David Berglas (born 30 July ) is a magician and mentalist. His secret technique of locating The effect was first named “The Berglas Effect” by Jon Racherbaumer in his book At The Table. The British Magical Society is the oldest. The big hardcover book that reveals the innermost secrets of the card miracles performed by the legendary David Berglas for 60 years, written by magic’s most. In fact, the creation of the legend was a surprise even to David. He has been performing what is now widely known as The Berglas Effect fox.
|Published (Last):||12 November 2017|
|PDF File Size:||5.38 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Friends Of Richard KaufmanI feel it necessary to explain the meaning of my title. David Berglas is a magician that may be described succinctly as clever, ingenious and engaging. His studies of the art of practical as distinguished from mystical magic, and in some respects, psychology, ought to be well considered in the investigation of his technique.
Ruling out chance, and taking it as a proper routine, a stunt that may be repeated at will any number of times with consistent success, it not only defies logic, but—is at odds with the very purpose of the craft, which is to devise a plot, a scheme by which to deceive the viewer.
Close examination of his videotaped performances proves him to be a highly skilled and well practiced card manipulator of the traditional sort. In the business of Magic, nothing ought to be regarded as inadvertent—neither the explicit nor the implicit.
As for the former, it is proclaimed that there are four pre-requisites that govern the presentation:. He or she must not be a stooge and can freely choose any one of the fifty-two cards; no restrictions. He or she must not be a stooge and have a free choice; no restrictions.
The performer must not touch the cards. Just a cute trick whose attendant hyperbole and panache have raised it to a stellar height in the eyes of presumptious witnesses. It is indeed worthy of its status because it does hold honestly to its explicit promise, but—by no means on account of that ideal which has been inferred by the public or implied by its ill informed or overly ambitious publicists.
He always seemed to know how to make cracked eggs into omelettes in case something went wrong. He no doubt fashioned each performance according to the proposed event with intense forethought. In this form, Berglas does not lend out the cards so readily as in the full-blown routine. He handles them quite dextrously all the while that he is asking the sole volunteer to choose a card.
He fans the deck repeatedly and executes a number of quick moves. Any excess cards favid be easily shuffled to the bottom of the pack or to the top ; thus completing the set-up. He then promptly slaps the deck on the table and instructs the participant to count the cards.
I have never heard of this particular method having been done with a borrowed deck, although—it certainly could be. The following video link shows David Berglas demonstrating this approach several times in succession, with various members of his audience, and I strongly recommend it:.
In the phenomenal theatrical version, the performer handles the cards only at the very beginning. One might well ask: Why is it necessary for him to handle them at all, as he is making the point of doing nothing with them? Conceivably—every brand in town. A stacked deck will make it a simple matter to determine the actual position of the chosen card, in order to avoid exposing it during the countdown, before the accomplice introduces a duplicate card at the last moment especially when choosing to deal the cards face up.
The only spectator that is allowed to touch them is the third participant, whom as I have said, is generally either directly or indirectly appointed by the performer. The magician simply asks a member of the audience to think of a card. Then he requests another to pick a number from one to fifty-two. The cards must not be dealt face up from the top of the deck or the chosen card shall be revealed too soon. If the number were as small as sixteen, the magician could grant anyone in the crowd the wish to have it done any way whatever—face up or face down from either top or bottom.
Recall that whilst David was asking the sole participant to pick a card in the close-up version, he was I daresay hunting for it himself. The cards are counted and either dealt face up or face down. The duplicate card may be dropped on top of the pack under cover of this hand, mere seconds prior to showing that is in fact the Ten Of Spades.
I am on your side, old chap. And the reason for the latter is that they are berglax tongue tied by your very logical argument that they resort to insults rather than debate the merits of the case. They are a bunch of morons with the intellectual capacity of 6 year olds and they love to bully.
You are doing the correct thing in not replying to their insults and talking only about the merits of your argument which sounds perfectly fine to me. In any event I have never thought the trick deserved all the hype it has attracted. It is a good bertlas trick but no better than a thousand others. In fact David once showed it to me and was surprised by my lack of reaction. And I should make clear that I have always considered David Berglas to be a marvellous showman.
My cynical guess about the whole mess is that The Effect gained so much fame and glory that by the time it came to publish the secret, it was considered verglas humble. Thus David or Richard conceived of the more elaborate version, both bdrglas order to misdirect the reader from the simple truth, begrlas to ennoble the performer; he being now not just an inventor of a trick, but—a virtuoso, an uniquely qualified practitioner whom no one would dare to emulate especially using such an begrlas method.
They are so dumb there that they actually think you are me. Which means of course that I am having a conversation with myself on this blog. Oddly enough if I were going to do the card at any number thing I would improve it by getting rid of all the supposed strengths of the trick and do it by a far weaker method but a far more practical and stronger effect.
I would then berglaas for any number and then do that old bluff thing where you count them off rapidly reversing the cards and when you get to the card slap them face upwards showing you got to the correct card. Over in a fraction of the time and far less boring and convoluted.
Simplicity in the method—and seeming complexity in the effect—always makes the best sense. It is a pity that so many folks including magicians see a baffling performance and jump to the conclusion that it could only have been achieved by some extraordinary mental or manual prowess.
Their pride will not allow them to imagine that it could be easily devised. If so—then why were they unable to catch on? They would rather worship a master and beglas him to be inconceivably brilliant than concede that they had been fooled by his sewing of a matchstick into the hem of a handkerchief.
In the lattter case, they feel like suckers. They want an excuse, a justification for their sense of awe. I thoroughly enjoyed your article, and found it to be interesting and thought-provoking. Not to mention, I enjoy your excellent use of the English Language.
It amuses me greatly to read the nonsense on the Genii forum, and the reactionary and ill-conceived opionions of those who purport to know so much about the Art of Magic. And, I have a rather sneaky method to show that the card eventually revealed cannot possibly, apparentlyhave been anything other than this specific card. The spectator himself counts down to the card, and once shown, the prediction, also in full view since the start of the effect, is verglas revealed by the magi, and never once touched by him.
You can see some of my version here: And a very impressive video. If I could persuade myself to raise my voice sufficiently to be distinctly audible I might have a go at performing myself.
However—I am content to be a writer and an occasional inventor berg,as re-inventor, as there is nothing new under the sun of magic tricks and grand illusions.
Some of them are so ambitious that I might never reach the construction stage, let alone the implementing. I seem to recall from somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind a contraption I conceived, that effeect to be an ordinary glass window placed upon a translucent stand, which the magician would set up outdoors. Announcing that he had developed a new lens that filtered out the blinding rays of davd sun, he would first effdct it so erfect the blazing orb could be daivd in the centre of the frame.
Without any jostling, the curtain would be drawn.
David Berglas – Wikipedia
After a brief instant, it would be opened to reveal a blue sky with perhaps an aeroplane tracing its way through the area formerly occupied by the heavenly body—or at the very least a toy aircraft launched behind the apparatus if the real thing were not available just then.
When someone in the crowd were inevitably to suggest that the sun is hidden behind the curtain, it would be snatched away, exposing only the narrowest of framework on every side.
The principles are known to nearly everyone. What annoys me about the Genii forum is the ill manners of the participants. Potty and I will remember the blog that David Rowyn put out and both we and the magician, Jolly Roger violently disagreed with his theories and he was perfectly gentlemanly about it and did not delete what we had to say and in fact was quite pleased to read and listen politely. The Genii forum prefers instead to hurl ridicule and insults instead of trying to refute the argument by demonstrating a better case.
Sooner or later Mr Keyes will be banned from the Genii Forum no matter how polite he is. Kaufman is not a fan of free expressions of opinions. I will always have fond memories of Genii Magazine. That is—the Genii of my youth, back in the early s when Bill Larsen, Jr.
Well, it looks as if the Genii thread has been deleted. Which they most certainly do. Of these combinations, 52 are correct — that is, they will deliver ACAAN — in any given deck order. Mr Kaufmann seems to be a most unlikeable fellow, and I rarely visit his dreadful little forum anyway. Of course, it will be a simple thing to create a new account whenever I feel like it.
effcet At present, I see that both your and my comments remain in the forum. Kaufman has done in response to me and to others whine that Of course, Mr. Berglas touches the cards!
If any one of the criteria for The Berglas Effect can be forgone, betglas why not another? It makes no sense. This really does make me wonder if there are so few folks with a basic understanding of probability. Or, is it just magicians?
It matters not a jot whether the magician or a spectator selects a card. All the cards are in the deck somewhere. The trick is not to make the card appear in efvect deck, but to make it appear at the chosen position. Obviously, if someone chooses a card, they will find it in the deck at one of 52 different positions. I think the simplest way to achieve the Berglas Effect, is to have one of those decks with corner cuts, so any position can be almost instantly located.
The card is selected first, begglas the stooge calculates the position of the chosen card in the deck. The number is chosen, and the stooge calculates the difference between the chosen number and the actual position of the card. He locates the corner cut at the required number, and effects a pass, bringing the card to the chosen position.