The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Phantom by Peter Eggink (97 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15~16~17 [Next]
Christopher Williams
View Profile
Inner circle
Portsmouth, UK
4445 Posts

Profile of Christopher Williams
I wonder...if people didn't know how 'The vanishing hanky' worked...they see two empty hands, there's a cut, they see the silk go into the hand and then it's vanished, then there's a cut, and then both hands are shown freely...if that trick was created today, and a video put out...would people still buy it? Or would they feel cheated because they didn't know there was a TT used that you couldn't see in the demo?

I also wonder, if the Hole hadn't come out, and this was his first release with a '007 pen'... would people still feel cheated? We all know a lot of marketed effects use a gimmick you don't actually see during the effect, but we don't moan then, well, actually on here people do. That being said, the video Peter put of the full performance, the pen is hidden behind the box, but it isn't a secret move, it's just held there and the spectator knows that. In the demo to this, it looks the same, just without the angle or part shown where the pen is behind the box... it is a cleverly shot demo, and if you can do what Peter showed in his full performance above with this pen, which I'm assuming you can, then I wouldn't have been disappointed personally if I received this, although yes I was fooled as I thought both hands were empty
www.magicman13.co.uk

Copies of the limited edition 'MindPlay' still available
magicman29
View Profile
Inner circle
hertfordshire
1213 Posts

Profile of magicman29
I would love to see a live performance of the haunted deck, could anyone justify the gap between the two halves?

Kieran
Paul S Wingham
View Profile
Inner circle
1335 Posts

Profile of Paul S Wingham
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, dynamite magic shop wrote:
I know Peter very well for many years, he is an honoust guy and the last thing he will do is selling you a product that cannot be used in real performance or as is shown on a video. Magicians look at methods, which is wrong, you should look at the effect.

I think the problem is not in the pen but in the magicians head. In my opinion there are two kinds (maybe even more) kinds of magicians, roughly said:

1-The kind who perform magic professionally, they will see the possibilities and work an effect in their act and think about that. Because the make an ACT and a story to it there is a natural misdirection which makes almost every effect in the real world. These performers write their acts, think carefully about what to use and work on it. They often choose the EFFECT first and then choose which method they use to establish the effect. After the act is ready and tested and polished often in an excisting act they start using it. These people already ARE magicians as they do what a magician should do.....it is a real job en involves way more then buy a trick and put it onl youtube and show how good (ahum) you are

2-The kind who buy tricks, unpack it, watch the dvd, perform the trick as it is, get caught by their family as there is no act, no story and therefore no misdirection and therefore blame the trick from being poor. After they placed some orders online they put up a website and name themselves "magician". Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there are no poor magic effects but I can tell you (I demonstrate magic for over 16 years and do shows for over 25 years) that the most poor effects can be turned into miracles if performed well.

Now, in which category would you put yourself...and if you wanted to book a magician...which type of the two would you book? Does that make sense?

Just to think about Smile

René


As I said before; its not about this not working in my opinion, its about being equipped to make an informed decision before parting with your hard earned money. I am sure people would have bought this had the video have been honest; but it wasnt. It was dishonest. It implied a level of purety that simply doesn't exist and introduces an item not required in many other versions. Why would I replace an invisible loop with a pen in my hand? Sure some would, but I wouldnt as I know some people will suspect that pen.

Lets imagine this was the first ever haunted deck / rising card gimmick. I think the video would be fine becasue what other option do you have??. However it is not the only one and we all own versions already and this is just a different version. What seperates it from the other versions is the modus operandi as the effect is broadly the same; but we didn't get an important bit of information that would influence whether to purchase or not.

We can talk about what spectators will and will not pick up on and for what it is worth; I think they suspect a lot more than we give credit for, but social grace prevents them from blurting it out. However; the fact is that most haunted decks leave you with an examinable deck and no other objects in play. This one doesn't and that weakness was completlt hidden by deliberately shooting the video very well. To assume that no one will suspect the pen is naive to say the least.

So to repeat; its not the effect that is the problem; it is the way it was sold. Apart from genie; that's just not reliable enough to perform in a profession setting as it may not work.
Paul S Wingham
View Profile
Inner circle
1335 Posts

Profile of Paul S Wingham
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, Christopher Williams wrote:
I wonder...if people didn't know how 'The vanishing hanky' worked...they see two empty hands, there's a cut, they see the silk go into the hand and then it's vanished, then there's a cut, and then both hands are shown freely...if that trick was created today, and a video put out...would people still buy it? Or would they feel cheated because they didn't know there was a TT used that you couldn't see in the demo?

I also wonder, if the Hole hadn't come out, and this was his first release with a '007 pen'... would people still feel cheated? We all know a lot of marketed effects use a gimmick you don't actually see during the effect, but we don't moan then, well, actually on here people do. That being said, the video Peter put of the full performance, the pen is hidden behind the box, but it isn't a secret move, it's just held there and the spectator knows that. In the demo to this, it looks the same, just without the angle or part shown where the pen is behind the box... it is a cleverly shot demo, and if you can do what Peter showed in his full performance above with this pen, which I'm assuming you can, then I wouldn't have been disappointed personally if I received this, although yes I was fooled as I thought both hands were empty



But it uses a "007" gimmick that you need to do the trick and in fact it doesn't look so bad in the video, but why deliberately hide that fact in the video demo. You said yourself you were fooled becasue of what was missing which I assume means you also thought there was no pen involved and some sort of hidden gimmick. If the pen were present I think many people would just say; you know what; I'll stick to my current method becasue the trade of isn't worth the benefit and the effect looks cleaner without a pen. rather than spending £30 on a method that brings very little. Plus as others have said; how do you hide the break under the card in the haunted deck???
Mark8infiniti
View Profile
Special user
525 Posts

Profile of Mark8infiniti
I cannot believe some people are still trying to defend this PIECE OF JUNK that was sold to us illegally through Deceitfulness.

Nothing can defend this, not even a full demo video from the creator. ERRRR, A BIT LATE I THINK???? After you've took everyone's money to release a live performance!! The cheak. Peter's response is worse than the product he's brought out. Where is his justification? His apology? POOR... VERY POOR indeed.

I wonder how many shots it took to get that video demo to work out? How many times the wax blob came off? Or stuck to other cards?

Do not defend this. It is the WORST TRICK OF ALL TIME, not just this year.

Goodbye and good riddance.
Mark iNFiNiTi
Creator of Revelation Gum
Join the Revelation @ Saturnmagic.co.uk/revelationgum
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
It's funny how this use od the word "thread" has been employed by magicians/magic marketers for as long as magicians have used threads.


To be fair, there is not only a difference between thread and IT, but in the applications of both as well.
I'm not neccessarily defending the common advertising practises here, just kind of going on a tangent.

When one says "no invisible thread" they are, if we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, attempting to dispell a very specific notion. When considering the use of INVISIBLE thread in effects like animated cards and decks, we usually assume a line of thread out in the "open" at some spot.
That is, the "invisible" part refers to how the thread is "concelled" in performance.

For many, this is a drawback, the notion of a gimmick being that out there and potentially exposed, hence the common ad use of "no invisible thread." That, and playing to our constant desire for something "new." By telling you that it's not this one specific old method you already know about, YOU infer that it must be something "new." Or at least new to you. Not exactly the most "honest" marketing technique, but it's pretty much exactly what ALL marketing tries to do. And all magicians for that matter.

Any who, back to "thread": Non invisible thread is, while often employed for similar ends, for all intents and purposes, a completely different "thing." "Thread", or "wires" are, usually (in close up applications) actually conceled. IE, running beind or underneath something, as opposed to relying on it's own inherent properties to evade detection.

Long story short, while both are often used for very similar ends/effects, their actual implementation and execution is often quite different.
As such, a distinction between the two SHOULD exist when used in marketing/describing an effect/method.
Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to then dispell the notion of one without simultaneously implying the use of the other.
If an ad for an effect went out of its way to emphasis that it was saying no INVISIBLE thread, they may as well be spelling out that it DOES use NONinvisible thread.
Similarily, you may notice some ads reading "no invisible thread reels." You can ususally bet, if you didn't miss that one word "reels", that the trick *** well uses invisible thread, or maybe it DOES use a reel, but it's wond with NONinvisible thread. Hence why they don't emphasis those key words. Again, if you saw "NO invisible thread REELS" you would likely read that as 'oh, so there's no REEL, but there's IS invisible thread.'


Perhaps we should push for marketers to develope, or adhear to their own fsort of standards and practicies,?
Perhaps use the common IT abreviation to specify INVISIBLE thread, and similatily ITR if tlalking about IT-Reels. "Thread" in the general can be assumed to refer to all thread, invisible or otherwise, and similarily "reels/pulls" can be considered all encompasing.

Just somethings to think about.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
pegasus
View Profile
Inner circle
England
7385 Posts

Profile of pegasus
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, gdw wrote:
It's funny how this use od the word "thread" has been employed by magicians/magic marketers for as long as magicians have used threads.


To be fair, there is not only a difference between thread and IT, but in the applications of both as well.
I'm not neccessarily defending the common advertising practises here, just kind of going on a tangent.

When one says "no invisible thread" they are, if we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, attempting to dispell a very specific notion. When considering the use of INVISIBLE thread in effects like animated cards and decks, we usually assume a line of thread out in the "open" at some spot.
That is, the "invisible" part refers to how the thread is "concelled" in performance.

For many, this is a drawback, the notion of a gimmick being that out there and potentially exposed, hence the common ad use of "no invisible thread." That, and playing to our constant desire for something "new." By telling you that it's not this one specific old method you already know about, YOU infer that it must be something "new." Or at least new to you. Not exactly the most "honest" marketing technique, but it's pretty much exactly what ALL marketing tries to do. And all magicians for that matter.

Any who, back to "thread": Non invisible thread is, while often employed for similar ends, for all intents and purposes, a completely different "thing." "Thread", or "wires" are, usually (in close up applications) actually conceled. IE, running beind or underneath something, as opposed to relying on it's own inherent properties to evade detection.

Long story short, while both are often used for very similar ends/effects, their actual implementation and execution is often quite different.
As such, a distinction between the two SHOULD exist when used in marketing/describing an effect/method.
Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to then dispell the notion of one without simultaneously implying the use of the other.
If an ad for an effect went out of its way to emphasis that it was saying no INVISIBLE thread, they may as well be spelling out that it DOES use NONinvisible thread.
Similarily, you may notice some ads reading "no invisible thread reels." You can ususally bet, if you didn't miss that one word "reels", that the trick *** well uses invisible thread, or maybe it DOES use a reel, but it's wond with NONinvisible thread. Hence why they don't emphasis those key words. Again, if you saw "NO invisible thread REELS" you would likely read that as 'oh, so there's no REEL, but there's IS invisible thread.'


Perhaps we should push for marketers to develope, or adhear to their own fsort of standards and practicies,?
Perhaps use the common IT abreviation to specify INVISIBLE thread, and similatily ITR if tlalking about IT-Reels. "Thread" in the general can be assumed to refer to all thread, invisible or otherwise, and similarily "reels/pulls" can be considered all encompasing.

Just somethings to think about.


Thanks for that utter nonsense. I've got a headache now.
Mark8infiniti
View Profile
Special user
525 Posts

Profile of Mark8infiniti
Ha Ha Pegasus... I SECOND THAT!
Mark iNFiNiTi
Creator of Revelation Gum
Join the Revelation @ Saturnmagic.co.uk/revelationgum
Dominic Reyes
View Profile
Inner circle
Got to a gig too early so wrote his
1399 Posts

Profile of Dominic Reyes
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, gdw wrote:
It's funny how this use od the word "thread" has been employed by magicians/magic marketers for as long as magicians have used threads.


To be fair, there is not only a difference between thread and IT, but in the applications of both as well.
I'm not neccessarily defending the common advertising practises here, just kind of going on a tangent.

When one says "no invisible thread" they are, if we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, attempting to dispell a very specific notion. When considering the use of INVISIBLE thread in effects like animated cards and decks, we usually assume a line of thread out in the "open" at some spot.
That is, the "invisible" part refers to how the thread is "concelled" in performance.

For many, this is a drawback, the notion of a gimmick being that out there and potentially exposed, hence the common ad use of "no invisible thread." That, and playing to our constant desire for something "new." By telling you that it's not this one specific old method you already know about, YOU infer that it must be something "new." Or at least new to you. Not exactly the most "honest" marketing technique, but it's pretty much exactly what ALL marketing tries to do. And all magicians for that matter.

Any who, back to "thread": Non invisible thread is, while often employed for similar ends, for all intents and purposes, a completely different "thing." "Thread", or "wires" are, usually (in close up applications) actually conceled. IE, running beind or underneath something, as opposed to relying on it's own inherent properties to evade detection.

Long story short, while both are often used for very similar ends/effects, their actual implementation and execution is often quite different.
As such, a distinction between the two SHOULD exist when used in marketing/describing an effect/method.
Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to then dispell the notion of one without simultaneously implying the use of the other.
If an ad for an effect went out of its way to emphasis that it was saying no INVISIBLE thread, they may as well be spelling out that it DOES use NONinvisible thread.
Similarily, you may notice some ads reading "no invisible thread reels." You can ususally bet, if you didn't miss that one word "reels", that the trick *** well uses invisible thread, or maybe it DOES use a reel, but it's wond with NONinvisible thread. Hence why they don't emphasis those key words. Again, if you saw "NO invisible thread REELS" you would likely read that as 'oh, so there's no REEL, but there's IS invisible thread.'


Perhaps we should push for marketers to develope, or adhear to their own fsort of standards and practicies,?
Perhaps use the common IT abreviation to specify INVISIBLE thread, and similatily ITR if tlalking about IT-Reels. "Thread" in the general can be assumed to refer to all thread, invisible or otherwise, and similarily "reels/pulls" can be considered all encompasing.

Just somethings to think about.


I think you do have a good point there.

I've been following this thread (sorry for the pun) as I agree that the demo trailer for this really should have shown the pen in hand.
I think it would be good to use peters video of his live performance on product pages too. I also think that the product text needs adjusting.

I was looking though it today, seeing how MoM could modify the ad copy to cover the destinction between thread and invisible thread.
The challenge is to do so, without exposing the method.
Many magicians don't like using invisible thread for the haunted deck because it is prone to break. We all go through a LOAD of loops etc..
Phantom does have this advantage, but how do you explain that it's a type of invisible thread rather than the traditional 'invisible thread' we love and hate.. !?!

So far I've corrected the ad copy to say that the gimmick 'hides in plain sight' and removed reference to No elastic and No Thread.

This one is very tricky to describe in a way that explains the difference whilst still retaining the secret.

MoM currently have Phantom on special offer at the moment. It's selling well, and there are a lot of people happy with it, as well as some wanting to use our 365 day return policy. if you brought Phantom from MoM you are totally welcome to pop it back to them if you don't think you will use it.

Best wishes as always
Dominic
Christopher Williams
View Profile
Inner circle
Portsmouth, UK
4445 Posts

Profile of Christopher Williams
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, Paul S Wingham wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, Christopher Williams wrote:
I wonder...if people didn't know how 'The vanishing hanky' worked...they see two empty hands, there's a cut, they see the silk go into the hand and then it's vanished, then there's a cut, and then both hands are shown freely...if that trick was created today, and a video put out...would people still buy it? Or would they feel cheated because they didn't know there was a TT used that you couldn't see in the demo?

I also wonder, if the Hole hadn't come out, and this was his first release with a '007 pen'... would people still feel cheated? We all know a lot of marketed effects use a gimmick you don't actually see during the effect, but we don't moan then, well, actually on here people do. That being said, the video Peter put of the full performance, the pen is hidden behind the box, but it isn't a secret move, it's just held there and the spectator knows that. In the demo to this, it looks the same, just without the angle or part shown where the pen is behind the box... it is a cleverly shot demo, and if you can do what Peter showed in his full performance above with this pen, which I'm assuming you can, then I wouldn't have been disappointed personally if I received this, although yes I was fooled as I thought both hands were empty



But it uses a "007" gimmick that you need to do the trick and in fact it doesn't look so bad in the video, but why deliberately hide that fact in the video demo. You said yourself you were fooled becasue of what was missing which I assume means you also thought there was no pen involved and some sort of hidden gimmick. If the pen were present I think many people would just say; you know what; I'll stick to my current method becasue the trade of isn't worth the benefit and the effect looks cleaner without a pen. rather than spending £30 on a method that brings very little. Plus as others have said; how do you hide the break under the card in the haunted deck???


Maybe because exactly as everyone has said here, it is similar in methodology to another release by Peter. I agree, when I first saw it I thought no pen was involved, that being said, I don't imagine any spectator going 'That card is rising out of the pack due to the pen you are holding!!', I can't imagine they would even suspect the pen for a single moment. It then comes down to personal preference on whether you want to use this method or others. Due to the nature of our industries there are constantly different methods or additional methods being created or adapted that suit someones performance style better than others. There are tricks that wouldn't suit me or my style that I stay clear from, likewise others would stay away from effects I like.

I can see why people would be annoyed, but also see reasons for why they shouldn't be, and I've just started to notice more and more people being a bit over the top (Not saying you are Paul) in their reactions, especially as I can guarantee there are people commenting on this product and slating it etc, when they don't even own it and are only commenting because due to what has been said in here the method has become apparent (Which wouldn't have happened directly from the demo video alone) and so they feel they have a right to slam a product. This will not suit everyone clearly, but it will suit some, and it is that market Peter has targeted with this. Unfortunately when releasing Magic, you can never sell to just your target market as nowadays it is too refined that unless you give out the method, you have to rely on people to just buy it and if they don't like it, sell it on.

What is next in the Magic world, people asking for a refund for Dynamic coins because they didn't realise from the demo there was a fake stack of coins!?!?!?
www.magicman13.co.uk

Copies of the limited edition 'MindPlay' still available
PRINCE
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of PRINCE
Bad comparison example with dynamic coins as if you see a vid performance of it you know the gimmick (if a gimmick is involved) must be to do with the cap or contained in the cap/s - as this is what's shown on the demo - unlike this example as the gimmick was deliberately and purposely hidden/left out of the performances, given the impression that a pen would never be in play if you bought this. More importantly given the impression that the performer would not have to illogically hold an item whilst having/needing to perform each effect. Also I know already established, but if he had shot a true and live performance in trailer, then there would be hardly any sales.
gtx magic
View Profile
Special user
United Kingdom England
741 Posts

Profile of gtx magic
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, magicman29 wrote:
I would love to see a live performance of the haunted deck, could anyone justify the gap between the two halves?

Kieran


Kieran.

Here is a segment from peters live lecture with Greg Wilson performing Haunted.



Graham.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
TuneHV
View Profile
Inner circle
New York
1689 Posts

Profile of TuneHV
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, gtx magic wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, magicman29 wrote:
I would love to see a live performance of the haunted deck, could anyone justify the gap between the two halves?

Kieran


Kieran.

Here is a segment from peters live lecture with Greg Wilson performing Haunted.



Graham.


that's not Phantom, that's Haunted.. I believe he is asking for a live performance of the haunted deck routine using Phantom
David Jonathan
- - - - - - - - - -
Destined | Wrong Turn | Fortuity | Arbitrium | Sovereign Sandwich | RudiMental

More Info: www.davidjonathanmagic.com
PRINCE
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of PRINCE
I think he's referring to the seeing the haunted deck performance using this gimmick
Saturn UK
View Profile
Inner circle
2354 Posts

Profile of Saturn UK
It is actually the version I devised Haunted 2.0.

Café readers can get free worldwide shipping by contacting me direct here is the link http://www.saturnmagic.co.uk/new-magic/h......oni.html
Mark Traversoni

www.saturnmagic.co.uk

#theshopwithstock Pleased to be different!

FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/saturnmagic.co.uk
gtx magic
View Profile
Special user
United Kingdom England
741 Posts

Profile of gtx magic
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, PRINCE wrote:
I think he's referring to the seeing the haunted deck performance using this gimmick


Here's peters live performance of phantom...If Kieran as not already seen it ! from the previous thread.



Graham
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Markymark
View Profile
Inner circle
1522 Posts

Profile of Markymark
Could'nt this video have easily been put up to begin with?

Like before people parted with their hard earned cash. Of course a lot of people would not have bought this if that was the case.Very calculating. It was clever to put 'no thread' in the advert which actually meant 'no invisible thread'
''In memory of a once fluid man,crammed and distorted by the classical mess'' -Bruce Lee
gtx magic
View Profile
Special user
United Kingdom England
741 Posts

Profile of gtx magic
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, Markymark wrote:
Could'nt this video have easily been put up to begin with?

Like before people parted with their hard earned cash. Of course a lot of people would not have bought this if that was the case.Very calculating. It was clever to put 'no thread' in the advert which actually meant 'no invisible thread'


Yes Markymark your right. Unfortunatly some creators will only resort to this when it effect sales after negative reviews.

And I agree had peter done this first time round I'm sure there would of been less negativity and untrust.Peter Eggink is a top guy and a good creative thinker. Lets hope this sets the bar for future demo's.

Graham
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcosa
10571 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
Well, I actually tried it out now. I thought I would return it but I will keep it as a reminder.

I am tempted to rip out the guts and see if I can repurpose it to fit into a ring you can wear.... at least then it solves some problems.

Anyone want to make a Ring ITR? Hmmm and you can switch out components for that or a magnet.... THE ONE RING! Give me credit nod if you develop it. Smile
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
PRINCE
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of PRINCE
Except when you do the vid demo of each effect you can do with it, just remember to position the camera and film so it hides seeing the ring on your finger.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Phantom by Peter Eggink (97 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15~16~17 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.36 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL