A.C.A.N. by Lloyd Barnes and Craig Petty

The Atomic Deck: A Critical Analysis

This document provides a detailed assessment of the Atomic Deck, a marked A.C.A.N. (Any Card At Any Number) trick, based on reviews from experienced magicians. It aims to equip potential buyers with the information needed to determine if this particular product aligns with their needs and performance style.

Effect

The Atomic Deck presents an illusion where the performer can accurately identify any card requested by an audience member, regardless of its position in the deck. The presentation relies on a seemingly effortless ability to “know” the chosen card, creating a strong sense of wonder and misdirection. The core effect is designed to mimic the appearance of genuine magical ability, a key element for many magicians.

Full Details

The Atomic Deck, created by Lloyd Barnes and Craig Petty, utilizes a copperhead deck with a Viper finish from Legends Card Company. The deck contains 100+ cards and features prominently marked edges designed to aid the performer. However, the overwhelming consensus among reviewers is that these markings are excessively large and obvious, significantly undermining the illusion. SeanDevine, in his review, states bluntly, “it’s absolute garbage” and expresses frustration with the product’s overall quality.

The deck’s construction is a major point of concern. Reviewers consistently report issues with card handling, describing the cards as “rough and smooth” and difficult to manipulate. Cards frequently buckle and crimp during handling, making consistent performance challenging. SeanDevine suggests that using napkins instead of attempting single-card handling might be a more practical approach. The sheer number of cards (100+) is also viewed negatively, adding to the perceived flaws in the design.

Beyond the specific product, SeanDevine raises broader concerns about current trends in magic. He criticizes a focus on novelty and ego-driven releases, arguing that many magicians prioritize demonstrating clever methods over creating genuinely engaging and effective magic. He references Darl Ortiz’s Designing Miracles, quoting a passage that highlights the fallacy of seeking an effect that requires “no method at all.” Ortiz argues that all magic, even seemingly effortless illusions, relies on established techniques. SeanDevine suggests that magicians should embrace traditional methods like sleight of hand and memorization, rather than chasing elusive shortcuts.

Who Should Consider the Trick

This deck is not recommended for most magicians. Its primary flaw – the excessively obvious markings – fundamentally compromises the illusion. It’s unsuitable for performers who prioritize clean handling and a seamless presentation. The poor card construction further exacerbates the problem, making consistent performance difficult.

However, a very specific type of magician might find a niche for this deck: someone primarily interested in a demonstration of a readily available A.C.A.N. effect, and who is willing to accept the limitations of the markings and handling. It could potentially be used as a starting point for learning about A.C.A.N. principles, but it’s not a product designed to facilitate mastery.

Information on How Difficult It Is to Perform

The difficulty of performing the Atomic Deck is high, primarily due to the poor card handling and the distracting markings. SeanDevine notes that even experienced card handlers struggle with the cards, describing the handling as “worse than rough and smooth” and requiring the use of napkins to prevent card buckling. The large markings make it easy for an audience member to spot the indicators, diminishing the illusion. The performer must actively compensate for these issues, adding to the complexity of the routine.

What Magicians Say

SeanDevine’s review is particularly critical, stating, “it’s absolute garbage” and expressing frustration with the product’s design and construction. He questions the value of releasing a product with such obvious flaws, suggesting it’s driven by a desire for recognition rather than a commitment to quality. He describes the deck as a “dick measuring contest,” highlighting the competitive and ego-driven nature of some magic releases. He also expresses concern about the trend of magicians prioritizing clever methods over audience engagement, referencing Darl Ortiz’s argument that all magic requires a method. He concludes that the deck represents a larger problem within the magic community – a focus on novelty and ego over quality and audience experience.