|
|
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
I did a search and cameup without anything. Anyone have this? Looks interesting.
_____________________________ This routine combines two classic card magic routines and makes them obtainable to the beginner by eliminating difficult sleight of hand. "Back Off" is a blend of the "All Backs Routine" and "Triumph." Although totally different in methodology from the originals, the effect of "Back Off" is still similar to that of the original routines. A deck of cards is shown to be faulty due to there being backs printed on both sides of the cards! A spectator examines one of the cards from the unusable deck and verifies this to be true. However, with a magical gesture, the magician causes all the faces to become printed, making the deck as it should be. He then proceeds to take half the cards face up and half face down and shuffle them together. The deck is spread to show the messy condition of the cards. With his back turned the magician invites a spectator to remove a card and sign it on the face. This card is then replaced facedown into any point in the deck, which is then squared up before the magician turns back. A magical gesture is made and the cards are shown to have gone back to their original state of being - all backs on both sides, all except for one card which remains with it's face showing among the backs of the cards. Unbelievably, it is the signed selection! The only card not to be printed with a back on both sides again! The spectator keeps the card as a souvenir of this strange experience with a deck of cards! The trick can be easily repeated with a different card! Multiple handlings included as well as Tom Lauten's "Tidy Up" routine! This effect can be done in the hands or at the table! The deck is instantly reset!
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
This sounds like an inferior version of "Cheek To Cheek" deck, only where you give away the method during the presentation...
Also, the name is a ripoff, as Darwin Ortiz had an effect called "Back Off" back in 1979. More recently the effect is called "The New Back Off" and can be found in Scams and Fantasies. The effects don't seem to be very similer, Ortiz's "Back Off" is a 4 of a kind printing routine. |
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
Daegs, great detective work!!!!
Thanks!! Chris
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
Tom Lauten Special user 689 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-11-17 03:00, Daegs wrote: I'm sure Peter Nardi of Alakazam didn't set out to "Rip off" anyone when he purchased the rights to the trick from me and renamed it to "Back Off". I'm sure he will be happy to hear your accusation of a "rip off" as opposed to a coincidence! The method is not given away unless it is performed poorly. It is a variant of the Cheek to Cheek effect offering some alternative stages that cannot be achieved by Cheek to Cheek. I suppose it could be seen as inferior... or EVEN as different. Perhaps you might know a bit more if you had a look at the actual product rather than judging it speculatively. I'm sure you will argue your rather unfounded and needlessly aggressive "review". Thanks for making an honestly produced and marketed product sound seedy and of no use based soley upon your assumptions...well done....VERY helpful. Sorry if I seem defensive but I set out to hurt nor rip any one off, but despite this the first thing I read here about my little effect is pointlessly derisive. Your turn for a snotty reply! You might as well have another go...I'm sure I deserve it!
Living at and loving Loch Ness!
|
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
Quote:
This sounds like an inferior version of "Cheek To Cheek" deck, only where you give away the method during the presentation... In this post I claim two things: 1. I speculate the effect, based on the ads. 2. I said that the name was previously taken by Ortiz in 1979. I think I made it clear in my post that I don't own the effect, and I think that 1 sentence could hardly be seen as "aggressive". I read the ad and gave my opinion. I think that showing the spectators double backed cards, could give them an idea of how it is done. There is a "conservation of magic" theory that describes this. For instance it is better to use an Invisible deck normally, then say "Look half the cards are face up and half face down, but with a wave they are all face up", ect. But in any case, I did not offer it as a review, nor as the end-all comment for the effect, but simply my musings upon reading the ad. In regards to the name, it is a matter of public record that Ortiz claimed the name in 1979, and whoever named this "back off" should have researched it. "Coincidence" or not, I think that before you release an effect, you should ask around and do some research to see if that name has already been used, to avoid confusion. This is why you barely see any movies coming out with the same name, TV shows, books, plays, ect. I'm sorry if you don't agree with my opinion, but that is all I was offering or promising. |
Tom Lauten Special user 689 Posts |
Without going on about this forever which I will not do as this kind of ...thing...ALWAYS happens on magic forums, you wrote
Quote:
On 2004-11-17 03:00, Daegs wrote: ...your words, not mine. To me that sounds like a rather sharp accusation of intent. I'm not gonna argue with you anymore...you've had your way...you've had your say. Your opinions have been laid out, I'm sure you are 100% right and the world of magic is a better place for them. I'm sure you tricks will sell very well, offend no one, will make you a fortune(Soooo many magic trick inventors are rolling in it. I'm sure your EFFORTS are without any faults, are THE most original and will not be picked apart to help others feel clever, righteous and justified ....sod it....Fine, one less "hack" out there to offend...job well done. F$*K it!
Living at and loving Loch Ness!
|
seigeman New user UK 28 Posts |
Oh, why do I bother.
Daegs... get a life, man... |
Bananafish Elite user Simon Shaw, Suffolk, England 415 Posts |
I think that everyone has the right to give there opinion, and if we don't like something then we should be free to do so, however I must admit that reading Daeg's comments they do appear to be unecessarily harsh, especially for someone that doesn't actually own the effect in question.
I am all for constructive criticism, but not for just slagging something off based on the wording of the Advert. I have utter admiration for anyone who is creative enough to market an effect. Not all effects are everyones cup of tea, but I feel on the whole it is good that magic is being kept alive by those innotive enough to experiment with new ideas. Even if some of those ideas are based on existing methods. Quote:
This sounds like an inferior version of "Cheek To Cheek" deck, only where you give away the method during the presentation... How the heck can any one accurately compare the two if they don't own them both? I have Cheek-To-Cheek, and although I am sure that I have read about the method in another book it doesn't make it any the less valuable as a marketed effect. Also, if the creator of "Back Off" states that his product allows you to do other things that a Cheek-to-cheek deck can't do, why is it immediately claimed to be an inferior version of cheek-to-cheek? Why can't it just be described as a "different" version? Why such negativity over this? Quote:
Also, the name is a ripoff, as Darwin Ortiz had an effect called "Back Off" back in 1979. You know I can give you names of loads of effects that are coincidentally called the same thing and yet are unrelated, as I am sure you could too. Why does this immediately make it a rip-off of the name? If it was called Cheek-to-cheeky then perhaps I could see your point but sheesh man, the two effects are totally different, the only similarity is the name. If you honestly believe that the only reason it was called back-off was to jump on the Ortiz bandwagon then fair enough. But do you really think that? Perhaps if you had just said, ...and coincidentally there is also a totally unrelated effect called Back-Off that was put out by Ortiz in 1979 Then the same information would have been conveyed without the (imo) aggression. I feel that overall it would have been helpful to state that in many ways Back-Off would seem to be like the Cheek-To-Cheek effect, as that would have been useful, I also accept that mentioning that Ortiz also had an effect called Back-Off would have been useful, however I feel to condemn the Back-Off effect without even owning it, or knowing exactly the methods involved is at the best misleading, and if we all continue doing this at the Café, we are endanger of stifling potential new effects... There have been far too many people who have stopped marketing magic based on some awful and unwarranted feedback of their effects. One that immediately springs to mind is Scott F. Guinn. a magician who I ave the utmost respect for. Please let's try and be a little more polite in our reviews and messages. Just some thoughts... |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Tricks & Effects » » Back Off (1 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |