(Close Window)
Topic: Ultimate Technicolor Prediction!
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 21, 2009 01:02PM)
I have been having a lot of fun and great reactions with this one:

http://www.professionalmagicroutines.com/pmrstore/shop/item.asp?itemid=38

If you enjoyed ULTIMATE Positive Negative! The Last Word. You will like this.

J
Message: Posted by: shomemagic (Aug 21, 2009 01:46PM)
YES YES YES,,,I just picked this up and it a winner more importantly it's a worker. John has thought this through. It's not a pipe dream this is for the working magician.
I love it and learning it is so easy with the great description and pictures in this PDF.

I had considered the original Technicolor Prediction but somthing about the board used in the demo looked out of place...The new Pocket Technicolor Prediction looks good but now that I have The ULTIMATE version...I have a pack small mental miracle.

Can you tell I like this...Of course this is just my opinion, however I feel you will be happy with this.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 21, 2009 02:13PM)
Thanks Mr. ShoMag. This routine plays big with what you carry in your pocket.

5 people to 500 or a thousand (I've never played to a thousand!)

J
Message: Posted by: TheAmazingSteveo (Aug 21, 2009 04:53PM)
Hi John ... just bought and read your UPN .. VERY VERY COOL!
This is something I will use!

- Steve
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 21, 2009 06:03PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-21 17:53, TheAmazingSteveo wrote:
Hi John ... just bought and read your UPN .. VERY VERY COOL!
This is something I will use!

- Steve
[/quote]

Thanks, it is rather cool. I appreciate it. I may have left out a little instruction perhaps. I will get it in now.

J
Message: Posted by: ritty360 (Aug 21, 2009 08:03PM)
Do I have to use a wallet??
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 21, 2009 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-21 21:03, ritty360 wrote:
Do I have to use a wallet??
[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you know. But the way I describe the effect is the way I perform it. Every one is different and has knowledge of various tools at their disposal. So, maybe, maybe not.

Oh, and you will ALWAYS show the wallet empty at the conclusion.

John
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Aug 22, 2009 12:32AM)
Why on earth am I still waiting for my copy? ;)

You know I need to upload that to one of those *** P2P sharing forums, John...

So, hurry up! ;)
Message: Posted by: Cody S. Fisher (Aug 22, 2009 01:16AM)
Got it...

Like it...

Will use it...



Cody S. Fisher
Message: Posted by: Stefan O. (Aug 22, 2009 05:41AM)
John, you're making me poor....

This is soo good. Please take it off the market ;-)

I always loved the TP effect, but none of the methods really suited me. Until today.

Stefan
Message: Posted by: ritty360 (Aug 22, 2009 10:56AM)
OK, forgive my ignorance. Is this the same version Martin Lewis released? the pocket Technicolor Prediction?
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 22, 2009 11:12AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-22 11:56, ritty360 wrote:
OK, forgive my ignorance. Is this the same version Martin Lewis released? the pocket Technicolor Prediction?
[/quote]
Same premise (ie, 3 colored envelopes, funny bits, then real prediction), NOT same method(s)

j
Message: Posted by: Mac_Stone (Aug 22, 2009 02:54PM)
Shame, I just bought Martin's new version. But this sounds like it's worth looking into as well.
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Aug 22, 2009 04:18PM)
Yes. It is.

Minimalistic approach (in terms of props to carry) and great effect, direct and to the point.
Message: Posted by: Robert Sixx (Aug 22, 2009 04:28PM)
I haven't seen this version, but this is a great trick and Martin's New version is Awesome although I would prefer it was overlooked by the masses!

Robert
Message: Posted by: AlluTallu (Aug 23, 2009 10:58AM)
So the prediction is introduced after the spectators choose their envelopes?

-Aleksi
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 23, 2009 07:58PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-23 11:58, AlluTallu wrote:
So the prediction is introduced after the spectators choose their envelopes?

-Aleksi
[/quote]

Not really. It's READ after they choose their envelopes but it's introduced BEFORE they even get their envelopes.

Trust me Aleksi, you will like and use this. But, of course, read what others have to say.

j
Message: Posted by: lucavolpe (Aug 24, 2009 06:37AM)
I love it!
Simple and direct!
:)
Message: Posted by: AllanK (Aug 24, 2009 08:31AM)
Well, you've done it again, John. That's two great tricks in just a few weeks. You're really on fire! I can't wait to try this out. I've been doing Ultimate Positive Negative at every opportunity and it ALWAYS gets a fantastic reaction. I can't praise it enough!
Message: Posted by: AlluTallu (Aug 24, 2009 09:28AM)
John, I know I can trust you and I'm sure this won't dissappoint me :) I'm going to buy this today. I'll post my thoughts after I have read it.

Ps. I have had some great success with your UPN. Thanks again for making the basic principle so much more practical!

-Aleksi
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 24, 2009 09:51AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-24 10:28, AlluTallu wrote:
John, I know I can trust you and I'm sure this won't dissappoint me :) I'm going to buy this today. I'll post my thoughts after I have read it.

Ps. I have had some great success with your UPN. Thanks again for making the basic principle so much more practical!

-Aleksi
[/quote]

Hey, if you can't use it ... Paolo will give you 100% of your money back! ;) :) :)

J

PS: I wish I knew how to make one of those BIG LAUGHING faces!
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 24, 2009 11:53AM)
In the most recent release by Mr. Lewis, they do NOT remove the prediction them selves. I am not saying this is a problem, but in the original, he gives them the envelope, tells them to carefully remove the prediction, he then takes back the envelope and holds it in the air and has them read the prediction outload outload. I do not own John's version,but the sole fact that they can remove the prediction themselves is a huge plus over the new release IMHO.
It seems the thing people dislike the most is the stand.
Message: Posted by: AlluTallu (Aug 24, 2009 12:42PM)
[quote]
PS: I wish I knew how to make one of those BIG LAUGHING faces!
[/quote]

You don't need one. You have your avatar ;)

Ps. I just clicked the paypal button.

-Aleksi
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 24, 2009 01:13PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-24 13:42, AlluTallu wrote:
[quote]
PS: I wish I knew how to make one of those BIG LAUGHING faces!
[/quote]

You don't need one. You have your avatar ;)

Ps. I just clicked the paypal button.

-Aleksi
[/quote]

LOL! Oh yea! I forgot.
Message: Posted by: AlluTallu (Aug 24, 2009 01:26PM)
John, I have to say that this effect is definitely another winner from you! Money well spent :)

-Aleksi
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 24, 2009 02:15PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-24 14:26, AlluTallu wrote:
John, I have to say that this effect is definitely another winner from you! Money well spent :)

-Aleksi
[/quote]

COOL! I am glad I lived and re-lived up to your expectations as well as everyone else that has purchased this.

I mean, expectations are just as important as character and that's all we can count on from each other while we're hidden behind our computer screens!

J
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Aug 25, 2009 01:22AM)
I just downloaded this and I have to say it is very good. I will use it. I have to admit once I saw Cody Fishers' comment I figured it would be good. This brings a great effect into an easy to carry and perform realm. I like it a lot.

Thanks John.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Leo-Kim (Aug 25, 2009 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-24 12:53, JSBLOOM wrote:
In the most recent release by Mr. Lewis, they do NOT remove the prediction them selves. I am not saying this is a problem, but in the original, he gives them the envelope, tells them to carefully remove the prediction, he then takes back the envelope and holds it in the air and has them read the prediction outload outload. [/quote]

Well, not really. He doesn't give them the envelope, he holds it and invites them to take out the paper that he removed halfway (check the video on his site http://www.magikraft.com). I have performed this for many years and noone has ever commented on it. I haven't seen mr Lewis' new version but I imagine that thew smaller size of the envelopes makes it necessary for the performer to handle them himself.

Remember that the focus shouldn't be on the envelopes or the board. They are just a tool to hold the predictions. The effect is about your uncanny ability to know in advance wich color they would choose.

A great trick and with great comedic potential.

I should mention that I have not seen mr Cestas version but from the description it sounds interesting, although in my parlour show the original works great so I am not in any hurry to replace it.


Mikael Johansson
Sweden
Message: Posted by: Jerskin (Aug 25, 2009 02:13PM)
Shouldn't the final prediction be in the performer's envelope? I don't see the need for a wallet with a prediction inside.
Message: Posted by: parmenion (Aug 25, 2009 02:55PM)
It's sound to me like one of Paolo idea.
So, the wallet here is essential.
Am I wrong John ?
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 25, 2009 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-25 15:55, parmenion wrote:
It's sound to me like one of Paolo idea.
So, the wallet here is essential.
Am I wrong John ?
[/quote]

Something is essential as long as it's like the wallet. ;)

Some have different tools. Mine is a wallet.

J
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 25, 2009 03:32PM)
Again, this SOUNDS like a HUGE improvement over the new release by Martin Lewis.
I have the old version and I simply put white envelopes under the colored ones.
This makes it a lot easier to do what you have to do; however,it is not a small prop.
So you need a wallet, big deal?

The dilemna is how it possible to have the FINAL prediction come out of the envelope with using normal envelopes w/o that stand?
Until this is solved, this seems like it will be the ULTIMATE TP for most.
Message: Posted by: parmenion (Aug 25, 2009 04:11PM)
So, for me it looks very logical by the way, but I confess I eat lot of (gold)fish so my brain works fast,but as a goldfish every one minute I forget when I knew.
Message: Posted by: Mac_Stone (Aug 25, 2009 10:29PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-25 15:13, Jerskin wrote:
Shouldn't the final prediction be in the performer's envelope? I don't see the need for a wallet with a prediction inside.
[/quote]

Yea I'm not understanding what's up with this wallet. What type of wallet are we talking about here anyway?
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Aug 25, 2009 11:11PM)
The original Martin Lewis TP used a Himber Wallet with three colored envelopes or cards on one side and six "out" colored envelopes or cards on the other side. It's in the book, Martin's Miracles at page 143. Has this trick come full circle?

Thanks,
CM
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (Aug 26, 2009 02:20AM)
Out of curiosity, I purchased this item the other day. I also have the Martin Lewis book. Basically, the routines are quite similar. The primary difference is that John Cesta has applied a method explained by Karl Fulves back in 1977 in place of the method Lewis used in the book for the final prediction.

IMO, the original method is superior, in that the spectators can fairly open and remove the contents of the envelopes they choose, whereas in John's version, the performer must open the envelope. It's simply a fairer procedure, and there is nothing for them to find or for the performer to clean up. In point of fact, a variation is mentioned in the Lewis book where no envelopes are used at all.

That's the main problem I have with calling something an "ultimate" version or "the last word". Unless you've really done your homework and researched every single variation ever published, how can you possibly make that claim? I personally have no problem with John releasing his version--it's the whole "ultimate" business that rubs me the wrong way. I also think this would have been better suited as one item in a larger ebook collection as opposed to a single effect for about $13. Again, that's just my personal opinion. YMMV
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 06:10AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-25 23:29, Mac_Stone wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-25 15:13, Jerskin wrote:
Shouldn't the final prediction be in the performer's envelope? I don't see the need for a wallet with a prediction inside.
[/quote]

Yea I'm not understanding what's up with this wallet. What type of wallet are we talking about here anyway?
[/quote]

I think the privilege of knowing this is in a purchase?

J

[quote]
On 2009-08-26 03:20, Scott F. Guinn wrote:
Out of curiosity, I purchased this item the other day. I also have the Martin Lewis book. Basically, the routines are quite similar. The primary difference is that John Cesta has applied a method explained by Karl Fulves back in 1977 in place of the method Lewis used in the book for the final prediction.

IMO, the original method is superior, in that the spectators can fairly open and remove the contents of the envelopes they choose, whereas in John's version, the performer must open the envelope. It's simply a fairer procedure, and there is nothing for them to find or for the performer to clean up. In point of fact, a variation is mentioned in the Lewis book where no envelopes are used at all.

That's the main problem I have with calling something an "ultimate" version or "the last word". Unless you've really done your homework and researched every single variation ever published, how can you possibly make that claim? I personally have no problem with John releasing his version--it's the whole "ultimate" business that rubs me the wrong way. I also think this would have been better suited as one item in a larger ebook collection as opposed to a single effect for about $13. Again, that's just my personal opinion. YMMV
[/quote]

Sorry Scott, not true that the performer MUST open the envelope in all cases in ULITIMATE Technicolor Prediction. Not true. The spec can actually REMOVE the envelope from the wallet AND in a case REMOVE the prediction with zero help from the performer.

Scott, you seem to be a fair guy. Why don't you share your personal opinion on my ULTIMATE Positive Negative routine that you shared with me and get it out in the open so we can all get the BIG picture. Don't hide beneath the sheets!

And please don't attempt to announce the "secret" to my trick. I wouldn't do that to you!

This is my last reply to you Scott, the floor is all yours. You will have the last word!

With Respect and Sincerity,

John Cesta

PS: And ULTIMATE Technicolor Prediction is not $13 it's only $12.77
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 26, 2009 10:08AM)
CM,
From what I have read, it has not come full circle.....9 Envelopes to do an effect that can actually be done with 3 normal envelopes and no funky stand!
9 Envelopes IMHO seems over kill to me.
I have the original. I was told by a seller the lewis new version requires every single prediction to be removed by the magician. I gaffed my stand.
John has said they can remove the envelope and prediction. This be true,logic tells me he is NOT showing them 6 envelopes on one side, right?
Could it be the Miller Miracle 6 way wallet? NOT.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 10:25AM)
Thanks JSBLOOM,

I agree with what you said, but I add that I hope this doesn't turn into an exposure fest. Let's move on with the topic.

In both cases the spec can remove the envelope containing the prediction and in one case the spec can remove BOTH the envelope and the prediction. In the other case they can remove the envelope ... then they can certainly remove the prediction as well.

In both cases they can EAT the envelope in the end if they wish.

The folks that have purchased this effect know EXACTLY what I am referring to.

Those that have purchased both ULTIMATE Technicolor Prediction and ULTIMATE Positive Negative KNOW what I look for in performance. SIMPLICITY.

If I like the outcome of a previously released routine but I think it's too difficult to perform (for me!) I try and SIMPLIFY it. My goal is not to go one step forward blah blah blah. It's to make it easier to perform for ME and thus hopefully for others. It's too make the thinking during performance minimal. Why think: which envelope, which side, which slot, which color, how to do the verbal linguistics. All that's not FUN for me during a show. If I'm not having FUN then the audience won't have FUN. It's about FUN.

Let's have a little FUN ... shall we?

Anyway, I have to get back to work on my next ULTIMATE! ....

JC
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (Aug 26, 2009 02:04PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 07:18, johncesta wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 03:20, Scott F. Guinn wrote:
Out of curiosity, I purchased this item the other day. I also have the Martin Lewis book. Basically, the routines are quite similar. The primary difference is that John Cesta has applied a method explained by Karl Fulves back in 1977 in place of the method Lewis used in the book for the final prediction.

IMO, the original method is superior, in that the spectators can fairly open and remove the contents of the envelopes they choose, whereas in John's version, the performer must open the envelope. It's simply a fairer procedure, and there is nothing for them to find or for the performer to clean up. In point of fact, a variation is mentioned in the Lewis book where no envelopes are used at all.

That's the main problem I have with calling something an "ultimate" version or "the last word". Unless you've really done your homework and researched every single variation ever published, how can you possibly make that claim? I personally have no problem with John releasing his version--it's the whole "ultimate" business that rubs me the wrong way. I also think this would have been better suited as one item in a larger ebook collection as opposed to a single effect for about $13. Again, that's just my personal opinion. YMMV
[/quote]

Sorry Scott, not true that the performer MUST open the envelope in all cases in ULITIMATE Technicolor Prediction. Not true. The spec can actually REMOVE the envelope from the wallet AND in a case REMOVE the prediction with zero help from the performer.

Scott, you seem to be a fair guy. Why don't you share your personal opinion on my ULTIMATE Positive Negative routine that you shared with me and get it out in the open so we can all get the BIG picture. Don't hide beneath the sheets!

And please don't attempt to announce the "secret" to my trick. I wouldn't do that to you!

This is my last reply to you Scott, the floor is all yours. You will have the last word!

With Respect and Sincerity,

John Cesta

PS: And ULTIMATE Technicolor Prediction is not $13 it's only $12.77
[/quote]

As for $13 vs $12.77, well, that's not worth getting into. Sorry if I offended you by rounding up 23 cents.

No secrets here, and I didn't reveal any part of your method. What I told you in a PM, since you asked me to tell everyone here, is that UPN is virtually identical to a Karl Fulves routine in a book he published in 1977. However, instead of predicting heads or tails, he predicted the winner of the Super Bowl. The method, which you credited to Rick Maue, has probably been around for even longer than that.

Now with UTP, you are releasing another single effect for NEARLY $13. This single effect varies virtually insignificantly from Martin Lewis' original method published in a much more recent and easy to find book.

In my message to you I said pretty much what I said above: that you didn't do your homework, and that by calling your version ultimate you are saying it is superior to every other version out there, whether it is the orginator's or others' who have published variations. Now, IMO, it is one thing for the originator to publish several variations and then call one "ultimate". It is quite another for someone who claims not to be a "historian" to rediscover something that has been done years before and call it "the ultimate last word."

I'm sure you're a good guy, John. I have nothing against you personally. It just seems to me you haven't bothered to do your homework. IMO, someone who is going to release an effect shouldtry to find out everything he can about it, including its published history and variations before releasing the effect. How can you claim it's the best version and the last word if you aren't even aware of all the published versions created by Martin Lewis himself? One can get the whole Martin Lewis book for about what you're charging for these two effects.

Just my opinion. You are of course, free to disagree.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 02:08PM)
Do you mind Scott if I post what YOU REALLY sent me via PM?

John

Actually, scrap that above. I never was interested in a dustup. You seem to be. I don't have time for nonsense anyway.

I think those that are happy with my stuff will be able to decipher your words and meaning and ... besides, I said I would give you the last word.

Good luck my friend in all your future ventures.

j
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (Aug 26, 2009 02:29PM)
OK, then here is my last word. I didn't want to get in a "dust up" either. Does that mean that I am not allowed to express my opinion? In our PM exchange, you encouraged me to do so in the forums. I can only assume that you are referring to the fact that I mentioned my own version of PN and that I'm coming out with a new manuscript in collaboration with Richard Busch, and that I said I thought it had some strong points your version didn't have but that we still aren't calling it the "ultimate last word." I stand by that. If you only want people who think yours is the best version ever to post, you should have said so.

I have had people say critical things of my material, too. Some people hated my books and DVD. Others liked them. All part of the process of putting stuff on the market.

I try to be a fair and honest guy, and I think most of the folks who've been on The Café for a while know that. You seem to think this is personal, or that it's because we both have versions of the same trick for sale. I can assure you that's not the case. Carl Andrews has a table-hopping C&B routine, as do I. I think his is very good. Whit Haydn has a version of Red Hot Mama on the market, as do I. I think his is very good.

The issue I have with these two routines is that they are virtually identical to material that is already out there (pre-dated by 22 years and 14 years), yet you are calling them the "ultimate last word." That's it. It's not because of what routines they are or because your name is John Cesta. If they were different routines and your name was Joe Shmoe, I'd have the same issues. End of story. That's my last word, which you promised to give me.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 02:58PM)
The ULTIMATE Last Word! hmmm ... I like it!

John Cesta
Message: Posted by: ritty360 (Aug 26, 2009 03:12PM)
Well, I feel ripped off for sure. I sent about three emails to John telling him I actually perform a version of this effect with the very same prop used in this effect. I asked him if this is how it is done, I will stick with my version. No reply. So, I buy and and sure enough, it is the very same.

I didn't need this and now I don't want it...thanks for nothing...
Message: Posted by: AlluTallu (Aug 26, 2009 03:30PM)
So why did you buy this ritty? You already knew how to do this so why did you throw your money out of the window? I see no logic in that.

-Aleksi
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 03:35PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 16:12, ritty360 wrote:
Well, I feel ripped off for sure. I sent about three emails to John telling him I actually perform a version of this effect with the very same prop used in this effect. I asked him if this is how it is done, I will stick with my version. No reply. So, I buy and and sure enough, it is the very same.

I didn't need this and now I don't want it...thanks for nothing...
[/quote]

That is simply NOT TRUE ritty. Not true. I answer EVERY ONE. Every email, I go out of my way.

Simply NOT TRUE!!

Your questions to me ritty are right in this thread. As you can see I answered each and every one. I do not own either of the TP effects. And from what I've heard I doubt they are the same method as mine.



John
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (Aug 26, 2009 03:50PM)
I want to make one thing absolutely clear, because I've received a few messages from some folks. I do not mean any disrespect toward John and I'm sorry if that is what I implied in my posts--it certainly was not my intent. John has replied to my messages every time. While we disagree on some points, I have never meant to bring his character or integrity into question. I apologize here publicly to you, John, if you felt in any way that was the case. I repeat: that has never been my intent.
Message: Posted by: Floyd Collins (Aug 26, 2009 05:06PM)
John congrats on your release.
Is this anything like Greg Arce version??? Seems there are other versions out there if you simplified them then hats off to you John.

--Floyd
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 05:25PM)
No not like Greg's. Greg Arce is world class. I have his Cash Out routine and it kicks ... well you know!

I like to think I simplified it. And in MY mind that's why I call it ULTIMATE because it's the one I Ultimately use after perusing through several variations from various creators and thinkers.

And by golly if there are others out there that think the way THEY routine an effect is the ULTIMATE then don't be afraid to say so!! Buddy Rich, Mr. Humble, the greatest drummer that ever lived taught me that.


Thanks Floyd! I appreciate your remarks.

John
Message: Posted by: ritty360 (Aug 26, 2009 05:30PM)
I can resend you the email if you'd like. I sent it using your website after your email to the purchaser of of ultimiate Positive Negative.

I posed in the my email to you a very specific question that would have not revealed methods. Saying "Maybe so, Maybe not" in your response...yes that is a reply....

Alexhi, I was looking for the ULTIMATE TP...I was hoping to have a more streamlined version than the one I perform now. Yes, I did think the grass was greener...I was wrong.

Sorry I was a prick in that previous post.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 26, 2009 06:09PM)
Yea, then send it. I don't remember that. I answered your questions to the best of my ability without exposing methods. I ALWAYS refer folks to my description so they can read EXACLTY how the routine will go down. It's a standard way of delivering a magic trick etc. It has been for me for 20 years anyway.

But, the reason I said maybe, maybe not is because YES you need a wallet unless you have another tool that serves the same purpose and that's what I said.

Sorry you were dissapointed. I am glad that the majority of others here were not. And, I am glad that some that had previous versions of this effect have publicly stated that THIS one is the one they use now. I guess to each their own.

BTW, I am not AlexHi.

John
Message: Posted by: Mac_Stone (Aug 26, 2009 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 11:08, JSBLOOM wrote:
I have the original. I was told by a seller the lewis new version requires every single prediction to be removed by the magician.
[/quote]

Not true. All but the final prediction are removed by spectators, and by then who really cares anyway?

One thing people are missing about Martin Lewis' new version is that you are getting an INCREDIBLY useful utility gimmick.
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 26, 2009 10:39PM)
Mac,

Let me rephrase, the envelopes can not be opened by the spectator AND remove the prediction. The spectator does NOT handle them,right?

IMHO, The beauty of the original routine is asking them to open up the envelope and remove the prediction as well as having the final prediction come from the envelope.
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Aug 26, 2009 10:45PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 11:08, JSBLOOM wrote:
CM,
From what I have read, it has not come full circle.....9 Envelopes to do an effect that can actually be done with 3 normal envelopes and no funky stand!
9 Envelopes IMHO seems over kill to me.
I have the original. I was told by a seller the lewis new version requires every single prediction to be removed by the magician. I gaffed my stand.
John has said they can remove the envelope and prediction. This be true,logic tells me he is NOT showing them 6 envelopes on one side, right?
Could it be the Miller Miracle 6 way wallet? NOT.
[/quote]

It sounds like you do not have the original, which I cited to in Martin's book (see my previous post) and which did not employ a gaffed stand.

CM
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Aug 26, 2009 10:56PM)
Respectfully submitted (for your disapproval, perhaps):

The problem of invention and attribution in Magic is an oft' recurring one. It is the result of the unfortunate, but strongly perpetuated Maxim of the Art: "The secret is what you're paying for," which is a perversion of the basic "Magician's Code" of "Never tell how your trick is done."

I use the words "unfortunate" and "perversion" because the Magician's Code should be confined to the relationship between Performer and Audience, not between fellow practitioners of the Art.

This Dark Ages mentality of secrecy among and between its practitioners has the unfortunate result of fostering ignorance and retarding development in, as well as causing acrimony among those who purportedly share a love for, our Curious Little Art. What a waste of time, words and emotions!

I only cited to Martin's original trick in my post above to see if John's version was significantly different. I try to avoid spending money on things I already have or I will not use. This remains a major challenge in our field, both because of the commercial interests of the dealers and because of the deeply held and sincere beliefs of our fellow practitioners.

CM
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 27, 2009 08:27AM)
CM,
I actually do not. It is my own version. My stand is no bigger than an index card folded in half so this baby is very porteable :)
IMHO, for stage nothing is wrong with the original. Do the move when the lady is removing her prediction because all eyes will be on her. If need be, add extra envelopes below the colored ones so the move can be done easier.
You can even write gags on the white ones like:
No, NOT THAT ONE!
Would you like to change your mind or are you happy with the mind you have?
Thanks -ALOT!
WRONG ONE

Obviously there are pros and cons with each "take" on the effect. Some get rid of the angle problems, but this means either gaffed envelopes or the prediction OR coming out from something other than the envelope.
It all depends upon each person's personal preferance and a lot of people really like John's effect.






Best,
Jeff
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 27, 2009 08:44AM)
I agree with you 100% Jeff and thanks for the remark about my idea for this effect.

Let me make my routine as clear as I can. The 3 envelopes RED, YELLOW and GREEN are NOT GAFFED in ANY way. You can give them away.

The specs pull the predictions out of the envelopes they picked: The RED, GREEN and YELLOW ones and read them aloud.

The final prediction comes from the wallet or other "tool" you wish to use. There are only two choices you really have to worry about with regard to the prediction.

In on instance the spectator can remove the prediction envelope from the wallet and read it.

In ohter instances the spec can remove the envelope from the wallet, the performer opens it and dumps the contents into the specs hand AND gives the spec the envelope to eat or take home as a souvenier.

I hope that makes it clear as far as logistics and what is gaffed and not gaffed.

Thanks to CODY FISHER and Paolo Cavalli and Stephan O and others that are having FUN with this idea.



John
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 27, 2009 10:02AM)
John,
You are welcome.
IMHO, you have been as up front as any one could ask.
Bottom line, they should know what they are getting and where the final prediction comes from.
a 6 way miller mircle wallet would be pretty cool, woudn't it?
Magic regards,
Jeff
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 27, 2009 10:14AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-27 11:02, JSBLOOM wrote:
John,
You are welcome.
IMHO, you have been as up front as any one could ask.
Bottom line, they should know what they are getting and where the final prediction comes from.
a 6 way miller miracle wallet would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?
Magic regards,
Jeff
[/quote]
I only need two - HIMBER.

But for other versions a 6 way yes.

j
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 27, 2009 10:48AM)
ALCON,
The above post should clearly let anyone know what they will be getting and what is needed.
Out from here!
Message: Posted by: ritty360 (Aug 27, 2009 02:49PM)
I don't know. In working with this more and even Postive Negative, I don't like either of them. John, your PN version's biggest flaw is that it is a step backward from even the original. The beauty of this effect was that organic nature of the outcome. It was as if moments before the event, the prediction was written.

I believe Tobias Beckwith has the best adaptation of this effect. It can be found in Mystery School. It retains the organic nature of PN with a more concise outcome.

Just my opinions. Again, I am sorry for being so critical, but it is my efforts to always retain an organic feel to what I an performing. These adaptations, I feel remove a level of that comfort I have.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 27, 2009 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-27 15:49, ritty360 wrote:
I don't know. In working with this more and even Postive Negative, I don't like either of them. John, your PN version's biggest flaw is that it is a step backward from even the original. The beauty of this effect was that organic nature of the outcome. It was as if moments before the event, the prediction was written.

I believe Tobias Beckwith has the best adaptation of this effect. It can be found in Mystery School. It retains the organic nature of PN with a more concise outcome.

Just my opinions. Again, I am sorry for being so critical, but it is my efforts to always retain an organic feel to what I an performing. These adaptations, I feel remove a level of that comfort I have.
[/quote]

Not being critical, It's your right. No one can MAKE you like it. I don't like liver, never have.

Thanks,
J
Message: Posted by: Thaumaturge (Aug 27, 2009 05:20PM)
It all seems to have gone a little off track really.

I picked up John Ultimate + - and really loved the working. I bought Ultimate tech prediction and loved the handling and version of this (sorry, but who really cares about the title, its the working that's of interest!). There are minimal props to carry, and, god forbid, its a different method to an old trick, but does this automatically make it bad??? Well no, it really doesn't.

Each to their own, but as a fairly new comer to the Café I've found some pretty silly comments on a lot of marketed effects.
This is a review section, and whether good or bad, things should be kept, I feel, as unbiased as possible.
And now....

back on track.
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 27, 2009 06:19PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-27 18:20, Thaumaturge wrote:
It all seems to have gone a little off track really.

I picked up John Ultimate + - and really loved the working. I bought Ultimate tech prediction and loved the handling and version of this (sorry, but who really cares about the title, its the working that's of interest!). There are minimal props to carry, and, god forbid, its a different method to an old trick, but does this automatically make it bad??? Well no, it really doesn't.

Each to their own, but as a fairly new comer to the Café I've found some pretty silly comments on a lot of marketed effects.
This is a review section, and whether good or bad, things should be kept, I feel, as unbiased as possible.
And now....

back on track.
[/quote]

Thaumaturge, thanks and glad you like it. I performed UTP at a Detention Center today about 5 times. It slayed. I volunteer at a detention center once a month on like a career day and go in and perform magic mind reading for 4 different age groups.

If you all ever get a chance to do that you should take it. It's very rewarding.

John
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 29, 2009 07:08AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-26 23:39, JSBLOOM wrote:
Mac,

Let me rephrase, the envelopes can not be opened by the spectator AND remove the prediction. The spectator does NOT handle them,right?

IMHO, The beauty of the original routine is asking them to open up the envelope and remove the prediction as well as having the final prediction come from the envelope.
[/quote]

In ULTIMATE Technicolor Prediction the RED GREEN and YELLOW envelopes handed to the spectators CAN be opened by them. The prediction that says, I knew I would pick the yellow envelope cab also be removed and read by the spectator. And they can take them home.

So too can the final prediction envelope be removed from the wallet by the spectators and one of the predictions INSIDE the prediction envelope may be removed. SO, it's pretty flexible.

j
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 29, 2009 07:37AM)
J,
My post was in referance to Lewis's newest effect.
By now, all should now that your effect is wonderful and uses a wallet.
It is that simple
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 29, 2009 12:04PM)
JS, you can never be too sure.

I still have people PM me because they are confused as to the EXACT workings. Some here in the thread are discussing other versions of the effect and not mentioning what effect they are talking about. There is confusion as to the envelopes, meaning the RED, YELLOW and GREEN envelopes that are handed out to specs VS the prediction envelope that is kept in the wonderful wallet.

While YOU may be clear, some others are not. Just skip over my rantings. ;)

J
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Aug 29, 2009 06:17PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-25 15:55, parmenion wrote:
It's sound to me like one of Paolo idea.
So, the wallet here is essential.
Am I wrong John ?
[/quote]

Parmenion,

Yes, the original idea with 3 billets rather than 6 comes from my Sigma book.

John Cesta asked for permission to use it and I said yes.

------


However for the people objecting to the function of the envelopes in John's version...

The envelopes here should be part of the GAG, and should be sold as such.

However, you don't need a wallet (no, even if it were a 6-Ways Miller because in that case I would still go with a Predator and then - why not having 10 people choosing 10 envelopes...?) and you don't need 6 outs.

Once again, 3 is the magic number here!


You could use my Flytrap gimmick, you could use a slit envelope and a billet index (well, billet index is too much of a misnomer for a place in which to keep ONLY 3 billets!)

I take that you know what do with the slit envelope and the correct billet! :bg:

But those are MY ideas and options - If John wants to go with the wallet, and as he said - for him - this is HIS ULTIMATE version, good for him!

Now - nobody is forcing you guys to buy this. But John's description of the effect, even before you knew the method, was very upfront. You should not come in here after ... and tell that you did not know you needed a wallet (Once again - if you switch to one of the methods I have suggested above for free... you won't need a wallet!)
Message: Posted by: Callisto (Sep 11, 2009 09:25AM)
A very good improvement ot he routine of M. Lewis
Message: Posted by: Leeman (Sep 16, 2009 12:21AM)
Martin Lewis has a new version of TCP that requires only three envelopes and that's all, no boards or wallets. It is a great addition since everything is self contained. I used the version with the board all the time and eventually switched to the pocket version after seeing Martin Lewis lecture and perform at the Magic Castle a couple of months ago. Below is a link to a description of the new version, I did a show a couple of nights ago and hopefully I can post a clip of the routine in action in the next few days. Just a note for anybody still using the board. It was mentioned in an old set of Martin Lewis lecture notes, where technicolor prediction was described to write something on the back of the board to help disguise the gimmick. If you know how it works try this. I made my own board and attached a piece of poster board to the back so that it is attached along its length in the middle. The idea is that I can still reach between the board proper and the attached back and remove the final prediction. This way I can show the board front and back and even up close there is nothing to see. Also on the back I wrote "Applause" and would hold it up at the end. It added a nice laugh and showed the back and gave a reason to have the board.


Check out this link for the Martin Lewis Pocket Technicolor Prediction

http://www.hanklee.org/xcart/product.php?productid=1894&cat=&page=1&xid=0232397911c1e1e1e6ab58cb0d7687f1
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 16, 2009 12:44AM)
The revealing of the prediction (only judging by Hank Lee's blurb example) seems THE SAME idea I wrote in my Sigma book.


Leeman,

One question about the envelopes - Who opens each envelope, you or your participants?
Message: Posted by: Leeman (Sep 16, 2009 02:03PM)
The magician opens the envelopes, although for the first two the spectator could open the envelope the magician would just have to hold on to it while they open and remove the prediction. For the first two the spectator can remove the prediction and see that there is nothing left inside the envelope (I have never done this, I just remove the prediction and hand it to them), for the last envelop the magician removes the prediction. The predictions are written on the same color paper as the envelope so that it is still visible which color each person took.
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 16, 2009 05:53PM)
Thank you, Leeman.

This is as I thoguht it was.

So, even John's idea (or is it my idea... I'm confused now! ...John... You thief! :lol:) could be applied to any clean two-ways envelope or even to John's Ultimate Positive Negative.

Just think on your feet, and you'll get how, John...

Without any wallet (even if I know you cherish your gimmicked wallets... ) and no extra envelopes needed.
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 16, 2009 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-16 18:53, Lord Of The Horses wrote:
Thank you, Leeman.

This is as I thoguht it was.

So, even John's idea (or is it my idea... I'm confused now! ...John... You thief! :lol:) could be applied to any clean two-ways envelope or even to John's Ultimate Positive Negative.

Just think on your feet, and you'll get how, John...

Without any wallet (even if I know you cherish your gimmicked wallets... ) and no extra envelopes needed.
[/quote]

I don't know if these are compliments or what!@

And there's no such thing as a gimmicked wallet, they're made that way!


j

PS: Hey, Paolo, you leave a little crumb in your Sigma book and I'll stick my beak in it!
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 16, 2009 06:19PM)
:lol:

Seriously, John...

Now... have you thought to combine one idea with the other idea ... just in case your most esteemed buyers of BOTH of your ULTIMATE products don't know how to put the things together?

MY PREDICTION : I AM ULTIMATELY POSITIVE THAT NO NEGATIVES SHOULD ARISE WHEN COMBINING TECHNICOLOR!
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Sep 16, 2009 09:26PM)
This effect can be accomplished with the Ss opening the envelopes they choose (without the M touching or holding them) and the envelope left for the M being seen as empty. This (my) version does require a very different envelope and set-up from the Lewis-Porstmann version.

I may post a description of this in Inner Thoughts when I'm no longer performing it.

This routine is conceptually similar to many of the "Chair" routines and, therefore, appeals to those of us who are fans of those. I find it makes a quick and entertaining opener.

CM
Message: Posted by: PsiDroid (Sep 16, 2009 10:30PM)
Whatcha talking bout chrissmatt ??
Message: Posted by: Ustaad (Sep 19, 2009 08:23AM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-16 22:26, chrismatt wrote:
This effect can be accomplished with [b]the Ss opening the envelopes they choose[/b] (without the M touching or holding them) and [b]the envelope left for the M being seen as empty[/b]. This (my) version does require a very different envelope and set-up from the Lewis-Porstmann version.
[/quote]

Very nice idea! . . . but how :worry: :confused:

:xmas:
P.S. To begin with there are three loaded envelopes. Each (of the two) spectator is allowed to freely choose & open the envelopes they choose without the mentalist touching or holding them.(?)
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 19, 2009 09:19AM)
With UTP no one ever asks to SEE what's inside the left over envelope so for all they know ... it's empty. They have enjoyed the GAG and that's the crux of phase ONE.

Often, not always, I even remove the card in my left over envelope and read it to say I knew you would choose the XXXXXX envelope. So, I'm correct three times.

All this stuff about this way better, that way better is in OUR minds. Non of it: whether your envelope is empty, not empty etc is relevant to the audience. The only releveant portion is YOUR prediction at the conclusion. The fact that you KNEW what the ULTIMATE outcome would be.

IMO there are two phases to this routine: 1) The gag 2) The ULTIMATE reading of the prediction, the fact that you knew. I suppose 3 phases if you take into consideratoin the bits of biz DURING the 2 parts.

All this said and qualified with IMHO!

J
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Sep 19, 2009 01:39PM)
If and when I post my version (accomplished with the Ss opening the envelopes they choose without the M touching or holding them and with the envelope left for the M being seen as empty), you can judge for yourselves.

CM
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 20, 2009 08:14AM)
John, I believe your right about the final prediction being the most relevant.
But in my opinion the principle that Paolo suggests, is too close to the linguistic ambiguity used in the gag. In Martin Lewis' original routine, the final prediction is absolutely clear, "The gentleman will select the green envelope, the lady will select the red envelope, and I will be left with the yellow envelope."

I think the tradeoff of ease of method to deceptiveness is to great here.

Just my thoughts,

Woodfield
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 20, 2009 01:53PM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-20 09:14, Woodfield wrote:
John, I believe your right about the final prediction being the most relevant.
But in my opinion the principle that Paolo suggests, is too close to the linguistic ambiguity used in the gag. In Martin Lewis' original routine, the final prediction is absolutely clear, "The gentleman will select the green envelope, the lady will select the red envelope, and I will be left with the yellow envelope."

I think the tradeoff of ease of method to deceptiveness is to great here.

Just my thoughts,

Woodfield
[/quote]


Well, that's only because these are still two different things...

But if you really want to use only 3 envelope and one clear prediction, this is really easy to set-up.

I'm not implying nor denying that this new version from Martin Lewis is not great and straight to the point...

It is.

But the truth is that if we are to discuss "strenght" of an effect, and if I had to use "gimmicked envelopes" and clean prediction, I would rather prefer other plots and routines like, any Max Maven's effect (Coupon Capers is just one!) or any other three envelope prediction (too many to name now, because almost any working Mentalist has came up with his own version and twist).
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 20, 2009 06:49PM)
I was purposely vague in my post to not expose methods.
But, anyone who performs this better give some thought as to how
the gag predictions are worded. Is it, "I predict you will select the green envelope", or "You will select the green envelope", or "I predict you will select the green envelope". See the potential problem if you have to resort to the out?

I'm of the opinion that the priciple in question is the most deceptive when the outcomes aren't revealed(known to the audience and performer) until the prediction is read.

I would like to say the envelope is a great idea with UPN.

Woodfield
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 20, 2009 08:28PM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-20 19:49, Woodfield wrote:
But, anyone who performs this better give some thought as to how
the gag predictions are worded. Is it, "I predict you will select the green envelope", or "You will select the green envelope", or "I predict you will select the green envelope". See the potential problem if you have to resort to the out?

[/quote]

Which gag prediction? John Cesta's?

Because with my first idea I did not need ANY gag prediction...

BUT if I had, I would simply skip the I and YOU... That's it!

Easy as a pie to word it in other ways, IF you only ponder for a moment or two... ;)
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 21, 2009 06:39PM)
I was referring to the gag predictions in the colored envelopes that the spectators take out and read.
Woodfield
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 21, 2009 07:01PM)
I was too.
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 21, 2009 07:14PM)
Okay, how would you word the predictions in the colored envelopes (Ultimate Technicolor Prediction) without using "you" or "I" ?
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 21, 2009 07:19PM)
Hey... That's not fair!

I must keep this undercover in case John's kids need some new wardrobe... ;)

Really, it's so simple that I'm sure you can come up with your way (and infact I'm not saying that my way is the only right way...It's just a way to avoid I or YOU...)
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 21, 2009 07:42PM)
Well, I took a look at the instructions for UTP and the predictions are
"I knew you would select the green envelope" and so forth.
The spectator reads this. After the laughs you now have the second spectator who selected an envelope read the real prediction (from the wallet) which states "I will select.....
Having the spectator read the prediction throws up a big red flag. There is not any strong justification to have the spectator read it. I had this happen in a performance for young adults who don't mind expressing their thoughts.
It was nice that the girl spoke up and said, "But how did he know which one I would pick?" But why use a method that people can deduce part of the secret
when the original Martin Lewis method was absolutely clear in the end?

My head hurts now
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Sep 21, 2009 08:04PM)
I think you're over analyzing this a bit too much...

While what I state can be easily done, the reason you don't find that idea in John's effect is because he just took a bit out of my SIGMA (with a nod to Bandler, Grinder ... and Deddy Corbuzier) and used it for HIS OWN version of "Technicolor Prediction" that may be too simple for you but as John himself said (somewhere in one post) he likes to simple things that work for HIM.

If you want something "cleaner" - maybe not as much as envelope handling but as final impact... then you should go for the new, revised Martin Lewis TP which seem many are enthusiasts about.
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 21, 2009 08:25PM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-21 20:42, Woodfield wrote:
After the laughs you now have the second spectator who selected an envelope read the real prediction (from the wallet) which states "I will select.....


[/quote]

First of all: No, that's not true.

Second, please refrain from dissecting the trick in this forum. Not everyone owns it ... YET!

Also, sounds like you are testing this out without rehearsing and understanding the psychology inherent in a routine such as this.

j

PS: And Paolo, thanks for considering my children's' wardrobe and backpacks.
Message: Posted by: gboss (Sep 22, 2009 02:05AM)
Hi John,

Before I click on PayPal button:
Does the solution depend on the English language or can I translate the predictions to my language?
Message: Posted by: PsiDroid (Sep 22, 2009 06:26AM)
Any language work
Message: Posted by: gboss (Sep 22, 2009 08:46AM)
Thank you!
Ordered!
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 22, 2009 09:44AM)
[quote]
On 2009-09-22 09:46, gboss wrote:
Thank you!
Ordered!
[/quote]

Sent!

Thanks

J
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Oct 28, 2009 08:45AM)
Okay, after reading this download here is my opinion.

This is probably superior to the original because there is no weird tray. So for stage this is probably better.

For walk around or table hopping this isn't so great. You are supposed to tear an envelope open and that isn't table hopper friendly.

I would say if you are doing table hopping go with free will. If you are doing stage go with UTP.

Just my 2 cents.
Message: Posted by: John C (Dec 8, 2009 01:27PM)
Thanks Paul.

I always try and GET the woman to pick the GREEN. Then I don't have to tear anything open. Have had fairly good luck so far, but not really MADE for table hopping.

Definitely FREE WILL for table hopping. Have them pick a spoon or salt or something!

Thanks for your input.
Message: Posted by: EventEntertainer (Dec 8, 2009 02:17PM)
For that matter why not show your wallet in the beginning and say something like "Normally I'd put money on it, but as you can see I have none".

This shows your wallet normal and may subconciously plant the idea that "money is green". I can't say for certain, but I will be playing with this!

This is what I call a great K.I.S.S. effect (Killer Impact with Simple Setup).

Thanks John!!!
Message: Posted by: John C (Dec 11, 2009 07:53AM)
Thank YOU EE. I like the idea of "money is green"

KISS

John
Message: Posted by: EventEntertainer (Dec 13, 2009 11:52AM)
I've tried 8 times. All 8 the female picked green. Coincidence?

Still playing with the verbage!

So far: "Who wants money? (jokingly) Yeah, who doesn't (as you open your wallet). But I do have..."
Message: Posted by: John C (Jan 3, 2010 02:09PM)
I've tried this as well and they certainly pick green. I used this over and over almost all night at a gig.

Thanks EE

J
Message: Posted by: EventEntertainer (Jan 4, 2010 10:02AM)
I think I've hit the phrase that yields the most results. I'll PM you shortly! I have eliminated one of the envelopes entirely! Thank you!
Message: Posted by: John C (Jan 4, 2010 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-01-04 11:02, EventEntertainer wrote:
I think I've hit the phrase that yields the most results. I'll PM you shortly! I have eliminated one of the envelopes entirely! Thank you!
[/quote]

COOL! I've been trying to do that as well. Waiting patiently for the PM ...

J
Message: Posted by: aligator (Jan 28, 2010 11:58AM)
Anyone know a good place in Canada to buy coloured envelopes or is making your own a viable option. I guess the actual colours don't really matter though I agree with what has been said about the liklihood of a female spec choosing green.
Message: Posted by: John C (Jan 28, 2010 04:04PM)
Aligator,

I just write the words yellow, red, green on a white envelope using that color marker. I tell the specs this is a beta trick. Just testing it out. It's not in full production.

I haven't found the envelopes either. You can purchase a few bday etc cards and they come with colored envelopes.

j
Message: Posted by: EventEntertainer (Jan 28, 2010 04:53PM)
...or just buy colored card stock. Fold it over in half. Even better, you can fold it into an envelope by folding it a little more than half, and then folding the overage over. It's hard to describe, but try it and you'll see what I mean.

Imagine putting your contact info at the bottom, and they have a great keepsake. You can also put a "coupon" there as a thank you.
Message: Posted by: Max Krause (Jan 28, 2010 05:56PM)
Colored Envelopes

http://www.actionenvelope.com/

Max
Message: Posted by: bsears (Feb 8, 2011 12:28PM)
Lurking below some of the hyperbole in this thread is a great discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of different methods in achieving a similar effect. I have always liked this effect since I first saw Martin do it. I think its extremely commercial and deceptive.

IMO, each of these newer methods obviously have certain drawbacks and advantages, but I will say overall that the addition of a stand does not bother me, but adding a wallet to the effect does. It dilutes the purity of the effect, imo. Also, in my mind, the issue of who opens the envelope, as long as it's done fairly, isn't a big deal. But that's just me!
Message: Posted by: John C (Feb 21, 2011 07:28AM)
UTP and Chair test together 20% OFF TILL END OF FEB. PM me for deal!

JC
Message: Posted by: mindgames (Feb 25, 2011 02:40PM)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this routine can use my method "FreeWill" ?
Message: Posted by: John C (Mar 23, 2011 09:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-25 15:40, mindgames wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this routine can use my method "FreeWill" ?
[/quote]

What?
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Nov 7, 2012 02:49PM)
Freewill appears different.;)
Message: Posted by: John C (Nov 7, 2012 07:29PM)
15% off any of my stuff UNTIL YEAR END.

USE "ELECTION2012" AS COUPON

Peace

J
Message: Posted by: magic maniac (Nov 16, 2012 07:25PM)
It's not as easy as it everyone makes it sound and does in fact require a prop (not mentioned in the ad copy) which not everyone may have or be comfortable using.

Sorry, but I wont be using this.
Message: Posted by: John C (Nov 16, 2012 09:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-11-16 20:25, magic maniac wrote:
It's not as easy as it everyone makes it sound and does in fact require a prop (not mentioned in the ad copy) which not everyone may have or be comfortable using.

Sorry, but I wont be using this.
[/quote]

Sorry. From the ad copy please read. I think most people know what his means:

"The performer then reminds the audience of the prediction in the wallet. He opens the wallet and perhaps allows someone to remove the contents."

I also believe this is discussed in this very long thread. I too believe that if you are a mentalist and "not comfortable" using an H wallet then prehaps being a mentailist is not your cup of tea.

John
Message: Posted by: magic maniac (Nov 17, 2012 04:26PM)
From the ad copy, I thought the outcome was stored away for one outcome but to be read like the 'Free Will' effect if that makes sense. I like Free Will and enjoy performing it.

I'm also comfortable using the wallet, I use it for John Archer's comedy Kollosal Killer regularly. But when there's more choices to remember when finding the right side of the wallet, that's where I have the issue. I think there's a little too much room for error when you're standing in front of an audience is all I'm saying.

Plus, I thought you may have included a little scripting, as the ad sort of leads you to believe. Anyhow, you have a good name, so no hard feelings.

Jonathan
Message: Posted by: John C (Nov 18, 2012 12:28PM)
My thoughts on your post were: maybe its not as easy for YOU as everyone else has stated it is for them.

It may not be for you that's OK. I've purchased effects that while they are good they are not for me. I don't like stuff like NW and PW. So while the routine may be the best, if it involves these methods I will not perform them. Perhaps I will try a way to perform them with a different method.

Thanks for your thoughts.

John
Message: Posted by: mindgames (Nov 18, 2012 09:01PM)
When I created the freewill principle the whole ideas is to make a "one" way out to cover a multiple out predictions effect. I love this new routine and its good. and I think you all should get it to try it. however I'm a lazy person that prefer to use one way out if its possible :)
Message: Posted by: John C (Nov 18, 2012 11:09PM)
I agree with easy as I am lazy as well. Thanks mindgames.

J
Message: Posted by: John C (May 15, 2015 09:51PM)
I just found this thread as I was searching Google by accident. I read the the entire thread. I want to thank everyone who posted and purchased this effect.

I appreciate it. I really do. While I read what others and I have said I wanted to say the credit for this type of effect goes to Martin Lewis and Deddy. I only thought I had an idea that would add to a simpler way of performing it. A simpler way for me.

As long as I'm in this world, I am a light in this world.- Rev Gary Davis
Message: Posted by: MrKen (May 24, 2015 08:26PM)
Adding the walk around version of color match to this effect could make things interesting ...
Message: Posted by: John C (Aug 11, 2015 09:44PM)
I like it.