|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
Monsieur Las Vegas New user 45 Posts |
I've received my up-grade pack today (pre-ordered by WMS).
It's a good work and a good idea. I'll prefer to do my coinbending with the coinvexed 2. It's a more natural handling than CV 1. poesjenel: To do the coinbend with two coins is for the misdirection. You can do it with just one coin, but you have to put a other misdirection instead of a second coin signing. For example like "animation" suggested on page 3 in this thread. |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
I guess this thread pretty much summed it up for the CV2 vs QB question.
|
|||||||||
matt.magicman Inner circle Mars 1524 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-04 09:41, Monsieur Las Vegas wrote: I cant find the "animation" post? |
|||||||||
Bungle New user 5 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-04 10:50, kissdadookie wrote: Absolutely! QB-Rocks CV2 sucks. Ultimately the fact that with the CV2 you need two separate devices to enable the bend is its weakness. CV2 really is the poor mans choice but in the eyes of the laymen the effect should be the same, so providing you can handle all the pocket management and a misdirected presentation you'll be fine. If however you're a working pro then you have to opt for the most technically efficient solution and without a doubt that is the Quantum Bender 2. I've been asked to do this effect repeatedly to the same people and have done with no suspicion on the gaff, I doubt the same could be said for the CV2. Thanks MR Sheets for a great product!! |
|||||||||
animation Regular user 120 Posts |
Hi Matt,
-Instead of them signing another coin make them sign a small coin envelope, then perform the REVEAL, afterwards, put the coin in the envelope with your business card, as their lucky coin. - Get them to sign a small rectangular piece of paper. Fold the paper around the coin ( paper coin fold vanish), then rip the paper around the coin revealing the bend just like the Richard Busch's pk coin routine. Basically, get them to sign anything just give a logical reason. I prefer the CV2 purely for the built in misdirection you get with your routines, the gimmick is really clever. I find it very difficult to openly bend a UK 10p in front of spectators using the QB2. 10p's are a little bit thicker than quarter's so you need a little more time to perform a smooth bend and still remain natural looking. With pennies this isn't a problem. Also, when they are doing the signing especially the envelope or business card, if you can get them to do it on a table, it diverts everyones eyes completely away from you. Another cheeky suggestion if you are all standing, is to get them to sign the envelope using your back for support, then turn around do the dirty work come back and perform the bend (just make sure within your performance you have enough time delay so they forget all the dirty things. There are loads of ideas just think of some logical ones, the gimmick is very flexible for your PERFORMANCE of the bend. I think people are too concerned with the gimmicks,they think that the QB2 will make people believe that they can bend coins, but it is not the gimmick its a combination of good acting, good gimmick, good MISDIRECTION and a GREAT routine. When performing a coin bend casually, then a switch is most definately the way to go, like Skin or Psyche. |
|||||||||
animation Regular user 120 Posts |
Great post Bungle! Nice rhyme. But do you have the CV2? I doubt it, because with the CV2, pocket issues are EXACTLY the same as with QB2, the misdirection just plays out differently.
When you say the most technically efficent solution what do you mean? The bending process? The misdirection? A lot of pro's use the CV2, some use the QB2 and many still use a switch. The process of bending in all the three methods should be invisible, so if the methods are all good and the effect is the same, then what is the cheapest option for a signed coin bend in a professional situation? |
|||||||||
parmenion Inner circle Switzerland/Zürich 3988 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-05 13:16, Bungle wrote: Bangle are you Sheets's brother or father ?
“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
<BR>Oscar Wilde experimentaliste <br> <BR>Artist pickpocket Professional <BR> <BR>Looking for the best book test in French? send me a PM! |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Animation, I bend US nickles just fine with the QB2. US nickles are considerably thicker than a quarter so I don't see how a 10p is going to be all that much harder to bend. The misdirection that you speak of, as from my experience with CV1, was ultimately created to cover up a flaw with the CV method of bending the coin. From a pure analytical aspect, QB2 is still the most invisible (even though the bend is VERY out in the open, even when you bend coins a bit slower, there's still no heat on the coin). Let's just put it this way, if a very observant spectator was watching and then backtracking, when they backtrack to the point where that second item was signed, they can theoretically figure out that something happened at that moment. QB2 has the advantage here of nothing added and nothing taken away, even if they were to backtrack, there's nothing there to backtrack to.
|
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-05 14:58, kissdadookie wrote: It's not so much the thickness of the coin, but what it's made from that makes the difference. I believe the metal used for British silver coins is harder than the metal used for American ones. |
|||||||||
animation Regular user 120 Posts |
Really? Think about it any routine can be backtracked if poorly executed. If you have a logical reason for signing something extra, then when backtracking everything is justified. The routine with QB2 is excellent, but it still has flaws, if you put the pen away after the coin has been signed, then why bring it back out again? There is actually no logical reason for bringing out the pen again. Obviously, this flys by most spectators but so do all the other routines when performed well.
With the QB, when you perform the bend you rely on speed and your patter to execute the bend. You can use exactly the same techniques with the CV2 speed, patter and of course that extra logical diversion. With the CV2 the execution of the bend will fly by better, you don't have to JUST rely on speed or quick up and down motions, you also have signatures as well But remember the bend happens in the performance, not during the signing process, or the patter as with the QB2. So your performance should sell the effect not the gimmick |
|||||||||
Rudy Sanchez Special user 907 Posts |
What makes the QB2 the ultimate bending device [for me] is that I do the bend one handed. Nothing can top this hidden moment.
www.cesaral.com
Sales Manager for Cesaral Magic |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Animation, you don't seem to understand that there is misdirection employed for when you switch out the Sharpie. The whole idea here is the appearance that the Sharpie never left. The reason you ask the spectator to blow on the coin and to check that the ink is dry is so that you have a perfect oppertunity to switch out the Sharpie. The other great built in brilliance is that all heat is on the coin at all times. There's no suspicion of the Sharpie thus even if you are seen as going to near your pocket with the Sharpie, in their minds, nothing has happened, the coin is still in the spectator's hands. You don't need speed to bend the coin with QB, the real key is to NOT make a move out of the move. The demo video is excellent for showing how invisible the move with the QB2 is done but it's also how J. Sheets performs it, this is not how others may perform with the QB2. Just take a look at the last David Blaine special, he uses the QB2 and it is not done the same way as John Sheets performs with the QB2. To be quite honest, you're a lot more flexible with the QB2 as even when the move is done, the gimmick and how it functions is so invisible that one really does not have to worry about much apart from fumbling (only real practice needed is to be able to fluidly get the coin into the gimmick casually and without looking down, this comes with practice and muscle memory, getting it out of the gimmick happens automatically). I'm quite familiar with the original CV and I do like it but it's very obvious that it has a major point that needs misdirection thus the routine is constructed the way it is (just by this point alone, you're a little less free with the handling than you are with QB2, you really need to have the spectator sign the secondary item let that be a coin (which never made much sense) or the envelope (which makes more sense but then you can't really do nice open bends since you need the coin to go into the envelope or else the envelope part is not motivated). I'm not saying that CV2 is bad, I'm just pointing out the facts so that folks who are on the fence as to which to purchase can make a better choice. I'm also posting to answer the question on other's minds as to which is the cleaner and more streamlined method for the coin bend so please don't take my posts as CV bashing. I felt my posts were needed as the initial posts for the CV2 was considerably vague which somewhat made the CV2 sound like a lot more than what it really is (just an updated CV1 that makes the two piece gimmick slightly less bulky, but the fundamental "flaws" of the CV1 still remains, ie: there's still a small pile of change required, it's still a two piece gimmick, it still requires the spectator to sign a secondary object to provide misdirection, and if you think about the routine as provided, it still involves the secondary object to be a second coin). Rudy also makes a good point that the bend can be done with just one hand with the QB2 as it's a one piece tool.
To be very very very fair about this all, if you're going to have to go through all the extra little steps to perform CV and CV2, you really might as well just go the really cheap route and learn a coin bend routine utilizing the pre-bend method. QB2 really is the only truly streamlined and invisible method for bending a borrowed and signed coin. |
|||||||||
Bungle New user 5 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-05 14:43, animation wrote: I am in no way related to My Sheets, I simply applaud him for creating a wonderful gaff. In answer to some of animations questions, I do not currently own a CV2 but I have played with it and used in the real world for all but a day, solely due to the fact I own the QB2 which for me is the better method. With regard to technical efficiency I refer to the whole process. The bending process used will affect your presentation, so if you have more to do, to bend a coin as you do with CV2 then then the onus will be on that moment not the effect. Pocket issues are not exactly the same, how can they be? QB2 is one solid unit which works independently albeit for the strength applied b yourself. CV2 is two units, in fact at one point there's a few (3) different props to handle, the gaffed pen c*p, the coins and then the other gaff with coins. I'd like to say if you pay peanuts you get monkeys but CV2 isn't exactly priced along side peanuts but since I am talking protein why not ingest this morsel of info. I heard from a reputable source Penn didn't even invent the QV2 but Jim Trainer of World magic Shop did, the fact being they needed a name to shift the product so Jim attached to his name and it sold. Animation do you have a QB2 ? |
|||||||||
Bungle New user 5 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-05 15:24, Caliban wrote: Caliban, British coins are made from better stuff than US coins, seriously though they are. Obviously the Royal Mint have far lees people to mint coins for than the US mint so quality wins versus quantity. Basically there is a higher nickel content in Silver UK coins, the newer shield type variety of coins here in the UK are even tougher and require more strength to enable the bend. |
|||||||||
tpax Elite user Columbia, Maryland 443 Posts |
I have them both. Each has their advantages.
In regards to pocket space - the volume required FOR ALL PROPS is the same for both. QB needs Gimmick and sharpie, which is technically the same for CV2. - The QB can not be carried in a pocket with change or keys as it will damage the paint. I find this annoying and limiting. So when everything is considered CV may provide better pocket management. Other comparisons: QB will bend the coin with less effort. That being said, I found I had to change my presentation because of the tensing in my face when I did the bend. Couldn't get rid of it so I scripted in a line where I can react with tension covering the bend. QB2 is easier to align the coin. Overall it is a easier tool to operate. With CV2 you do not have to take the sharpie back to do the bend. This allows you more freedom of when the bend happens. IMHO this is CV2's biggest advantage (other then price) With CV2 you will need one hand full of coins, which is very natural in the course of a routine. You notice I don't say which is better. They both are excellent benders. There is a big price difference. What's better for me may not be better for you. I use QB2 because I've had it a while and I'm used to it. And I paid a lot of money for it.... |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
I feel, when considering that the British coins are harder to bend, MAYBE the CV may provide more time for the work to be done (I have not handled the British coinage however). In regards to grimacing when doing the work with ANY bender I've ever used, that's always been a non-issue for me but of course, people's physiques vary widely. Honestly though, if more than one coin has to be introduced and when you need to produce a hand full of change, then more or less construct the routine AROUND that fact, I would personally go with pre-bent coins as opposed to a real time bend. I've used the pre-bent method quite a bit BEFORE US quarters changed over to state quarters (there's a good chance that spectator's may note WHICH state quarter is in play) but since the state quarters are in consistently regular circulation, this no longer gives me all that much peace of mind. I don't believe that British coinage has this characteristic so it's more likely it's a non-issue. Personally, the pre-bent method is a lot easier to handle and if I had a choice I would choose it over any live bend method on the market.
|
|||||||||
Jaz2005 Veteran user I wish I had time to get more than 339 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-03-05 19:26, Bungle wrote: Bungle, ("Often described as an annoying six-foot, cross dressing bear, Bungle was always so self righteous, it's amazing that Zippy didn't slap him". "Character Most Likely To: End up amongst the foundations of Heathrow Terminal Five.")Quote associated with Bungle. 6 degrees of separation and timing of your last 3 posts lead me to believe that I have uncloaked your anonymity. I firmly believe that you were already a Café member known for malicious posts and previously excluded from this community. That aside, I think I should address your comments quoted above. Firstly, With QB2 you also handle 3 objects. 1. The Sharpie, 2. The Gaff and 3. the coin just the same with CV2. Therefore same pocket management. However, with CV2 you do not have to put the sharpie away and then retrieve it again to do the dirty work. As for peanuts and monkeys well that one comment, I think I will let slide. Coinvexed was an idea that David originated during a brainstorming lunch one day with me. We discussed possibilities of hiding a gaff in plain view with coins and I went off and developed the prototype and finally designed the finished product. The same is true for CV2. This is how it has always been between David and myself. we discuss ideas, brainstorm and develop. What, is wrong with that?. Just for the record I also designed the envelope that is used in Bang On by Marc Oberon. I commercialised the effect which was and still is a top seller. However, it was from an original concept invented by Marc and discussed over a meeting that I had with him one day. I invented and designed Spike and also the Worlds best selling and original 100% M****tic PK ring for use by magicians, The Wizard PK Ring. I have also designed or been heavily involved in the design of several more marketed effects but my name is not on the box. This is my choice and I do not expect it to be made out as though there is ulterior motive behind it. The Wizard PK ring has sold over 55,000 units since I launched it and it did not have David Penn’s name on the box although David was one of the first 10 people to see it when I invented it. I fail to see the relevance of you comment regarding CV2 and my involvement in the development of it other than to try to devalue the product. David Penn and I happen to be very good friends who meet when we are free, to discuss and brainstorm ideas. For you to suggest that David would take credit for another mans work where he had no involvement is purely malicious. 1. he has no need to do this and 2. he is one of the most ethical Professional Magicians that it has been my pleasure to call a friend. Now, sorry about the lengthy reply but your point was?????????? Regards Jim |
|||||||||
dp Veteran user 345 Posts |
Hi Guys,
It was great to see so many people at the Blackpool convention for the launch of CV2. Since then I have had numerous emails and pm’s through magic forums from magicians who have used the gimmick and Coinvexed concept to create there own routine with one or two coins. In my lecture at Blackpool I also discussed the principle of bending one coin yourself and then empowering the spectator to do the same. You end up with two coins bent, both signed and I give these away in a branded ring box. PM me if you want to know more about this. Personally, I love the fact that everything is in view from the start. I never need to switch anything in from my pocket and the only time I go to my pockets is to put things away. To me this makes sense. It was great to meet David Blaine at Blackpool who visited our stand before any others to see Coinvexed 2. David has his own ideas for the gimmick that are not mine to discuss. He said that it was ‘Awesome’! He immediately could see the potential and couldn’t wait to get one out of the packet and leave with his supply. I will also be attending the South Tyneside Magic Convention next week. I will not be on the stand at the convention but please feel free to ask me anything about my products that will also be available from The World Magic Shop booth. All the best David Penn
Close Up Magician & Illusionist - David Penn
Search The Wizard Product Review at http://www.worldmagicshop.com |
|||||||||
Rich B. Special user Philadelphia 632 Posts |
I've already mentioned early in the thread that I had a bending gimmick (2 piece) created last year. All the spectator sees is the quarter which I make appear and a short 1 coin routine...I then say that was obviously sleight of hand ....but I wanted to show you some real magic...but I'm going to need your help.
I hand them the quarter to check out as I retrieve a sharpie. I remove the cap and have them sign the quarter. I take back the sharpie as they blow on the coin. I get the coin back...do the magic move while asking a question(Some people seem to have a problem with this part). Coinvexed both 1 and 2 solved this part...but for me created some others. I put the sharpie away and finish by ending with the coin bending in the spectators hand. If I were to borrow a quarter...all I would need to do is reach into my pocket to retrieve the sharpie, and put it away when I'm done. NO going to the pockets in between. So as far as pocket management all I need to do is carry my sharpie...which most magicians have anyway...nothing extra. That is about the best pocket management you could have. A little hint...Coinvexed 2 is about 50% improved from Coinvexed 1. If you were to buy an additional Coinvexed 2 (2sets)...you would be able to perform it exactly as I do. My prediction...Coinvexed 3...the newest streamlined version will be exactly what I've been using for the past year. I'm not claiming to be a genius with what I came up with...it was just a very simple and logical progression. Rich B. |
|||||||||
animation Regular user 120 Posts |
Bungle I do have a QB2 and I paid £600 long before a dvd was even in the making. I saw the potential with the gimmick, but I was very disappointed with the little support material that was provided with the product, considering I paid such a large sum of money. YEARS later Mr Sheets eventually came out with a dvd (after a long list of customer complaints mind you) that finally explained the full workings of the gimmick, which was great but I was one of the original sufferers!
However, David and the guys at world magic shop provided a product that is considerably cheaper than the QB2 and just as effective. They also made sure that the FULL workings of the product was supplied, thus their customer support has been excellent! Anyway, both gimmicks are excellent at camourflarging a live bend. Kissadookie, with the CV2 there is no reason why you can't use the same script and choreography that Mr Sheets uses, 'Do you know what metal 10p is made from? Well you know you can't physically BEND a 10p'. Personally, I prefer a little more cover because of the most observant spectators.If you want to perform the routine how David Blaine did, you can do as well. And if performed like this with the CV2 at least nothing will be taken away, to then be brought back again for no apparent reason. Kissadookie really( and I mean really) observant spectators will only query things that have no logic. Unfortunately, with the QB2 you cannot adapt this part of the routine to make it more logical. Thus CV2 is a lot more flexible with routines. In any case, in the spectators eyes, the real routine should only begin after the work is done. The only purpose to sign a coin is as proof after the performance is over, I don't advise incorporating the BEND as part of a routine. But the QB2 does allow you to do a one handed bend( only with pennies in the UK), so I guess that is a bonus, but not a major one. I think when performing in an informal situation for a small group when the moment is right the BEST and most natural way to perform a single SINGNED coin bend is with a switch! Just get both you and her to sign the coin afterwards, if the routine and moment was right nobody remembers, or rather they will mis-remember! I think dvds like Psyched and Skin are a must for any serious coin bender For a larger group or in a more formal situation QB2 or CV2, will both do the job very well. I have both. But I think if you look at the current market QB2 is overpriced. Just look at the amazing True astonishments set for example. This set is half the price with tons of material and gimmicks and you still get taught a GREAT coin bend. But if you still really want a luxury bender then the best value in money without a doubt is the CV2. This product is very flexible with your own personal routines and routines can play almost identically to the QB2, apart from the one-handed method. If you have a big budget then buy both, having a variety of techniques and methods is always an advantage if you are a frequent bender! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Tricks & Effects » » Coinvexed 2 Sharpie Edition Review- (7 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..13~14~15 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |