My twist on an existing card trick.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I don't know if there are many magicians left on these boards, so I may be farting in the wind, but I was proud of an idea I had and I hate the other magician forums. My post won't make much sense if you are not familiar with the effect I'm talking about, but here goes nothing.



I devised a way to do John Bannon's Dawn Patrol. It doesn't replace the original but I like it a lot.

You don't need to add a joker to the deck and you can have two participants. To me, these are awesome improvements.


You take out three queens, instead of two. You can name the queens after your favourite Charlie's angels; red for the blondes and black for the brunettes. Not very in at the moment, but pretty timeless and recognizable.

You can set up with a straddle faro check, same as the original.

First spec takes a packet, as in the original, but just picks whatever card they want and passes the packet to a second spec, who also takes whatever card they want. You get to see neither.

They replace the packet and add their cards together on top.

First participant then takes a larger packet as in the original, and cuts as many times as they wish.

Pass the packet to the other spec who also can cut as many times as they wish.

The rest is the same, except you do an out faro instead of a straddle. The specs' cards end up between the angels, or whoever the queens represent in your presentation.

There. ☻☺☻

I don't think the above reveals any secrets, other than the use of a joker in John Bannon's original. This shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Garrette]

I'm not familiar with that particular effect, but the description is enough to give me a feel for it. That said, the fact that you do two faros of any type is sufficient for me to stand when you enter the room.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Thank you, but really, faros are just a matter of having no life for a while and doing it again and again.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

This is the original effect. I like the fact that I can now do it for two spectators, with a normal 52 card deck.

 

[marplots]

It does sound like an improvement.

 

[Senex]

Two faro shuffles. I'll get right on that.

hehehe... no, I'll leave that to the non-clumsy members. It seems to me a solid effect but for me, I'll use a stripper deck because I always take the short cut.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

There is only one faro, really. The faro check is just to set up the deck, so you can set up under their nose, so to speak, but you don't need it. The out faro is inevitable though.

I just liked this effect a lot for some reason, but didn't like having to add a joker. So I tried a couple things.

One trade-off is that with the original they get to add the second packet on top of the chosen card. My way, I kind of have to add the chosen cards to the whole pack and ask that they cut. They're still lost and impossible to track but psychologically, JB's original method is still subtly stronger there.

 

[marplots]

That's how it usually goes though - versions are better in one respect and not quite as good in another.

Bannon, like other creators, will sometimes even publish different versions of the same trick. The one I'm thinking of is that packet trick with the four queens where the cards not thought of turn out to be blank (or jokers). Twisted Sisters I think. Couple versions of that one.

 

[Cain]

You lost me with the straddle faro check.

Howard Hamburg showed me an "unpublished" Elmsley trick which I thought was better than the Bannon version since it does away with the joker, the straddle, the floating key card, and all of the pesky spectator involvement.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Bannon's trick is that it's too procedural. Cut some of those, shuffle them, remove one, cut that, blah blah blah. Yes, it will fool magicians, but it's not streamlined.

I adapted the Elmsley trick to have two selections chosen via a telescoped deck, but discovered Luis Otero had come up with the same basic idea at least a few years earlier. The benefit of this handling is that you find the first one by executing a faro shuffle, but for the second revelation you seemingly do nothing and the other spectator's card "materializes" between the sandwich cards.

I favor this kind of progression.

I do not like the idea in the OP of returning the selections next to each other (apologies if I've mistaken this as part of the procedure). Yes, for a lot of spectators a series of straight cuts is as good as a shuffle, but you don't get much more effect by having three queens swoop in and trap two (adjacent) selections versus two cards trapping one.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

You lost me with the straddle faro check.

Howard Hamburg showed me an "unpublished" Elmsley trick which I thought was better than the Bannon version since it does away with the joker, the straddle, the floating key card, and all of the pesky spectator involvement.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Bannon's trick is that it's too procedural. Cut some of those, shuffle them, remove one, cut that, blah blah blah. Yes, it will fool magicians, but it's not streamlined.

I adapted the Elmsley trick to have two selections chosen via a telescoped deck, but discovered Luis Otero had come up with the same basic idea at least a few years earlier. The benefit of this handling is that you find the first one by executing a faro shuffle, but for the second revelation you seemingly do nothing and the other spectator's card "materializes" between the sandwich cards.

I favor this kind of progression.

I do not like the idea in the OP of returning the selections next to each other (apologies if I've mistaken this as part of the procedure). Yes, for a lot of spectators a series of straight cuts is as good as a shuffle, but you don't get much more effect by having three queens swoop in and trap two (adjacent) selections versus two cards trapping one.

I appreciate your sensible comments.

I agree that the cards being together the whole time is a weak spot, and certainly that more queens is not an actual improvement over two*. As I mentioned, I just like that I can have 52 cards, and I can involve one more spec with a chosen card. I have seen the jaws drop, so I'm not too worried.

Another nice difference, imo, is in the selection. In the original, spec cuts, cuts, cuts, looks, drops, cuts cuts cuts, then you cut. In mine, spec takes a packet, then just chooses a card in whatever way they wish, then another spec chooses one. It seems less tedious and you have two very clean selections in no time (the second spec doesn't have to cut, it's just nice to offer).

I'll go so far as to say John Bannon seems to like the procedural aspect too much. Do this don't do that... I'm thinking next time I can even just hand half the pack to one and say pick one, avoiding the "take less than half" nonsense.

*This is almost painfully obvious when you imagine using four queens to find three cards. Clearly not a good idea.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

You lost me with the straddle faro check.

Three ladies are out, hence the straddle. The check is to place the SK without counting.