EFFECT:
Ten film canisters and a die are exhibited. The die is just big enough to fit into a canister and cannot tumble about if the canister is shaken. All can be examined.
While the performer's back is turned, a spectator puts the die into one of the canisters and notes the uppermost number. He puts the lid back on the canister and mixes all of the canisters around.
The performer turns around and holds his hand over each canister without touching them. Finally, he points at one canister and proclaims it to contain the die. The spectator opens the canister and discovers the performer is correct.
As a second climax, the performer correctly reveals the number showing on the top of the die. METHOD:
If you've been a faithful reader of this series, I'm sure you've worked out the second climax. It is yet another use of the lipstick principle described earlier in the series. (By the way, black lipstick can be obtained in costume shops and is far superior to any other color. It doesn't show on the inside bottom of the canister, and the black smear it leaves on the bottom of the die just looks like a sloppy spotting job.) Since the die is slightly oversized it cannot tumble about when placed in the canister.
ALL of the canisters are prepared with a splotch of black lipstick on the inside bottom. Thus, no matter which canister the spectator selects, a black mark will appear on the die opposite the selected number. At the climax of the effect the spectator opens the canister selected by the performer and is told to toss the dice to him.
The performer is now able to reveal the selected number. Refer to the three part gambling prediction in
Principia Mentalia-Fire for further details.
The number of canisters used is arbitrary, but there should be at least five or six.
Of course you are wondering how the performer knows which canister contains the die. There have been many previous methods devised to do this. My original solution, which appeared in my first book,
Pseudomentally Yours, nearly twenty years ago was to hand the spectator a cellophane tape dispenser and
have him tape all of the canisters shut. Prior to performance the serrated edge of the tape is cut off with a scissor. Thus, the first canister taped shut is easily identifiable as all of the other canisters will be sealed with a piece of tape with two serrated edges. The selected canister will show only one serrated edge. The problem with this method is that it takes quite a bit of time to tape up all of the canisters. It can be sped up a bit by having all of the canisters taped shut at the outset. The spectator would then tear the tape off of the selected can, insert the die, and then retape with the dispenser provided.
The other standard method involves lining up scratch marks on the canisters and the lids. When the selected canister is reshut after insertion of the die, the marks will be out of line, allowing later
when replacing the cap. In this case, to use the proper technical phrase, you are screwed.
There are two solutions, however, which I think more than satisfy the criteria of simplicity and directness and are, at the same time, completely unfathomable. The first has been around at least since Annemann. The second is, to the best of my knowledge, a completely new application of an old principle. In fact, I'd venture to say that it would completely fool anyone who hadn't read this book.
The former relies on the so-called "Blackboard Peek," which first appeared in the Jinx as The Mystery of the Blackboard. It also appears in Practical Mental Effects. In this case all of the cans are marked with a number. If you are using five canisters they are coded from one to five respectively. The best markings are scratches on the lid. If the lid is visualized as a clock face, one-quarter inch scratch is made at the twelve o'clock position. A shorter, eighth of an inch scratch is made at the one o'clock position on the first canister, the two o'clock position on the second, etc.
At the outset the canisters are lined up on your table, or on a tray, in numerical order. The spectator is brought forward and positioned behind the table. You hand him the die and walk away. Although you can get away with this without a blindfold, it is best to put one on at this point. I recommend the stainless steel type which allows vision over the nose. Richard Osterlind's is the best version of this type that I have seen.
Ask the volunteer to pick up any one of the canisters. Pause for a count of two and say "Have you done that?" At the same time turn toward the spectator. Since you are speaking to him, it is perfectly natural to turn your head. Note which can he has picked up and immediately turn your head away.
Most people will never notice that you turned. And even if they did, the blindfold eliminates any suspicion. The reason that you can get away with this without a blindfold is that all the cans look alike and the audience, at this point, has no clue as to what you are about to do. The subsequent mixing of the cans confuses the issue enough to make the turn totally innocuous if noticed.
For nearly ten years I used this method in my presentation of Russian Roulette (see The Art of Mentalism I). The move was never noticed or questioned.
Finish as described.
My new method uses a backward application of daub. With the same black lipstick used inside of the canisters, put a small speck just off-center on each of the lids. It is virtually impossible to open the canister, insert the die and replace the lid, without removing the mark. The selected canister, therefore, will be the only one that is not marked.
Don't overlook this secret because I have described it on just one page.. To paraphrase Annemann, “A thousand-dollar bill is likewise just a single sheet.”
(QUESTION- Did you ever notice that all of my stage material is filled with jokes and humorous asides, while all the close up stuff is really serious and simulates actual psychic phenomena? This is because I only perform close up for single, attractive women. Entertainment value is a distinctly minor goal.) (The above question and answer are not necessarily the opinion of the author. All rights reserved.)