Heirloom
Jamie Badman and Colin Miller
Imagine an effect that packs in to your wallet, taking up very little room. An effect that packs such a punch when you perform it that your spectators get goosebumps just thinking about it. Imagine an effect that people talk about for years to come.
'Heirloom' is all of this. It is a 'Mental/Magic' kind of effect, suitable for casual performance, table-hopping, strolling magic and more. It comes with a very strong presentation that will captivate your audience and lead to a shattering climax. It could possibly be the greatest performance piece you ever own!
The 'Heirloom' is a old sepia photograph. Of your Great Uncle Charlie - a superstitious old gambler. The photograph clearly shows a prediction made by the spectator to be 100% correct. And... it can always be examined.
'Heirloom' takes the whole concept right to the very edge; the new ideas introduced will blow your audience away. The presentation, which you are given in full, delivers an emotionally charged moment of astonishment to your spectators and shows no mercy!
This is the first and only time Kenton Knepper has authorized his principle for use in an effect. You will fool magicians who already know this principle with 'Heirloom'! And what's more, just look at the quality of the work involved. It is beautiful.
Heirloom includes high quality props and a full description of the 'Kolossal Killer' principle and a completely scripted presentation for the effect that will absolutely blow your audience away.
Reviews
(Top ▲)
I have used Kolassal Killer for quite some time with mixed results. If the situation is right it does well but all too often the spectators first guess is basically the method. I still haven't found a great wallet for the effect either.
I like the premise and in my case my grandfather is much of my inspiration in magic. If I was to perform this I would definitely change the story a bit and take my own photos.
The idea of a freely selected card appearing on a photo is great. The ambiguity surrounding this method though leaves something to be desired.
(Top ▲)
The plot of “Heirloom” concerns the “true” story of the performer’s ne’er-do-well ancestor Uncle Charlie—a gamblin’ man—and the fateful game, over a century ago, in which Charlie bet the farm on the turn of a single card. (To my way of thinking, this presentational premise is itself a reckless bet. The tale is so obviously fabricated that anyone within earshot is likely to conclude within the first two minutes that the teller is full of crap. May I suggest that this is not the best way to build a relationship with one’s audience?)
Having set up the story, the performer invites someone to visualize a playing card. When an old photo of Uncle Charlie is finally produced from the performer’s wallet, the gambler is seen to be holding the very card the audience member named. Well, sometimes. Statistically speaking, Uncle Charlie will be holding the correct card about 30 percent of the time or three performances out of ten. About 70 percent of the time, Uncle Charlie will be showing us the wrong card. (Come to think of it, I’m glad the old bastard is dead.)
So in approximately seven performances out of ten, the performer is left to spin-doctor the situation into seeming like a successful outcome, a task accomplished by the sudden introduction of another prop: a letter purportedly written by Uncle Charlie and addressed to his wife Emily, explaining that the card in the photo was the one he wanted to get, but that the card he was actually dealt was almost but not quite the same as the one in the photo—
And like the creator of “Kolossal Killer,” the producers of “Heirloom” insist that the above scenario, the one in which the prediction card is wrong, is the best ending to the effect. (Orwellian, no? War is Peace. Bad is Good. A prediction that predicts that the prediction will be wrong is the finest kind of prediction.)
It’s clear that time and effort went into “Heirloom.” The faux-antique photos look great, and even the instruction booklet is pretty to look at. But surely adding a layer of complexity to “Kolossal Killer” can’t be seen as an improvement, can it?