THE MAGNIFICENT CHARLES CARTS

Magicians interested in stacked deck work might have heard of Charles Carts. He was a contemporary of Chan Canasta, a successful performer who made a reputation with an act based around a deck of cards. Jeff Busby, in reviewing my book Chan Canasta: A Remarkable Man (2000), implied that Canasta might have been inspired by Charles Carts’ work. However, I’ve not found any evidence that the two met or knew of each other before they established their careers.

According to press reports, Carts was born in Brussels but spent most of his early life in Paris where he studied engineering. He claimed to have been part of the French Underground during WWII. Chan Canasta meanwhile served with the RAF in Greece and other countries before coming to England in 1947.

Carts had always been interested in magic but got a taste for performing when another magician had to drop out of a show at a Parisian café. Carts took his place, and this led to hobby becoming a profession. In 1948 he was working at ‘Franco-American galas and fetes' (Variety, July 7, 1948) and a year later, possibly as a result of those shows, he travelled to America where he was to build a successful life as a club and cabaret performer. Early reviews were promising:

With the approach of summer, hostelry ops here are opening their purses, with improved shows the result. Charlie Carts, young, handsome Parisian conjurer, has great possibilities but needs some major renovation. Carts’ turn is a card manipulation and memory combination that should hit much better than it does. He allows diners to take various size stacks from a deck of cards and tells them every card they’re holding. His closer should be a show stopper. He splits a deck into seven parts, putting one part in each of seven pockets, from which diners take cards. He tells payees what they’re holding. Major handicap is his endless monotone of descriptive prattle. He needs to slow down and add laugh lines. His card manipulation encore, while appreciated by a fellow magician, is too subtle as a closing piece.

In 1950, Carts married American showgirl Carolyn Lockwood. We can track many of Carts’ bookings at clubs, hotels and casinos throughout America and Canada via the press archives. Most praised the novelty of a card-only act. It was a ‘new twist’ they said, citing Carts' ability to have lots of cards selected and to be able to name every one of them. They also noted his ‘comedy patter.’ ‘He has a charming manner, mixing up his not so fractured English and his native Gallic lingo for strong appeal. He’s well suited for a class room like the Cotillion,’ said one review of his 1954 appearance at the Pierre Hotel, New York. He also made some television appearances including one on February 14th, 1953, with former bootlegger Sherman Billingsley who had a television show fashioned after his own Stork Club in Manhattan.

Both Carts and Canasta had acts that depended on a stacked deck. Another thing they had in common was that their acts worked best in intimate venues, which is why television worked so well for Canasta. At the beginning of Carts’ American tour reviewers applauded his act but wondered if it had club appeal, saying:

Charles Carts, French card manipulator, is a very clever handsome lad. His work, however, isn’t geared for mass visual appeal. Basically he’s a close worker using the take-a-card-any-card system. People up close can be very interested. Those even a row away can’t see what he’s doing. As a table worker he should do quite good (Billboard, Feb 26, 1949).

Carts overcame that scepticism but it never disappeared entirely. Several years later, after a successful career, someone would venture an opinion that card tricks were too small for club work, one reviewer saying, ‘Much of the material is a total loss to others in the audience unless the management provides telescopes.’ 

Carts did travel to the UK in 1955 and made an appearance on the British television show It’s Magic. Abracadabra magazine (Dec 10, 1955) reviewed the show. This was the first time British magicians had seen Carts’ work:

Unquestioned star of last Friday’s It’s Magic show was French-American artist, Charles Carts. With a deck of cards, one Jumbo and one miniature, he did a high-speed revelation routine and packed it full with mystery and fun. His engaging personality emerged in the round from the little box in the corner.

Card man Gus Southall, reviewing the same show in The Budget (January 1956) said:

Charles Carts whose skilful card work has been highly praised in American journals, journied (sic) at great inconvenience from his native France, where he was on holiday, to make an appearance in the programme. Card artists can learn much from his brisk direct presentation of painless card magic. His flawless technique with a stacked deck was a joy to witness particularly his “any-card-named-found-at-any-position” and “everywhere and nowhere” with its slightly different climax.

Helping us understand the difference between Carts’ work and that of Canasta is a detailed account of Carts’ act written by Stewart James in a letter to Francis Haxton (Oct 18th, 1955). James saw Carts perform on television. Carts had replaced Paul Le Paul on the American It’s Magic show (September 3rd, 1955 as far as I can make out) and, as far as James was concerned, was the superior performer. James, who spelled Carts as Cartes, recalled the act as follows:

Worked in lounge suit. Stated during introductory remarks that he would use a complete deck of 52 cards. To prove that there were 52, without delaying his presentation by passing the cards around to be examined and counted, he would like to have anyone name any card. Next they were requested to choose either “top” or “bottom”. Suppose they said Seven of Diamonds and TOP. Cartes cut the deck and revealed the Seven of Diamonds on TOP of the deck. Repeated five or six times.

CC apparently shuffles cards. Three members of audience are asked to think of one card each. CC divides deck in SEVEN groups. They are distributed in various pockets. Right trouser pocket – inside left coat pocket, inside right coat pocket – handkerchief pocket – left trouser pocket – right coat pocket and left coat pocket. Thought of cards are named one at a time. CC produces them one at a time from the proper pocket.

Here again he departed from the usual presentation of the Cards From Pockets as he did with the Instanto Pack. When the first member of the audience thinks of a card, CC concentrates and appears to try and read his mind. At last, by his appearance, once feels that he is confident that he has been successful. This bit of business is repeated with the other two “thinkers” but it is worked briskly and does not slow down the act.

BEFORE placing each packet of cards in his pocket, CC glances at the faces briefly. His explanation is that he could not possible remember all the cards, their position in the packet and in which pocket they are placed. He is ONLY remembering the position of three cards which have been merely thought of and have not (as yet) been named aloud.

Two volunteers are requested to come forward. CC still has the cards distributed in his pockets. Including the three cards he produced as they were returned to the pocket whence they came after being displayed for verification.

One volunteer removes the cards from CC’s right coat pocket. Other volunteer takes the cards from left coat pocket. Volunteers arrange the cards in their hands according to suits. CC names all the cards in each hand.

There is a slight variation in the way he does this. Each card is named in the first group one at a time. For the second group, CC names a suit, the number of cards in that suit in the group and lastly the values of the cards of that suit.

Three spectators each select a card from the assembled deck. They are returned and deck shuffled by a member of the audience. CC places deck in his inside right coat pocket. First spectator thinks of his card. CC quickly produces one with back to audience. Spectator names his card. Card is reversed and revealed to be the one named.

CC apparently has difficulty locating second spectator’s card. CC says spectator has not been thinking very strongly of his card but it is the Ace of Spades. CC produces a half-size Ace of Spades.

CC says it is extremely easy to produce the card of which the third spectator is thinking. CC says it is the Queen of Hearts – which spectator verifies – and that the selector is thinking of it very strongly. He then produced a GIANT Queen of Hearts.

A walk on card act with a single basic theme. Except for the prop cards to supply the “light touch” climax, absolutely nothing is used except the deck and there appears to be only one.

Francis Haxton was very taken with Stewart James’ description of Carts’ act and even mused upon the possibility of constructing something like it himself, a walk on act based around a single magical theme. Ironically, when Carts’ appeared on British television just a month or so later, Haxton missed the show. He did, however, say to James that it reminded him of Chan Canasta’s work. James wrote back:

You will probably think I am quibbling but I consider a stacked deck a whole system of card magic and NOT a single effect. But it does bring to mind how different two acts can be although based on the same basic theme.. just compare Cartes routine with that of Arthur Lloyd. And I venture to say that I would enjoy Cartes turn much more than AL’s regardless of the much greater preparation and practice required for AL’s.

It is easy to see how comparisons can be made between Chan Canasta and Charles Carts, even the names are similar. But I agree with Stewart James and believe Carts and Canasta were very different performers. Their methods weren’t new. Both owed a huge debt to Si Stebbins, who performed similar effects for many years and half a century earlier. But Carts’ and Canasta’s interpretation of those effects, via their very different personalities and presentations is what made them stand out from their peers. To quote a famous song, it ain't what you do, it’s the way that you do it.

Special thank you to the Ask Alexander search engine at Conjuring Arts for access to the Stewart James & Francis Haxton archive. Also to Magicana who also host this fascinating archive of correspondence.

DEVILISHLY SIMPLE FIFTY-ONE FACES NORTH

The search for the perfect solution to Stewart James’ Fifty-One Faces North inevitably involves some compromise. James’ own version of his own problem unfortunately compromised the effect to such a degree that it was no longer recognisable as the clear and clean version of The Open Prediction that magicians wanted it to be. This version presents what appears to be a very clean version of effect. But there is a price to pay.

EFFECT

The performer has been performing some tricks for friends after dinner. He writes a prediction on a piece of paper, Ten of Diamonds. ‘That’s my prediction. You all know about it. I can’t change it.’ The paper is placed on the table and a borrowed and shuffled deck of cards is handed to one of the spectators.

The spectator has a very simple task. He is to deal through the cards, one at a time, turning them face-up onto the table. And then, whenever he feels the urge, the performer tells him to deal one of those cards face-down.

The spectator carries out the task, dealing the cards slowly face-up onto the table from the top of the face-down deck. He deals one of the cards face-down. ‘Are you sure?’ asks the performer. ‘Good. Now let me point out that so far we haven’t seen the Ten of Diamonds. Continue dealing the rest of the deck face-up. Let’s see where the Ten of Diamonds is.’

The spectator deals through the remainder of the cards. The Ten of Diamonds does not show. ‘There is only one card we haven’t seen. The one you dealt face-down. Turn it over.’ A spectator turns the card face-up. It is the Ten of Diamonds.

Hype and Blurb: A borrowed deck is used. Genuinely shuffled by the spectators. Performer need not touch the deck. Magician has no idea where the predicted card lies in the deck before the deal begins neither has the spectator. No switches of the face-down card. No gimmicks, fakes or outs. Works every time. No sleights. Totally impromptu. Fools everyone who sees it. Well, almost.

METHOD

The method is based on two things, an instant stooging process that David Williamson told me about many years ago. And an impromptu stooge key-card trick I published in Abra about twenty or more years ago having been influenced by George Anderson’s excellent book You Too Can Read Minds. The only proviso is that you need to be sitting at a table with your spectators when doing the trick. It makes for a good after dinner routine.

Here is the handling:

1: Have a deck of cards shuffled and then spread face-up across the table. Note any card in the middle of the deck. This will be your predicted card. Let’s say it is the Ten of Diamonds. Note also the card behind it (above it when the deck is face-down). This will be your key-card. Let’s say it is the Ace of Spades.

Ask someone to gather up the spread, making sure that they don’t mix the cards up in the process.

2. Write down the name of your predicted card, Ten of Diamonds, and place the prediction on the table where everyone can see it.

3. Ask someone to cut the deck several times. An odd number of cuts will more or less ensure that the predicted card stays in the middle of the deck.

4. You’ve already worked out that the spectator sitting next to you, Jim, a friendly guy, will make a good stooge. Here is how you get his cooperation.

Following on from any other miracles you have been doing that evening you tell your audience that with a little concentration anyone can do what you do. ‘Jim, I’m sure you could do something tonight that everyone will remember for a very long time. Really. I’m not joking. All you have to do is follow my instructions.’

You are going to cue Jim during the trick by tapping your foot on top of his. You prepare him for this as follows: ‘Let’s try an experiment. But I promise you, if it goes well, you will amaze a lot of people here.’

‘I’m going to ask you to have an open mind when doing this. We’re going to deal some cards to the table. During that deal I want you to call stop. But I don’t want you to call stop just anywhere. Only call stop when you feel something’

You tap his foot below the table.

‘Only call stop when you feel it is right.’

You tap him again.

‘Do you understand? Good.’

If Jim hasn’t already said, ‘Who’s kicking my foot?’ the trick is probably going to work well.

5. Ask Jim to pick up the deck and start dealing cards face-up into a pile on the table. When you see your key-card, the Ace of Spades, tap Jim on the foot. He will call stop. Ask him to take the next card and deal it face-down on the tabled pile. He deals the rest of the deck face-up and you point out that the Ten of Diamonds has not been seen.

6. Finish by asking someone else, not Jim, to turn over the face-down card and reveal that it is the Ten of Diamonds.

7. Thank Jim profusely. Tell him you couldn’t have done it without him. And tell everyone else that they will remember this for the rest of their lives. Spectators are usually happy to play along and take credit for a job well done. Jim doesn’t, of course, know how you knew where the Ten of Diamonds was so there is even a little mystery in it for him.

NOTES: Despite the rather unsubtle method this is a fooler. Tricks that use instant stooging, like the Electric Chairs, are very powerful routines. It just takes a little courage and a lot of spectator management to make them work.

You might want to note a key-card that is two cards away from your prediction. It gives you slightly more time to react during the deal.

You might also want to show your prediction to everyone except Jim, asking everyone to concentrate on the name of the card as Jim deals. I think this little twist adds a little more flavour to the routine. It also justifies the nature of the open prediction. And Jim gets to react when he sees he has found the correct card that everyone has been thinking about.

Stewart James is alleged to have said that his method could be 'used for criminal purposes.' I suppose this method could too if you were a pair of card cheats signalling each other's hands across the table. I mention this purely for those seeking the grail that is Fifty-One Faces North.

ADDITIONAL CREDIT: Michael Weber emailed to say that a credit is due to John Riggs who published a similar Fifty-One Faces North effect using the foot-tap cue in a volume of Steve Beam's Semi-Automatic Card Tricks. I don't have those volumes so if anyone can track down the John Riggs routine and point me in the right direction I'll post some more details. Thanks Michael

AUGUST UPDATE: Werner Miller has kindly forwarded me a copy of the John Riggs trick. It is called The Solution and appeared in Steve Beam's Semi-Automatic Card Tricks volume one. It's practically the same idea I described above. Or, more accurately, I should say that my routine is practically the same as John Riggs'.

John Riggs provides some additional credits in his write-up. He attributes the foot-tap cue to Whit Haydn and found it in Haydn's 1982 lecture notes Fast and Loose. Whit called it the Impromptu Card Code.

So if someone has baffled you recently with an impossible looking version of Fifty-One Faces North. Check out the assisting spectator's shin for bruises!

FIFTY-ONE FACES NORTH

Stewart James is famous for many things and one of them is a card problem known as Fifty-One Faces North, the origin of which has a convoluted and controversial history. The idea for James’ legendary effect came about following a visit to the magic convention in Colon in 1952 where James and his friend Francis Haxton, who was visiting from England, met Ed Marlo. At a card session Marlo told them about a card problem he had been working on.

The Marlo Problem
The problem began in an unusual fashion with the performer openly making a prediction of a card, say, the Ten of Clubs. This prediction could be made verbally or written down for all to see so that everyone knows the identity of the predicted card. A shuffled deck of cards is handed to the spectator who is asked to deal cards face-up one at a time onto the table. The spectator is told he should deal one of the cards face-down, a card of his choosing, and then continue dealing through the rest of the deck turning the remaining cards face-up. As this is being done the magician points out an unusual fact, that so far no one has caught sight of the predicted card among the face-up cards. Only one card has not been seen, the one the spectator chose to leave face-down during the deal. When that card is turned over it is seen to be the predicted card, the Ten of Clubs.

Marlo demonstrated one of his solutions for Francis Haxton who when he returned to England wrote to James (11^th Oct 1952) saying that he had created his own version of the trick. In his reply James revealed that he too had a solution. There then followed a series of letters in which they swapped ideas about the ‘Marlo problem.’ This culminated in the publication of two tricks in the March 1953 issue of The Pentagram: Peter Warlock’s Angle on Marlo and Stewart James' Angle on Angle on Marlo. The tricks were accompanied by a piece from Haxton describing how Marlo had originally given him the problem and how he had then set the same problem to an ‘exclusive gathering’ of magicians in the UK, one of whom was Peter Warlock.

Haxton regretted the publication of the tricks almost instantly. James pointed out that Haxton had missed out the main point of the problem, that the prediction is made openly and not written down on a folded piece of paper as it was in the versions published in The Pentagram. Haxton explained that he didn’t consider the open nature of the prediction to be the best part of the problem and argued that it lessened the suspense and could only lead the spectators to conclude that the predicted card was not in the deck to begin with. On that point Haxton and James always disagreed. But more importantly for Haxton was the realisation that Marlo had not yet published any of his own solutions. The problem was ‘underground’ and Haxton had just been instrumental in bringing it into the light. He soon learned from others that Marlo was not happy with the situation and appears to have written to Marlo to apologise and smooth things over.

He felt slightly less guilty when James subsequently discovered that the ‘Marlo problem’ was not Marlo’s at all but owed its origin to Paul Curry. Marlo, who had never claimed the effect as his, later acknowledged Curry in The Cardician (1955) where he published the version of The Open Prediction that he had shown to Haxton. Interestingly it made use of another Paul Curry idea, a card switch from Curry’s awkwardly titled A Cur (r) i-ous Prediction (More Card Manipulations Vol 3).

The World’s Most Impossible Card Trick
With the problem of the Open Prediction now in the open Stewart James published a lengthy article on the topic in July 1955 issue of Ibidem (issue 3). James not only described dozens of different Open Prediction effects but also listed many basic ways to solve the problem. More importantly, it was here that he first introduced the world to an even more impossible version of the Open Prediction: Fifty-One Faces North.

Fifty-One Faces North imposes a number of conditions on the trick that makes it exceptionally difficult to solve. James described them in a letter to Howard Lyons, editor of Ibidem, an extract from which was published in that issue:

Borrowed cards may be used. A brand-new deck is not required. The deck might even have cards missing from it, you do not have to know which ones or how many, you have only to be sure that the card you predict is there. You do not need privacy with the cards to set something. The deck is never out of sight for a moment. No card or cards are stolen from the deck. Borrowed writing material may be used. It is described as a prediction at the time of writing. The prediction is nothing more than the name of a card. It is known to all before the first card is dealt. No alternative meanings. No alternative effect. Strictly impromptu. Nothing but the borrowed articles used. When he starts dealing, you do not know where predicted card is. It would not help you to know, with this method. Nor do you know the location of any other card. You never know when he will leave a card face down, until after he has done it.

The Secret’s Out
Stewart James never published Fifty-One Faces North and he died in 1996, apparently taking the secret to his grave. At least that’s what everyone thought until in 2001 Allan Slaight, the noted collator of James’ material, found a single typescript sheet among James’ papers which described the solution in detail. It can viewed online at the Stewart James Exhibition curated by Joe Culpepper at the University of Toronto. The James/Haxton correspondence is also available and at the Ask Alexander database courtesy of the Conjuring Arts Research Center.

For magicians looking for an amazing trick the solution is disappointing. It has the bizarre quality of meeting all the conditions James set down but not meeting any of the expectations of Paul Curry’s Open Prediction. To meet the conditions it links three effects together, each one setting up another, which is why it doesn’t resemble the clear cut notion of a spectator dealing one card face-down as he deals the rest of the cards face-up. Instead the spectator has to cut a portion of cards off the deck during a previous trick, count them and then later deal down to that mentally selected number in order to find out which card will be left face-down during the deal. It resembles an overly complicated version of the mathematical clock effect.

The Controversy
The secret of Fifty-One Faces North is so disappointing that some magicians refuse to believe that this is Stewart James’s real solution to the problem. They prefer to believe that Stewart James had a hitherto unrevealed method that remains unpublished. There is no evidence that points to James having such an effect and a lot of evidence pointing in the other direction.

The most obvious point is that the title of the trick is at the head of the instructions. It is clearly titled Fifty-One Faces North. James made no claim that he had a whole genre of tricks entitled Fifty-One Faces North. Just one method that met all the conditions he set out in Ibidem. James was very particular about titles. It seems unlikely that he had two tricks with the same title.

The trick is dated July 15^th 1955. Ibidem issue 3 was published in August 1955. That the two dates are so close together it is difficult to believe that the trick found by Slaight is not the trick Stewart James wrote about in his letter to Howard Lyons. I don’t think James meant to hype the trick in the way it has subsequently been hyped. He had said to Lyons that it might make a good 'teaser' but he couldn't have envisaged the way it would be viewed many years later.

Curiously James did not hype the trick to his friend Francis Haxton. He never made special mention of the trick either by describing the effect or offering a solution. Having read through their correspondence I can understand why. Haxton made it clear to James that he was not interested in convoluted solutions to the Open Prediction. He did not enjoy roundabout methods of forcing the spectator to stop on a particular card. James’s solution undoubtedly fell into that category.

One aspect that is easy to overlook about Fifty-One Faces North is that James does not describe the effect. He describes only the conditions under which the effect takes place. It is easy to assume that he is talking about a clean version of the Open Prediction but a read through of his other solutions to the problem in Ibidem reveal that he had a very broad interpretation of the effect. Few of his routins involve the simple straightforward procedure of a spectator dealing through a deck of cards and leaving one of them face-down. So why assume that Fifty-One Faces North goes back to Paul Curry’s original ideal?

Convincing the Sceptics
If the trick was as good some currently believe, you might wonder why Stewart James didn’t perform it, which, after all, is the sole purpose of any magic trick. Around 1970 James wrote to Haxton telling him that Bill Miesel had been one of those who doubted that the effect existed. You would have thought that the solution to this dilemma might be to perform the trick for Miesel. But James took another route to convincing the sceptics. He told Haxton:

This year I had Al (Richards) get a deck and I worked the trick with him checking every statement in IBIDEM. Later I met Miesel for the first time. Al had already got to him to tell him triumphantly that he had seen it done. M seems a pleasant enough chap but I am not sure he is convinced Al and I are completely truthful.

I think Stewart James was being truthful. But it seems reasonable to assume that the reason he didn’t show Miesel the trick is because he knew Miesel, and anyone else who discovered what the real effect was, would be disappointed. The trick he showed to Al Richards could have been the trick that Allan Slaight found and this would allow James to honestly claim that it met all the conditions in Ibidem. Prompted by James odd story Haxton did write to him in 1971 asking whether Fifty-One Faces North had ever been published or whether he had any intention of doing so. But there wasn’t the least bit of curiosity shown by Haxton about the workings of the effect. And Haxton had never taken its mention in Ibidem as an indicator that there was some great mystery to be learned. It was left to others to create the legend of Fifty-One Faces North, a practise that continues today whenever effects are hyped beyond their capacity to deliver.

How To Keep A Secret
They say the best way to keep a secret is to publish it. That is true in the case of Fifty-One Faces North because while many people have searched for a solution that meets all Stewart James’ impossible sounding conditions, they have overlooked the fact that Ibidem 3 already contains such a trick. Yes, a solution to Fifty-One Faces North has been hiding in plain sight for over fifty years.

Let me recap what the major conditions are, you can check them all at your leisure. The trick has to be impromptu, performed with a borrowed deck which might not even be complete. All you do know is that it contains the predicted card. The prediction is clear and unambiguous and is in full view from the beginning of the routine. Most interestingly you never know when the spectator will deal a card face-down. You also don’t know the location of your predicted card before the deal begins. Yet the face-down card will always match the prediction.

An Authentic Stewart James Solution
The solution is listed as method 8 in Ibidem. And this time there is no doubt that it was created by Stewart James. It is easily overlooked because it is not described in any detail being an extension of previous methods. Let me try to clarify the description.

1: Take anyone’s shuffled deck and secretly glimpse the top card as you reach for a pen and paper. Write the name of this card as your prediction. Let’s assume it is the Ten of Clubs. Everyone sees the prediction.

2: Take the deck face-down in the palm up left hand. Lift the deck with the right hand, fingers at the outer short end, thumb at the inner short end. Dribble cards from the right hand into the left hand and ask a spectator to call ‘stop.’

3: Raise the right hand packet so that the spectator can look at and remember the face card. This is the card he called ‘stop’ at.

4: Bring the halves of the deck together but as you close them up execute the Kelly Bottom Placement so that the just-noted card is controlled to the bottom of the deck. Stewart James used the Kelly Bottom Placement (Ovette Master Move) but I prefer The Elliott Control (Bruce Elliott’s The Best in Magic) because there is more cover from the front.

5: The situation is that the noted card is on the bottom of the deck. The predicted card is on the top of the deck. Stewart James now gave the deck a Charlier Shuffle which brought both cards to the middle of the deck together.

I prefer to ask the spectator to give the deck three complete cuts. If you’re nervous about handing over the deck with his noted card on the bottom, then give the deck one cut yourself and ask him to give it two more.

6: The deck is now in the spectator’s hands. His noted card is directly above your predicted card somewhere in the middle of the deck. You tell him this: ‘What I want you to do is deal through the deck slowly. Deal each card face-up into a pile on the table. But when you come to your card, I want you to stop and deal the next card face-down. Understand? Good, let’s begin.’

7: The spectator deals through the cards, spots his noted card and deals the next card face-down. At this point you say, ‘Strange thing is we haven’t come across the Ten of Clubs yet. Keep going.’ He does, finishing with all the cards on the table only one of which is face-down. Have someone square the deck up, turn it over and spread it to reveal that the only face-up card in the deck is the one you predicted.

NOTES: Well, at least you didn’t spend twenty quid on it as the result of an over-hyped dealer ad campaign. On a positive note I think it shows that sometimes it is worth going back to the source when tackling these problems. It certainly surprised me when I found that James had already published a solution to the much sought after Fifty-One Faces North.

Since the effect depends on a simple key-card placement there are dozens of different ways to accomplish it. What is needed is a better presentation to dress it up. As Haxton always maintained it is the effect, not the conditions, that is important. Coming up with a presentation that covers the mechanical necessities in a plausible way might lead to a good trick. Happy hunting.