Price$15.00
Media TypeTrick
CategoryClose Up
Date AddedJul 23, 2003
Transferred
(Based on 1 review)
The bill is displayed on both sides and you slowly start to fold it into eighths. With the folded bill at your fingertips, you slowly wave it over the deck of cards and, as you do so, the bill visibly canges into a folded playing card! When the card is opened up, there is the spectator's signature!
Next, the spectator cuts the deck himself and finds a folded bill right where they've cut. The spectator himself unfolds the bill to again find their signature
* You never touch the deck when the bill re-appears in the middle of the pack
* The spectator has a truly free choice of any card
* Perfect for table-hopping
* Resets in seconds
Reviews
(Top ▲)
First, the good news. What a beautiful little booklet. Great pictures. Fabulous layout. A+. It is written by a non-native English speaker so there are some grammar issues, but it is still understandable. Unfortunately, the directions seem to be written for a lefty. That's not bad news, but it should have been mentioned somewhere. That's the good news.
Peter's Transferred has a card and bill signed. The bill is held at the fingertips where it changes to the signed card. The cards are cut revealing a bill in the middle of the pack. The bill is dumped from hand to hand and seen to be the signed bill. I like the dramatic sense the trick has of making the appearance make sense. This is something we discussed at length on the Ammar ETM Money series.
Now, here's the average news. The concept behind this trick is a great one, but it's not Peter's. It is Bruno Hennig's/Fred Kaps Card to Ring box. But, like so many of today's younger content providers, this goes without mention.
Now here's the bad news. This incarnation is flawed on many levels.
First, there are three things required to make a bill to impossible location effect powerful. One, the audience must be convinced the bill is the one they loaned at the beginning. Two, the location must be truly impossible. Three, the routine must build appropriate suspense and convey the impossibility of it all, while being entertaining.
To the first point, this effect is fine, though Peter Eggink doesn't deserve that credit, that belongs to Hennig and Kaps. (Although the original handling works better, more on that later.)
To the third, this manuscript offers nothing by way of scripting and presentation, only a handling. This is not too damning as these issues are highly personal.
As to the second, this trick is flawed. Sending a card into a closed box in full view is amazing. Sending it into a deck of cards where one could easily slide a piece of paper (which both cards and dollar bills are) is far less miraculous. In short, if you want a strong reaction, there are better tricks (like the original) which will get that for you.
There are also tons of handling problems. For example, you are told to turn the deck face up, perform the mercury card fold, and then turn the deck face down. Why? There is no reason given for this very visible action of turning the deck over and back again. This needs to be justified or reworked, until then it is an immature handling that requires more thought.
I also do not care for his method of getting the card second from the top. Again, there are MUCH better methods including one from Expert Card Technique. His could work, though he really should have given some presentational touches to make it fly. Even then, my suspicion is that this move garners "heat" when he does it, though showing the selection face up on top after the move does take some of that away. Why bother though? Why not use a better technique and eliminate the moment when the spectator wonders what you are up to?
His handling of the switch is also convoluted. He has you use your left hand to pick up the half of the deck with the bill on top of it, place that half into the right hand, and then do what amounts to a one handed bottom deal of the bill BACK into the left hand! Why. Why not just pick up the bottom half and do a "shuttle pass" into the right to switch the bill? That's what the Hennig trick is based on and it is a far more elegant solution to passing the deck from hand to hand with no reason given. (There is an alternative handling which is no cleaner.) Further, I think there is more heat on the moment of the switch in his handling than there is in the original Hennig effect. Of course, all of this overlooks the fact that when the spectator lifts off half the cards the bill is sitting right there. Why not just pick it up and unfold it? I mean, that's what the trick would look like if you could do it for real, no? But instead of striving for that moment, Peter has stopped short and chooses an overhandled switch. (By using a ring box it makes sense in the handling for you to have to dump it out, by the way. At least when managed properly.)
(To digress, I don't think you even need to use his gimmick for this handling, just an extra bill and careful handling should be fine, but that's just me.)
So, is this a horrible trick? No. Is this an improvement over a classic that should have been studied by any magician who feels himself qualified enough to put "original material" on the market? No.
I can't recommend this because it goes nowhere beyond what is already in the printed literature. 5 stars for production but no stars for content. I'll give it 1 just to be kind.
Peter's Transferred has a card and bill signed. The bill is held at the fingertips where it changes to the signed card. The cards are cut revealing a bill in the middle of the pack. The bill is dumped from hand to hand and seen to be the signed bill. I like the dramatic sense the trick has of making the appearance make sense. This is something we discussed at length on the Ammar ETM Money series.
Now, here's the average news. The concept behind this trick is a great one, but it's not Peter's. It is Bruno Hennig's/Fred Kaps Card to Ring box. But, like so many of today's younger content providers, this goes without mention.
Now here's the bad news. This incarnation is flawed on many levels.
First, there are three things required to make a bill to impossible location effect powerful. One, the audience must be convinced the bill is the one they loaned at the beginning. Two, the location must be truly impossible. Three, the routine must build appropriate suspense and convey the impossibility of it all, while being entertaining.
To the first point, this effect is fine, though Peter Eggink doesn't deserve that credit, that belongs to Hennig and Kaps. (Although the original handling works better, more on that later.)
To the third, this manuscript offers nothing by way of scripting and presentation, only a handling. This is not too damning as these issues are highly personal.
As to the second, this trick is flawed. Sending a card into a closed box in full view is amazing. Sending it into a deck of cards where one could easily slide a piece of paper (which both cards and dollar bills are) is far less miraculous. In short, if you want a strong reaction, there are better tricks (like the original) which will get that for you.
There are also tons of handling problems. For example, you are told to turn the deck face up, perform the mercury card fold, and then turn the deck face down. Why? There is no reason given for this very visible action of turning the deck over and back again. This needs to be justified or reworked, until then it is an immature handling that requires more thought.
I also do not care for his method of getting the card second from the top. Again, there are MUCH better methods including one from Expert Card Technique. His could work, though he really should have given some presentational touches to make it fly. Even then, my suspicion is that this move garners "heat" when he does it, though showing the selection face up on top after the move does take some of that away. Why bother though? Why not use a better technique and eliminate the moment when the spectator wonders what you are up to?
His handling of the switch is also convoluted. He has you use your left hand to pick up the half of the deck with the bill on top of it, place that half into the right hand, and then do what amounts to a one handed bottom deal of the bill BACK into the left hand! Why. Why not just pick up the bottom half and do a "shuttle pass" into the right to switch the bill? That's what the Hennig trick is based on and it is a far more elegant solution to passing the deck from hand to hand with no reason given. (There is an alternative handling which is no cleaner.) Further, I think there is more heat on the moment of the switch in his handling than there is in the original Hennig effect. Of course, all of this overlooks the fact that when the spectator lifts off half the cards the bill is sitting right there. Why not just pick it up and unfold it? I mean, that's what the trick would look like if you could do it for real, no? But instead of striving for that moment, Peter has stopped short and chooses an overhandled switch. (By using a ring box it makes sense in the handling for you to have to dump it out, by the way. At least when managed properly.)
(To digress, I don't think you even need to use his gimmick for this handling, just an extra bill and careful handling should be fine, but that's just me.)
So, is this a horrible trick? No. Is this an improvement over a classic that should have been studied by any magician who feels himself qualified enough to put "original material" on the market? No.
I can't recommend this because it goes nowhere beyond what is already in the printed literature. 5 stars for production but no stars for content. I'll give it 1 just to be kind.