ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Table of Contents
The Antinomy Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
The Artful Ledger: Hobsonian Fringe Notes – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Two Object Equivoque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Three Object Equivoque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Maven’s Three Book Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Marlo’s Three Object Equivoque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Five Object Equivoque – Max Maven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Smith’s 52 Object Equivoque – Chuck Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Marlo’s Pellet Classic – Edward Marlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
A Little Lie – Stephen Bargatze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Flash Coins Re-Lit – Eric Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
The Gizmo Box – Max Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
The M & M Trick: Magic & Mentalism – Dr. Giorgio Tarchini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
The Impromptusible Twist – Tony Ko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
FSO Transpo – Zenneth Kok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
The Honest Liar: The Last Layman – Jamy Ian Swiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
In Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Magic after all was like the bottles on the shelves of a

dubious-neighborhood liquor store – it was available
in different proofs and labels, and at different prices,
for anyone who cared to walk in.
James P. Blaylock & Tim Powers
from The Better Boy

ANTINOMY Vol. 1, Issue 4, November 2005. ANTINOMY is published quarterly by Antinomy Magic. Subscription rates are $72 inside the United States, $77 for Canada
and Mexico, and $92 for International Airmail shipping to the rest of the world. Antinomy Magic is a Sole Proprietorship of Eugene Taylor. ANTINOMY™, the phrases
“Perception & Deception”™ and “Appearing at your door four times every year”™ are Trademarks of Antinomy Magic. The Antinomy Half-Moon and star-field logo are
copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic. Contents copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic and the authors and creators presented here. All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or technological, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or
retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted in writing by the copyright owners. Submissions and subscriptions may be sent to: ANTINOMY, P.O. Box 39,
Allenton, MI 48002. More information is available online at www.antinomymagic.com

page 1
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective

The ÒItÕs hard to maintain perspectiveÓ perspective
So, we bring Year One to an on-time conclusion. Four issues of a Quarterly publication released within the span of a single year. A
personal goal achieved. If things have gone according to plan, you have also received your bonus CD-ROM Annual with this issue.
Well, if you’re a subscriber you’ve received it. If you’re not a subscriber, it’s only available at a premium price. It’s meant to be a
bonus to subscribers. If you’re not a subscriber, subscribe. It’s cheaper that way.

If you do subscribe, and your subscription began with Issue #1, you’ve also received your renewal notice with this issue. We’ve
included a “Gift Subscription” form too. Since this issue will arrive before the holidays, it seems an appropriate time to spread the
good cheer that is Antinomy.

The Opposite of “New Orleans Bound” is...

Gagged? As a bit of a news-junkie anyway (though down on conventional news broadcasts currently), I was riveted by the portrayal
of the chaos that besieged this city after Katrina struck. New Orleans has its share of magicians well-known to us. One of them
graces the pages of this magazine with his perspective on card magic. Jon Racherbaumer was one of many forced to evacuate
New Orleans, and while I have confirmed that he is well, as I write this, I am not sure if he will be contributing to these pages. If
there is an edition of “The Artful Ledger” here, you might as well know that it was the last thing put in place. If there is not one, then
I scrambled to replace it with additional content. Either way, I thank Jon for his efforts. We should hear even more from him in 2006.

The International Perspective

As I mentioned last issue, one of the satisfying things about pursuing this endeavor has been the support of the International
Community. This issue, I’m able to offer two contributions from two different people, both of whom live in Hong Kong. I’m sure you’ll
find these card items from Zenneth Kok and Tony Ko of interest. The most amazing part of getting contributions from people in dif-
ferent countries is how well they write in English. If I had to submit a contribution in a foreign language, we’d all be in trouble.

An Interesting question of Timing

Ah, well, when I received the submission, I was sure I’d seen a similar use of the theme, if not the method. It took me some time
and some research to convince myself that perhaps that remembrance was all just a false memory. I had just picked up Issue 3
from the printer, when the September issue of Genii arrived. Within it was a trick by Daryl that used the same thematic source mate-
rial as Norman Beck’s “Hotel Bills” from Issue 3 of Antinomy. I realized pretty quickly that it was Daryl I had seen perform the rou-
tine that had nagged at my ever dimming memory. This was confirmed for me by John West, who remembered seeing Daryl per-
form this at John Luka’s Motor City Close-up Convention (a very cool convention by the way, and you’ll see some of John Luka’s
work in these pages next year). On the plus side, the methods for the two tricks were very different, so the interesting timing of their
respective publications led to an opportunity to analyze the different ways people approach method. Given that I had Norman’s rou-
tine since before Issue 1 came out, it is still an odd coincidence...

A Life Lost
In what proved to be a coincidence I would have just as soon have avoided, shortly after he saw his “Celebrity Search” published in
Issue 3, Jack T. Koopmans passed away. His father contacted me, wanting me to know that Jack had been proud of his inclusion in
Antinomy. I had wanted to meet Jack, since he lived in Michigan as well. The other side of the state is not as far as the distance I
travel now wondering how that meeting would’ve gone. I had some ideas regarding Jack’s trick and wanted to discuss them with
him. Instead, I’ve published a variation of his trick in the Antinomy CD-ROM Annual. It’s dedicated to him. While it’s not my intention

page 2
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The ANTINOMY Perspective

to publish the milestones of magicians within these pages, as is done in the other magazines with broader circulations, I have cho-
sen to print an excerpt from Jack’s obituary here. It seems appropriate. I’ll also have a few more related comments in a swirl of
comments “In Closing” on the last page of this issue which, as I type this, I realize is the last page of the year for Antinomy. Jack
was 41 years old.

Jack Thomas Koopmans

Jack was a gentle, kind and caring person. He was an avid learner who took an intense interest in his family, genealogy,
Native American studies and archaeology. He was a member of the Michigan Archaeological Society (Coffinberry Chapter)
and the International Brotherhood of Magicians (Ring 211), and was recently awarded the order of Merlin for his long and
distinguished service. He had a life-long interest in magic, and was a master of sleight-of-hand and close-up magic, and was
considered a “magician’s magician.” he held a special reverence for his elders, and all people in their twilight years. Jack
loved children and animals, and they all loved him back. He had boundless curiosity and an art-spirit.
Excerpted from the Grand Rapids Press, 9-4-2005.

Appreciations
My thanks to all who have supported this endeavor, through contribution, contact, or compliment. Special thanks, of course, to
those who made a financial commitment by buying a subscription or an issue. Given the past track record of other similar publica-
tions, you’ve all had every reason not to believe your investment would bear fruit. Hopefully, with a year’s worth of issues arguing
for commitment, others will not hold a similar grudge. I look forward to continuing this publication in its second year, and continuing
the commitment I’ve made to it. Look for some changes, and more of the same. Issue 5 will be out by the middle of February.
Count on it.

In the meantime, enjoy Issue 4. I wish you all well.

Enjoy.

Gene Taylor
Editor & Publisher
ANTINOMY
October, 2005

page 3
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

A journal documenting the fringes of compelling card magic
Jon Racherbaumer

Photo: Erik Racherbaumer

Hobsonian Fringe Notes
Dedicated to Max Maven,
who revealed how much more there is to consider and think about…

Hobson’s Choice: the choice of taking either what is offered or nothing else; the absence of
choice. [after Thomas Hobson (1544-1631) of Cambridge, England, who rented horses and
gave people only one choice, that of the horse nearest the stable door]

Equivocation: to use equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge.

Equivoque: 1. An equivocal term; an ambiguous expression. 2. A play upon words; pun. 3. Double meaning; ambiguity.
Random House Dictionary

Equivoque: The interpretation of a spectator’s choice in a positive or negative fashion to execute a force.
- T. A. Waters, The Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians (1988), p. 122.

Equivoque or Magician’s Choice in its myriad of forms is considered a First Principle by

students of mentalism. What fascinates me is the elusiveness of the subject insofar as no
one has yet written a definitive, synoptic, and detailed magnum opus on the subject. It has
been extensively written about and most magicians understand how it works in specific
cases; however, trying to ferret out its emergent properties and then formulate laws, rules,
and a flexible procedural calculus in a systematic way has not been done. Phil Goldstein’s
Verbal Control, written almost 30 years ago, is one of the best short introductions to the
subject extant, and back then its author sagely said that it was “a treatise on the under-
explored art of equivoque.” Under-explored, indeed.
Being able to masterfully apply equivoque separates the men from the boys. The only masters I’ve seen in action are Max Maven,
David Berglas, Chan Canasta, Edward Marlo, Barrie Richardson, Bob Farmer, and Eugene Burger. Perhaps Maven, Farmer, or
Burger will write the definitive book on the subject? I hope so.

What we now have are hundreds of examples of applied equivoque. That is, we can read explanations of tricks that apply the princi-
ple, many in idiosyncratic ways. This is certainly a good way to get a sense of what a principle is, because result-driven magicians

page 4
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
prefer to know what a principle does and how strong these applications can be. Knowing this is satisfying enough.

This article is another brief foray of an under-explored technique, which is offered in hope that it further stimulates students to think
about what they are doing (or should be doing) when they are applying this powerful principle. Perhaps too it might prod one of the
Masters of Equivoque to finally write the magnum opus that deserves to be written?

Pronunciation Note: So, how is “equivoque” pronounced? When I first heard this word uttered by another magician, it was pro-
nounced “ee-quive-ah-kay.” Later, a stickler of pronunciation told me that it should be pronounced “eck-was-voke” or “ee-was-voke.”
Hobson would say, “Take your pick!”

Equivoque or Magician’s Choice uses techniques similar to those explored in my article “Winning Winnowing” in Issue #1 of
Antinomy. Therein I described a “pumping or fishing” technique of reduction and elimination. At work is the Elimination Principle
based on interrogation. Questions are asked. Equivoque does not use interrogation. It is another kind of verbal control (Max
Maven’s incisive term). Instead, the performer utters words to influence outcomes that are apparently the result of a spectator’s vol-
untary choices.

How exactly does this work?

Let’s say there are a large number of objects or “choices” on the table and you want the spectator to choose only one of them. The
process must then be gradual and piecemeal, using what Maven calls a “narrowing process.” 1

Unlike methods of “Think of a Card,” where the number of possible “choices” is clearly limited at the beginning, the number of
choices in Equivoque is not restricted. In other words, if a spectator is shown five different coins or ten different objects at the out-
set, that remains the actual number of possible choices. Nothing mealy-mouthed occurs. This is different from introducing a deck of
fifty-two cards, showing only 6-12 of them, and then saying, “Think of any card.” This is not the same as saying, “Think of any one
of these fifty-two cards.” In other words, if you had been precisely transparent, you would have said: “Think of one of these six-to-
twelve cards.”

RULES OF THE GAME

1. Equivoque is based on the carefully calculated words uttered by a performer interacting with a spectator’s understanding
and interpretation of those words. It is a rhetorical weapon.
2. Equivoque is a game where performers make the rules and spectators are apparently players.
3. Equivoque is a game where spectators make arbitrary choices that seem discriminating but lack categorical basis and
consequential merit. That is, choosers seldom know anything about what happens next with the things they chose or what
the real purpose of having made such choices will be.
4. Equivoque is a game of actions where spectators are the primary actors. Performers primarily talk.
5. Equivoque is a game where most of the spectator’s actions are impulsive and characterized or explained by the performer
after they are made.
6. Equivoque is a game where performers strategically equivocate and spectators decisively behave…or so it seems.
7. Equivoque, from a performer’s perspective, is a language game of utterances that begin as equivocations and end as
meaningful, clear-cut explanations.
8. Equivoque is a game where spectators are only in control of the inconsequential. What matters to him has little bearing on
the endgame.
9. Equivoque is a game spectators never win.

1 This can also be called “strategic elimination.”

page 5
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
To demonstrate the gaming dynamics of Equivoque here are basic examples of how it works with two objects, three objects, five
objects, and fifty-two objects.

TWO-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE
The simplest equivoque is an either-or proposition—as when two objects are in play and one object is to be chosen. 2

What follows is how the conventional Magician’s Choice is done:

Suppose the two objects in play are a copper and a silver coin and you want to force the copper coin. The spectator is asked to
pick up one of the coins. Notice that the spectator is not asked, “Choose one of the coins.” As soon as you utter a definitive word
such as “choose” you are bringing the notion of preference into play—namely the spectator’s preference. And once it’s clear that the
spectator has made such a preferred decision, this inclination cannot be easily repudiated or explained away. His choice has been
personalized almost to the point of becoming proprietary. David Berglas and Max Maven, both masters of equivoque, have both
cautioned against using the C-word. 3

Although the spectator makes a decision to pick up one of the coins, his decision is not based on any predetermined protocol. The
spectator does not precisely know why he is picking up a coin and he does not know what will happen next. Also, he does not know
if his decision has any specific purpose or consequence.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that any time the word “choose” is brought into play, it gives more weight to the very act of
choosing. The spectator is being asked to exercise discernment, which draws attention to the process itself. Therefore, if he choos-
es the silver coin, it implies that he is also rejecting the copper one (regardless of the legitimate reason). If this happens, you must
then have a cogent reason why you are using the coin he consciously or unconsciously rejected. This is why the P-word is better.
You are not asking the spectator to choose anything. Instead you are asking him to pick up a coin. This is a preliminary, neutral
action preceding a subsequent purpose. This provides “verbal wiggle-room” for you to logically frame your next, meaningful utter-
ance.

If the spectator fortuitously picks up the copper coin, you are set. Immediately say: “So, you chose the copper coin. Therefore, we’ll
use it.” Although the spectator’s action—the “pick up”— may have been whimsical and random, your follow-up utterance suggests
that it was an act of personal choice. Few spectators will reject this characterization.

If he picks up the undesirable silver coin, you logically say, “Hold onto that coin. That’s your coin. I’ll use the one you did not
want.”

By asking him to hold onto the coin he chose, you are implying that this coin is momentarily his property and responsibility. You are
simultaneously praising him, pointing out his discernment. The silver coin, although it’s the one you must force, in the spectator’s
mind it’s a rejected object of little or no importance.

The above procedure is superior to the obvious and transparent approaches used by many beginners who say, “Choose a coin.” If
the spectator picks the desired coin, their follow-up line is: “Good! We’ll use that coin.” If the desired coin is not chosen, their lame
follow-up is: “That leaves this coin, so we’ll use it.”

2 Incidentally, this is not the same as flipping a coin, because choosing one of two objects is volitional, determined by a spectator’s choice. It is not the result of
the random number of revolutions a coin makes while spinning in the air before it hits the ground.
3 David Britland, writing in The Mind & Magic of David Berglas (2002), discusses this in the explanation of “Magician’s Choice:” “At no time during the routine
does David ever use words like ‘choose,’ or ‘select.’” Max Maven, writing as Phil Goldstein in Verbal Control (1976) also says, “Observe that in all of the preced-
ing verbiage, the words ‘select,’ ‘choose,’ ‘pick out,’ etc. are never used—they are implied, with the less-specific word ‘attract.’”

page 6
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
THREE-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE
When the number of objects is increased from two to three, the ambiguous procedure used can be confusing to both the magician
and spectator. In the early days, one of the standard approaches was to place the three objects in a row, putting the force-object in
the center. The center position was considered psychologically attractive.

Suppose the three objects are playing cards and your force-card is the Ace of Hearts. Place the cards face down on the table in a
row with the force-card in the center.

Keeping the rule of not asking the spectator to choose a card, simply say: “Point to a card.” If the spectator points to the desired
center card, say, “Pick up the card you chose.” The act of pointing then becomes purposive when you verbally define that “pointing”
was actually “choosing.”

If the spectator points to one of the end cards, ask him to pick it up. Then tell him to point to another card. He will obviously point to
the force-card or the other end card.

If he points to the other end card, tell him to pick it up, as well. At this stage, no purpose has been announced. But as soon as you
see him picking up the other end card, leaving the desired center card on the table, immediately add, “…and place those two cards
aside, leaving one card on the table.”

If the second card pointed to is the desired force-card, tell him to pick it up. Again, no purpose has been announced. Tell him to
hold the two picked-up cards, one in his right hand; the other in his left. Notice which hand holds the force-card.

Ask, “Which card seems lighter?”

This rhetorical question should be taken as a joke; however, most spectators will indicate that one card is lighter than the other.
When this happens, ask him to raise the hand holding the lighter card an inch or two higher than the one he thinks is “heavier.”

If the “lighter” card is the force-card, say: “Lighter cards are more magical. You say that card is lighter. Therefore, we’ll use it.”

If the “lighter” card is not the force-card, say: “That card is too lightweight. Let’s use the heavy-weight card—the one with more
gravitas!”

MAVEN’S THREE BOOK PROCEDURE

Max Maven uses an effective procedure, using three books. 4

The books are placed in a row with the force-book in the center.

The spectator is asked to pick up two of them. Depending on which two are picked up, Maven explains three possible scenarios.

First Scenario: The two end books are picked up. (Maven writes: “For some psychological reason, this happens more than 50 per-
cent of the time.”) Take these books and put them aside. Pick up the isolated book and say, “You have chosen to use this one.”
Read the book’s title. Again, the purpose comes in after the fact. The action implicitly was about eliminating the two end books.

4 This is explained in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Magic Tricks (1999), pp. 247-248.

page 7
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
Second Scenario: An end book and the force-book are picked up. As soon as you see this occur, immediately continue talking:
“…hand one of those books to me.” The continuity of your patter connects the two requests together as though it was a dual action.

Third Scenario: The ambiguity continues. If he hands you the force-book, say: “You handed me _______. Is there any reason you
chose this one?” If he hands you the end-book, put aside next to the other one and say, “You have chosen to hold onto _______.”

To all procedures of equivoque I would add two important bits of advice from David Berglas: (1) Act casual and disinterested in the
various choices the spectator makes. (2) Emphasize the last decision or choice.

The two previous procedures are accomplished with the objects pre-positioned in a row. Consider the next approach, which Edward
Marlo applied to a version of “The Classic Pellet Trick.” In this instance the objects are pellets that are mixed and rolled onto the
table (like dice). The impression of randomness is vivid.

MARLO’S THREE-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE

This effect, which is explained elsewhere in this article, requires that one of the pellets be forced. This pellet can be visually distin-
guished from the other two pellets. This is how the equivoque works:

The three rolled-up pellets are dropped into a transparent glass. The performer asks the spectator to shake the glass and then roll
out the pellets onto the table.

Next, the spectator is asked to pick up one of the pellets. If he picks the force-pellet—game, set, match. Now you can characterize
picking up this pellet as being a personal choice. The spectator is asked to pick up the two remaining pellets and drop them back
into the glass.

If the spectator picks up any other pellet, quickly add, “Toss it into the glass!” Continue without hesitation: “Pick up another pellet
and toss it into the glass, as well.”

If the other unwanted pellet is picked up, the force-pellet is on the table. Tell the spectator to replace the two picked-up pellets back
into the glass. Say, “We’ll use the pellet that you isolated.”

If the second pellet picked up is the force-pellet, tell the spectator to replace both pellets into the glass and put aside the one
remaining pellet. Say, “Now shake the glass and roll out those two pellets.”

With two pellets rolled onto the table, one being the force-pellet, again say: “Pick up one of the pellets!”

If he picks up the unwanted pellet, immediately add, “Toss it into the glass.” Then toss in the pellet previously laid aside. This obvi-
ously leaves the force-pellet isolated on the table.

If he picks up the force-pellet, simply say: “Very well. Let’s dispose of these.” Pick up the pellet laid aside, plus the remaining pellet
on the table, and toss both into the glass.

This procedure nicely mutes the ambiguities and flows in a logical, direct way.

page 8
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
FIVE-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE
Max Maven
What follows is merely a bare-bones description of Maven’s procedure for dealing with five objects. Students should study Max’s
detailed handling to appreciate the psychological aspects and strategies he applies to ensure that the situation is controlled at every
point and will achieve the desired outcome. Maven’s 8-page treatise, Verbal Control, is pithy yet exhaustive—“must” reading for
any diligent student of this “under-explored” technique.

Max points out that the objects may be coins, books, business cards, miniature liquor bottles, bank envelopes, keys—you name it.
His initial presentation uses five coins of different denominations. Also, Max begins by writing down a prediction. Again, what you
are about to read does not include the all-important psychological aspects. Nevertheless, the basic elimination procedure is work-
able in its most basic, stripped down form.

The coins—a penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and half-dollar—are placed on the table in a row. Max predicts the quarter. In fact, that is
all he writes on the prediction paper—QUARTER. He positions the quarter fourth from the left. There are four scenarios.

Max sets the stage by implying that coins will be eliminated. Then he addresses the spectator by saying that he “needs” a coin.
Then he tells the spectator to relax. Then he says, “I want you to reach out with your left hand and touch a coin.” Again, he does
not say anything about “picking,” “selecting,” “choosing” or exercising discernment. He only asks that the spectator touch a coin.

First Scenario: If he touches the quarter—game over!

If he touches a different coin, he proceeds without hesitation to the Second Scenario.

Second Scenario: Maintaining verbal continuity he tells the spectator to pick up the touched coin. Then he asks the spectator to
pick up another coin with his right hand. Again, these two actions are not yet clearly purposeful; they are preliminary, ambiguous
actions.

He asks the spectator to carefully weigh the coins in his hands.

If the second coin picked up is the quarter, the game is almost over.
He says, “We need only one coin, so hand me one.

If he hands you the quarter, game over. However, your patter is finally purposeful: “This is the one you decided to give me!”

If he hands you the other coin, it is immediately tabled as you clarify what the spectator supposedly did: “You eliminated that
coin…(pointing to the quarter) that is the coin you elected to keep!” Game over.

If the spectator did not pick up the quarter with his right hand, you proceed to the third scenario.

Third Scenario: Since neither of the two coins in the spectator’s hands is the quarter, the performer says, “I told you that coins
would be eliminated. Put those two coins aside.”

Next, the performer tells the spectator to perform a specific action, namely: “This is important. I want you to extend your left forefin-
ger and push one of the tabled coins forward.”

If he pushes the quarter forward, the performer immediately picks it up and clarifies the purpose of the action: “This coin. You sepa-
rated this coin from the others.” The other two coins, like the first two, are “discards” meant to be eliminated. Game over.

page 9
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
If the coin pushed forward is not the quarter, proceed to the Fourth Scenario.

Fourth Scenario: The performer sweeps the pushed coin away, saying: “Good. There are two coins left. The next decision is the
most important one of all. Pick up the two coins. One is mine. Hand one to me.” If the quarter is handed over, game over. If the
other coin is handed to you, game over, as well, because that coin is defined as a “discard” to be eliminated.

Again, keep in mind that Max’s entire presentation is more subtle that what was just described. Only key salient patter lines and
actions were included. Nevertheless, it provides a general sense of Max’s clever and calculated approach. I also hope that it pro-
vides incentive to read and study Verbal Control.

SMITH’S 52-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE

Chuck Smith devised an elimination strategy to force one of the Black Deuces in a unique effect aptly titled, “Imagination.” The only
prop is a photograph; the rest is verbal control. Smith’s particular elimination strategy is an excellent example of repeatedly using
Magician’s Choice and can be applied to other effects. As Smith says, “One is able to perform a bit of spellbinding witchery with
almost nothing but words?”

I’m not going to explain Smith’s routine here because the purpose of this article is to show specific
instances of Equivoque. However, if you are interested in Smith’s routine, obtain his first-rate lecture
notes titled: What If (1994).

The interesting thing about Smith’s effect is that the selection process is completely mental. There are no objects physically in play.
An actual deck of playing cards is not used *. The cards are imagined by the spectator. In fact, Smith suggests that “all magic is cre-
ated by our imagination.”

Here is the procedure:

Smith sets the stage by creating certain mental images in the spectator’s mind. He conjures up a vivid, imaginary setting and these
images are the spectator’s images; however, Smith methodically induces the spectator to create a specific scenario and the ultimate
objective is to gradually force one of the black Deuces.

This is done by asking the spectator to imagine himself seated at a table with three objects: a box, a burning candle, and a deck of
playing cards. Notice that he is also inducing the spectator to mentally objectify himself. Although the imagined deck of cards plays
a key role in what happens, in the spectator’s mind the deck is only one of three objects, and each object carries equal weight. It’s
likely that the spectator assumes that each object will play a role in the entire imaginary process—a process he believes is con-
trolled by him.

Smith’s perceived role (outside of the spectator’s consciousness) is relatively passive and restrained. He seems to be a guide, set-
ting the mental staging area and explaining certain ground rules. Otherwise nothing seems forced or contrived.

Before he begins the drama, he cautions the spectator that “anything dropped into the box can never be retrieved again and will be
gone forever.” He even emphatically warns, “Please don’t accidentally drop your watch or ring in it. You won’t get either of them

* Editor’s Note: Other related verbal procedures to steer someone towards naming a specific card include “Fired Up” in Ken Krenzel's Ingenuities (Stephen
Minch, 1997), inspired by Larry Becker and Kenton Knepper’s “Kolossal Killer,” and “A Process of Elimination” in Trickery Treats (J.K. Hartman, 1999).

page 10
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
back.” These remarks serve to create tension and focus. In short, Smith is encouraging the spectator to pay attention to what he is
doing. It’s his show and he will be responsible for what happens. It may be Smith’s “game,” but the spectator is the one “playing” it.

Smith next prompts the spectator to start behaving in his imaginary setting. He says: “I want you to hold your hand above the burn-
ing candle. Can you feel the heat? Don’t hold it too close, I can’t be responsible if you burn yourself.” More caution; more focus.
Continuing, he says, “Pick up the pack of playing cards. They are well-mixed, but you may wish to give them a quick shuffle.”

Smith now has the spectator in a mental state where he can begin the gradual elimination process. In fact, he calls it that, saying:
“Now, you are going to eliminate all of these cards except one.” However, he emphasizes that the process is completely voluntary,
that in each case, the spectator will have a completely free choice.

Since this is a verbal process, this is what Smith says:

“Imagine that you are picking up some of the cards and dropping them into the box. Fine, now, in your imagination, what cards do
you see? Court cards or number cards? The choice is yours.”

Notice that he does not begin with the usual red-black choice. There are twelve court cards and forty number cards. The spectator
will choose one of the groups, but he does not know what will happen next with the group he chooses. This is an essential aspect
of equivoque. The spectator makes choices by identifying and choosing certain things, but does not usually have a choice regard-
ing what happens with the thing or things chosen. In other words, before he makes an apparently discriminating choice, he does
not know any of the possible contingencies surrounding his choice. The only thing that is emphasized [by the performer] is the free-
dom of being able to choose what is kept and what is eliminated. Once the decision is made, it’s the performer’s task to preserve
the illusion of “free will” and make the process appear consistent, logical, and non-manipulative.

In Smith’s routine, if the spectator chooses the Court cards, he says: “Watch the cards as they fall into the box, first the Jacks, one
by one, then the Queens, and finally the Kings. Next, pick up the rest of the deck and separate the red cards from the black cards.”

If the spectator chooses the Number cards, he says nothing about the box or “falling cards.” Instead he says, “Fine. As you look at
the number cards, separate the red cards from the black cards.”

Notice that the spectator is mentally separating the colors but he is not asked to choose red or black. Also, because you must force
him to choose red, you must handle this in a cogent but indirect way. Smith does this by having the spectator imagine another per-
son. He asks the spectator to imagine that a friend is sitting across from him. Then he asks the spectator to hand his friend the two
packets of separated colors.

Then he adds, “Your friend puts the packets behind his back and then hands you one of them; however, you don’t know whether he
has given you the red or the black cards. Check them now. Did he give you the red or the black?”

If the spectator indicates that he was given the red ones, without hesitation, add: “Good job. Watch these red cards fall into the box
one at a time. Now take the remaining black cards from your friend and separate the Spades and Clubs so that you have two pack-
ets.”

If the spectator indicates that he was given the black ones, without hesitation, add: “Separate the Spades and Clubs so that you
have two packets.”

Permit the spectator to imaginatively perform the action and then resume your patter: “Now drop either the Spade cards or the Club
cards slowly into the box. Which ones are you dropping into the box?”

Again, permit the spectator to imaginatively perform the action and then resume your patter: “Which group are you holding, Spades

page 11
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
or Clubs?”

When the spectator replies, say: “Your friend starts to leave, but he pauses to whisper something in your ear. It is a single word that
only you can hear. The word is either ‘even’ or ‘odd.’ Which word are you hearing?”

If the spectator indicates ODD, immediately add: “As your friend goes out the door, you slowly remove all of the odd cards and drop
them into the box.”

If the spectator indicates EVEN, immediately add: “As your friend goes out the door, slowly deal the even numbered cards face up
in a row in front of you. Then drop the rest of the cards into the box. When you finish doing that, arrange the even-numbered cards
in order into a fan. You should be seeing a Two, Four, Six, Eight and Ten of _______(name the correct suit). You have them fanned
out in your hand. Slowly reach over and remove two of the higher number cards and drop them into the box. You are left with
what?”

The spectator will call out the Two, Four and Six of Spades or Clubs.

All that remains is to force the black Deuce.

Say, “In your imagination, place the three cards face down and mix them until you cannot tell which ones are where. Pick up one of
them and without looking at it tear it into tiny bits. Make the bits as small as snowflakes. Hold these tiny pieces very tightly in your
left fist.”

Wait for the spectator to do this and then ask, “Which two cards are left on the table?”

If he names the Deuce as one of the two cards, continue by saying:

“Fine! Now I want you to hold your tightly clenched fist over the box until you begin to feel a strange and irresistible force. Then
slowly forcing your hand open, very slowly…and notice the tiny bits are falling like flakes of snow into the box.”

If he names the two indifferent cards, you know that he has torn the Two to bits. Therefore, proceed as follows:

“Fine! Drop both of them into the box. Now I want you to hold your tightly clenched fist over the box until you begin to feel a strange
and irresistible force. Then slowly forcing your hand open, very slowly…and notice the tiny bits are falling like flakes of snow into the
box…”

(If you are adept at using the power of suggestion and the spectator is a good subject, his hand will begin to open ostensibly
against his will. This will be impressive at this point.)

Continue: “…and, as the magician magically restores paper napkins, the card appears whole again! The spectator will be imagining
that he is holding a black Deuce. The force is complete.

Suppose that the spectator left the Two on the table with an indifferent card and you had him drop pieces of an indifferent card into
the box. Proceed as follows:

“I want you to very slowly pick up one of the cards and hold it over the
burning candle. Gaze at it as it slowly turns to ash. Which card remains?”

If he names the Deuce, have him pick it up and hold it in his hand. The force is complete.

page 12
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
If he names the last indifferent card as being the remaining card, proceed as follows:

“I want you to drop that last card into the box. Pick up the ashes of the card you watched go up in flames (Deuce). Suddenly, like
the legendary Phoenix, that card reforms itself from the ashes. Hold it in your hand and be amazed.” The force is complete.

Afterthoughts:

This explanation reads long, but it covers all contingencies. In actual practice, the procedure moves quickly and smoothly to the
final selection and seems quite logical.

MARLO’S PELLET CLASSIC

There are many versions of the classic Pellet effect, but Marlo’s approach is different.

Effect: A spectator names any number and then thoroughly shuffles the deck. The performer tears off three squares of paper or
uses three cigarette papers. They are placed on the table and the performer takes back the shuffled deck. He ribbon spreads it face
down on the table.

Three cards are freely selected and placed aside. The deck is scooped up and placed aside. The performer hands the spectator a
pen or pencil and tells him to look at the first card and write its name on one of the three slips. The performer turns his back. When
the spectator is finished writing, he is told to crumple up the paper into a small pellet and place it onto the card that bears its name.

This procedure is repeated with the other two cards and papers. When the performer turns around, he does not touch the pellets.
Instead he gently lifts each card and its pellet and dumps the pellet into a glass or cup. Afterwards, each card is buried into different
parts of the deck.

The spectator shakes the glass like a dice cup, rolls out the three pellets, and chooses one. Next, the number previously chosen is
recalled. The spectator takes the deck and deals down to the card at that number, placing it aside. The spectator opens his pellet
and reads the name of the card written on it. When the tabled card is turned face up, it matches the name written on the pellet.

Requirements: (1) A deck of cards; (2)a pen or pencil; (3) Some cigarette papers; (4) A coffee cup or transparent glass.

Method: The paper, which is torn into three square pieces about two and a half inches should be soft paper. As mentioned earlier,
white cigarette papers work well for this effect.

When all the props are at hand, give the deck to the spectator to shuffle and casually ask him to call out a number. If he calls out a
number under 26, you are okay. If he calls out a number over 26, explain that you do not want one too large because it draws out
the trick. If this happens, suggest that he call out a number from 10 to 25. If he names a small number—say, under 7—explain that
you don’t want this to be too easy. Have him call out a number from 10 to 25.

Suppose he names 15. Tell him to keep this number in mind while shuffling the deck.

After the deck is shuffled to the spectator’s satisfaction, take it from him and ribbon-spread it face down in front of him. Ask him to
remove three cards without looking at them. When they are out of the deck, introduce the pieces of paper and place one in front of
each face-down selection.

Scoop up the deck and hold it face down in a left-hand dealing position while you give the spectator the following instructions:

page 13
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
Tell him he is to look at the first card on your left, note its name, and then replace this card face down. Next, he is to write the name
of this card on one of the pieces of paper, crumple the paper into a ball, and then place it onto the card. Once he understands the
instructions, tell him to wait until you turn your back so that you cannot see what he writes.

When you turn your back, press both elbows against the sides of your body and move only your hands as you quickly crimp the
bottom card of the deck at the lower left corner. Next, quickly thumb over from the top of the deck a number of cards one less than
the called-out number. In this case, the number was 15; therefore, thumb over 14 cards and place them on the bottom of the deck
below the crimp.

Eventually ask the spectator if he has completed his task. When he affirms, turn around and say, “Let’s see if everything was done
correctly.” Look at the card with the pellet on it and add, “Very good. Now I want you to do exactly the same thing with the other two
cards by writing the name of the card on the paper, crumpling it up, and putting the crumpled up paper onto each of the cards.”

As you utter this patter, leave the deck face down on the table as your right hand gestures towards the other two remaining cards
and papers.

This time when you turn your back, keep it turned until the spectator finishes noting, writing, and placing of the two pellets on each
card. When he finishes, turn around and face him. There should be three face-down cards with pellets on their backs (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

When you turn around, scrutinize the three pellets. Each pellet will be formed differently—each individually shaped. Sometimes one
is conspicuously different from the others. It may have an extra lump or piece sticking out (Fig. 2, a close-up view. Note that this
example has two tails as indicated by the arrows).

Marlo preferred to select the pellet that was not easiest to distinguish. Regardless, you must be able to distinguish this pellet
from the other two.

Suppose that the “marked” pellet is on the back of the second or central card. Pick up the first card with your right hand by its inner
right corner, thumb on top and first and second fingers underneath. Gently balance the pellet that lies on the back of this card (Fig.
3).

Dump the pellet into the glass or cup. Make this action look very fair and at no time try to glimpse the card. Insert this card into the
top third of the deck and then push it in flush and square.

Pick up the center card with the “marked” pellet on it. Dump this pellet into the glass and then place the card on top of the deck. Cut
at the crimp, placing the 14 cards onto the card just placed on top. You have apparently “buried” the second card in the center of

page 14
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Artful Ledger
the deck. Actually, this card is now 15th from the top or at the number originally called out by the spectator.

Pick up the third card and its pellet. Dump this pellet into the glass and insert this card somewhere in the lower third of the deck.
Push it in flush and square with the deck.

Next perform MARLO’S THREE-OBJECT EQUIVOQUE to force the marked pellet.

Have the spectator take the force-pellet and place it in front of him. Have him pick up the deck and hold it in a left-hand dealing
position. Ask him to call out the number (15) that he called out earlier.

Have him deal down to the fifteenth card and then place it aside. The spectator finally opens the pellet and reads the name of the
card written on it. When the tabled card is turned face up, it matches the name written on the pellet.

Marlo also described an alternative method which does require noting any differences in the pellets. All you do is glimpse one of the
three cards when you dump the pellets into the glass. Then the glimpsed card is the one cut into the deck so that it lies at a posi-
tion equal to the number called out at the outset.

Have the spectator discard any two pellets by tossing them into the glass. The remaining pellet is left on the table. Hand the deck to
the spectator to count down to the named number and place it aside. During this action, pick up the tabled pellet and casually open
it yourself. Glance at it and miscall it, naming the card you know the spectator placed aside.

Have the spectator turn over the card as you crumple the paper into a pellet again. Toss it into the glass with the other two. Later, if
they wish to check the pellets, they can.

Also, if the way the spectator formed the pellets is fairly uniform, you can ostensibly pick up each one to further shape them. In
reality, you misshape one of them in a subtle way so that you can later recognize it. You can also at times pick up two pellets and
misshape them, leaving the third one alone.

page 15
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

A Little Lie
A lesson in bluffing or a test of a relationship
Stephen Bargatze

Perception
The spectator selects a card and so does the magician. The magician places their card to the table. The spectator returns their
selection to the deck, making sure that the card is not on the top or the bottom. They then place the deck face up on the table. The
magician explains that they should name another card and using the face card of the deck as an example, explains how if the
named card is only a little different from the selected card, it’s a little lie. But he tells the spectator that they can lie a little or a lot.
It’s up to them. Once they name the new card, the magician finds their original card. To cap it all off, the magician’s selected card,
lying on the table the entire time, is shown to be the named card.

Deception
You will need:
• A normal deck of cards.
• One duplicate card. In the explanation, a duplicate Queen of Spades is used.

Setup the deck so that both of the duplicate Queens are on top of the deck (Fig. 1). Bring out the deck and cut it, positioning the
Queens so that one of them can be forced. Stephen uses a Classic Force. You have a tiny bit more freedom than usual using a
Classic Force, since the spectator can take either one of the Queens. Regardless of which Queen the spectator takes, leave the
other in place and square the deck up.

Explain that you’re going to make a selection too. Turn the deck over and spread through it so that only you can see the faces.
When you reach the other Queen, bend its lower right corner outward slightly using the fingers of the right hand (Fig. 2). This crimp
ensures that a move later in the routine
will work smoothly. Take this card away
with the right hand, carrying half the
deck as well, and lay the card face
down on the table (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4,
next page). Bring the halves of the
deck back together and reassemble the
deck. Hand the deck to the spectator
and have them return their card,
instructing them to make sure their
card is not on the top or the bottom of
the deck. Once they have completed
this, have them put the deck face up on
the table. Fig. 1 Fig. 2

page 16
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

You now explain to them that they’re

going to name another card and it
should be different from the one they
selected. They can choose to name a
card that is close in value to their
selected card, or one that is very differ-
ent from their selected card. You use
the face card of the deck to explain
what you mean. The specifics of this
procedure depend on which patter
presentation you use. Both are pre-
sented later for your review.
Fig. 3 Fig. 4

The spectator names a card. You pick

up and spread through the deck, and
as you do you cull the named card to
the rear (top) of the deck. You then go
back through the deck and upjog the
Queen of Spades and another card
(Fig. 5). As you do this, you explain
that you think you understand the
degree to which they have lied about
their card and that one of these cards
is their selected card.
Fig. 5 Fig. 6
Close the spread and leave the two
cards upjogged (Fig. 6). Offer the two
cards to them in the position shown in
Fig. 7. Ask them to touch the one they
think is their card. If they touch the cor-
rect card, remove it with your right hand
and push the other back into the deck.
If they touch the wrong card, you will
push it back into the deck while offering
the line included as part of both presen-
tations.

In either case, you’re holding the deck Fig. 7 Fig. 8

in your left hand and their selection
face down in your right hand. Ask them to name their selection and turn over the right hand card to show the match (Fig. 8).

As they react, top change the Queen for the named card on the top of the deck (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 next page). Pause, and then
comment about the card you selected. Take the card in your right hand and insert it under the card on the table (the duplicate
Queen of Spades). This is where the crimp you placed in the tabled card earlier comes into play. Pretend to flip the tabled card
over, but in reality execute a Mexican Turnover to switch the cards, showing that the card you originally selected is the one they
named (Fig. 11 through Fig. 15 next page).

page 17
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Top Change sequence The Presentations

Stephen doesn’t claim a lot of originali-
ty for the mechanics of this routine,
though he did work out the handling on
his own. What he does offer, though, is
two different patter approaches
depending on the people he is perform-
ing the trick for. Antinomy doesn’t usu-
ally stress the story or the words to be
spoken during an effect, as I believe
that each individual should work out
these details on their own. Typically, I
will sketch out what needs to be said at
various moments during the description
Fig. 9 Fig. 10
of a trick, but I won’t get into actually
scripting out the presentation. I’m mak-
ing an exception here because the idea
of having two presentations for the
same mechanics is a strong one. Plus,
Stephen’s patter is entertaining in both
Mexican Turnover sequence cases. I should mention, however, that
Stephen’s personality is heavily
involved in making these scripts work.
There are moments that could put peo-
ple off that have to be counter-balanced
by the right personality. So, for any indi-
vidual, there is still work to do here. But
Stephen has certainly provided a good
starting point.

For both presentations, the script starts

at the point where the selections have
been made and the deck lies face up
Fig. 11 Fig. 12 on the table.

Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15

page 18
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Presentation #1: Bluffing at Poker

Do you play Poker?

You can tell by your clothes that you didn’t win.
In Poker, you do something called “Bluffing.”
It’s lying, but you don’t go to hell.
It’s part of the game.
No, it is. Try it when you get up there. Just do it.
Just say “Hey, I was just bluffin’.”
See if you get away with that one.
But anyway, here’s what happened.
I’m not bluffing. This is my card here (pointing at the tabled card).
You said this is not yours (pointing at the face card of the deck) and I’m taking your word for it
I want you to tell me your card, but you’re gonna bluff.
Just like they do in Poker.
You’re not gonna tell me the truth.
So, for example if your card was [the face card of the deck] and you told me it was [the same value, same color as
the face card of the deck], that would be an itty-bitty lie.
If you said it was [the same value, different color as the face card of the deck], you’d be bluffin’ a little more.
If you said it was [a different value, but the same suit], there would still be some truth in it.
But if you said is was [a completely different value and a different suit], that would be a Big Lie.
So name a card.
(Wait for their response)
I think there’s some truth in that. It was a card.
(Offer the two cards, extending from the deck, to them)
I think your card is one of these and I want you to use your intuition to try and touch your card.
If they are wrong:
Is that the same intuition you had when you bought that shirt? I wish I’d been with you.
Push the wrong card back into the deck and take out the Queen.
If they are right:
Well that’s some pretty good intuition. What was your card?
Push the wrong card back into the deck and take out the Queen.
Top Change the Queen and perform the Mexican Turnover to show the card you selected was the one they lied
about.

page 19
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Presentation #2: For a Married Couple

Have the female select the card and not tell the male what it is.
How long have you guys been married?
Did he always look like that?
He’s going to find your card.
He can’t find socks, can he? You help him, don’t you?
Put them in a little drawer for him.
Sir, I want you to make your mind go blank. That’s good.
Name a card.
Here’s what that says. It tells me you two are not compatible. Really. Because if he says a black card, I think…
You make specific comments based on how close he is to the Queen of Spades.
If he says its not close to the value, then it’s big lie. If it’s close, it’s a teeny lie. The comments will vary depending
on what he says and the situation.
I think your card is one of these and I want you to use your intuition to try and touch your card.
If they are wrong:
Is that the same intuition you had when you bought that shirt? I wish I’d been with you.
(Push the wrong card back into the deck and take out the Queen)
If they are right:
Well that’s some pretty good intuition. What was your card?
(Push the wrong card back into the deck and take out the Queen)
Top Change the Queen and perform the Mexican Turnover to show the card you selected was the one they lied
about.
Look at my card. (Said to the man) Maybe you and me should go out some time. I’m free next Tuesday night.

The ANTINOMY Perspective

This is a straight-forward effect and Stephen gets a lot of mileage from just three sleights: an Under the Spread Control, a Top
Change, and the Mexican Turnover. In routines of this type, it is important that the spectator remember their selection, as well as
the card they lie about. Stephen’s patter serves to reinforce both of these key facts. I’ll stress again that it is Stephen’s low-key,
humorous personality that makes the patter work. The wrong delivery of certain lines can create antagonism instead of humor. This
is especially true of the script for the married couple. You’re poking fun at the man’s looks and his inability to find his socks. Hard to
believe, I know, but some men might not take too kindly to these kinds of comments.

page 20
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Touchstones and Crossroads

Stephen cites the influence of a routine he saw Jon Racherbaumer do that involved a similar procedure and prediction of a named
card. He claims that Jon muffed the conclusion of the effect, but with Stephen, it’s sometimes hard to tell when he’s joking.
Regardless, afterwards he found a deck of cards and worked out this routine. I can only assume that he saw Jon perform one of
the tricks cited below from The Hierophant or one fo the earlier Marlo versions (mentioned in The Hierophant). It seems all tricks of
this type have their origin in “The Three of Clubs” trick from Greater Magic. It uses both the duplicate card and Mexican Turnover as
the tools to accomplish the prediction. However, what differentiates Stephen’s trick in terms of procedure is his forcing of one of the
duplicate cards as an initial selection.

R. W. Hull – “The Three of Clubs,” from the Card Clairvoyance section of Greater Magic, 1938. Written by John Northern Hilliard
R. W. Hull – “A Mental Card Mystery,” Eye Openers, 1932 Written by R. W. Hull
This version is the same effect as “The Three of Clubs” but is done with a borrowed deck.
Edward Marlo – “The 3C Revisited,” Hugard’s Magic Monthly, Vol. 21, No. 2, Oct. 1963.
Edward Marlo – “The Blue Thought,” The New Tops, March 1964.
Edward Marlo – “Siamese Strangers,” The New Tops, Nov. 1964.
Edward Marlo – “Another Visit, Methods One through Seven,” The Legendary Hierophant (1969 - 1982), 1998. Written by Jon
Racherbaumer

page 21
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Flash Coins Re-Lit

Three coins burst into view and then melt away to somewhere else
Eric Jones

Perception
After introducing a lighter and a small purse, the magician dumps out several small wads of paper from the purse. With the assis-
tance of the spectator, the lighter is used to set fire to each bit of paper. Each one bursts into flame when lit, and a coin is magically
produced each time. The magician proceeds to cause each coin to vanish using the heat of the lighter. At the conclusion of the rou-
tine, all three coins are found in the coin purse.

Deception
You will need the props shown in Fig. 1:
• Three half dollars.
• A half-dollar sized flipper coin.
• A matching shell.
• A coin purse.
• Four pieces of Flash Paper, each rolled into a small ball.
• A lighter.

To setup, place the three normal half dollars in the coin purse, but fanned out so they
take up the width of the purse (Fig. 2). On top of these, place the four small wads of
flash paper (Fig. 3). Place this purse in your right pants pocket. Place the Shell on the
Flipper Coin, with the flipper gimmick facing out of the shell. This coin setup, along with
the lighter, goes in your left pants pocket. Arrange the Flipper Coin/Shell combo so that
the shell will be against the left hand Fig. 1
fingers when finger-palmed.

To begin, reach both hands into their

respective pants pockets. Finger palm
the Flipper Coin/Shell and remove the
lighter with your left hand. Remove
the purse with your right hand. Hand
the lighter to the spectator. Pinch the
coins in the purse from below with
your right fingers and thumb, so they
don’t clink against each other, and
open the purse with your left hand. If Fig. 2 Fig. 3
you don’t open the purse too far, you
can show the spectator the small balls of paper that rest inside it (Fig. 3). Do this and then dump the pieces of paper to the table.
Close the purse and set it to the table. Keep the coins within it under control with your right hand the entire time so they don’t “talk.”

page 22
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The first coin appears

Instruct the spectator to light the lighter while you pick up one of the balls of paper with your right hand. With the lighter lit, set the
flash paper ball on fire and then quickly toss it towards your left hand. The left hand opens as the flame arrives and quickly disap-
pears to show the coin resting on the left hand fingers (Fig. 4, sans flame).

Pick up the coin from the left hand fingers with your right hand. The right hand is palm down and the first finger and thumb grip the
coin by the portion of the flipper coin that does not open up (Fig. 5). Familiarity with your flipper coin should tell you which portion of
the coin this is even if you might not be able to easily see the cuts in your coin. Display this coin by repositioning the coin so the
flipper side of the combo faces the audience. To do this, rotate the inner edge of the coin so it points up. The back of the right hand
fingers will face the audience as well during the brief display. Show your other hand empty, casually, as well (Fig. 6).

Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

You will now quickly return the coin to the left hand fingers, but as you do you will open up the flipper coin and position the open
“flap” so it is hidden between your left hand fingers. To do this, turn the flipper coin side of the gimmick down by rotating its upper
edge towards the audience. The flipper coin should open up. Do this as your right hand carries the coin towards your left hand. The
left hand turns so the left fingers shield the coin from view at the front side. Open up a gap between your left second and third fin-
gers (Fig. 7). Place the open flap into this gap and rest the remaining portion of the flipper coin on the left hand fingers (two views
Fig. 8, Fig. 9). Again, all this happens fairly quickly and smoothly. It closely mimics the actual actions you would use to place a solid
coin onto your left hand fingers.

Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9

page 23
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The second coin appears

Pick up another ball of paper with your right hand fingers and repeat the same lighting
and throwing sequence as for the first coin. To cause the second coin to appear, you drop
your left hand quickly two or three inches. Because you have a firm grip on the flipper
coin, with its flap pinched between your fingers, the shell should dislodge from the flipper
coin during this drop and then land on the flipper coin (Fig. 10). Because of the grip, and
the positioning of the coins, the sound of the shell landing on the flipper is not as “tinny”
as it sometimes is. With the added distraction of the flash, the sound provides auditory
confirmation that the coin has suddenly appeared. Experiment with the dropping of the
hand as a shorter drop will produce a tinnier sound than a slightly deeper drop of the
hand.

Reach over to take the coins with your right hand (Fig. 11). The right hand is again turned Fig. 10
palm down to do this. As it comes down onto the coins, the shell coin is positioned so that
it can be finger palmed by the right hand second and third fingers (Fig. 12). The right thumb digs under the flipper coin, opening it
outward as the right hand comes away with both the shell and the flipper coin (Fig. 13). In a continuing action, the right thumb
slides the flipper coin, still open, towards the right hand fingertips. The shell coin is retained in finger palm (Fig. 14). The left hand
takes the open flipper coin and displays it as the two coins that have been produced so far (Fig. 15). The flipper coin is positioned
in the left hand so the shell portion is the lowermost coin.

Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13

Fig. 14 Fig. 15

page 24
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The third coin is produced

Pick up another piece of paper
between the right hand index finger
and thumb. Approach the lighter with it
and as soon as it is lit, make an
upward throwing motion with the hand
while simultaneously pushing the shell
coin into view with the right thumb (Fig.
16). Display the coin at the right hand
fingertips (Fig. 17).

The coins vanish

Fig. 16 Fig. 17
Place the shell as the upper coin of a
three coin fan held at the left hand fin-
gertips (Fig. 18). The shell is placed so
that its lower half is behind the top half
of the open flap of the flipper coin (Fig.
19). To cause the first coin to vanish,
pretend to take the upper coin of the
(supposed) three coin fan with the right
hand fingers (Fig. 20). As you do this,
slide the shell coin behind the open
flipper using the left thumb (Fig. 21).
Move the closed right hand fingers,
supposedly holding the coin, over the
flame. Wave them gently back and
forth a few times and then open them
Fig. 18 Fig. 19
to show the coin has vanished (Fig.
22).

Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22

page 25
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Fig. 23a Fig. 23b Fig. 23c Fig. 23d

Fig. 23e Fig. 23f Fig. 23g Fig. 23h

Reach with the right hand towards the left and take the open flipper behind the right hand
fingers. At the same time, slide the shell deeper behind the left hand fingers. Both coins
are briefly hidden (sequence shown Fig. 23a - Fig 23c). Close the flipper behind the right
hand fingers by briefly clipping its outer edge between the first and second fingers of the
right hand (Fig. 23d). This allows you to move the right thumb out from between the open
flap and shell portions of the flipper. You can slide it out and then directly grip the inner
edge of the open portion with your right hand (Fig. 23d & Fig 23e). This allows you the
control to close it silently (complete in Fig. 23f). Continue moving your thumb, digging it
under the coin and flipping it up and pushing it to the right hand fingertips. During this last
sequence, move the left hand fingers briefly behind the right hand fingers and pretend to
take one of the coins (Fig. 23g). Instead, slide the shell from behind the left fingers and
Fig. 24
come away with it. Display both coins, one in each hand by pointing them downward
(magician’s view Fig. 23h, audience view Fig. 24). While the individual steps of this
sequence are broken out, in performance it flows together and doesn’t take longer than the real action of taking the two coins and
displaying them would take.

Position both coins in a two coin fan at the left hand fingertips with the closed flipper coin as the upper (and inner) coin of the fan.
Pretend to take this coin with the right hand fingers but actually slide it into the shell using the left thumb. Again wave the right hand
fingers over the lighter and show the coin has vanished. This is the same false take and vanish shown in Fig. 20 through Fig. 22.
Eric sometimes performs an alternative one-handed sequence here, causing the coin to visually melt away while actually sliding it
into the shell silently.

page 26
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Display the last coin on the open left

hand fingers (Fig. 25). It should be
placed shell side down. Pick up the last
paper ball with the right hand fingers. The flash paper is tossed
Light it and toss it towards the left towards the coin...
At the same time, the coin is
hand. At the same time as the right tossed to the right hand fingers.
hand tossing motion is made, the left
hand fingers gently and quickly toss the
coin to the waiting right hand fingers
(Fig. 26). The left hand does not travel
far, but it travels quickly. The hands are
fairly close together at the moment the
Fig. 25 Fig. 26
coin travels. The flash hides the move-
ment of the coin and by the time the
flash is gone, the coin appears gone as well. The coin is tossed so it lands flat. Practice is required in order to minimize the sound
the coins will make as they land together.

You can briefly classic palm this coin, and/or perform an acquittment sequence to show both hands empty, but the coin should end
up in right hand finger palm. Retrieve the lighter and put it into the right hand pocket, ditching the palmed coin in the process.
Comment that the coins haven’t really vanished, “they’ve traveled,” and have the spectator open the coin purse to show that they’ve
arrived.

The ANTINOMY Perspective

Since this routine uses Flash Paper, the first thing I want to say is USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK! Antinomy Magic disavows all
responsibility when it comes to this stuff.

Now that that’s out of the way, let me say that this is a satisfying and visual routine. Eric has applied some newer coin “technology”
to a routine of Chad Long’s that involved brute force sleight of hand. In Chad’s routine, the only requirement was to classic palm
three or four half dollars, and then gently release them one at a time so you could toss them into your other hand under the cover
of the Flash Paper going off. Easy. Not.

While Eric’s innovative production for the second coin, taking advantage of the Flipper Coin construction and the shell coin, is inter-
esting, I’m not sure the tone the shell makes when it clinks against the flipper is sonically OK. However, there are ways to deaden
the shell so that this is less of a problem and I think the technique is definitely worth exploring.

Touchstones and Crossroads

Of course, Eric credits the Chad Long routine as the original inspiration, but he also mentions a discussion with David Neighbors in
which David described his own use of a shell coin in a version of Flash Coins. Eric also credits the work of Troy Hooser and Garrett
Thomas in relation to the Flipper Coin. He came up with the Clip Placement with the Flipper Coin (as used for the second coin pro-
duction) on his own, but afterward learned a similar technique was described in a trick called “Double Deception,” using a magnetic
Flipper. It is reminiscent of a two coin technique employed by John Carney, referenced below. John cites Dai Vernon as the source
of the ideas behind the technique. Eric believes the use of the expanded shell to produce a coin along with the Clip Placement is
his own.

Chad Long – “Flash Coins,” Chad Long’s Magic Video, Quickshot Productions Inc., 1997.
Jay Sankey – Two-Way Toss (a move), The Very Best of Jay Sankey, Vol. 3, DVD, 2002.
John Carney – “Half Dollars in the Mist,” Carneycopia, 1991. Written by Stephen Minch

page 27
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Gaffed Card Corner

The Gizmo Box

A common object is transformed into a devious utility device
Max Nelson

Perception
A sealed prediction is offered to one spectator, who is instructed to tuck it away. A second spectator takes a deck of cards, shuffles
them until they are satisfied, and then sets the deck on the table and cuts them to choose a card. The card case is placed on top of
the deck, protecting the selected card, while the magician summarizes what has just transpired. The magician then lifts the card
case from the deck and slides the top card of the deck forward. When the prediction is read, it matches the selected card exactly.

Deception
In this first guest contribution to “The Gaffed Card Corner,” Max has provided an interest-
ing utility device. While the description of the effect provided is definitely possible, the
box, once made up, will no doubt stir your imagination and lead to many possibilities. So,
on with a description of the construction.

You will need:

• Scotch-brand packing tape.
• A pair of scissors or an X-acto knife and cutting mat.
• Rubber Cement or other adhesive.
• A regular card case.
• A matching front panel cut out from a second card case. If you use a Bicycle case,
this is the side with the word “Bicycle” on its front.
• A card whose back matches the deck that will be used.
Fig. 1
This assortment of items is shown in Fig. 1.

To begin, attach the extra front panel along the left-hand side of the same side of the reg-
ular card case. It is attached along the upper side edge of the case, not down along the
side. Use a piece of the packing tape. This will form a durable and re-usable hinge. The
white outline in Fig. 2 shows the size of the hinge area (where the tape is attached). You
may want to pre-crease this section of tape down its center so the flap will lay flat.
Breaking in the flap once constructed serves the same purpose. Once attached, this
assembly creates a flap or false front to the card case that is used to hide the predicted
card.

Fig. 2

page 28
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Gaffed Card Corner
Take the extra card whose back matches the deck that will be used and glue it to the inside surface of the flap you have just creat-
ed (Fig. 3). The back of this card should be facing you. This card plays the part of the top card of the deck when The Gizmo Box is
used.

Once this card is in place, trim away the small corner of the card case flap that protrudes from the upper left corner behind the card
when the flap is opened. Fig. 4 shows the area that should be removed. If you’re overly concerned that someone might notice, you
can trim away both the upper and lower left corners, but Max doesn’t do this since the upper corner is the more visible of the two.

You can now load in the force card. Position it so its back faces the same way as the extra card you’ve glued on the flap (Fig. 5).
With the card in place, close the flap. The case can now be displayed from any side and it looks completely normal.

For the routine described, once the deck is cut to arrive at a selection on top of the deck, you place the Gizmo Box on top of it.
Then, to reveal the selection, you grab the sides of the case and lift up slightly (Fig. 6). Slide the Gizmo Box just a bit to the right as
you insert your left first finger into the gap to slide the “selected” card forward towards the spectator (Fig. 7). The brave at heart can
have the spectator perform the step, but good timing of the lifting and removing of the selection aids the illusion, so it might be bet-
ter if you do it. You’re not hiding anything anyway, right?

As the card is slid out, close the Gizmo Box back onto the deck and then slide it backward away from the deck. If there is anything
at all to see as far as the Gizmo Box (and there really isn’t), all eyes will be drawn to the forward motion of the card being slid for-
ward.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5

Fig. 6 Fig. 7

page 29
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Gaffed Card Corner
All that remains is to reveal the success of the prediction.

For those industrious and over-achieving crafty-types, you can consider constructing the
Double-flap model of the Gizmo Box shown if Fig. 8. This carries two loads for those
routines requiring an instant repeat. You’ll notice that in this model, Max has used a
face-up card as the cover card for one flap. It’s easy to envisage a routine where the
deck might lay face up with a card isolated away from the deck. This card would be the
same value as a face up card loaded into the Gizmo Box. By placing this card face up
onto the face up deck, and then placing the loaded Gizmo Box on top of it all, a dupli-
cate of the card could be switched in. Or perhaps, the switched in duplicate might have
a different back. You can see the many paths the Gizmo Box can you lead you down.

Fig. 8 Enjoy the exploration.

The ANTINOMY Perspective

I was enamored with the deviousness of the Gizmo Box right away. I’ve mined similar territory in terms of gaffing a card case. I tend
to believe there’s a lot of unexplored territory in bringing this seemingly innocent and completely accepted object (by the spectator)
to our aid. Some of those ideas may yet see light in a future edition of the “The Gaffed Card Corner.”

When Max submitted the routine, he stressed the versatility of the gimmicked Gizmo Box, referring to a Han Ping Ching type move
that allows you to switch in a card as one of many alternatives. He has also recently added a modification to the Gizmo Box where
he has cut out a small window over the index corner of the deck. This is a fairly standard mentalist’s modification to a card case, but
the flap of the Gizmo Box will cover this window quite naturally. It’s a simple matter to open the flap and glimpse the identity of the
face card of the deck inside the box. He calls this (what else?) the “Super Gizmo Box.”

I should mention that the photos Max submitted along with his write-up were of such good quality that I chose to use them in this
write-up rather than shoot new ones. Thanks, Max.

Touchstones and Crossroads

Max was directly influenced by two other gaffed card cases he found in the magic literature. He was so inspired by them that he
made up examples of each and photos of them are presented here. I think it’s probably worth mentioning the similar territory cov-
ered in the many gaffs that merge a surface from a card case onto the opposite side of a card. This serves to camouflage the card
on the case so it can be added to a deck or taken away from the deck. A good source of references for these kinds of gaffs is the
write-up on the “BoxCard GAFF” in Gaffed to the Hilt. This mentions the work of Brother John Hamman, Paul Harris, Bernard Bilis,
Robert McDaniel, Tom Craven, Don England, in addition to Edward Marlo.

“Card Case Revisited,” The Close-Up Magic of Frank Garcia, Part II, 1982. Written by Frank Garcia
“The Miller Card Case,” More Card Manipulations No. 3, 1940. Written by Jean Hugard
Edward Marlo – “BoxCard GAFF,” Don England’s Gaffed to the Hilt!, 1985 and 1993. Written by Jon Racherbaumer

page 30
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Gaffed Card Corner
Inspirations for The
Gizmo Box
The first example is from Close-Up
Magic, Part 2 by Frank Garcia. It is
described in the effect “Card Case
Revisited.” For this gaffed card case, a
simple slit is made in a regular case.
This is used to hold an extra card that
can be added in or loaded onto the
deck (Fig. 9). Fig. 9 Fig. 10

The second example is “The Miller Card Case” from More Card Manipulations No. 3 by Jean Hugard. In this version, a pocket is
constructed to hold the extra card (Fig. 10).

page 31
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The M & M Trick

or ÒMagic and MentalismÓ
Dr. Giorgio Tarchini

Perception
The magician brings out a bag of M & M candies along with six cards, each bearing the image of a different colored M & M. The
spectator is asked to assist in a game of E.S.P. She freely selects one of the cards. The magician opens the bag of candies and
explains that the game consists of trying to pull an M & M that matches the color of the card from the bag without looking. The
magician tries and fails, pulling out an M & M whose color does not match the selected card. The spectator tries and succeeds. Not
only that, but the magician pours the M & M’s from the bag and shows they have all changed to the matching color.

Deception
You will need:
• Six medium-sized bags of M & M candies. Giorgio recommends Peanut M & M’s since
they are larger and more visual. The bag shown is the 5.3 oz. size (Fig. 1).
• 11 blank-faced playing cards.
• A small transparent bowl.
• 1 black Sharpie marker and 5 colored Sharpies (Green, Yellow, Orange, Red, and
Brown, matching the colors of the M & M’s). Required only for preparation.
• Double-stick scotch tape. Required only for preparation.

You have to prepare the cards using the Sharpie markers to create six that show a red M
& M and five that show the non-red M & M’s. This can be as simple as using the black
Sharpie to draw a round-ish shape on each card and then filling in the circle with the
appropriate color. With a little more work, you can achieve a fairly accurate representation
Fig. 1
of an M & M. For the cards shown, a graphics program was used to create an M & M
shape. The same software was used to create the required color variations. These were
printed out, cut out, and stuck on the cards. You can choose the amount of trouble you
wish to go to. In Fig. 2, the row of six cards are each red, while the row of five show the
other colors (you’ll have to take my word for this given it’s a black and white photo).

Once you have the cards, pair five of the red cards with the non-red cards and adhere
them facedown to the back of each non-red card using double-stick tape. The tape should
first be attached to the backs of the five multi-colored cards. Giorgio favors using the
Removable Double Stick tape and corresponding technique to attach it recommended by
David Regal. Once you have the cards prepared in this way, stack them so that the non-
red pairs (each hiding a red card) are on top of the remaining red card. When you spread
the cards face up, only six different colors will be seen.
Fig. 2

page 32
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

You also have to prepare the M & M

bag. Open all six bags discreetly. You
will leave them so that the spectator
won’t know the one in play has been
opened. Giorgio recommends making a
slit under the flap that runs vertically
down the center of the back of the bags
(Fig. 3), removing the contents of each,
and then resealing the bags using dou-
ble stick scotch tape. During the routine,
he points out that this style bag cannot
be easily opened from the ends by
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
pulling the sides apart (as one might
open a bag of potato chips). In fact, the
bag is quite difficult to open and I would recommend a small pair of scissors nearby to
assist with the opening during the routine.

When you have the bags open, take the M & M’s out and group them into piles of like col-
ors. Set five yellow M & M’s aside, along with one other of any other color. Load each of
the remaining color groups back into a bag and reseal it. This creates six bags, each con-
taining a single color of M & M. Mark the bags subtly for future reference to indicate the
color and pair each with one of the individual M & M’s you set aside earlier. The non-yel-
low M & M is paired with the bag containing all yellow. This creates six “force bags” for
use in future performances of the trick. However, to use different colors, you would also
have to prepare five additional sets of cards, each set forcing a different color. For now,
take the bag containing the red M & M’s and set the others aside. Place it in the bowl Fig. 5
(Fig. 4). Place the spare yellow M & M in you right pocket and the set of cards in your left pocket.

To begin the trick, set the bowl down and take the bag out of it, setting it beside the bowl. Bring out the six cards and ask the spec-
tator to participate in the game of E.S.P. Show the cards and explain the rules of the game (Fig. 5). They are to randomly select
one the colored cards.

As you explain, shuffle the cards in an overhand shuffle. Retain the bottom card by “milking” it off as you begin the shuffle (Fig. 6).
Repeat as you see fit and
then hold the cards in left
hand dealing position.
Obtain a break above the
bottom card (Fig. 7) and
spread the cards face
down, asking the specta-
tor to touch one (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

page 33
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Break the spread at the touched card (Fig. 9), removing the
cards above it with your left hand and insert them into the
break above the bottom card as you square up (Fig. 10).
Spread the top card off, twisting it slightly in the process to
break the grip of the adhesive, and set it face down in front of
the spectator. Cut the packet of cards and give it a gentle
squeeze as you set it on the table in front of you.

Ask the spectator to turn their card face up. As they do this,
retrieve the yellow M & M from your pocket and conceal it in a Fig. 9 Fig. 10
right hand finger palm. You can now spread the packet face up,
emphasizing that all of the other colors are different. If you’re willing to give this spread up, the action of going to your pocket to
retrieve the yellow M & M might be better motivated by simply taking the packet to your pocket and coming out with the M & M.
After all, you fairly displayed all the different colors to start. I leave the choice to you.

Continue to explain the game by telling the spectator that they are going to try to pick an
M & M of their selected color from a new full bag of M & M’s without looking. Pick up the
bag as you offer to demonstrate. Try to pull one end open and then the other using the
technique described earlier. This won’t work easily. This is a subtle way to reinforce the
bag being really sealed without having to comment on it. Once you’ve done this, tear one
end open or use a pair of scissors to cut it open.

Hold the bag up high enough that you can’t see into it and reach in, pulling out the previ-
ously concealed M & M (Fig. 14). Explain that you’ve failed but that maybe they’ll have
better luck. Offer the bag to them, again positioning it high enough that they can’t see
inside of it. They will reach in and pull out a red M & M. Express your pleasure at their
success and ask them, “Do you think that was Magic or E.S.P.?”
Fig. 14

If they answer that it was magic, explain that “No, it was E.S.P. This is Magic.” Snap your fingers above the bag and then dump the
contents into the bowl, showing that all the M & M’s have turned into the selected color. If they answer that it was E.S.P., say,
“Maybe it was, but this is Magic” and conclude the trick in the same way.

The ANTINOMY Perspective

I like that this trick isn’t a card trick or a coin trick. Well, okay, it’s kind of a card trick and it will only appeal to magician’s who don’t
mind their playing cards acting as something other than playing cards. Still, the fact that it uses a candy treat gives it an immediate
appeal to the spectator, especially those with a craving for chocolate. I also think that it can play, and play well as described.
However, I feel that having the M & M’s all match the selected color at the end can speak directly to method for the spectator. I also
feel there is a lot of preparation to go through in order to perform this trick more than once. Of course, once you have the six sets of
cards, you can store each of them with the corresponding bag of M & M’s and the individual contrasting M & M. Then, by pulling out
the entire set, you can be sure they all match.

I think as far as preparation, you’d be better off doing one of two things. Either buy a quantity of M & M’s that are all the same color.
Various online candy shops offer this option. Or, prepare the bags as described, but use six different cards only. That is, don’t attach
a force card to each. Under this scenario, you could offer a genuinely free choice of the card and then produce (or switch in?) the
corresponding bag.

page 34
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

At the end of the trick, wouldn’t it be better if all of the remaining M & M’s matched your selection, not theirs? This would certainly
ratchet up the impossibility of the selection. Or maybe it would be better if they were a different candy altogether, or even ball bear-
ings? In pondering possibilities, I came up with a different spin on the ending. Maybe you’ll be inspired in a similar direction by visit-
ing http://www.mms.com.

But all these comments point out what I like best about this routine: It made me think.

Touchstones and Crossroads

It’s hard to know what to reference for this routine. Should I scour the literature for Magic with Candy? For Mentalism with Candy?
For tricks that use playing cards with something other than playing cards on their faces? Should I mention “Color Monte?” I’ve
decided to mention nothing. If anyone knows of a routine with an obvious connection, pass it on.

page 35
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The Impromptusible Twist

Impromptu meets Impossible and a Twist becomes a Slide
Tony Ko

Perception
The magician displays four face-up Eights. Then, while re-counting them, one of them turns face down. The magician re-organizes
the cards so they can be held in one hand with each card visible. As he shakes his hand, each card turns over magically so its back
faces the audience. Once they have all turned over, they are shown to have turned into the four Aces.

Deception
Tony Ko has taken a commercial rou-
tine, Zenneth’s “Impossible Twist,” and
given us the ability to perform it with
cards taken from any deck. This routine
is published with the permission of
Zenneth Kok, the creator of “Impossible
Twist.”

To begin, you will need the two black

Eights, Spades and Clubs, and one red
Eight. The choice of which red Eight to
use is yours, but it will be seen twice in Fig. 1 Fig. 2
a face up Elmsley count so it might be
best to use Diamonds. You will also need the four Aces. Before the trick begins, turn the
four Aces face down and arrange the Eights so that one of the black Eights and the red
Eight are face up on top of the face down Aces with the red Eight on top. Place the
remaining black Eight face up on the bottom of the packet so it is beneath the Aces. This
arrangement is shown from both sides in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

The trick begins with an Elmsley count to casually display the four Eights. It should be
noted that you can use whatever contrasting (and supposed) four of a kind you prefer.
Court cards could be substituted. Using Eights allows you to weave in the common ploy
of the word “Eights” being confused for “Ace” when the cards are revealed to have
changed to Aces. When you perform the Elmsley, the final card goes to the top of the
packet. Fig. 3

Buckle the bottom card of the packet slightly with the left first finger in order to pick up a right thumb break above this card (Fig. 3).
Do this as you carry the packet forward with your right hand in Biddle Grip, executing a squaring action. Return the packet into the
left hand and drag the top face card, the red Eight, into the left hand as you pull the remainder of the packet to the right. As you do
this, retain the thumb break with the right hand.

page 36
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Return to the left hand again, placing the packet on top of the card already there. This
time you will pull off the next card and the bottom card as well (Fig. 4). To do this, place
the left pinky on the right hand side of the bottom card at the lower right corner of the
packet. The pinky pulls the bottom card along as the left thumb again pulls the top card
on top of all. Allow these two cards to fall squarely onto the card in the left hand. No
break is held.

Again, move the packet forward with the right hand. Move it far enough so that the left
second finger tip can engage the bottom card at the outer side of the right corner (Fig. 5).
Pulling down on this card with the fingertip should allow you to again take a right thumb
break above the bottom card of the right hand packet.
Fig. 4
Move the packet back into position to resume the count. The bottom card is again taken
at the same time as the top card, but the technique is slightly
different. This time, allow the left pinky to come under the bot-
tom card at its lower right corner. The pinky will hold a break
between this card and those already in the left hand. Use the
left third finger to pull the card along as the left thumb slides
the top card onto the others. You are left with a face down card
in the right hand (really two cards) and a left pinky break being
held under the top two cards in the left hand (Fig. 6).
Comment that one of the Eights has turned face down.

You now reposition the cards so they are held in a spread dis-
play by the right hand. Fig. 5 Fig. 6
Take the card (really two
cards) in the right hand
and place it onto the two
cards above your left
pinky break. Position it
so that it is squared with
these cards at the short
ends, but so the index of
the face up card is clear-
ly visible. Lift these two
Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9
(really four) cards up
slightly away from the others in the left hand (Fig. 7). As you lift these cards away, buckle the bottom card of the left hand packet so
you can obtain another left pinky break. Come pack down with the right hand cards and grip the next two cards (as one), positioned
to the left of the others. Again, the index of the face up card should be clearly visible. Finally, grip the last single card in the left
hand in the same way. The cards are in a horizontal spread, squared at the outer and inner ends, with the three face up Eights
clearly visible (Fig. 8).

Briefly grip the spread with the left thumb, clamping it down and pressing with your left fingers below to hold the spread so none of
the cards move. This allows you to reach under the spread with the right hand and grip it with the right hand palm up (Fig. 9). The
right thumb is at the side closest to you and the fingers grip the side away from you. The right first finger is not used and should be
free to move while the remaining fingers hold the spread. Swing the spread around and position it so that your right thumb is down
and the backs of your right fingers face up. The three Eights should be facing your audience.

page 37
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The cards have been arranged in such a way that the hid-
den cards can act as “shutters” that move in and hide the
visible cards. The illusion is that the visible cards turn over,
when in reality, they are covered by the other cards. All that
remains is to use the right first finger to move the cards. The
first card that is moved is the one visible to you on the left
hand side. By moving the right first finger to the left edge of
the two cards, it is possible to pull back on the hidden card
enough that the finger can contact only this card. It is Fig. 10 Fig. 11
pushed smoothly to the right while the right hand gently
shakes the display (starting in Fig. 10, in progress Fig. 11). Once the right finger tip hits the next card in the spread, you stop
pushing. Because of the position of the spread and the cards, the hidden card that comes into view will align perfectly with the
card it now hides (audience view, Fig. 12). Zenneth uses a different move to prepare for the sliding action, but since it is part of his
commercially available routine, I will not describe it here. For a different idea on how to make this technique more accessible, refer
to “The Antinomy Perspective” that follows.

Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14

Rather than move down the row of cards, left to right, Tony next causes the card furthest to the right to turn over (Fig. 13). The
technique is repeated one final time on the face card of what has become a three card block in the second position from the left to
cause the last card to turn over (Fig. 14).

Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18

page 38
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The cards are repositioned slightly now to prepare for the final change of them to Aces. Move the left hand in so that the left thumb
is behind the cards and the left fingers are in front. The left thumb should contact the middle card of the three backs visible to you
(Fig. 15, previous page). While still holding the spread with the right hand, the thumb moves this card so that it is aligned with the
left most back visible to you (i.e. the card in the second position from the left, Fig. 16, previous page). The same sliding action is
performed with the card at the rightmost end of the spread (Fig. 17, previous page). Again, the card is lined up with the other two
(Fig. 18, previous page). Once this has happened, briefly take the spread with the left hand and gesture with the right hand.

Re-grip the spread in the same position as before, but this time orient it in the right hand so that the former right end of the spread
points down and the left end points up. The left hand approaches the right hand and is positioned under the cards so that both
hands are in a position similar to that used for an Overhand Shuffle (Fig. 19). The left thumb peels the lowermost card out of the
spread and into the left hand (Fig. 20). It returns to peel the next, lowermost, card out as well (Fig. 21). Now, the right packet is
turned so that the end that was pointing up points toward the left hand. The right thumb will rotate away from you. Both hands will
naturally move back towards the front of your torso to accommodate the slightly awkward position of the right hand. In this position,
the left thumb peels off the top card onto the others it holds (Fig. 22). As it does so, use your right forefinger to give the remaining
cards a quick squeeze in case any are out of alignment. The packet remaining in your right hand is turned back clockwise so the

Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22

right thumb points again towards you (Fig. 23). The cards are then deposited onto the other cards in
the left hand.

All that remains is to announce the change. Flip the packet face up into the left hand and proceed
with a buckle count to display the four Aces. Push the first Ace into the right hand fingers, followed
by the second one underneath, spread slightly to the left. Buckle the bottom card of those remaining
in the left hand and take those above it with the right hand underneath the other two. You can, alter-
natively, push the block towards the right hand with the left thumb and take it into the right hand.
Conclude the count by snapping the remaining left hand Ace face up and placing it on top of the oth-
ers in the right hand. When you square the packet, the three Eights will be face down at the bottom.
Fig. 23
You can place all the cards on top of the face down deck to dispose of these or cop them out as you
see fit.

page 39
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective

All recent, visual Twisting-type routines, of course, pay homage to the original Vernon idea. But they are more directly inspired by
Guy Hollingworth’s “Waving the Aces.” His “up and out” technique is hard to beat, but the sliding panel approach as utilized by
Zenneth and Tony is an alternative that is worth exploring. The same sliding technique, but with a vertical row of cards is offered in
the marketed routine “The Mexican Revolution.” Of course, that routine also offers an extra, special something that we won’t go into
here.

I should stress that Tony is friends with Zenneth and they were both happy to be included in the same issue of Antinomy. I thank
them for their contributions.

The trickiest part of this trick to get the knack of is the ability to engage a single card and slide it with the forefinger smoothly and
cleanly. While learning the routine for this write-up, I came up with a technique to help engage the card that might be more accessi-
ble. To try it, get the same group of cards together, but position them in this order:
• Face Down red Eight
• Face Up Ace of Clubs
• Face Up Ace of Hearts
• Face Up Ace of Spades
• Face Down Ace of Diamonds
• Two Black Eights, Face Up

With the cards in this order (shown front and back, Fig. 24 and Fig. 25), square them up and give them a strong convex bend. That
is, squeeze the ends down and allow the middle to rise towards your palm (Fig. 26). Now, take the Aces out and arrange them in
CHaSeD order. Flip the Aces face down as a group and setup the routine by placing the cards in the order originally described, with
the face down Aces between the Eights.

Fig. 24 Fig. 24 Fig. 26

Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30

page 40
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

With this bit of preparation, once the cards are arranged in the sliding-panel position, a slight pressure between your fingers and
thumb will open up a gap between the inner and outer cards. This allows your first finger to more easily engage the necessary card
and slide it into position. The approximate actual gap size is shown in Fig. 27 (previous page). You don’t need a very large gap in
order to engage the card. An exaggerated view of the gap that can be created is shown in Fig. 28 through Fig. 30 (previous page).
Once you’re familiar with the advantage this preparation provides, you’ll have to play with how much bend to put in the cards. Too
much and it hampers the other phases of the routine, too little and it doesn’t help with the sliding technique.

Touchstones and Crossroads

Dai Vernon – “Twisting the Aces,” Dai Vernon’s More Inner Secrets of Card Magic
Guy Hollingworth – “Waving the Aces,” Drawing Room Deceptions, 1999. Written by Guy Hollingworth
Larry Jennings – The Optical Toss, from “Synchronicity,” The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings, 1986. Written by Mike Maxwell
Fenik – “The Mexican Revolution,” a marketed routine, MagicLab, 2003.

page 41
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

FSO Transpo
A four-for-one transposition with some heavy lifting required
Zenneth Kok

Perception
The magician positions a Four of Hearts face up on the top of the deck and the Four Aces face up in the middle of the deck. He
causes them to magically change places several times. For the final transposition, the single Four is set aside on the table and the
Aces are held in one hand. Suddenly, they visually transpose with the Four Aces now on the table and the single Four of Hearts in
the hand.

Deception
The FSO name, supplied by Zenneth, stands for Face-up, Simultaneous, and Off-Balance
and emphasizes the one for four nature of the transpositions. In particular, it refers to the
final transposition as it is away from the deck and the most visual of all the transpositions.
To perform the routine, you will need:
• Two identical double-faced cards. To help further emphasize the one-for-four aspect of
the trick, it makes sense to use an Ace/Four double facer. Zenneth recommends using
an AS/4H. This is available in a standard double-faced deck.
• A normal deck of cards.

Remove the actual Ace of Spades and Four of Hearts from the deck and insert the two Fig. 1
double-face cards into the deck with different sides showing. You’re ready to begin.

Bring out the deck and spread through it face up, removing the Four Aces (three aces plus
one double-facer) and the single Four of Hearts (the other double-facer) (Fig. 1). For con-
venience later in the routine, and to emphasize the contrasting colors for the transposition,
position the Ace of Spades as the face card of the four aces. Alternate colors if you wish.
Place the Four of Hearts face up on top of the deck and the Four Aces face up in the mid-
dle of the deck (Fig. 2). As you close the spread, obtain a left pinky break above the Aces.

Fig. 2
Transposition #1
Perform a Classic Pass to cause the Four of Hearts and the Aces to transpose. Spread the
deck to show the result (Fig. 3). As you square up, obtain another pinky break above the
Four of Hearts.

Fig. 3
page 42
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Transposition #2
Perform Steve Draun’s “Midnight Shift” to reverse the situation. For a full description of this pass, you are referred to the original
source mentioned in the credits at the end of this routine. This variation of the Herrmann Pass has a different concluding motion

Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7

than other approaches. Any standard turnover pass that you are familiar with can be substituted to gain familiarity with the rou-
tine, but Draun’s version is preferred for its more deceptive covering motion with both the deck and the hand turning in space at
the conclusion of the action.

Without going into detail, pull the bottom packet down and bring it up along side the upper packet, as you would for any
Herrmann-style pass. The position you arrive at is shown in Fig. 4 (an exposed view of the orientation of the packets is shown in
Fig. 5). As the packets close onto one another, the hands move up and to the left, with the outer end of the deck ending up point-
ing upward. An attempt to illustrate the direction of the rotation is shown in Fig. 6. The concluding position is shown in Fig. 7.

Once concluded, again

spread the deck to show
the condition and again
obtain a break above the
group of aces as you close
the spread.

Transposition
#3 and #4
Perform a Top Card Cover
Pass to bring the group of Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10
aces immediately below
the Four of Hearts
(sequence Fig. 8 - Fig.
10). Reposition the deck in
the right hand and perform
a One Hand Top Palm as
you shake the deck from
side-to-side (before Fig.
11, after Fig. 12, exposed
Fig. 13). This appears to
Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13
openly cause the Four to
again change places with the Aces.

page 43
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

Set the deck back in the

left hand, retaining the
palmed card and then re-
deposit the card back on
the deck as your right
hand is waved over the
deck (sequence Fig. 14 -
Fig. 16). This again
apparently causes the
cards to transpose. You Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16
must then perform anoth-
er Top Card Cover Pass to actually bring the cards into their supposed positions.

The Final Transposition

Spread through the deck and upjog the top card and the Four Aces (Fig. 17). Remove them from
the deck. Only the five cards are used in the final phase, so set the deck aside. Place the Four of
Hearts onto the table positioned slightly to your right. Spread the Four Aces and, if it is not already
in the correct position, place the Ace of Spades onto the face of this group. If you feel the need, you
can orchestrate displaying the backs of these cards as well, but it is not required. As you close the
spread, obtain a break beneath the Ace of Spades (Fig. 18) and Half-Pass the three cards below it
Fig. 17
(Fig. 19). In a continuing
motion, you move these
three cards into a right
hand Classic Palm. There
are a variety of tech-
niques. Here’s one. As
you complete the Half-
Pass, retain a right thumb
break between these
cards and the Ace of
Spades at the inner left Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20
corner of the packet (clos-
est to the base of the left
thumb). This assures
ample cover as the left
pinky makes contact with
the inner right corner of
the three card packet and
pivots it into the right
hand palm position (Fig.
20, exposed view Fig. 21,
completed Fig. 22).
Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23
You can hold this position
briefly, but the next sequence must happen fairly quickly and very smoothly. The right hand comes away with the three palmed
cards and moves to the tabled Four of Hearts (Fig. 23).

page 44
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

It places these cards

directly on top of the Four
of Hearts as the left hand
prepares to perform a
Vernon “Through the Fist
Flourish” (Fig. 24). The
right hand turns its group
of cards over as the left
hand complete the flour-
ish (Fig. 25). This is the Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26
simultaneous part of the
FSO Transpo. To complete the sequence, toss the four cards from your right hand to the table and display the Four of Hearts as
well (Fig. 26).

The ANTINOMY Perspective

As Zenneth pointed out in the write-up he submitted to me, the initial phases of this routine are simply build-up for the final phase.
But this final phase requires some build-up as it won’t stand well on its own. It is this final phase that is the heart of the routine. It is
sudden, visual, and pleasing. Even working in slow-motion to capture the photos for this routine, my wife was taken off guard by the
final phase. It wasn’t until I revealed the double-faced cards in play that it started to make sense to her. Try it.

Touchstones and Crossroads

The initial phases of this routine, where the Four and the Aces transpose within the deck owes its origin to the work of Dr. Daley.
The only routine with a similar climax that I’m aware of is one by Darwin Ortiz. Darwin has two versions of this effect and cites the
influence of a trick by Tom Mullica called “Fourthright” as his inspiration.

Dr. Jacob Daley – “The Cavorting Aces,” Stars of Magic, 1961.

Tom Mullica – “Fourthright,” Best of Friends Vol. 2, 1985. Written by Harry Lorayne
Darwin Ortiz – “Slick Aces,” Darwin Ortiz at the Card Table, 1988. Written by Darwin Ortiz
Darwin Ortiz – “Four to One,” Cardshark, 1995. Written by Darwin Ortiz
Steve Draun – “The Midnight Shift,” Secrets Draun from Underground, 1993. Written by Richard Kaufman

page 45
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar

Jamy Ian Swiss

Photo: Virginia Lee Hunter

The Last Layman
Once upon a time there was a layman named Jack.

Jack enjoyed magic. He didn’t know how magic tricks worked,

and didn’t feel that he needed to know. He supposed that if
anyone ever showed him the workings of a magic trick, he’d probably watch and listen; it’s not like he
would run away. After all, he had a brain, and he wasn’t afraid to use it. But somehow that opportunity
had never crossed his path, and so he was pleased to simply enjoy magic on the occasions, now and
then, when it would come along and he would have the chance to experience it. He wasn’t a magic afi-
cionado, he was barely even a fan. The world was full of many wonderful things, and magic, when it
came along, was one of its countless rare treats. He was vaguely aware of the fact that he enjoyed
seeing the inviolable laws of the cosmos occasionally upended, but he never thought much about it oth-
erwise, and surely not about how or even why magic worked.

***
But elsewhere in the world, many people were thinking about that very subject. Magic stores were eager to sell their wares.
Whereas once upon a time these salons of secrecy had been hidden away at the tops of office buildings, far from prying eyes, now
magic stores were often little more than a counter in a costume shop, selling timeless mysteries side-by-side with goofy joke teeth
and hideous fake wounds. Or magic shops were stand-alone kiosks in airports, where you could sate your magic craving with a
quick trick-purchase while running between connecting flights. Or magic shops were faux-fancy establishments in expensive hotel
malls, with impressive old books on display that were only for decoration – not for selling, and certainly not for reading – while slick
demonstrators pitched overpriced mysteries to moneyed tourists.

The Internet, that great leveler of information, provided plenty of secrets. The secret to the single greatest trick of the most ambi-
tious magician of his time could be found on a site of patents (except, well, it’s not really his trick – but that, as they say, is another
story).

But the Internet provided much more than just secrets. It provided discussion, criticism, exchange of ideas. It provided answers to
questions. Questions like: “I’ve just gotten my hands on [the Easy to Master Card Magic videos] … but it seems like there is no end
… I would like to narrow it down to 5-6 effects who (sic) you guys know are ‘workers.’ So my question is: which routines are most
powerful …?” (Some magicians insisted that this was made up. Your humble storyteller insists that you can’t make this stuff up.)

page 46
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Honest Liar
Producers of instructional video were desperate for fresh product. They were increasingly aware that new releases now had a win-
dow of 72 hours before the marketplace became bored and hungry for the next release – enough time for everyone to watch, suck
out the secrets, and place the video on a shelf, where it looked nice next to all the others. Running out of sources, they were racing
one another to find magicians who had not yet already produced stacks of video for the competition. Canvassers were being
offered rewards for magicians who had not yet appeared on video. Staff was hired to scan e-mails from scouts in Third World coun-
tries. A recent claim of a 9-year-old from Sri Lanka who had an original ring-on-rope move had caused some excitement, until a
beleaguered staff member, running the name through all available databases, discovered that the boy wonder in question had pre-
viously produced a 9-volume set of videos under an assumed name.

Magic organizations were also making their best efforts to assist the public in gaining access to the secrets of magic. Magic organi-
zations promoted magic as a wholesome hobby that all should be encouraged to take up. So most people now did.

No other field of endeavor had ever advanced by keeping its information secret, it was argued, so what made magic any different?
To those who asked, only one answer was obvious: nothing. And so they strove mightily to make certain that magic would be no dif-
ferent. To reduce it from the level of art, to the level of craft, to the level of hobby, to the level of … needlepoint. But without that
much personal effort.

Magic, in other words, was on a roll.

***

But there was trouble afoot in the kingdom of magic.

Magicians began to notice a problem when they performed magic. Or, at least, when they tried to perform magic.

One of the earliest signs had occurred way back in history. On July 5th, 1975, one prominent magician spoke of performing a trick
for a plumber working in his home. He said to the plumber, “Let me show you a little trick with three cards.” The plumber replied,
“Let me show you a new move on it.”

This moment now appears to have been the first sign of the coming Apocalypse. (The second was a subscription notice from Harry
Lorayne in late 1977 – but that, as they say, is another story.)

Magic was booming. Magic clubs were booming. Magic videos were booming. (Magic books were dying but nobody cared.) Magic
chat sites were booming. Magic lectures were booming. Magic conventions were booming. Magic contests were booming. It had
never been easier to find a fellow magician with whom to share your secrets. Never had it been easier to find a fellow mage to slap
you on the back and congratulate you on your cleverness.

But something was amiss.

It seemed to be more difficult to give someone the experience of magic. It was getting harder and harder to find someone to per-
form for who wasn’t a magician.

And, after all, as a magician 1 once said to your narrator many years ago, “Magicians don’t see magic.”

If a magic trick is performed in a practice mirror, has magic actually occurred?

If a magic trick is performed for a magician, has magic actually occurred?

***
1 The magician was Whit Hayden

page 47
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Honest Liar
The kingdom of magic was troubled. The reward for finding a magician who hadn’t yet made a video was leveling off, but there was
a new, higher price-war afoot: magicians began to bid on laymen.

It began on eBay. “One layman available to witness one magic show. Knows no magic secrets.”

Everyone thought it was a joke, but only for about 40 minutes. Then the price started going up.

Some still thought it was a joke, but others weren’t so sure. When the auction closed, there was a flurry of activity on the discussion
boards. Then it died down. Then a few days later, the auction winner explained what had happened. “I became a professional magi-
cian because I wanted to see that look in the eyes of a layman – that look they get when you suddenly demonstrate, live and in per-
son, that everything they know about the cosmos is wrong. I love that look. I used to live for that look.

“So I thought it would be worth investing in guaranteeing that experience. Most of the time now I just perform at magic conventions.

“At first it went okay. It was great to see that gleam in the spectator’s eye again. But then something happened. I tried to do to the
Crazy Man’s Handcuffs. And the spectator suddenly blurted out, ‘Wait, I know that one!’ And he did.

“So I asked him for my money back, because he wasn’t really a layman.”

And magicians felt a dark shadow approaching.

***

The next auction seemed to go better. The winner submitted a questionnaire to make sure the seller really didn’t know anything
about magic. The good news was that the layman really didn’t know anything about magic. The bad news was, the layman hated
magic. The performance was brief, but there was no refund for the auction.

***

Matters began to snowball, and it was a dirty snowball at that, like New York City snow a couple of days old. Magicians were trading
their laymen associates for money. Now they were buying laymen not just for a show, but for a single trick at a time. Veteran magi-
cians could do shows, but magic hobbyists that learned from video and the Internet couldn’t. And since newcomers only did new
tricks and never mastered old ones, well, if you tried to do three tricks you increased the chances of accidentally exposing one, and
then compromising the layman, so the layman broker couldn’t sell him anymore. It was like borrowing a slave and breaking his arm.

Brokers and buyers (that is, magicians) began to talk about “polluted laymen” and “poisoned laymen.” Laymen that were, well, not
really laymen anymore.

And darkness kept coming toward the kingdom of magic.

***

Time passed.

Magic was still booming, but it was changing. Magic had become meta-magic. Magicians did magic for magicians, but they were
used to it. Most magicians had never done magic for a layman. Old-timers would tell them about it, however. Veterans would remi-
nisce. “Tell us,” the newcomers would ask, “about the laymen.”

And one day, there was only Jack.

page 48
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Honest Liar
Remember Jack?

Jack didn’t care enough about magic to become a magician. But he still liked magic. He was the perfect layman.

And so the magic organizations got together, and they kidnapped Jack.

It was for his own good. And for the good of magic.

Jack was unhappy about it at first. He was uncooperative and resisted his captors.

Especially after they brought in a gospel magician.

When it was explained that he wouldn’t have to watch every kind of magic anymore, Jack relented. When he didn’t have to watch
magic, he could read and work on his stamp collection. Life wasn’t so bad in the bubble.

Yes, Jack now lived in a bubble. It used technology adapted from technology developed for people with SCID: severe combined
immunodeficiency. Of course, Jack wasn’t particularly in danger of biological infection; he was in danger of infection by magic
secrets. But within a short time, the magic organizations discovered that the problem was more complicated than their simple solu-
tion. Of course, since the beginning of time, magic organizations were always discovering this.

It was hard to prevent Jack from being contaminated by magic secrets. It wasn’t just the Masked Magician that was a hazard. There
were infomercials. There was the Internet. There were mailings to his e-mail address from magic dealers and video producers.
Everything had to be filtered. There was round-the-clock staff. Jack couldn’t be permitted to watch or listen to or read anything that
was being produced live, in real time. Everything had to be vetted. On one occasion, a children’s science show was about to
explain the physics behind Needle Through Balloon, and the magic censor almost missed it. After that, a seven-second delay was
considered insufficient. Jack would now only be allowed to experience the world on a one-week delay. Kind of like the President,
except sometimes his delay was much longer.

All Jack’s contacts with other people had to be examined as well. Anyone who wanted to speak with him or visit with him had to be
investigated. Of course, it wasn’t that those people had to be layman, too. There were no other laymen.

But they had to be made to understand the importance and the danger of their magical knowledge. All communication with Jack
was supervised, either overtly or covertly. One way or another, it had to be done. Jack was surprisingly tolerant of his captivity, and
of these encroachments on his freedom of action, and even his freedom of thought. To many magicians, now he truly was the per-
fect layman.

Magicians would come and pay to see Jack. The profits paid for all Jack’s expenses, including many luxuries, which was perhaps
why he put up with his unusual lifestyle. The profits made the magic organizations rich. This helped to make up for their drastic loss
of membership. No one cared about the organizations much anymore. They only booked the same six performers for their conven-
tions these days. One of those six was actually dead, but it didn’t seem to bother anybody. If you tried to book anyone under 70 at
a national magic convention, the booker would always say, “Never heard of him.” But no one objected because it might have
offended somebody. It was kind of like the reviews in the club magazines. Nobody was allowed to say anything bad. That would be
bad for magical brotherhood. Nobody considered if it was bad for magic.

So the magic organizations had very little to do, besides working out things for Jack. So they became very organized at doing that.
Jack had a full schedule of magicians coming to perform for him. He was allowed short breaks during the day, and longer breaks in
the evening, but he still had to watch some magic at night and on the weekends.

page 49
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Honest Liar
Jack’s favorite day of the year was his private holiday: No Magic Day. This holiday of Jack’s arose when, one day, there was a mis-
take in the scheduling software, and no magicians came to see Jack. He was so clearly elated that day that the magic organization
decided to give it to him as an annual holiday. It wasn’t a legal holiday for the rest of the world, although perhaps it should have
been.

Most magicians would come to perform a single trick for Jack. That was all they could afford. Jack still enjoyed magic, but because
he was a little jaded, the magic organizations began to charge additional premiums based on his reaction. Not that you could buy
that ahead of time, mind you – Jack would never fake it! But his response would be evaluated afterward, and the rate went up if he
really enjoyed the trick a lot. Most magicians were happy to pay it, except for club members. They thought they should be given a
discount for doing a better trick. Club magicians always wanted a discount more than anything else.

Besides, you could use that endorsement in the advertising for the trick you were selling to other magicians. “Jack loved it!” was
worth real money to anyone trying to pitch magic to the marketplace – or trying to help the world appreciate magic, as the mar-
keters put it.

Things were better now. Magic was booming. The darkness was held at bay.

***

One busy day, there was lots of activity for the bubble brigade. Jack had the usual full schedule of magicians coming in. But he also
had a local friend coming by, a relative visiting from out of town, and some take-out Chinese being delivered for lunch. The attend-
ing staff handled it all with their usual efficiency and aplomb.

There was also maintenance staff in to repair some technology, and cleanup staff as well. Nothing unusual about any of that,
although this was a particularly full day.

Several people were working in the bubble, and someone was visiting as well. A schedule handler had just apprised Jack of some
changes in the evening calendar. The thimble manipulator had cancelled. A wealthy amateur mentalist was coming in his place.
Jack hoped it would be short, and that he wouldn’t have to do too much math.

The scheduler left. The computer repair guy left. The friend-of-Jack left. The supervisor left, but just for a moment. The relative-of-
Jack hadn’t arrived yet. The delivery boy left.

The cleaning guy was still there.

Alone with Jack.

The shift supervisor saw the delivery boy leave, and wondered who was left to check the cleaning guy. He raced back toward the
bubble.

Meanwhile, the cleaning guy asked Jack if he wanted a piece of gum. Just to make conversation.

Jack said sure.

The cleaning guy reached into his pocket for the gum.

The supervisor was on his way back, in view of the bubble.

He saw the cleaning guy reach into his pocket and wondered if, with all the activity, he had been properly searched that day.

page 50
 ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005
The Honest Liar
The cleaning guy began to pull the pack of gum from his pocket, and the supervisor began to relax.

The cleaning guy’s pocket pulled up a bit with the pack of gum. There was something else in the pocket that began to come out
with his hand.

It was a thumb tip.

It hit the floor.

The supervisor, having entered, dove for it.

Jack turned at the sound.

And saw the thumb tip.

And magic died.

page 51
ANTINOMY Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2005

In Closing...
What is it to do magic? How available should it be? And at what cost?

The quote on the Table of Contents page alludes to a cheapening of magic. Should magic be available to anyone in need of a fix,
like cheap liquor at the corner store? Coincidentally, Jamy Ian Swiss’ article in this issue crosses over some of the same territory. In
that crossing, it arrives at a pessimistic conclusion. One that, presumably, can be avoided if enough thoughtful people care about it.
Of course, perhaps Jamy’s words are fantasy. No need to worry.

Then there is the passing of Jack T. Koopmans. I know, second-hand, that Jack cared passionately about magic and had what
amounted to a treasure trove of his own creations filed away. And now, perhaps, they will remain filed away.

I am not under any illusion about magic. But I have taken a moment to reaffirm my reasons for pursuing Antinomy and among those
reasons are the whole “life is short” thing. “Do it now or it might not get done.” It is the shortness of our lives that motivates us to do
things. Having wanted to publish this magazine for over 10 years, I chose to finally get it done.

But why?

There are reasons. Reasons like I thought I could succeed; I thought I could make a buck or two; but the chief reason is that I want-
ed to give something back to magic. Magic has been a companion to me in difficult times and, while it may be inappropriate to per-
sonify magic, the “thing” that is magic deserves better. It deserves quality. It deserves commitment. It deserves the attempt to make
it better than it is.

So, I try.

And already it pays dividends. It has given me the justification to contact and speak to magicians I would’ve never known otherwise.
In one short year, I have met and spoken with people like Dean Dill and Michael Close. I have had communication with Jon and
Jamy, Max Maven, and others. When I step back and look at what it has been, it swirls around like a bright-colored, calliope-inject-
ed, carnival spinny ride. Of course, those always made me nauseous as a kid. This ride makes me smile.

There will be more of the ride in 2006. Max Maven, David Neighbors, and Thomas Baxter will return to these pages. Joshua Jay,
Nathan Gibson, Gunnar Bardsen and Peter Duffie, John Luka, Justin Miller are all people you may have heard of who have already
been scheduled to appear. There’s also a variety of things from people less well-known that I’m looking forward to publishing.

Thanks for coming along for the ride. I hope it makes you smile too.

As always, you can contact me at [email protected] or:

ANTINOMY
P.O. Box 39
Allenton, MI 48002-0039

See you in 2006!

page 52