Here's a rush video I made doing 4 different double lifts. Which do you think should I use? Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbi7je1ibV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbi7je1ibV8
Double Lift
- Thread starter Simple Magic
- Start date
Mr.Simple Magic,
First one is super natural , If I knew how to do a double lift I would go with the 1st.
If a normal person would lift a card off the top of the deck I'd imagine they would'nt do anything fancy ya know.
First one is the more natural......I'd use that more often than the rest, Then occasionally, if you are doing several double lifts in one routine, do the 4th one just to mix it up a little. The 2nd one is ok ish too, but does look a little suspisious, and the 3rd is very suspisious as I found out myself doing a trick for a friend the other day. His face looked very puzzled the very instance I turned the cards over in that way. I knew instantly that I had made a mistake. Luckily I got away with it, but I won't be using that lift again.
We are not the average, normal person.
Naturalness means what is natural (things you do regulary or daily) FOR YOU, not natural for other people.
In contrary, as a more experienced card handler it is unnatural to do it the way the average people would do it, provided that your style is different from "Uncle Joe".
We should at least do it the way a more experienced card handler, or poker player, would turn over a card. IMO that`s often a stud-style turnover more than a book-style turnover.
We also forget that the situation is essential. First and foremost it`s to show your audience the card.
They must see it clearly. If people are close to you and are looking down at your hands, a turnover would be more appropriate as a lift.
Opposed to that, a lift is more appropriate when people are (far) away from you and are looking from the front.
Adapt to the situation, don`t adapt the situation to your sleights.
Naturalness depends on your character/style, the situation you are confronted with and effectiveness/ergonomics.
Last edited by a moderator:
Haha, whew this guy^ knows how to do a double lift. Make a DVD about how you do a double lift , I'll get it
If you want valuable informations about the Double Lift that goes beyond the normal mechanical discussions (Which DL should I use? ), I would point you to Jamy Ian Swiss` book "Devious Standards", which has a fantastic essay and thoughts about the DL, Aaron Fishers video on the double Lift and Tyler Ericksons Audiollog about The Double Lift/Top Palm. These sources are more valuable to me than all other DL-informations I got before and were "eye-openers" to me.Haha, whew this guy^ knows how to do a double lift. Make a DVD about how you do a double lift , I'll get it
I second the Jamy Ian Swiss book, in terms of choosing which double to use. Also, for another few paragraphs on what constitutes "naturalness", there is an excellent section in Darwin Ortiz's "Strong Magic".
I'm going to have to side with Chris Weins on this one. What Dalton and others are saying certainly is the party line but there are times when the party line needs a good challenge. The last one you are doing is known as either the Derek Dingle DL or the Knock out DL, depending if it comes from a push off or a hit. (I believe the knock out is attributed to Martin Nash but I'm not 100% sure on that one...) Anyways the two lifts look almost identical and a whole host of magicians use it to great effect. (David Blaine, Wayne Houchin, Greg Wilson, to name a few) So that move will work just fine provided it fits your style. That said, those very basic book style Double turnovers and even the basic double lift you showed in your #3 are also use to great effect by many other great magicians. One of the best proponents of the basic double lifts/turnovers is Aaron Fisher. He has an excellent free download on how to properly use that basic double lift in conjunction with an Ascanio technique called In-transient action.
Aaron and I have debated the DL a bit and while I have a great respect for him, and realize that his experience is much greater than mine, I kind of had to go with my own personal experiences on this one. I personally go with Lee Asher's Diving Board Double. I prefer a somewhat flashier style of card magic and the DBD allows me to casually flip a card over with one hand. Now I didn't part ways with Aaron lightly. I considered everything about why I chose the DL that use, from how natural I can make the move look, to how the move sets me up for other techniques that might follow, to how it fits my style of magic, and even the underlying philosophy that I adopt for my card magic. Lee Asher has this awesome quote from one of his downloads. "I don't want my magic to look natural....I want my magic to look Supernatural!" I love that quote. It at once says, "Vernon...I love you man! You are the father of modern card magic but it's time to move out of the house!"
Anyways I digress. There is nothing wrong with the standard book style Double Turnover or the standard Double lift but when people recommend you use those over others because they look more natural and look like “how a spectator would turn over a card,” I wince a bit. The first problem is the assumption that to be natural you must not look like an expert with cards. That you must “appear to be an average card handler.” That way when the card appears in your pocket or rises back to the top of the deck you are able to present it as “magic” and not “sleight of hand.” My issue with that assumption is that we can give our spectators a little more credit. Spectators know that card magic is really sleight of hand. Trying to convince someone that you posses mystical powers because you can make a card rise to the top of the deck insults their intelligence. Once you accept that what you are doing is a sleight of hand performance you are free to adopt your own style. If you choose to look like an average card handler that is fine. In that sense use a DL that fits that style. If you choose to look like an expert, that is fine as well, look into a flashier DL. The key is to practice the DL you choose until it looks natural in your hands and with your style.
Now let’s assume that you decide that you want to look like you handle the cards no better than the average spectator. Here is my second major problem with standard book style DTs. It is NOT how average people turn over the top card in a deck! The thought hit me a while ago when I heard someone else say that you should use the standard DT because, “that’s how lay people turn over the top card.” People say that all the time as a reason that that is the best double to use. So I decided to test it out. Over the course of the last few months I have been handing lay people cards and asking them to turn over the top card. The vast majority of people I observed grabbed the deck and turned over the top card……Longitudinally!( My study is certainly anecdotal and I would love to see the results of other peoples observations.) That is to say they turned over the top card end for end and not to the side as the book style DL mimics. The fact is that 30 years ago more people played card games so many lay people naturally held cards in mechanics grip. From that dealing position it is more natural to pull the card to the side, or into a dealt position, and then flip it over. Lay people don’t play cards as much as they used to so all too often they hold the deck with all four fingers on one side of the deck. From this position the easiest way to flip over the top card is to pull the card out from the top and flip it over in a longitudinal (end for end) way.
So with that being the case, if you chose to adopt a style that mimics how the average lay person would handle cards you should look into longitudinal methods. The Stewart Gordan DL is one option, I also saw Chris Wiehl show a longitudinal method on one of his Wiehl Free magic downloads. You could also just simply work on adopting the standard DL in a longitudinal instead of a side to side motion.
So those are my recommendations. First consider your style. Then consider how difficult a particular technique is to learn. Ie. Can do this flawlessly and make it look natural in my hands? Am I willing to put in the practice to make this look good or should I pick an easier to master technique?(Wayne Houchin mentioned that it took him two years before he was happy with his Derek Dingle DL and my experience was similar with the Diving Board) What other techniques do you use and how well does a particular DL set me up for those. And finally, if you choose to do a DL that looks like how a laymen would turn over the top card, then do your own study in your own area and find a DL that looks most like what actual laymen in your area would do. Don’t just listen to what other people say. What laymen looked like turning over a top card 30 years ago in New York City may look totally different than a laymen turning over a top card in this day and age in Singapore.
Aaron and I have debated the DL a bit and while I have a great respect for him, and realize that his experience is much greater than mine, I kind of had to go with my own personal experiences on this one. I personally go with Lee Asher's Diving Board Double. I prefer a somewhat flashier style of card magic and the DBD allows me to casually flip a card over with one hand. Now I didn't part ways with Aaron lightly. I considered everything about why I chose the DL that use, from how natural I can make the move look, to how the move sets me up for other techniques that might follow, to how it fits my style of magic, and even the underlying philosophy that I adopt for my card magic. Lee Asher has this awesome quote from one of his downloads. "I don't want my magic to look natural....I want my magic to look Supernatural!" I love that quote. It at once says, "Vernon...I love you man! You are the father of modern card magic but it's time to move out of the house!"
Anyways I digress. There is nothing wrong with the standard book style Double Turnover or the standard Double lift but when people recommend you use those over others because they look more natural and look like “how a spectator would turn over a card,” I wince a bit. The first problem is the assumption that to be natural you must not look like an expert with cards. That you must “appear to be an average card handler.” That way when the card appears in your pocket or rises back to the top of the deck you are able to present it as “magic” and not “sleight of hand.” My issue with that assumption is that we can give our spectators a little more credit. Spectators know that card magic is really sleight of hand. Trying to convince someone that you posses mystical powers because you can make a card rise to the top of the deck insults their intelligence. Once you accept that what you are doing is a sleight of hand performance you are free to adopt your own style. If you choose to look like an average card handler that is fine. In that sense use a DL that fits that style. If you choose to look like an expert, that is fine as well, look into a flashier DL. The key is to practice the DL you choose until it looks natural in your hands and with your style.
Now let’s assume that you decide that you want to look like you handle the cards no better than the average spectator. Here is my second major problem with standard book style DTs. It is NOT how average people turn over the top card in a deck! The thought hit me a while ago when I heard someone else say that you should use the standard DT because, “that’s how lay people turn over the top card.” People say that all the time as a reason that that is the best double to use. So I decided to test it out. Over the course of the last few months I have been handing lay people cards and asking them to turn over the top card. The vast majority of people I observed grabbed the deck and turned over the top card……Longitudinally!( My study is certainly anecdotal and I would love to see the results of other peoples observations.) That is to say they turned over the top card end for end and not to the side as the book style DL mimics. The fact is that 30 years ago more people played card games so many lay people naturally held cards in mechanics grip. From that dealing position it is more natural to pull the card to the side, or into a dealt position, and then flip it over. Lay people don’t play cards as much as they used to so all too often they hold the deck with all four fingers on one side of the deck. From this position the easiest way to flip over the top card is to pull the card out from the top and flip it over in a longitudinal (end for end) way.
So with that being the case, if you chose to adopt a style that mimics how the average lay person would handle cards you should look into longitudinal methods. The Stewart Gordan DL is one option, I also saw Chris Wiehl show a longitudinal method on one of his Wiehl Free magic downloads. You could also just simply work on adopting the standard DL in a longitudinal instead of a side to side motion.
So those are my recommendations. First consider your style. Then consider how difficult a particular technique is to learn. Ie. Can do this flawlessly and make it look natural in my hands? Am I willing to put in the practice to make this look good or should I pick an easier to master technique?(Wayne Houchin mentioned that it took him two years before he was happy with his Derek Dingle DL and my experience was similar with the Diving Board) What other techniques do you use and how well does a particular DL set me up for those. And finally, if you choose to do a DL that looks like how a laymen would turn over the top card, then do your own study in your own area and find a DL that looks most like what actual laymen in your area would do. Don’t just listen to what other people say. What laymen looked like turning over a top card 30 years ago in New York City may look totally different than a laymen turning over a top card in this day and age in Singapore.
In transit*
(Disclaimer: I'm not a grammar nazi. I'm a correct name of technique/theory nazi.)
This is so true. I'll just quote Darwin Ortiz, because he puts it so much better than I do. (From "Strong Magic", pp. 267-268):
"...some of the most unnatural-looking actions I've ever seen in magic have occurred when a layperson who is unused to handling cards is asked to shuffle, cut, deal or perform some action with cards. He hasn't done these things often enough to have evolved a natural way of doing them..."
"A good example of this can be seen in any gambling casino at the blackjack tables. People see the dealer shuffle, cut, and deal the cards, and handle the chips in ways they've never done themselves and may have never seen anyone else do. Yet no one feels the actions are unnatural... People sense that this is probably the way they would do it themselves if they had performed these actions thousands of times..."
The assumption is wrong yes, but I really don't agree with your view about why it's wrong. It's a bit over generalized.
Last edited by a moderator:
The assumption that you shouldn't treat what you do as "real magic" is kind over done. Yes, Spectators (depending on what age group you perform for) know inherently that magic isn't real and that you can't do REAL magic. Does that mean that they won't be able to suspend their disbelief for a few moments and enjoy it for what it is? No, if they like what they are seeing and actually enjoy it then they'll sit back and enjoy it for what it is.
Then again this all based on character and how people perceive you. If you're character is a kid in jeans and a t shirt and you try to convince your family or friends that you can do things "magically" then you're just setting yourself up for failure.
But you can kind of get people to shut off their "logic" for a brief few min and enjoy the show. People do it all the time when watching good movie's. You know that people can't really jump into each others dreams and go deeper, did that stop you from enjoying the movie? I highly doubt it.
Anyways, back to the DL. I've always gone by the method that I find the less finicky and easy to get into and usually I'll also do a single lift the same exact way. Or if I feel the need, I'd just do a Top Change or KM move.
Then again this all based on character and how people perceive you. If you're character is a kid in jeans and a t shirt and you try to convince your family or friends that you can do things "magically" then you're just setting yourself up for failure.
But you can kind of get people to shut off their "logic" for a brief few min and enjoy the show. People do it all the time when watching good movie's. You know that people can't really jump into each others dreams and go deeper, did that stop you from enjoying the movie? I highly doubt it.
Anyways, back to the DL. I've always gone by the method that I find the less finicky and easy to get into and usually I'll also do a single lift the same exact way. Or if I feel the need, I'd just do a Top Change or KM move.
My two-cents!
Take the push off approach from the 4th example and combine it with the turn over from the 1st approach. However, less "putting the card down now" motion. Let gravity do the work for you. Just use enough force to get the double turned over, and let it fall gracefully. Try not to "over turn" the card, as it looks unnatural.
Take the push off approach from the 4th example and combine it with the turn over from the 1st approach. However, less "putting the card down now" motion. Let gravity do the work for you. Just use enough force to get the double turned over, and let it fall gracefully. Try not to "over turn" the card, as it looks unnatural.
Randy and TheatreHead are absolutely correct in disputing one of the particular points that I made. In addressing assumptions that you "Must" use the standard DT because it looks less showy, and thus more "Magical", not only did I over generalize but I also made assumptions of my own. Please forgive that overstep. The reality is that we often drift far to one side of an issue to refute extreme views from the other side. That is just the consequence of debate unfortunately.
What I really meant to point out is that there is not need to hide your skill to create a compelling and entertaining demonstration.....just hide your sleights. If you are doing card magic people will probably guess you have some skills with those cards. That said, effects like Anneversary Waltz, Deuce Bag, or French Kiss(to name a few) are truly magical moments to a spectator. No need to step on that by shooting some wry grin and stating, "see what fast hands I've got!"
On the flip side, doing an effect like ACR, where the spectator is largely observing the magic, it is perhaps a bit over the top to present it as if you are one of Michael Morecock's deep brooding eternal champions who have come to rescue the world from the coming darkness. Even if you don't catch the literary reference I think you get the point. There is no need to go over the top and get all pretentious on a bunch of spectators who carry around a host of Ipods, Iphones, and mini computers which have the potential to change the world in ways your closing effect couldn't hope to accomplish, even if it was done with real magic!
In the end of the day card magic's fatal flaw and biggest asset is the card. What you are doing, you are doing to a card. And I have the hunch that consciously, or unconsciously, the allure of card magic, for spectator and practitioner alike, is rooted in the sleight of hand more so than the magic. Don't get me wrong. Card magic is far and away my favorite discipline in magic, but I don't try to make it more than what it is. So present it comically if that suits you, present it seriously if that suits you, be flashy, be sloppy, be some place in between. The key is that your style and character coupled with your talents and willingness to work on harder sleights(or not) should be the judge of the moves you select more so than the pontifications of others who think that "this move is good and that move is bad because so and so said so."
What I really meant to point out is that there is not need to hide your skill to create a compelling and entertaining demonstration.....just hide your sleights. If you are doing card magic people will probably guess you have some skills with those cards. That said, effects like Anneversary Waltz, Deuce Bag, or French Kiss(to name a few) are truly magical moments to a spectator. No need to step on that by shooting some wry grin and stating, "see what fast hands I've got!"
On the flip side, doing an effect like ACR, where the spectator is largely observing the magic, it is perhaps a bit over the top to present it as if you are one of Michael Morecock's deep brooding eternal champions who have come to rescue the world from the coming darkness. Even if you don't catch the literary reference I think you get the point. There is no need to go over the top and get all pretentious on a bunch of spectators who carry around a host of Ipods, Iphones, and mini computers which have the potential to change the world in ways your closing effect couldn't hope to accomplish, even if it was done with real magic!
In the end of the day card magic's fatal flaw and biggest asset is the card. What you are doing, you are doing to a card. And I have the hunch that consciously, or unconsciously, the allure of card magic, for spectator and practitioner alike, is rooted in the sleight of hand more so than the magic. Don't get me wrong. Card magic is far and away my favorite discipline in magic, but I don't try to make it more than what it is. So present it comically if that suits you, present it seriously if that suits you, be flashy, be sloppy, be some place in between. The key is that your style and character coupled with your talents and willingness to work on harder sleights(or not) should be the judge of the moves you select more so than the pontifications of others who think that "this move is good and that move is bad because so and so said so."
This is what I mean. People often think "natural" means what most people would do. In a non-magic context this would be often true for things every human beeing does regulary like walking, running, breathing, for something that is given by nature, but card handling is not given by nature. It`s an artificial construct.
"Natural" means things you do regulary, or every day. Therefore, a spectator who hardly ever deals with cards can`t handle a deck in a natural way by definition.
I also think the reason why some would call the Derek Dingle/Martin Nash DL "unnatural" is because many emphasize the pivoting around the thenar, making it a long action. You don`t need such a wide pivoting for the alignment. You can turn the cards over much earlier, especially if your d****e pushoff is good enough (nearly perfect alignment). You can still "snap" the cards if you like.
In fact, that`s excactly the way I would turn over the top card for displaying.
Last edited by a moderator: