Hey guys
A acquaintance of mine told me about this set and said they handle better than our all known and love fakinis

does anyone own a set because I would love to know your thoughts

they are called mirage multiplying balls
http://themagicwarehouse.com/TA5828/Mira......lls.html

Reads like another rip off of Frank's innovations.

Richard

What I would want to know is, who is JL and is there a shell, no mention of on included.

I do not know who Jl is,, but Mr Wmhegbli, it says the dimensions of the shell at the bottom of the page.
And it also says it comes with 3 balls 1 shell

The grammar in their ad is off,
and note the size of the sh**l in contrast to the ball,
not very deceptive in my book.

Walt

Thanks, I missed that info. Says they are from Korea. If is like most things made in Korea, it is not very good. Why would anything from Korea be that expensive. They make things really cheap there, when I was working in a factory, they were so cheap that we could send parts to Korea, have them assembled and returned and it was cheaper then making in the USA. Just the shipping charges were more expensive then the price Korea charged for assembly.

Being these are new to the market place, it will be years to know how they stand up. They make claims of quality, but no guarantee! Fakini has a lifetime guarantee.

While I hate to judge something before I have tried it, I cannot believe that these or any other balls are better than Fakinis.

At $100 it hardly matters which is better. I don't think many would switch brands without some financial incentive to do so.

If I had the extra cash I would get the set, but sadly I'm broke lol Hopefully someone who may have these, or better yet the maker( if hes on the Café) may chime in

Someone must try it first before said its worse or better than fakini, ithink ...

Well they are imported from the Orient were as it has been said things are very cheap so they might have cost, what, $6 to make and they are selling for $100 because that's what the true Fakini sell for, not American made and direct competition with Fakini (who have been serving magicians for years)

And in all probability a knock-off, gauging magicians on price and quality yet again? True I have not seen them but just read their OWN ad which gives a lot away. And with a gimmick that they say does not even come close in matching?

Go head guys take a chance and waste some more money on magic exploitation probably, but don't come crying hear about how your were ripped of by knock-offs later.

Another two-cents
Walt

Also, we need to support the House of Fakini. We don't want them to go away.

Jim

Can't agree more with Jim and Walt.

Sam

O definatetly
I honestly don't see how anything could be better than fakinis
I was just hoping someone who owns them could just reconfirm
I'm goona stick with my fakinis
they have never let ms down yet
mabe though in the future I may buy these just for curious reasons
if if j do I will let you know

I am a HUGE supporter of Fakini products as well, but I do have some questions that are born out of my own ignorance. Multiplying Balls have been around for so long that no one really has any proprietary rights to the basic trick itself. The same thing goes for other tricks such as the Cups and Balls. Although certain products may be proprietary, the trick itself is in the public domain.

But therein lies the question: What makes a trick, that would otherwise be in the public domain, proprietary to any one manufacturer? For instance, was Frank the first one to think of and produce SILICON multiplying balls? Assuming that Frank was the first one to use SILICON, the other question that comes to mind is whether a particular material, that is generally available to the public, can become proprietary to a particular trick. It seems that, generally, silicon has been available to the public for quite some time. Is the use of this material in multiplying balls proprietary to Frank?

In comparison, if we take a look at cups and balls, they too have been around for a long time. Did the first manufacturer who made a set out of aluminum gain proprietary rights over the use of that type of metal in cups? I don't ever recall anyone claiming that a set of cups was a knock-off because of the type of metal used.

Instead, the proprietary nature of cups seems to arise because of the physical design elements of the cup itself. A set of Paul Fox cups has a distictive look and design from a set of Gary Animal cups. So, if it is the "design" of the product that gives rise to proprietary elements, do any set of multiplying balls have a design so distinctive as to make it proprietary?

Again, I'm not trying to open up a can of worms. I am genuinely curious because I don't know the answer. Any thoughts or opinions to help clarify this for me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Kent

Kent,
Yes, Frank was the very 1st to make silicone balls. He worked at a factory that used the material. He went home to his garage and started testing and making molds. Over the years has profected his molding process. I would say he does have exclusive rights to the manufacture silicone multiplying balls. It has been extensively discussed in many areas of the Café, on many items and tricks. He could get a patient, but that would not stop anyone in other countries. No basement or garage magic manufacturer has the money to legate thoughout the world.

The magic business is not a large market, you would be lucky to sell 500 of an item. Thus the very high prices currently exploiting the magic consumer. When an importer imports inferior products, it does more then hurt the magic business. It gives magic a bad name.

Does his silicone have any different properties then any other, you would have to ask a scientist or chemical engineer. Are all silicone the same, no, they are constantly tesing and mixing different materials to produce different results.

I think the point of what many have side on this string is, lets stick with what we know until something that has proven itself to be better comes along. Also, I think it has been voiced to buy American.

There are other silicon balls on the market, some of the results have been coming in to the Café is, they yellow, they are oilly, and not clinging but slippery. Some come with not shell, and some come with a brass shell not even coated. Yet, the price shoppers buy them, then come and complain about them.

Thanks for the info! I fully support the idea that we should support the original creator of a product, and that we should support only those manufacturers who produce quality, legitimate items. I have seen more than my share of shoddy silicone multiplying balls that don't even come close to the quality that Fakini puts into their products. I just wasn't sure if the use of silicon, alone, would qualify a similar product as a knock-off.

Also, just to clarify, when I'm talking about proprietary rights, I'm not talking about registered patents or any other legal rights. Instead, I'm more focused on "ethical" proprietary rights. Thanks again.

Kent

However, this is America and the marketplace can decide for itself. But we can choose to put our dollars behind the place that is in our best interest with the best product. I think we all got a taste of what can happen in a cottage industry, which is what Levent reminded us months ago, magic really is. And how we should all stock up with stuff we need because it could be gone tomorrow. And certain, when Frank died, that proved the point, and we're lucky that his son has continued the business.
That being said, I don't think anyone owns the rights to make a product out of a certain material. My knowledge of patent and copyright law is that as long as you don't infringe upon the specific parts of a patent you are free and clear. And patents are very specific in their assignments. A silicon ball itself is not a patentable creation, but rather somethings specific and original in its compound or perhaps in its technique of manufactor is protected. And, of course, patents are only good for a certain number of years. I think it's 75 years.

Jim

Got to see these balls live and in person today.

OK, they have a more satin finish than Fakini,
I don't like it much, makes them slide around more,
they don't have the heft and balance of Fakini,
you can tell they are mass made not made by hand with care.

The shell may be deceptive on a stage,
but not for parlor or or club distance,
they are decidedly larger and thicker when on the balls.

That's the info then.
Magically,
Walt

Denny is selling these now.