|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
jstone Inner circle Someday I'll have 1473 Posts 
|
MagicSquared,
Your center tear example only supports my point... You say that you're not "enamored" with this type of advertising. Would you rather magic ads simply explain to your the secret right in the ad copy? I'm not sure there is any other way to do it without exposing the secret. For someone who does not know the workings of say Blizzard by Dean Dill, should the ad explicitly say that the tricks is done with a deck ******** (*gimmick name). I think not... Like it or not, in magic, we pay for the method. Take Sanders's effect, Tagged... They had to edit around one part of the performance because as a magician it would allow you to deduce the method and then rip it off without paying. However, nothing in the ad is inaccurate, but revealing too much is exposure. |
|||||||||
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts
|
Jeff,
You seem to be confusing method with presentation. In this effect the math is part of the presentation; it's something the audience is well aware of. So there is no similarity between the math in this effect and a secret move, or a deck switch, or a gimmicked ring (things the audience isn't aware of). And my center tear example doesn't support your point. In fact, it's the exact opposite of your point. (A center tear involves writing something down. If an ad only says the audience member thinks of anything and doesn't mention writing it down, it may lead you to believe you're buying a new technique, which in this case you wouldn't be.) As far as Tagged goes, I can at least tell when a video has been edited. I can't tell when someone's description of an effect has been edited. |
|||||||||
|
Gilgamesh_The_Librarian Elite user 408 Posts
|
This is what Jay says on the teaser
"Mentalism doesn't get any Stronger than this. You ask somebody to think, just think of any two digit number. You then introduce a list of 99 different objects and let people take a close look so they can see all the objects really are different. Beside each object is a number from 1 to 99. The spectator who has been thinking of the two digit number is asked to think ,just think, of the object listed beside the number they have in mind and then, without any questions or fishing whatsoever you do the impossible." Now to my mind a misleading ad is one where what the ad says the spectator experiences is untrue and I have to say that, with the wording above, this ad isn't misleading at all. But you do need to listen carefully to what is being said as it tells you more about the trick and also a clue about how you will be working this piece of magic on your spectator. The only thing I would disagree with is the statement "Mentalism doesn't get any stronger than this" - that's pushing things a bit too far methinks. |
|||||||||
|
Joe Roberts Special user 863 Posts
|
The ad certainly implies that only one number is thought of and it's that number that the selected object is next to. So either this trick doesn't use math or the ad is misleading.
I don't mind an ad that is from the spectator's POV, but if there is math involved, then that isn't something a reasonably intelligent spectator would forget. |
|||||||||
|
Andi Peters Inner circle 1330 Posts
|
Check out the trick called Psychic Symbols, it doesn't reveal any methods but gives you an idea of the approach. It's been doing the rounds on the internet for years so I don't think I'm exposing anything here.
http://www.magicmgmt.com/gary/welcome2/index.html |
|||||||||
|
MSD921 Special user 616 Posts
|
Gilgamesh,
That ad is completely inaccurate and misleading. "You ask someone to think, just think, of any two digit number". An honest ad would then indicate, as softly and carefully worded as it wants, that - THERE ARE OTHER STEPS INVOLVED. The spectator does MORE than think of a number. To say that is all they do is wrong. My guess is that more people will be upset, than happy, after opening this effect and reading that they have other steps to go through. I know I was with "100 Names". With that said, it is pretty common to get an effect and be disappointed with the method, or to find out an ad was misleading. In my opinion, there are three types of ads in magic today.... 1) Honest, forthright, ads. 2) Ads that are accurate but leave out important points that a buyer should know about (not disclosure, just truth in advertising. 3) Blatantly dishonest ads that misrepresent a product, effect or result. I believe 99 falls into #2 and most ads fall into #1 and #2. Anyway, enough of this. Best to Jay, buyers and non buyers. Mike |
|||||||||
gaffed Inner circle So far I've managed to gimmick 1817 Posts
|
I don't have the trick and more than likely won't purchase it. However, I'll totally have to agree that making such a statement as; "Mentalism doesn't get any stronger than this" is beyond absurd. Admittedly Jay is trying to sell a product and no harm in making a hard sakes pitch but making such a claim as that is a tad overboard, even for Jay!
~gaffed~
"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
~Yogi Berra~ "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~St. Thomas Aquinas~ Twitter – "A means of proving how pathetic and lonely you are in 140 characters or less." ~Anonymous~ |
|||||||||
|
fvdbeek Elite user 490 Posts
|
>Check out the trick called Psychic Symbols, it doesn't reveal any methods but gives you an idea of the >approach
I know how Psychic Symbols works. Now go to the demo of 99 and take a good look at the list that Jay displays. Got it ? I don't see any repetition at the specific numbers. So it can;t be the same method. Frans |
|||||||||
|
jstone Inner circle Someday I'll have 1473 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 16:50, MSD921 wrote: It doesn't say that it's all they do. It says "just think" as in "merely think" as in the spectator never ever verbalizes the number they are thinking of. As to MagicSquared's comment about me mixing up method with presentation, open up your copy of "Close up Fantasies" by Paul Harris. Turn to overkill. Here is the effect verbatim from the book: EFFECT #1: A spectator cuts off a packet of cards to obtain a secret number. The spectator locates the card at her secret number and merely thinks of it. The performer reads the spectator's mind and reveals the "thought of" card to be the seven of hearts! EFFECT #2: To rule out pure luck, the performer had previously written the name of a card on the card case flap. The spectator reads the prediction, "You thought of the seven of hearts!" EFFECT #3: The rest of teh eck is spread face down on the table revealing one card with a different back design. The stranger card is turned up - it's the seven of hearts! EFFECT #4: The spectators' packet of cards cutt off from the deck at the beginning is turned face up. The face card of the packet is alos the seven of hearts - "Overkill!" Anyone who knows how this effect is done, knows that the spectator counts the cards (just as the spectator does math in 100 names), but no mention of the counting is made in the four effects. Yet, Effect #1 and #4 cannot actually happen without the spectator action that is left out of the effect description. Is this dishonest or is it stating the "EFFECT" that the spectator experiences? By your (magicsquared) reasoning, Paul Harris lied to us in his write up of this effect. I think it's simply a matter of explaining the effect that the audience thinks happened to protect exposing the method. |
|||||||||
|
tgold65 Regular user 194 Posts
|
First of all, I am a little upset with Jeff on this one. WHAT!!! The linking rings have a ring with a gap and other rings are already linked. Man, I always loved that trick and you just ruined it for me. All these years I thought it was something like a fast melting and then cooling of the metal.
As for Jay's effect. I have no objection to his ad copy about "Mentalism doesn't get any stronger than this." It is obviously ad copy and obviously over the top and I would never trust the hyperbole of the salesman. You have to judge for yourself. Also, if he would be giving away the method by providing more detail than he did in the demo, then I also don't have a problem with it. This one is more of a shade of gray as a reasonably smart audience will figure it out assuming there is math involved. If you aren't sure, wait for a few more people to try it out, and then see what kinds of reactions they are getting. If Jeff says it plays well, then I believe him as I have met him and he is honest as the day is long. That said, just because Jeff can pull it off, doesn't mean another magician can. That is the value of the Café. Wait a few weeks and see how it is playing for a few people and then decide if you want to buy it. It has only been available a few days, give it some more time if you aren't sure and then check back. As for me, I have too much magic that in my existing books and DVDs that I need to go back to before I buy yet another new thing. |
|||||||||
|
gaffed Inner circle So far I've managed to gimmick 1817 Posts
|
Upon second thought this has all been disused endlessly with just about every new trick/effect that comes out. Does everyone wish to be spoon fed every detail with an advertisement/video? Think back on years ago when there were no videos and every trick where the effect that was advertised sounded beyond belief!
Lets grow up and stop be so nitpicking and critical and use your collective reasoning. It seems as though that in some sublime way that when a new trick comes out people want to know just how it's done before buying it! There is one very simple way to find out......BUY IT! Either that or wait and see how many more negative/ positive reviews come out on it. If you should buy it and and you're disapointed....tough! You've been there before and more than likely you will again. If you should like it....great! Ya spend the bucks and take your chances just like everyone else. I can fully understand not wishing to waste ones money (as I don't) but there comes a time when a line must be drawn. Just how much detail do you wish to have on this trick? As I said previously that I'll probably not purchase this trick as I'm not interested in it but if I were I'd simply purchase it and then find out all the details. Jeeez! 
~gaffed~ 
"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
~Yogi Berra~ "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~St. Thomas Aquinas~ Twitter – "A means of proving how pathetic and lonely you are in 140 characters or less." ~Anonymous~ |
|||||||||
|
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts
|
Jeff,
I'm not sure you read the Paul Harris effect you quoted because he explains EXACTLY how the card is thought of. He doesn't just say "The spectator thinks of a card." He says: "EFFECT #1: A spectator cuts off a packet of cards to obtain a secret number. The spectator locates the card at her secret number and merely thinks of it." I'm not sure how that could be much clearer. I guess there may be other ways of obtaining a secret number by cutting off a pack of cards besides counting them, but I think that's implied. In fact, the cutting of the cards and the choosing of a card at that number tell knowledgeable magicians precisely how the effect is accomplished, as this is a very old way of forcing a card. But I get it, Jeff, you don't think there's anything wrong with the way this is advertised and I don't disagree with you, it's just not the way I would go about it. |
|||||||||
|
jstone Inner circle Someday I'll have 1473 Posts
|
Magicsquared,
Paul left out one very important detail... the spectator reverse counts the cards which sets up effect #4... but he doesn't tell you that in the effect description even though it is something that the spectator will do. |
|||||||||
|
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts
|
I think "tell knowledgeable magicians precisely how the effect is accomplished" may play a big part in this. I hear Sankey say the spec chooses any two digit number and goes to that number on the list and I read between the lines and get it. I know for $20 I'm not getting "real magic" in the package.
A bill switch may say "with empty hands you borrow a bill"...I get it, but someone else may not and gets a TT in the package and thinks they were duped. Perhaps they were. Not as badly as they will dupe others if they learn and perform it. The old "There are No Grey Elephants..." ( which still can be effective ) has allot of math and yet, done right, they are baffled by it. It's not a math trick, but you read their mind. Anyway, I'm biased about 99, so we'll wait for reviews to come in. As with anything these days, some will love it, some will pass on it, etc.
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
|
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts
|
Again, I think the counting of the cards is implied. I don't know how else they would come up with their secret number. a "reverse count" is exactly how a spectator would count the cards, it's not some esoteric technique.
There is no manipulation of the thought of number mentioned in Sankey's ad, in fact quite the opposite; it clearly states or at least tries to imply, that the number they think of is the number of the object they look at. "You ask somebody to think, just think of any two digit number... The spectator who has been thinking of THE two digit number is asked to think ,just think, of the object listed beside the number they have in mind and then..." As I said, there is no bigger Sankey fan than me. I own every video/DVD he's ever released including his two collector's edition videotapes he released almost 10 years ago that were limited to 100 copies. However, the idea of releasing an effect that is virtually identical to another effect he released under a different name a few years ago perhaps isn't Sankey's finest hour. But who know, apparently "mentalism doesn't get any stronger than this," so maybe walking around with a little pre-printed list of objects, having a person think of a number and then "randomizing" that number and thinking of an object on the list that corresponds with that number is the vanguard of mentalism and I'll just be left behind on this one. I'm okay with that. |
|||||||||
Ben Train Inner circle Erdnase never had 4639 Posts
|
I'm only posting here now to continue to stir the embers. I don't have the effect and I don't have any financial interest (nor personal) in this trick.
So, here's what the method I have would look like. You show a list, while someone thinks of a 2-digit number. They look up the word. You read their friggin mind. That's what it would look like. Something happens in there, but nothing along the lines of asking someone to multiply something by something... Is this Sankey's effect? Dunno. But it could be! Ben
If you're reading this you're my favourite magician.
Check out www.TorontoMagicCompany.com for upcoming shows, and instagram.com/train.ben for god knows what! |
|||||||||
|
jstone Inner circle Someday I'll have 1473 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-02-12 01:51, Magicsquared wrote: Magicsquared, Do you have 99? Have you tried it? I have it, and I've tried it, and it kills, and it's better than 100 names. Ask Chris Kavanaugh what kind of reactions he's getting with it. That's all I care about. I don't care about method, similarities to other tricks, previous releases, etc... I care about reactions from the audience, and 99 delivers just that. |
|||||||||
|
MSD921 Special user 616 Posts
|
Jeff,
Please don't take this as a cynical question as I do not have 99 but do have 100 Names and I am NOT asking for method/revised methods. If 99 and 100 Names are the same methodoligy and same 3 fold style list, why do you find 99 better than 100 Names? Is it the additional handlings and depth that Sankey provides, or has he reduced, or better disguised, the math component of the effect? Thanks, Mike I the mee nical b |
|||||||||
|
MSD921 Special user 616 Posts
|
Sorry for the giberish at the end of my last post. Forgot to delete.
|
|||||||||
|
rowdymagi5 Inner circle Virginia 3624 Posts
|
MSD921 has a good question, would it be worth it for owners of 100 Names to buy this?
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Jay Sankey's 99 demo (6 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 11, 2009 06:28 pm 
X
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|