Hi

I'm pretty new to illusions and I'm doing some research to find a practical illusion to build (or to have someone build it for me).
I did just come across the Three-Space Mystery from Steinmeyers Conjuring Anthology. To me, this seems like a practical and good illusion, which is also angle-proof.
But I've yet to find any pictures, videos or even comments on this illusion.

Is anyone familiar with it and can give me some thoughts on it?

Edgar, any illusion using the same optical principal the Three-Space Mystery is will have some angle, and/or lighting problems.
The biggest mistake magicians make when they are new to illusions is selecting something and investing in it only to find the illusion not a good fit for the typical venue they perform in.

Illusions that take too many assistants, require a lot of rigging, or illusions needing angle and lighting control limit the places you can perform in.
This is exactly why the Sub Trunk, Sword Basket, Zig Zag and Broom Suspension are so popular to starting illusionists.

To answer your question the Three-Space Mystery is a cool illusion but not practical for all venues. Performance wise you will get more mileage from a Zig Zag, Modern Art, etc. .... If you are looking to start building something simple like a Cutting in Sixths is a good place to start.

We did the 3 Space Mystery for a long time. I absolutely loved it. On paper, it doesn't look nearly as good as it does in front of an audience. There were a couple key points in our presentation which helped it's effectiveness.

I never found the illusion to be less than practical. We used it in malls, banquet rooms, theatres, etc -- and it was fine.

Can we see a photo of the prop?

Angles isn't a problem with this illusion if it is built right. And I also do believe that lighting shouldn't be a problem. But I do see your point, and this is why I want to do a research for my own before settling down on an illusion which suits me, my style and needs.

I think the 3 Space Mystery looks exciting. But I'm curious about its deceptiveness, and if it is as practical as I think.

I would like to see pictures of your illusion as well, if you have any.

I don't have any pics of that illusion on this hard drive, but I can look elsewhere. I'm a little doubtful I'll be able to find anything.

I can tell you it is angle proof and practical. If it's built properly, which isn't terribly hard to do, it looks great very close up. Lighting was NEVER an issue. It is very deceptive, but it's important to very clearly display the "empty space" multiple times without making a big deal out of it. In other words, it's not a "look over there" -- it's very casual and natural. If they can see that space is empty, then you've got 'em. It's success, in my opinion, is very reliant on the staging.

A detail that is not discussed by Steinmeyer in his book, is the design of the box. I'm thinking a painting of a figure on the front, like the in the Zig-Zag illusion. I think this might be a good idea, concidering the hands is the only visible part of your assistant when locked in the box?

Sorry to resurrect an old post, but I just received this book today, and was looking for info on this particular illusion.

Edgar - I would not paint a figure on the front. It is not supposed to look like a box intersected by two tubes, but instead three tubes, and two go through the other one.

On this site you can see some pictures of this illusion:

http://www.illusionartsmagic.com/details.php?pid=46&cid=1

Thanks for the pictures, tristan. I do not like the woman painted on the front, I think it seperates the three tubes into two tubes and a box.

Also, why're there no pictures of the other two tubes?

You are very welcome magicelam

I can't answer your question why there are no pictures of the two other tubes?, only the builder can.

I can however show you a clip of this illusion being performed by Andrew Evans (without a woman painted on the front ;-) )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7r_T2_1KUI
see from the 0.55 mark