|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..31~32~33 [Next] | ||||||||||
HuronLow Special user 689 Posts |
This is one of the most practical things I own. I am very picky about the things I bring along to gigs as I believe that most things can be accomplished without any gimmicks. Pocket management is also very important and I like moments when I perform where I can remove my jacket for 'extra clean' effects. Very few items fit the bill, and Branded is one of the best examples ever. Branded is the definition of "packs small plays big".
The reactions I get from this are priceless... this effect is such a reputation maker it should be sold for way more than it is. Tim's improvement on the classic versions of this is revolutionary! Also, Andy's idea of incorporating flash paper into it is BRILLIANT! Here's a little idea. Instead of rolling the flash paper into a ball, it could be rolled into a tube. This way the fire travels towards the finger tips, giving a moment of expectation and suspense, and when the fire finally reaches the fingerstips... the magician can react in any way he wants. It would also minimize the possibility of burning yourself having a ball burn between your finger tips. I love this effect! Huron Low
The T&R Project.
A revolutionary take on the Torn & Restored card. Available now at www.HuronLow.com |
|||||||||
A.G. Special user Vancouver- Canada 960 Posts |
I have to say, I have had branded in my pockets for over a month now... I can't leave home with out it.
I don't use a deck with it, I have a method to verbally force the card. Just goes to show how far practicality and showmanship can go. cannot recomend this enough. Andrew Gerard
Well then...
|
|||||||||
lunatik Inner circle 3222 Posts |
Maybe a dumb question, but holding the flash paper at your finger tips and lighting it would create a 'real' burn, no? I don't like being burned on purpose if I can't avoid it. what's everyone's experience been and tips?
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
|
|||||||||
ahzhe Regular user 180 Posts |
Does this type of lighter fit into the gimmick?
thumb |
|||||||||
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
Ahzhe, Branded© is custom designed to fir a Bic© brand lighter. The lighter in the photo you posted is not a Bic©
Andrew Gerard, I keep the mini Branded© in a tray with my car/house keys, so I have it with me everyday. I use the B'wave patter to perform Branded© when I don't have a deck.
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts |
I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but am familiar enough with the "blister" effect -- long a "classic" of psychic entertainment -- and with "Branded" (which I haven't bought) to add my $0.02 even though I know that what I'm about to say will surely offend those who wax enthusiastic about "Branded" -- not to mention it's creator and the dealers who are selling it.
From some of the comments in this thread, I'm sure that the trick is selling like hotcakes. That's great for the manufacturer and dealer but, I'm afraid, another sad day for psychic entertainment. IMO, "Branded" is just one more example of magicians taking what can -- in the right hands -- and should be a devastatingly powerful paranormal demonstration and turning it into what is obviously "just another magic trick" -- the very thing that makes serious mentalists and psychic entertainers cringe and harbor even greater scorn for "magicians" than the disdain that some of them harbor toward psychic entertainers and is indicative of the fundamental failure of so many magicians to understand or appreciate the basic premise behind so much of what they try to do. For those who are smart enough to figure it out, the premise of the blister effect is that it purports to demonstrate the psychosomatic reaction or transfer of the burning of a graphic representation of the hand to cause an actual blister to form on the performer's fingertip. Having the resultant "blister" resemble a letter, number, pip on a playing card, or anything other than the real blister that would result from placing the hot tip of a burning cigarette to your finger completely negates the whole point of the effect you are trying to demonstrate. The bottom line is that if you don't understand the premise of an effect you shouldn't risk incurring the wrath of those who do by performing it.
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
ahzhe Regular user 180 Posts |
Oh, then I have to reconsider on buying this trick, I can hardly see a bic lighter here
|
|||||||||
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-09-05 10:00, Dick Christian wrote: Mr. Christian, the creator of the blister effect, Jack Tillar, gave his blessing to Branded©. Numerous times in this thread, Jack's book “The BLISTER BOOK” ( contributions by Weber, Banachek, Nu, Osterlind, Maven, etc. ) has been referenced so folks could learn more and go beyond this being just a trick. Some top folks in the field have made contributions to Branded©. Morgan Strebler allowed a demo of himself performing a very powerful routine to be shared so folks could see how this can go beyond just a trick. Everyone has to start somewhere. If Branded© is the impetus for that, I think that's a good thing.
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
Dear Mr. Christian. I appreciate your frank opinion. I'd strongly urge you to consider reading through this rather long thread to get all of the facts/info. You may also want to read The Blister book by my friend Jack Tillar to get his thoughts on this. Your precise concern is a concern that initially both Jack Tillar and I had. In the end it is simply wrong. This is one of the reasons I initially did NOT release Branded as I struggled with this exact concern as noted. This is why it was not released until we came up with the morphing idea. But honestly even that is not needed... in using the ideas by Morgan Strebler, Andy Amyx, etc. this plays like real magic.
I DO have to say I find your post a bit demeaning to many magicians ( the us vs. we of mentalism vs. magic). I don't want to get into that debate but I think such general assumptions and classifications are dangerous and inaccurate in life in general. I've seen MANY magicians do magic where people think they've seen the REAL thing and many mentalists where their contrived and procedural performance looks as far from mentalism or psychic ability as possible. But I have also seen incredible mentalists (just saw Tim Conover and spent time with him... as usual he is stunning) and some bad magicians. Life is never black and white. Back on topic though.... I can assure you others (including myself) have struggled with your concern but in the end the effect DOES play and I say that from experience, not simply from assumption. Many of the finest mentalists in the world including Michael Weber, Ted Karmilovich, Morgan Strebler, Sean Fields, etc. have USED the precise idea of various shaped blisters (cards, ESP symbols). Some of the finest mentalist in the world have also received and USE Branded. In your post you state "The bottom line is that if you don't understand the premise of an effect you shouldn't risk incurring the wrath of those who do by performing it." I'd argue this on a few grounds... why should I (or anyone) receive any wrath from ANYONE if an effect I (or they) am doing gets amazing reaction (and is obviously not harmful in any way to another). I personally don't like the multiplying parasol effect but if it plays and works for someone else who am I to put that fact down? I've seen some performers do this effect where it looks incredible. Also if you have not seen or tried this effect by your own admission are YOU doing YOUR homework and complete analysis? Again, I hope I don't come across wrong... I DO appreciate your open honest concern and feedback but I think the generalizations that come along with your concern are not accurate, tried and tested, presented with full facts, etc. I'd encourage you to TRY Branded and see. Privately e-mail me your address and I'll be happy to send one to you to TRY - if you like it you can send your money to your favorite dealer and if not you can send it back to me. I stand behind my product 100% because I know from EXPERIENCE how strong it truly is, I have analyzed it at length with some of the best magicians and mentalists in the world as this post indicates over and over (it IS a long post). I'd appreciate the opportunity to SHOW you that your concern is not accurate. But either way I DO appreciate you expressing it (I was just put off by the generalizations). Thanks. Tim |
|||||||||
toberman Loyal user 223 Posts |
Mr. Christian,
Your post is comes across as insulting to magicians in general not just those those who "wax enthusiastic about Branded". I have seen this before. Mentalists who think that magicians are ruining the perception that the mental effect they perform are real. If you listen to peoples reaction to mentalism (and magic) after a performance you will learn that the vast majority are not fooled into thinking that the performer has any real powers. Those who suspend their belief tend to enjoy the show the most but very few actually buy into the fact that they have really witnessed miracles. Intelligent people know that if I could really predict the future or read minds I would use those "powers" to better myself or the world rather than merely perform for them. My goal is to entertain. If people are fooled along the way, that's fine, as long as I don't try to insult their intelligence. I have performed Branded and the reactions to it are great. I don't feel there is a need to analyze it further. Terry |
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
If you are in search of a very clean card force check out the Robert Parrish Card Force on the Al Mann Lecture DVD from Lybrary.com It does use gimmicks but is VERY clean/fair. I just finished watching the DVD and it has some interesting ideas. Historically it's neat to see Al Mann.
Tim |
|||||||||
Chris Inner circle lybrary.com 1177 Posts |
Tim, this force is also described in the Parrish Folio (Palbearers Review 1974) in a trick entitled "Mental Opener". pallbearers
There Parrish credits this force to Eric "Nitwit" Williams.
Lybrary.com preserving magic one book at a time.
|
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
Thanks for that crediting Chris. It is greatly appreciated. It looks very fair. They name a number from 2-52 and you openly remove cards from the face of the deck until you get to the desired number. The force card is at that position.
Also, I was just at TAOM convention and spent some time with my friend Lonnie Chevrie. Lonnie is a GREAT guy and really superb thinking. Lonnie had some wonderful ideas on the standard riffle force I will see if I can share with you. It makes it so much better. BTW... speaking of Lonnie... he has 2 new upcoming DVDs through Kozmo you should be aware of: one on his latest handling of his bill changes (2 different changes, the Spritz Change is fabulous and looks like a TV trick...) and the second DVD on Lonnie's bill penetration routine that I predict will be standard everyone carries with them all of the time (it will contain 2 bill effects as well- REALLY good). Tim |
|||||||||
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
The Magic Café's own Jamie D. Grant perofrmed Branded© on his Magic Friday:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=175#0
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
WOW! Thanks Jamie! It's great to hear testimonials from guys like Jamie, Chris, Terry, etc. who are USING Branded with success.
Tim |
|||||||||
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts |
Msrs. Kavanaugh, Trono & Toberman:
Please forgive my delay in responding to your comments. The last few days have been busy ones and I wanted to be as clear, complete and reasoned as possible in my response. I am more than happy to address any and all of the issues you and/or any others have raised (or wish to), but first it might clear the air if I point out what I wrote, and more importantly, what I DIDN’T write in my post of 9/5. For Mr. Kavanagh: At no time did I deny that Jack Tillar is the creator of the blister effect (the first reference to the effect that I know of is on pp. 379-380 in Tarbell Vol. 7, published in 1972 and clearly cites Tillar as the originator). Nor do I dispute the statement that he “gave his blessing” to Branded or that his book contains contributions by Weber, Banachek, Nu, Osterlind, Maven and other ‘top folks” have made contributions to Branded (although I’d be surprised if any of them feature it in their performances). I watched the demo video of Strebler’s performance and the excited reaction of the teenage spectators was exactly what one would expect if anyone who looked like Strebler showed them, or others like them, any trick they hadn’t seen before and couldn’t explain. Now please don’t start accusing me of denigrating Strebler, his performance or his audience. I am simply observing that while his look and performing persona is perfect for just such an audience -- teens to 20s hanging out on the street or in a mall (a very small “niche” market BTW) -- it would be completely out of place in almost any other situation or for any other audience. None of the markets in which I work (society parties, corporate and association events, civic organizations, etc.) would book someone with his look or style, just as MY style and persona would have absolutely no appeal for HIS audiences. The only comment I might take issue with is that Strebler’s demo was shared to show how Branded could go “beyond just a trick.” I seemed obvious to me that his spectators, while certainly amazed and baffled, didn’t consider it anything BUT “a trick.” That is NOT to suggest that it is necessary for them to believe that what they saw was “real,” but only that it might be better if they were at least left to wonder. The ONLY impression they could have, given the context in which the effect was presented, is that they witnessed a clever trick. While that may be “mental magic” (and I’m not sure it even rises to that level) it certainly isn’t mentalism. If Strebler’s goal was to show a young and unsophisticated audience a clever trick, he clearly succeeded, but it seems to me that the original blister effect elicits a far higher level of wonder. For Mr. Toberman: I have re-read my post of 9/5 and can find no statement in which I assert that my demonstrations of mentalism are real, either explicitly or by implication, or suggest that my audiences should perceive them as such. Neither, however, do I offer any disclaimers. I consider myself an entertainer, advertise and represent myself as such, and am satisfied that offering my services as an entertainer is all the disclaimer that is necessary. While I perform both as a magician and as a mentalist, I never combine the two in the same performance (I know some others who do and have no problem with their doing so, but I don’t. That is a matter of personal choice and reflects my preference for maintaining theatrical consistency in any single performance.) My performances as a mentalist, with rare exception, consist almost entirely of demonstrations of mindreading, i.e., no psychokinesis, no predictions, no Russian Roulette or “danger” effects (this too is in the interest of theatrical consistency). In none of my performances do I either make claims or offer disclaimers, nor do I explain what I do. I just do it and let the observers come to their own conclusions. I don’t know what type of performance you do, but my sense of the audience’s perception to performances of magic vs. mentalism is rather different than yours. I find a very real difference between the two genres. No one, with the possible exception of very young children or those holding the most fundamental religious beliefs, is likely to think that anything they see in a magic show is real. As you have pointed out, they simply suspend their disbelief in return for being entertained. It has been my experience that the typical audience at a performance of mentalism sees things very differently. Probably 20-25% assume it’s simply trickery, 20-25% believe it’s real and the other 50-60% aren’t sure -- and THEY are the ones I’m playing to. My goal is to have them leave the show wondering. I don’t presume to tell the audience what to think, I just tell them what they’re thinking. As long as they are entertained, and hopefully left to wonder, the conclusions they may reach regarding the “reality” of what I do is none of my concern. I think that is what Dunninger, who might be considered the father of modern stage mentalism (at least in the US), had in mind when he closed his performances with “For those who believe, no explanation is needed. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible” -- a line still used by Kreskin. The comments that I and other performers often hear from audience members after a show offers no evidence that claims, disclaimers, or the lack thereof, have any significant impact on their beliefs. People tend to cling tenaciously to their preconceptions and it is difficult if not impossible to convince them to change their beliefs. It is however, possible to challenge those beliefs without either trying or expecting to change them. It is not surprising that the audience reaction to your performances of Branded is “great,” neither is there any reason to assume that you intended to “insult their intelligence” or have done so. While they may be surprised, it is doubtful that they are fooled. Rather than being left to wonder, it is more likely that they enjoyed being entertained by a “trick.” For Mr. Trono: It is interesting to note and, I believe, lends credence to my argument, that you wrote that it is “a concern that initially both Jack Tillar and I had” and that struggling with it is one of the reasons why you delayed the release of Branded. I don’t doubt, nor have I questioned, the quality or effectiveness of the Branded gimmick. The Café Forum to which I responded (Tricks & Effects, reviews of magic tricks) was clearly intended to solicit comments on the effect. My post simply reflected my opinion. As I have noted in some of my posts on other topics, “opinions are like rectums, everybody has one and is entitled to his own.” Given the overwhelming number of favorable posts about Branded, my negative comments clearly represent a minority opinion. But that does not invalidate them. Nor do I expect that they will adversely affect your sales -- if anything, the fact that I seem to have stirred up a bit of controversy may prompt some who might not have planned to do so to purchase Branded just to see what the fuss is all about. Unless a topic being discussed involves a matter of verifiable historical fact, there is no basis for declaring someone’s assertions either “right” or “wrong.” While I had no doubt that many would be quick to disagree, which is certainly their right, I merely expressed my opinion. It was not my intention to insult anyone. If I am guilty of anything it is of failing to qualify my disparaging comments to make it plain that they were directed at some, but by no means all, magicians. In retrospect it is easy to see how they came across as expressing an unwarranted generality and, for that, I offer my apology. Yes, there are both competent and incompetent mentalists just as there are competent and incompetent magicians. There are also some very good magic tricks and a few very bad ones. The vast majority of them can be very good -- even great -- in the right hands, but can also be dreadful in the wrong hands. More often than not, what makes a trick great, merely good, or truly awful is its presentation. There are effects that are clearly meant to be “magic” and can never be anything else. There are others that can be called “mental magic,” (i.e., essentially a “magic trick” but one that lends itself to presentation with a “mental theme”) and others that clearly qualify as “mentalism” (for now I include predictions, psychokinesis, metal bending, etc., in addition to mindreading, in that category). There are also quite a few effects that IMO can be come across as either “mental magic” or “mentalism” depending on the manner and context in which they are presented. It is my contention, whether speaking of magic, “mental magic,” or “mentalism” it is essential, both psychologically and theatrically, that the effect must “make sense,” i.e., have some underlying rational context, and that some relationship -- even if tenuous at best -- between cause and effect must be established. This is NOT to say that it is necessary for the audience to BELIEVE that what they have witnessed is real, but there needs to be some shred of credibility that makes it plausible that, perhaps, just perhaps, it COULD be real. In the basic blister effect, while one may not believe that burning the tip of a finger drawn on a piece of paper should cause a real blister to appear on the performer’s finger, at least some rationale for that premise is available. To those whose analytic processes lean toward the scientific, it may evoke a psychosomatic explanation. To those who view the world through the lens of religion, thoughts of the stigmata may come to mind. The superstitious may perceive it as voodoo or black magic. But it offers some rationale consistent with almost every belief system. I’m waiting for someone to offer any rationale -- other than “clever trick” -- for the idea that holding a finger to the forehead of someone who is thinking of a playing card could result in a blister in the shape of a pip appearing on the performer’s finger. It is just too big a stretch. It may be puzzling, it may be surprising, but it sure isn’t mentalism -- I’m not even convinced that it really qualifies as “magic” except in the very broadest sense that "magic" = "anything I don't understand." When David Copperfield made a Lear Jet vanish -- something that most people would say was impossible -- he did it in such a way that it caused some people to think “well, maybe it IS possible after all.” A few months after that TV show a woman approached me after one of my performances and asked if I knew “how that fellow made the airplane disappear.” When I responded that I didn’t know for sure but that, as a magician, I had my theories, she responded with “you know, I understand that they still haven’t found that plane.” As impossible as the idea seemed, there was still a glimmer of thought that it MIGHT have been possible after all. When, in a subsequent TV special he appeared to fly across the Grand Canyon I don’t think anyone perceived it as magic, but just as nothing more than an obvious camera trick -- hardly anything that enhanced Copperfield’s stature as a magician. IMO it is the difference between entertaining observers with tricks and leaving them wondering whether or not what they have witnessed is real that separates “magic” and “mental magic” from “mentalism.” Although the goal of the magician, the “mental magician” and the “mentalist” may be to entertain and neither expects to change their audience’s beliefs, it is only the mentalist who strives to challenge the audiences perceptions of reality. While the difference between “surprised” and “fooled,” “entertained” and ”left to wonder,” and “challenge” vs. “change” may be one of nuance it seems to me to be at the heart of the difference between the impact of Branded and that of Tillar’s unadulterated original blister effect. That's just my opinion. Whether or not others agree or disagree is up to them. Thank you wading through a long dissertation (assuming, of course, that you have done so).
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
Sid Helkule Inner circle Australia 1481 Posts |
Wow. I thought magic and mentalism was about entertaining people. It makes me rather sad to read these kinds of posts, especially being new to the magic Café. I don't know one single magician or mentalist here in Brisbane, and joined the magic Café to try and meet people who have a passion for entertaining that rivals my own. I perform Branded and get fantastic reactions. The smiles, the excitement and the laughter prove that this effect is incredibly entertaining. And that's what I'm here to do - entertain.
|
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
Once again Mr. Christian I find your post demeaning, insulting, and wrong in so many ways. You make generalization after generalization, assumption without fact after assumption without fact.
You start off by talking about Morgan Strebler and "his audience" who you "assume" is a group of giggling teenagers. I can assure you that despite your apparent disagreement with Mr. Strebler's "look" he performs for some of the top paying, top level (corporate, celebrities, etc.) clients in Las Vegas. Morgan uses Branded as he realizes the strength of the effect and he USES this on high end clients including Tom Hanks and many other top names. Morgan's clients consist of the upper echelon visitors in one of the most prestigious casinos in Vegas and this is who he is using Branded for on a daily basis to make a good living. I think you repeatedly make broad assumptions without any fact and I think that is shortsighted. You "assume" Morgan just plays to young people on the street because of his look, you assume that anyone doing magic is not quite up to the standard of anyone doing mentalism, etc. I once heard a sales person say you should NEVER make broad assumptions... that the most simply dressed person could be a multi millionaire and that the person dressed to the T could just be someone with nothing trying hard to look like they have it. I am certainly fine with you bringing up concerns about my effect for others to examine if your concern is valid or not, makes sense for you to buy or not, etc. I'd take Morgan's endorsement any day as Morgan is very particular on what he uses, is out there performing for a living to a clientele list that many of us can only dream of, etc. But besides Morgan (as I have previously stated) people such as Ted Karmilovich, Michael Weber, David Blaine, Kenton Knepper, Keith Barry, etc. have USED the card blister effect and KNOW the strength of this item. Apparently they are wrong as well. You are clearly fixated on the original blister effect as that works for you. I'd urge you to keep using it and to NOT get Branded. You have obviously closed your mind to the possibility that it plays as magic and that is fine. You should NOT buy it. I have NO desire to cram this down your throat. The original Blister effect IS great and there is simply no dispute about that. I've done it for many years. But I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that the card blister plays stronger. Even my friend Jack Tillar had to say "maybe I was wrong in my assumption as I never tried it". I've DONE my research, I've talked to many of the top names in magic who have USED the card blister effect, and I have seen from personal experience how it plays. I have offered to send you one to try (and either return it if you don't get great reactions with it or if you did and wanted to keep it to just pay whatever dealer you normally purchase from) but you have obviously chosen to not take me up on the offer. Again, I don't mind discussing concerns but when you put myself and others down who have tried it it is simply wrong. I understand every aspect of the blister effect from many many conversations with the creator Jack Tillar, from my own use of it, from having long involved discussions with many of the top thinkers and creators in magic about this effect, and from studying everything I could on this effect. As I, and many other top magicians and mentalists have advised, the effect of the card blister gets an amazing reaction. People DO feel they have seen the real thing. I know you are not convinced and that is fine... definitely stick where you are at. In response to Terry you state about magic vs. mentalism that there is a "very real difference between the two genres". Well I am friends and have seen in person some of the best mentalists in the world including Michael Weber, Tim Conover, Banachek, and others... people believe what they do is real or possibly real. Likewise I have seen some of the most contrived, procedural, and just awful mentalism. I have seen other friends such as David Blaine perform magic live and people think they have seen the real thing. I'd say I have seen more magic than mentalism being done where people look at it as real or possibly real. You'd expect the contrary but that is not what I have seen and I have seen a lot. It is what works for the individual, what is believable for them, etc. Once again, I find comments such as when you state to Terry "While they may be surprised, it is doubtful that they are fooled. Rather than being left to wonder, it is more likely that they enjoyed being entertained by a “trick"". How would YOU know - were you there to see Terry perform? Do you know what he does? Have YOU talked to any of his audiences? Do you know what he even does with this? To make such a comment is simply out of line and insulting. You then go on to say to me "The Café Forum to which I responded (Tricks & Effects, reviews of magic tricks) was clearly intended to solicit comments on the effect. My post simply reflected my opinion." I am not sure how you can offer a educated, accurate, or ethical opinion of this EFFECT without seeing/buying it or trying it. To me it's like giving a movie review by simply watching the trailer. If you wish to discuss magic vs. mentalism that is a different debate and should be directed elsewhere. It's also a debate I am happy to partake. Obviously I am happy to discuss concerns as I don't want ANYONE buying Branded and worrying about their purchase. I DO think that it's a valid discussion in these sections. I stand behind Branded 100% as I am confident from studying this effect, USING it, discussing it at length with others who have used it, etc. You go on to state "I seem to have stirred up a bit of controversy may prompt some who might not have planned to do so to purchase Branded just to see what the fuss is all about." I can assure you Branded can stand on its own merits and I'd rather have someone buy it on its merits then to buy it for curiosity due to controversy. Quite the contrary- I'd rather not have anyone buy it out of curiosity. I KNOW it is a good item, plays incredibly strong, and is a true worker. That is why I shared it and that is the only reason I'd want someone to get it. Tim Trono |
|||||||||
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
Mr. Christian, I would have preferred your statements to be in the "Food For Thought" section of the Café as you don't have Branded and are not offering a review. I've asked the Café Moderators to consider moving it.
I'm very big on having spirited debate as I think different points of view help everyone. But, I don't care for comments that judge someone by their "look" as you have with Mr. Strebler. He's a Professional Entertainer that has chosen a look and style that fits his personality. It has not prevented him from getting work in the venues that you say he would not be welcomed into.
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
Tim Trono Inner circle 1114 Posts |
Big Blind Media is about to come out with a SMOKING new deck of cards (looks great!) and part of it has the 3H for Branded taken into consideration. Watch for it coming soon.
Tim |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Tricks & Effects » » Tim Trono's "Branded" - The Painless Card Blister (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..31~32~33 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.15 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 < |