, happy performing.
Editor’s Note: This is an idea contributed by a friend of the site, giving our two writers a break.
I’m a big fan of the 10S Star Sign Divination, by Olivier Boës. It’s the only star sign divination I use, and I love using it whenever somebody tries guessing my sign. A lot of people have trouble with justifying having them name some star signs to start with, and here’s what I do about that.
Let me get something very clear to start with. The process should be distant from the reveal.
Let me explain what I mean. First, if you are doing more than the basic method (such as CUPs), you should not do the whole process in one go, because besides making the method more transparent, it will make it much harder to naturally justify. Second, you should not reveal the sign as soon as you know it. Backtrack a little, act like you’re having trouble, do some palm reading, ANYTHING but simply revealing the sign.
So, how do we script this, and how do we naturally justify these things? Read on to find out. At a place where the method for 10S Star Sign Divination could be revealed, I will replace the text with [redacted].
First, they’ve asked you what star sign you are. Usually, they’ll make a guess, confidently or less confidently. Let’s say they guess A.
“You know,” you say, with a knowing smile. “It’s funny, but I have a theory about how to guess a star sign. I’ll show you. Here, say some random star signs out loud right now, maybe [redacted].”
They name X, Y and Z.
“See? That’s what I’m talking about,” you say encouragingly. “You got it completely wrong off the bat, I’m not an A, but I am a Y! Okay, but don’t tell me your sign. I want to test another theory.”
At this point, you can make a stab at a letter if desired to disambiguate. They answer yes or no. Or, use Michael Murray’s CUPs principle as recommended by Olivier. If you’re trusting in a direct hit as in the original handling, and not worrying about “end cases”, disregard this. For obvious reasons, you should claim to be a Y, that is, the second sign they name.
Once you’re fairly confident you know their sign, say that this isn’t working, and you don’t really know. (Or just trust in a direct hit.) Then you go into something else. It could be palm reading, it could be tea leaf reading, it could be an intense mindmelding staring match between the two of you.
After this, of course, you say that it’s worked, and reveal their sign.
This destroys people’s ability to figure it out. Nobody can backtrack it like they might otherwise. The naming of the star signs feels like something from another trick entirely, that this one was a sequel to.
The other night I did this for somebody and in the end she said “But you didn’t even ask any questions! You just read my palm, that was real!”
No, but it certainly felt real to her.
Enjoy. And pick up 10S Star Sign Divination if you haven’t! I don’t know why you would still be reading this blog post if you haven’t, it probably made no sense, but pick it up anyway.
Here’s a presentation I did on the spot with a center tear, and then how you can apply this angle yourself.
When I was in university, I literally never took notes. This is not to say I didn’t pay attention. I sat in classes and treated them as movies, or TED talks if you will. I still got decent grades, and eventually one of my friends sitting next to me asked me about it.
“Isn’t it proven that writing is better at cementing the information into your memory?”
I told him my issue with it is that I never read what I write anyway.
He replied, “No, I mean just the act of writing the information is enough to improve the probability of remembering said information.”
“Let’s do an experiment then, here’s a piece of paper. Write something down, and fold it and fold it again. I’ll ask you what the word is in a few weeks time, promise not to read the paper? Actually, you know what? I’ll rip it up so no one can read it, and you’re the only person in the world who knows the word,” I said, taking the billet from him.
I just did the normal handling as taught in Corinda’s 13 Steps. I make it a point to never look in the direction of the tear.
“Here, take the pieces without looking at them, and go throw them away in the trash over there,” I said. He did so. I told him to promise me not to write a copy of his “study note” while his memory was fresh.
Weeks go by, and I asked him if he still remembered his word. He grinned and said yes.
“I guess the writing method does work,” I said, defeated. “Technically, this word is in your memory bank now. I was reading something about analyzing facial cues to access information from memory banks…”
The rest is as you can imagine.
So how could you use this angle yourself?
As usual, you should adapt anything we say to your own purposes, but you could start it off as a context-free challenge. Ask your friend if they believe that writing something down helps you remember it. They’ll likely say yes. Then say that you don’t believe that’s the case at all, and it’s why you don’t take notes. This will work as long as they don’t have reason to know that you do take notes, since they aren’t going to ask you to prove that.
Alternatively, you could see your friend taking down a note for something, and tell them you think they’re useless. Notes, not the friend.
Say you want to prove it, and go through the center tear justification.
When the time comes, if they remember the word you can admit defeat, but don’t move into revealing the word just yet. Insist that they not tell you, because you have something to look into. Refuse to elaborate. The next day, tell them that last night you read up on accessing information from memory banks…
If they don’t remember the word, you can help out without waiting a day, telling them that even if their conscious mind doesn’t remember it their unconscious should… and once you reveal it they should definitely remember. And be amazed.
Not only does this presentation justify them writing something down, but it also justifies why you rip it, why they throw away the pieces. This could also work with an impression pad, just have them rip the paper off, rip it up, and throw it away.
What’s fun is that there is no feeling that you’re doing an effect here. We were just giggling and joking around trying to prove each other wrong, and you can be trying to prove yourself right.
