But the trick is his.

See, you can't just make a variation in someone else's idea and publish it as your own. The effect was created by George. He should have been contacted prior to the effect's release and permission should have been granted prior to its publication. Credit should be given on the ad copy with the notice that it is a variation of HIS effect and it is released with HIS permission.

Do you have his permission to sell a variation of his effect (bearing in mind we only have your word to take that the method is different, and with all of your "jokes" that word is in question)?

Why do you call the effect "creative" when the effect belongs to someone else?

Further, did the creator come up with the idea completely on his own, or did he do so in an effort to duplicate the effect of Ricky Jay's show?

So, in the interest of fairness, I have just paypalled you for the trick in question. I will get it, and let everyone know just how different it is from George's creation.

Good luck!

(oh, and how is the card stab "unlike anything your spectator's have ever seen"?

I've ordered the card stab from this website and well, sure it's not original, I don't know who the original creators are but it's is excellent. I'm no expert and I haven't been doing magic for long but it is pretty neat. Just my opinion.

Oh, the EFFECT has to be original? Really? Lets go with this effect:

***Card chosen; it is red in a blue deck.***

- Brainwave Deck
- Dark Card
- Spotlight Card
- Nemesis
- The list will go on and on.

***Triumph***

- Everytime someone creates a new move for this effect they have to credit the Slop Shuffle?

Do you see my point?

Magic by habit is right, new magic is created by innovations , improving old tricks. magic is based on basic ideas and improved.


AND GET THIS: its not his fault, stabbed, signed selection and all the other tricks on chance are all USER SUBMITTED, read shop page 1 to 4, they are all 100% orginal tricks and sleights. don't get mad at him since signed selection is based on a previous trick, he didn't think it, he just sells it.

its like penguin magic selling rob stiff's stolen tricks from Bazar de Magia (ie: time machine/watch and wear and 3 dominoes monte), or magic mints and linking lifesavers.

get mad at the creators of those tricks, not at magic by habit.

thank you

Re: Magic by habit is right, new magic is created by innovations , improving old tricks.

Such may be so for the derivative works you find decried today, and most of what you will likely find tomorrow.

If you want any access to the good stuff... you probably have to walk away from the unauthorized copies and 'improvements'.

Magic By Habit,

Triumph was an effect created by Dai Vernon and published in Stars of Magic. It was originally published with a unique shuffle which has come to be known as the "triumph" shuffle, though it has roots in older gambling techniques.

The "slop shuffle" which was created by Sid Lorraine was later appended to the Triumph EFFECT of Vernon's by those without the skills to perform his move (though the slop shuffle does serve well in stand up situations).

So, no, the slop shuffle need not be referenced anytime someone performs a variation of the Triumph effect however VERNON should ALWAYS be credited in any triumph variations, and when you read the words of writers who are respecful to the art, you find this to be true. (Off hand I can think of Triumph type effects properly credited in the works of Swain, Ortiz, Wimhurst, Ammar, Daryl, Dingle, and Bannon.)

So, if the effect has a clear parentage, such as the Triumph effect or the Sealed Surprise which is Schindler's unique manifestation of the card to impossible location plot, YES the creator should be credited. ALWAYS. (And anytime anyone references the Slop Shuffle, Sid should be credited.)

This is not to say that some plots aren't "classic." And some plots which have clear parentage do become "classic" on their own. But the question is, when do we have the right to start offering variations of these effects and in our variations are we allowed to tip material described in the original publication?

Mr. Townsend and I have shared a few conversations on this and it is a huge topic. However, it is one with which every thoughtful creator must grapple. I'm not sure if it would interest Msgicbyhabit. Suffice it to say, I think we would all agree that passing off someone else's effect as your own, without crediting the source, is always wrong.

For example, could one "quote" from another's research in their own college thesis without attributing that quote? Of course not. It is called plagarism and will get you kicked out of school. Calling someone else's effect/research "original" to you simply because you've rearranged the words of a quote is grounds for expulsion.

As to the claim that Magicbyhabit is immune from critique because the works I have cited belong to others, I disagree. He is selling them, he is saying they are original, he is as guilty as the "creators." And yes, as guilty as penguin and magic makers.

Finally, to lump all "red card in blue deck" effects together is an excercise in sophistry. There are differences between the manifestations of these effects (at least between the Brainwave - created by Paul Fox and Dai Vernon - and say, the Dark Card. I can't speak to the others. However, I will admit that for a while there was a plethora of similar effects on the market all offered with minor variation on each other, and yes I found this to be unfortunate. But to call the Brainwave deck the same as the Dark Card (if indeed I am thinking of the right effect in reference to the Dark Card) shows a clear misunderstanding of the history of the Brainwave deck. (To wit, check out Fulves' History of the Brainwave Deck).

Hey, My trick Box Prediction is finally up there. Took me a lot of time to think up perfect handling for this effect and it works great. Check it out in "The Chance" Thanks

You know what, I made this decision several days ago, and I don't know why I went against it. The fact is that no matter what I say, no matter what argument I make, and no matter what facts I state, you will disregard them and persist.

It is clear that you are one of these people who always NEED to be right. And you know what? It's just bad for your social life. I've come to terms with it, and am done with you truthteller.

Next?

MagicbyHabit,

I am not saying that you are right or wrong - I am intellegent enough to know that I do not have all the facts. I'm not saying no one else has, but not me...

HOWEVER,

Magic is an art, profession, hobby - whatever you want to call it. No matter what you do, most people are passionate about magic, and will defend their beliefs, whatever that may be.

With that said:

As Magicman222 pointed out, it may not be your effect, it may have been "thought up" by someone else. If you look at most of the Penguin posts, they acknowledge that, and are asking that Penguin uses good business and moral ethics, and ask that they stop calling it until such matter can be cleared up. That is what any good business should do.

The best advertising is word of mouth. And all it takes is one negitive comment to get the ball rolling.

Again, Please do not consider this an attack. I have done my best keeping this professional, and leaving my opinions out of it.

No, they have to credit Dai Vernon; the creator of Triumph.

Euan

Ok, I have just reviewed the video for the Sealed Signature trick. I am in an awkward position as it may seem as if I will be harshly biased toward this piece. So, allow me this chance to offer a truly objective review like I might right in my capacity for mylovelyassistant.com.

StrretmagictrainOr is offering a handling of George Schindler's Sealed Surprise. When offering a variation, one must ask if this variation is an improvement over the existing incarnation - ideally, one should also get permission from the originator, especially if it is a marketed effect as it is in this case.

Allow me to offer some comparisons:

In the original Schindler effect the deck is still factory sealed when brought into play. The tax stamp is in tact and the cellophane is wrapped around the top of the box, sealed.

In Sealed Signature the deck (contrary to the advertisement which reads: "This deck is fresh from the factory. It is still wrapped in plastic. The Bicycle sticker seals it closed.") is not SEALED. The tax stamp has been pre cut and is just pressed closed. It could not be examined by the audience visually, with scrutiny, let alone by touch. The line from the video is "Obviously the box has already been opened, but the spectators won't know...Make it look as much as possible like an unopened deck." He does claim that you could pretend to cut the stamp open, but as I will discuss later, he has not thought about what it would take to actually do this deceptively in front of real people.

Further, in regard to the sealed plastic, the plastic is not sealed, it is cut "like a flap (his words)." Compare this to Schindler's trick where the top of the deck REALLY is sealed.

Does this qualify as false advertising? I would say yes.

In the Schindler effect, once the card box has been opened, the cards can be removed by the spectator and spread in order to discover the selection. The moment of revelation is CLEAN. At this point, you cannot get caught.

In Sealed Signature the moment when the greatest amount of heat is on the magician, the moment of pulling the cards from the box, you are told to execute one of the more difficult sleights in the card magic literature. (I should add that when demonstrated the magician on the tape "re-blocks" his position basically telling anyone watching, "Hey, I'm getting ready to do a really hard move." )

Further, you are merely shown what to do, sort of. The move is not referenced by name - a turnover pass - and it is not described with any degree of depth that someone not familiar with the move could possibly learn from. It is bad consturction all around.

In the Schindler effect, the two decks never make contact.

In Sealed Signature, the decks must "kiss." Sadly, no choreography is provided for making this move deceptive. Why do the decks touch? Don't you think a lay person would think it odd that the two packs come together? Isn't this the obvious moment a "move" would be made? Either the teacher doesn't know how to make this work (possibly because they have never actually performed it in real life) or they don't understand what details are important to understand too successfully perform a piece of magic for someone other than one's younger brother.

(I am more inclined to believe he has never performed the trick. In order to easily remove the cards from the box, he pops the lid open before doing it. However, to perform the trick as advertised, one would not be afforded this opportunity. He claims that one could "fake" cutting open the seal, that this would be deceptive. But I am confident he has not tried to do this in context of the moves he has ordered us to perform. Do you "cut" the box open before the kiss? That would make the most sense from a clean handling perspective. But if you do, you have to pick up the other deck and perform the kiss after the cut. Nope, bad idea. So you do the kiss and then cut the box open? Try it. Try to conceal a card beneath the box while you are getting out a knife, opening it, and "cutting" through the seal. Not going to happen. But what makes this BRILLIANTLY bad, is you can;t show the side with the sticker after the kiss. So, you would have to cut the sticker with the box held with the sticker toward the floor. What weirdness. But WAIT THERE"S MORE - Heck, you can't even show the sticker to the audience. See, you would have to bring out the deck, show the sticker, then kiss the two decks together - why the heck did the magician do that????? - THEN set one deck down, then take out a knife with one hand while holding the "sealed" deck in the other, the "cut" open the stamp without looking at it......With the Schindler trick, this is a non-issue.)

The Schindler trick requires no forcing.

Sealed signature does, but don't expect to learn a force from the tape. They are only alluded to by name. I should add that the "control" taught demonstrates that the teacher has not really thought through his actions. If he understood card control, that sequence could be cut down considerably.

Finally, the presenter stumbles through his instruction and doesn't even bother to teach the trick with a new deck nor show all the steps in setting the trick up with the plastic, etc. If you are going to pretend that your goal is to educate, then take the time and show your audience the respect to do it properly.

In short, this trick is grossly INFERIOR to the original. The palm may have been eliminated, but he has added a pass at the moment the audiences attention is most focused on the cards!!! The construction is horrible, and the instructions do not show the trick being performed as promised in the advertisement. I seriously doubt the performer has ever presented it, as described, all the way through in front of real people. If so, I want to see how he handles proving that the deck is sealed, and opening it, while doing the required moves. If he can pull it off, the methods for his success are NOT included in the instructions provided.

So, I concede Magicbyhabit. This method is not the same as George's. You are right.

George's method is well thought out, practical, deceptive, and has been honed through years of performance.

Your method is NOTHING like his.

I can deal with your opinions, truthteller. But this has gone too far. You are now guilty of exposure, which goes beyond our petty arguments. It will be absurd if moderators don't delete this at once!

I think it is a fair review. I have tipped only the information I feel is necessary to either refute the claims of your advertisement or point out how poorly the effect is constructed. When one reads other reviews in the major magazines, one finds a similar level of information provided. The only thing which may have been exposed is the degree of misleading text in your advertisements.

Best,

Brad

You did reveal a lot truthteller, consider revising.

After 20 minutes one cannot edit the posts.

But here is my take on it:

1) The deck is not really sealed. This is a MAJOR issue. Buyers should be made aware of this. It directly contradicts the ad. And note, this isn't a case of subtle language. If the creator had some technique for at least "making" the box "appear" sealed, I could forgive him, but there is no effort, no strategy provided. The box is not sealed. The plastic is broken. The creator (or instructor) knows this and doesn't seem to care. (see quote provided above)

2) The transfer move required is given no choreography, so one is left to their own devices to figure out how to make it "happen." Since the buyer is not given the tools to make it happen effectively, they should be made aware what obstacle stands in their way. Letting people know that palming is required is considered permissible in reviews. This trick does not require palming, but instead an odd move that is completely unjustified is required. Had any sort of choreography been provided I could address the choreography itself and how well it could cover "the move." But there is no choreography, only a very obvious move. As such I think the buyer needs to know what they are going to have to come up with on their own.

3) The handling of "opening the 'sealed' box" is unworkable. Rather than saying that it is unworkable, I felt obligated to explain why this would be a matter of fact, not opinion.

4) The only thing I had reservations about was mentioning the pass. At first I used the euphemism "one of the most difficult sleights in magic" or something to that effect. However, this is a REALLY HARD MOVE to pull off in a good routine, let alone at the moment it occurs in this one. Buyers should know that they already need posses an invisible pass to pull this trick off. Otherwise, they are buying something they can never use, especially given that the move isn't "taught" in any sense of the word. Most major magazine reviewers would mention this especially if the trick was geared towards beginners, which the streetmagictrainor site (based on its text and things said here) seems to be.

5) It is commonly accepted that it is permissible to address the need to force a card, particularly when instruction for doing so is not provided and the ad copy is questionable. This is standard for all major magazines.

Now, could anyone read my review and no exactly how the trick works? I don;t think so. But I also think they now have an idea what they are buying and the obstacles they will face. If Mr. Tyler offered a more accurate advertisement, better instruction, OR simply a trick the details of which had been thought out; then none of this would have been necessary.

And I will raise this final point, I think the video instructional is more of an exposure than any review could be. There was no "teaching" going on. Only a gratuitous show and tell. The student was not empowered to learn. Simply taking money for the exchange of information does not take away the fact it is basically exposure.

Dan Just head back to the basics. Admit you made mistakes do what you can to fix them and for gosh sakes join a magic club IBM, SAM and let them help you. It will help to work wonders. You have done a lot of good for all those people at penguin. Just pack it up quit arguing look around and take the advice people are giving you. Try to be objective about this. You are in this defensive mode. Suck it up do some more research and come back with this stuff when you have fixed above said problems....

Adam

For god sakes don't join a magic club!

I think joining a "good" club could be helpful. Maybe in that club there is one performer who is serious about their magic and can show just how much thought is required to go into a piece before it is considered "finished."