On Oct 31, 2014, Funnybaldbloke wrote:
a subtlety from Steve Bedwell to enable you to hear something rattling inside

On Nov 1, 2014, LeeEarle wrote:
Here is one recovering magician's solution to the problems presented:

1. Why use the box? "To keep the object safe" is a null program since the object would be equally safe just sitting on the table, bar, or someone's hand. Obviously, the box is necessary to do the switch but unless there is an easily understood reason to have the darned thing at hand, it will always seem affected and, thus, suspicious.

2. Since the box is indeed gimmicked, leaving it in view after the 'dump' is problematic. This suggestions covers that with a very innocuous 'cleanup'.

Were I forced to use it, I'd design and print a liner closely to fit all 6 sides of the cube on the inside - something glossy and colorful that would mimic retail packaging, complete with a UPC code. It would also be designed to conceal the eventual bill, card, or billet that must be installed in preparation. The liner would be pulled out of the box to facilitate removing the contents, in this case a tuft of the 'shredded currency' that's available from multiple sources. The patter line could be along the lines of, "The ad copy says there's over $100.00 in shredded bills making up this little haystack. It's a shame we couldn't reassemble them into spendable currency. Still, since the box has an affinity for money, let's try it with a single bill - one of yours, signed, please." Shortly after the 'bill' appears in the box and is dumped out, the little haystack of shredded currency could be stuffed inside which would allow the box to remain present, if not fully examinable, laying on one side with the open top toward the audience.

On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg

On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg

On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg

Interesting point Jon. Surely the Sam logic could be applied to your routine Double Back. That's a routine that's based on an existing routine (Doc Dalleys Last Trick) which you improved and marketed. By improving it you made it unexaminable. I'm assuming though you feel the the fact it can't be examined was worth it for the improvements you made.

As you say not being able to examine something is a consideration so how do you justify using your effect instead of the original which is the same effect but is examinable. And whatever justification you come up with why can't that be applied to David's effect?

On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

. . . I have tried many boxes and have been unhappy with all of them.