I am trying to sell over the Café a dove vanish I bought from Daytona magic. Upon doing so I received an indignant pm from a member saying the following, "You do know this is an unauthorized rip-off of an effect originated by Percy Abbott many decades ago..."

My comment to this person was I bought it from a reputable dealer and now I want to sell it. I have no idea who the originator of this effect is, have no idea whether it is or is not authorized, and based on the thousands of items available from dealers most of which are knock offs of knock offs (how many truly original effects have been developed lately, I would think not many), I couldn't care less anyway. There are plenty of dove vanishes and why this one would stick out as an egregious breach of moral ethics is beyond me. Well this person was offended, called it a moral issue, and didn't wish to hear from me again. The feeling was mutual.

Am I totally wrong on this? Am I missing something and maybe this person is right? I don't know for sure and that's why I'm posting this to get some comments from members. Please post your comments.
Thanks.

I don't think you're wrong; you purchased it from magic dealer. I agree with you completely; we can't be expected to know about every knockoff out there.

I agree. There is no way to possibly know the history and original background of everything nor is there going to be agreement on the origins. You bought it from a reputable dealer, I think that is good enough.

You are 100% in the right. Some people just need to get over it.

Jim

Agreed if they don't want it fine.
someone will.

Since Percy Abbott has been dead for over half a century anything he invented would (if we apply the same rules that we do for patents) be in the public domain. So there couldn't be any unauthorized copies of his props if they were built in the last 20 years.

Thanks for the comments. I guess if magic dealers only sold authorized original effects they would all go out of business.

Krowboom

If you only run into one "strange person" a month you are doing well. Know when to fold 'em and walk away from the confrontation.

Cheers

Krowboom,

To address the politics of the situation quickly, if it was a rip-off, and you didn't know it was a rip-off, and if it was recommended to you by someone who's supposed to be knowledgeable, then it's hard to fault you. Don't sweat it. The guy's anger should have been directed first and foremost at the creator of the product.

From the standpoint of the artist, though, every now and then it really does help to look at the original of something. There are many people who look at the original effect, see the basic secret and maybe a couple of nuances, and then turn around and republish it. The point that gets missed by these opportunists is that if the originator really loved the effect and lived with it a long time, then they understand every choice that they made, and there's a reason for every detail.

As an example, look at some people's version of Twisting the Aces. These days, with Elmsley Counts, it's accepted practice to receive the cards in a dealing grip. The original, however, called for the EC to be done at the fingertips of both hands. Modern magicians look at that style of EC and dislike it because it looks affected. However, by doing the EC at the fingertips, you're able to show that you're not doing any sneaky reversals under the packet, which is a VERY important point for that specific effect, since it's all about cards somehow secretly turning over.

In the end, you might decide that's not a problem for you and continue doing Twisting the Aces with a dealing grip. However, in examining the original at the very least you come to understand the choices made, and it makes you a more aware magician.

The corollary to this, of course, is that it pays to be aware of every variation of a trick you like, which is also true, so you might not want to limit yourself to just the original. But to omit the original is frequently a mistake.

Thanks Burnaby Kid for your input. Your example of "twisting the aces" is an interesting comment. This is a well known effect and discussed to death as to method, style, nuances, etc. However, most effects are not as well known and when buying something from a dealer it is doubtful that most of us would put in the kind of research necessary to find out if an effect is the "original", a copy, a variation, or whatever and probably don't care anyway. We just buy it based on various reasons, it looks good, we can't figure it out, it fits my style, it's inexpensive, etc. If in the process of obtaining a trick we find out or develop ourselves various ways of presenting the effect so much the better. In the end I think it is a matter of what works best for the individual magician based on his ability, style, venues, and imagination.

Whether something is a rip-off or can be considered new, innovative or otherwise allowable, is incredibly complicated law -- all of which would be negated if the originators of the effects had an understanding. Regular consumers can't be expected to know the law to this extend and the person should've gone after the creator of the effect to make any difference. No blame lies with you.