Mailbag #75
/On the topic of wallets I was looking at different no palm card to wallets. Was trying to avoid the huge Mullica looking ones. Came across fellow Canadian Shawn Farquhars wallet which is a no palm.
Unique thing is that you show the wallet empty, and then the card appears at the end. What do you think about this? Do you think that is more advantageous or deceptive? I’m a bit on the fence.
I thought it’d be fun to have a presentation with an invisible “pen pal” and have a little stamped envelope appear in the wallet or something.
Just appreciate your thoughts on wallets, and was curious to see what you think on this one. —AFC
I like your idea of an envelope appearing from your pen pal and it having the spectator’s card inside. That gives card to envelope in wallet some meaning besides, “I can make a card go to an envelope in my wallet.”
That said, as for this wallet, I don’t know that I could like it much less (with apologies to your countryman). You’ve got a wallet that opens horizontally and vertically, like no wallet I’ve ever seen. It’s almost confusing in the way it opens, which is not what you’re going for when doing something as common as opening a wallet. Now, perhaps such wallets exist. I’m just saying I’m a grown-ass adult and I’ve never seen a wallet like this.
I also don’t like that the card, when it does appear, is just kind of floating around in the wallet. It’s not in an a pocket or anything. Why would you magically make it go into the wallet if you weren’t going to make it go into the area where things go in the wallet? It would be like vanishing a hamster and saying it was going to appear in your car, and then instead of it appearing on one of the seats or in the trunk, it appears on top of a tire in the wheel-well.
But the most unforgivable thing about this is that the logo is a 3 with a spade symbol around it. You might as well have “Trick Magic Wallet” embossed on it.
As for the general idea of showing your wallet empty before showing the card in it, I think that could be an added moment of mystery in a CTW routine. But maybe not. Maybe it would just tell the spectator, “It’s really easy to get cards in this wallet without you seeing. I don’t really know, but in either case that moment isn’t really worth it for the negatives I see with this wallet.
Will you be picking up Three Skulls on a Spike by Andy Nyman? I love the look of the trick, but it’s a bit pricey for a 1 in 3 effect. What do you think? —PC
The key words you said were that you “liked the look.” If you think the price is worth it for an intriguing display piece that you can do something magical with, then I’d recommend you get it. If you’re looking for the most bang for your buck in a magic sense, then your $100+ is going to be better spent elsewhere. While a 1 in 3 effect like this can get a nice response, there is a ceiling to the impact it will have. I’ve had people disagree with me on this fact, but this is just basic understanding of the human mind. Obviously an effect that is just slightly less improbable than predicting a single coin flip isn’t going to have the potential impact of something considerably more improbable or impossible.
But it can still be a fascinating piece of art. And if anyone can wring the most entertainment of this type of effect, it would Andy Nyman.
I would say that if you’re not going to indulge in the weirdness of this prop in your presentation, it seems like it would be a waste of money. If you’re going to perform the prediction (or however you frame it) the same way you would with dice or coins or gumballs, it would make more sense to use one of the other variations of this effect.
I, however, will be picking this up. It will work well with the other tricks I do with fetal skulls.