Well, that really sounds good,i can't way to get a hold of DVD, I'll get it for sure.
Stephane,how soon do you think the DVD will be out for sale?

LF.

Stephane,

If your method is different then you don't owe anyone any explanations. There are a lot of armchair moralizers in here that just wait for some point of contention to start jabbering on about. If you're not copying Shawn's, or anyone else, then pay no attention to the rubbish that is spewed forth.

Hi guys,
It seems to me that there is missing ingredient in this debate
The debate on the effect is here
The debate on the method is here
But the debate on the marketing of the performance style is lacking.

Let's shift to a side theme to illustrate other aspects in the problem with less emotionl content (if possible) and hopefully a solution to this debate.

Don Alan, in his Joe Stevens video complains that many performer copy his chop cup routine and urges them to create a personal one. On a technical stand point (method) his routine is move for move Al Whitley's routine;

Exactly like Johnny Paul's routine is Jim Ryan's published routine; exactly like Dai Vernon's superb routine was gathering without credit the method of published sequences including Silent Mora's wand spin.

The difference here is in the performance, and originality can be claimed just for the style of the performance.

Now the focus on the claim for method is more subtle. Al Whitley became famour for his creation of the chop cup when Scot Fred Lodge (A Novel Cup And Ball Effect. The Mysteries of the Mystic Seven – 1936. A publication offering p. 26 a two cups routine one of the cups being fitted with a magnet in its bottom and shimmed balls) 21 years before Al Wheatley (Chop Chop). Furthermore The Magician Monthly, vol. 28, N°10, Sept 1932, page 114 under the title "A Street Conjurer of Calcutta" relates Ajit Krishna Basu's idea of using a magnet against the bottom of a cup (not affixed to the cup). Now before that, Giuseppe Antonio Alberti in "I Giuochi Numerici Fatti Arcani Palesati" Bologna, Bartolomea Borghi, 1747 publishes three pges suggesting to place a mixture of tar and wax at the inner bottom of a cup to get the ball stuck there and to bang the cup to dislodge it.
For performance reasons, the one who popularized the effect ending having his name attached to the effect is Chop Chop (Al Whitley) when it is very likely (owing to his whereabouts) that he was aware of the Mystic Seven version. Similarly Cylinder and Coins existed in Hocus Pocus Junior with a vanish of the coins all together and the idea to vanish the coins one by one came in print first (to my knowledge) with L. Graham Lewis in C Lang Neil's superb book p 163 under the title « cap and pence ».

This to say that originality in the method is relative and not sufficient to claim originality. Nothing is created out of nothing and Stephane by creating a new "principle" is probably more original than the ones who just created different methods.

This point of view is confirmed by many, many examples. In another thread I translated the pick up move described in print by Jules Dhotel (Jules Dhotel: La prestidigitation sans bagages ou mille tours dans une valise. Tome V 1941 24eme fascicule Chapitre XXVIII – (Pieces a suivre) p 357 in a sort of triangular matrix) when both Al Schneider and Derek Dingle were still in diapers.

The Spider grip vanish was described in detail by Jean Caroly (the editor of a very valuable French magic magazine and magic dealer) in Etude sur les nouveaux escamotages de pièces et sur le Numéro du "Roi des Dollars" in Paris, "Chez l'Auteur", s.d. [1902]. Admittedly the name "Spider grip vanish" was later coined by Ed Marlo but the sleight is in printed before the tter's birth.

I own a collection of magic books comparable to Byron Walker's one and I can read English, French, Spanish, Portugese, German, Deutsch so I can appreciate how many effects have been marketed in the US and are credited by English speaking magicians to English language sources when they existed way before in other languages elsewhere. But you know what? I cannot read Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hungarian... So who the hell can claim with certainty that he deserves being credited for inventing a method? Especially when effects get reinvented years after years by good faith performers. Basicaly people claim that the one who is the creator is the one they got to know the "trick" (whatever this may mean in performance terms) from.

Experience shows that the credit gets to the method which is adopted by the largest number of magicians. Yes this is not an ethical issue, it is a marketing issue. But performer cannot prevent the performance of their pet effect by others (especially when it is based on another method) just on the basis that they do not get credited. Who can blame a competitor who thinks he has a better product to want to have his name attached to the product. This debate under the guise of ethics is based on (relative) ignorance and competition for a market on one effect.

You know what? Magicians will statisticaly decide and whoever gets his method adopted (it generally is the most direct) will have his name attached to the effect. It may not be fair or ethical for the originators but it's practical.

As a French I see hundreds of effects and methods published in French, decades in advance and credited to different English speaking "creators" because the English language enables to touch a wider public.

David Roth may not have invented the Shuttle Pass (not even the name which was apparently coined by Stanley Collins for what we call now the Utility switch) the Shuttle Pass is attached to his name and it's really convenient and avoids a lot of unnecessary debates when studying effects using the sleight.

All the French nowadays use the name Spider grip vanish. All of them call a certain false transfer the Retention of vision vanish when, on May 3 1907 in the Theatre Robert-Houdin for the Invention Competition organized by the Chambre Syndicale de la Prestidigitation, the French M Grivolas after recording the various existing vanishing techniques presented the “Grivolas Palm” (The French L’Illusioniste Sixieme Annee (sixth year) No 67 Juillet (july) 1907 p 296 to 298 publishes the detailed description of the effect with 6 photographs and of the secret moves behind the sleight with five additional photos.) Does one, just one, American credits Mr Grivolas in his printed works? I've never seen it (but like everyone, I cannot see everything), but I've never seen a French doing it either.

There is a tendency by knowledgeable historians to try and get recognition for their knowledge on the origins of tricks or moves by draping into the magic ethics of giving credits.

I wish to keep on calling the Vernon Cups and Balls routine by that name (even though it is "unethical" for Jean Caroly)
I wish to remain grateful to David Roth for what he did for coin magic in general and the shuttle pass in particular and keep on calling it "his" Shuttle pass.
I wish to keep on calling the "spider grip vanish" by that name, even if Michael Skinner came with a nice variant on the method (as did Michael Rubinstein and others)
I wish to keep on referring to the Malini egg bag when I know that he lavishly copied both the method and presentation of Arnold de Biere: it's easer for communicating with my fellow magicians.

I wish to keep calling Chink A Chink by that name when I know that Edwin Sachs (Sleight of hand p 40/41) describes Chink a chink with sugar lumps without using hats or plates as it was usually done for centuries. Since the book was published before 1875, it cannot be claimed that Max Malini, born in 1873, was the inventor.

But I'm a little tired of good faith re-inventors who request being personally credited by others on account of ethics when what they simply do is their marketing job.

Let time and quality (and language if need be: who knows if Chinese will not become the general language of the end of the 21st century?) associate effects with magicians.

The only ethically sure thing is that the claim of one or the other is very, very secondary (who knows everything to be able to tell: I don't and it's not as if I had not looked). We don't mind giving recognition by we are not shrinks to pat creators' suffering egos.

None of us is a valid judge, our community ultimately is: this is called the "wiseness of crowd". Let the time decide and the best man win.

One more interesting fact in support of the prevous post:
Magicians invented the light bulb in 1858 (Jean Eugène Robert Houdin) but an industrialist called Thomas Edison who did a small adaptation on the method by putting inert gas into it, is credited for the invention of the light bulb itself in 1879. Try and claim recognition (let alone rights) for the creator as a magician and you will discover that you will be the one who's ethics get discussed.

Time did speak and not in the favour of magicians, except for more nationalistically "ethical" members (on any side of the pond) than factually informed and realistic magicians...
The market spoke: the inventor is Thomas Edison. Unethical? Would we all enjoy electricital light if he had not spread it? Do we care if Robert Houdin's name is not credited on every package? I doubt it. We are more concerned that they burn less energy and work longer: just about the same as for tricks.

My main professional activity is to be a business angel and I've noticed a long time ago that, in a Coca cola can, the product (what magicians would compare to the method) represents about 5% of the cost paid by te customer to the retailer. The rest (only a little 95%) is packaging, finance, marketing, network management, legal... Speak of aspirin: the weight of the product is 0,05%... Could it be, that the ones claiming that personality in presentation, originality in the script, showmanship polished by repeated performances are more important than methods, are (95%) right?

So when can I expect this?

Mr Jardonnet,



I'm not sure I understand your positon.
Are you suggesting that an unique idea doesn't belong to the creator?
Are unpublished ideas up for taking provided you come up with your own method?

In my opinion, unique ideas in magic are very few. But alternative methods to a known effect are quite easy to come up with.
I believe that the right to idea itself deserves to be respected. After all, who is to decide when it is time to release a new effect, but the original creator?

Bets wishes, Peter Gröning

And it's nice to have a "breast taking" presentation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAFZUhgKA......nel_page
check my performance

can anyone give feedback who has knowledge of such effects how similar or different mine is compared to others?

I'd like to add,
in my performance there are NO SLITS

Box is fully examinable

I also want to add
my method allows for stacking a factory sealed deck cellophane and all!

I can't wait until shawn releases his! I'll buy it right away, not just because he floored me with the effect but also because its great work from one of the greatest minds in magic!

magic mike

Did anyone notice that all the clubs in the new deck were not there and out of order? I guess I was looking to close.

This thread seems eerily familiar to one that was locked a week ago....

Have you released this yet? I, for one, am really looking forward to Shawn's release. Does anyone know if Shawn has released his effect yet?

He might at the World Magic Seminar....

I have waited long enough for any other prior version to be released, so mine is being released this week.

http://www.jardonnet.com/signed-and-seal......net.html

Any honest review on this would be appreciated.

I am already performing a signed card to sealed deck which is a staple in my act
but like to know if there is anything different out there I haven't used yet.

Hello All,
anyone order this yet? Any reviews?
Jason

Got it and watched the DVD. There's nothing earth shattering in it if you already use another version of the effect, such as Pandora, but it does create the illusion that the box is still factory sealed all around. I'd call it a tweak of what's already out there - although I really haven't studied/used any other method for this beyond Pandora. If handing the box to the spectator and having them open the seal themselves is important to you, this is definitely worth a look.

The explanation on the instructional DVD is clear and concise yet thorough. The DVD comes with a small quantity of gimmick to get you started, and Mr. Jardonnet gives you the name of the commercial product so you can buy the gimmick in bulk. I haven't tried to track any down yet, so can't comment on cost and availability.

Due to the setup, this isn't an effect you're going to be doing from table to table. But for a one-off or for a special group, this would be a really impressive effect.

Curious about your research and crediting on this type of effect maybe you missed "The Pandora System". How does your method hold up to the real world? Can you perform this on a minutes notice without worries of indexing or shifting cards or is this something you have to set up and perform right away? What is the difficulty in the card insertion and how much practice does it require to make the effect smooth just wondering since my effect accomplishes all of these with little to no effort but still no crediting? Your previous statement you said " I have no idea how these other methods work nor does it matter to me" no respect.

My DVD has crediting to all the guys that inspired this beautiful creation I show respect were respect is due regardless of method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7HbrfA-Iw

Shane