Heresy No


/«Mie performer shuffles a deck before a volun-M. teer and gives it to him for further mixing. He cuts, looks at the top card, and buries it in the center of the deck, or thereabouts. Next he is asked to fan the deck out and hold it with faces towards himself. All of this time has seen the performer at a far side of the room.

The performer now holds a slate and chalk. He attempts to get an impression, but is dissatisfied. He moves toward the spectator, asking him to hold the fan of cards up and directly before himself. The spectator is told to try and see his card among all of the others. The performer comes close and raises or lowers the spectator's arms to an eye level. Then he steps away and does another picture. The spectator names his card — and the slate is shown. It is pictured there.

Again we have used a marked and stacked deck — and again we have presented the effect in such a manner as to deceive the most erudite. The first shuffle by the performer was false, a mere matter of cuts. The spectator's shuffle was slight — the performer didn't let much time elapse before telling the person to cut the deck, pick off the top card, look at it, and bury it. The first bit of -writing on the slate was fakety. Then the performer approached the spectator with his fan of cards. His maneuvres here amounted to nothing, except, he was able to see and read the identity of the top card of the deck — at his (performer's) right end of the fan. Counting one back he knew which card to draw actually on the second (?) attempt.

The beautiful part of this test lies in its simplicity to laymen and its "throw-off to magicians who immediately think of Jardine Ellis and his mirror principle of reading a card in a spectator's hands. Magi will nod their heads in a "I know that one" maimer, but when they set home they'll begin to think and wonder

Page how the magus knew WHICH one of the fanned cards was the correct pasteboard.

0 0

Post a comment