On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

Interesting point Jon. Surely the Sam logic could be applied to your routine Double Back. That's a routine that's based on an existing routine (Doc Dalleys Last Trick) which you improved and marketed. By improving it you made it unexaminable. I'm assuming though you feel the the fact it can't be examined was worth it for the improvements you made.

As you say not being able to examine something is a consideration so how do you justify using your effect instead of the original which is the same effect but is examinable. And whatever justification you come up with why can't that be applied to David's effect?

Hi Craig,

You bring up a very interesting point, probably inadvertently.

You said I improved DDLT. Thank you; I do too. I do feel the increased impact created by the use of the gimmick outweighs the use of it. In fact, Richard Kaufman said in Genii that it was one of the best uses for a card gimmick he had ever seen. I think only on three occasions has anyone asked to examine the cards. Part of why such a minuscule percentage is in the routining.

I changed the original routine and created a more magical moment. I use my effect over the original because of the presentation it allows me to perform the original doesn't allow me and the increased impact the gimmick offers.

One cannot apply the same justification here. You wrote "David's effect" but you are wrong. It is not his effect; it is Bruno Hennig's. David is introducing an unexaminable prop to achieve exactly the same effect as it already exists. As such, he is not bringing anything new to The Card to Box *effect* so you cannot group this and Double Back together. I can achieve the same effect as Mystery Solved with an ungimmicked perspex box; I cannot achieve the same effect as Double Back without the gimmick. I am sure there will be a semantics issue...

What can be said for it is that the size is such that it can be carried around easily in a pocket.

When different props that do the same effect are on the market, magicians have to ask themselves what each prop offers. The same goes for wallets. As such, the question is, "What does this bring to the table (pun intended) that doesn't already exist?"

Btw, I agree that my Destination Box and this one cannot be compared. Two different effects and premises.

On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
Hi Fatgumbo,

Sub-par in practicality and impact? Can you expand a bit on why you feel this to be the case and was is level par? What have your audiences' reactions been to both?

Regards,
Jon

On Nov 2, 2014, simon hughes wrote:
Your talking nonsense.

On Nov 3, 2014, Fatgumbo wrote:

Hi certainly. You have previously mentioned (not on this thread) using the destination box for walk around by giving it to the spectator to hold at the start of the routine. What do you think is more practical, producing a glass box from your pocket and giving it to your spectator to hold, then place back in your pocket at the end, or carrying that wooden suitcase with you, and carrying it with both hands to the next table?

In terms of impact, a card which has been seen in full view the whole time and in the spectators hands which undoubtedly could not have been switched makes for a stronger impact. I observed this when switching from kennedy's mystery box to mark southworth's the box.

On Oct 31, 2014, Cohiba wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 31, 2014, genius wrote:
The use of a prop in this effect is obvious. Who carries clear glass boxes with them? This is not organic mentalism!

Mindblowingly,
Charles

Well the average guy on the street isn't going to have a clear glass box in his pocket, but a magician or mentalist aiming to be as fair as possible to his audience very likely would.

What's more fair then a folded card with a paperclip on it?

The concern should be whether or not the prop makes sense in the routine, and whether or not it looks suspicious. If its use makes complete sense, and it arouses no suspicion, then I believe you are still abiding by the "organic" ideal.

A portable finger-chopper, for example, makes sense (because you're a magician showing something impossible - you carry weird props to show your skills); however, it arouses suspicion as a funky magician prop, so it does not fit into the organic ideal.

On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 3, 2014, Fatgumbo wrote:

Hi certainly. You have previously mentioned (not on this thread) using the destination box for walk around by giving it to the spectator to hold at the start of the routine. What do you think is more practical, producing a glass box from your pocket and giving it to your spectator to hold, then place back in your pocket at the end, or carrying that wooden suitcase with you, and carrying it with both hands to the next table?

In terms of impact, a card which has been seen in full view the whole time and in the spectators hands which undoubtedly could not have been switched makes for a stronger impact. I observed this when switching from kennedy's mystery box to mark southworth's the box.

Thanks.

I do indeed use my Destination Box for walkaround. From the two options you gave, the more practical is the glass box. However, seeing as my Destination Box is not the size of a suitcase and does not require two hands to carry it round, it go with the one that doesn't come from my pocket, taking up more pocket space. You call my box a suitcase for which you need to use both hands which is funny. Just how small are you?

As for impact, this is purely subjective. Whenever people say X is stronger than Y, if they have genuinely worked both X and Y for laymen and discovered that X is stronger then nobody can argue against their experience. You wrote that my Destination Box is sub-par compared to David's one but you have not used either?

On Nov 2, 2014, jconstantine wrote:
Why is anyone listening to Craig anyway. With his last dishonest outright theft RED. Since that I have pretty much sworn off WMS all together. I hope I don't magically (pun intended) get banned for expressing my opinion. As far as the thread subject, go with paperclipped. Nothing is fairer and the switch is perfect. Also if need be the prop (paperclip) can be examined. I'm sure the box cannot be examined.

On Nov 2, 2014, jconstantine wrote:

Why is anyone listening to Craig anyway. With his last dishonest outright theft RED.

On Nov 2, 2014, jconstantine wrote:

As far as the thread subject, go with paperclipped. Nothing is fairer and the switch is perfect. Also if need be the prop (paperclip) can be examined. I'm sure the box cannot be examined.

On Nov 2, 2014, Ustaad wrote:
. . . . but no harm in waiting for a good, honest, impartial comparative review (like I said earlier - IF it ever comes) so as to help the consumer select the right suitable prop for his need. Right?