On Feb 11, 2021, ArtIn wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the idea of showing a isolated single card inside a pen that doesn’t write or stopped writing.
This is what I do with Bliss and Bill to Marker and people really like it.

On Feb 11, 2021, videoman wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 11, 2021, ArtIn wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the idea of showing a isolated single card inside a pen that doesn’t write or stopped writing.
This is what I do with Bliss and Bill to Marker and people really like it.

Having their card or bill appear in a Sharpie makes sense in those two effects because it is vanishing and then reappearing in an impossible location, plus the card or bill is almost always signed to make it seem really impossible. Having what is essentially your prediction simply rolled up in a Sharpie makes very little sense.

The gag that the pen doesn’t write simply because you apparently stuck a card in there for no good reason seems silly and removes the underlying logic that makes the gag work in the first place. Seems like most people don’t understand that.

AFA the concept of picturing yourself as a playing card, this seems like a desperate attempt to allow you to say that no equivoque is used in your ad copy. I think many people, especially males, might think of the Ace of Spades since that is a very popular thought of card anyway.

Do you really believe that the premise of using the gag that the pen won’t write (which is the ONLY aspect that separates this effect from many similar ones) because oh look there is a card in it, is so entertaining that you would choose this effect over something like Inferno which is an effect that makes absolutely perfect sense and is self-contained within a tiny matchbox?
It’s always great to have different options but I just can’t see the logic in that, but to each their own.

On Feb 11, 2021, videoman wrote:

Having what is essentially your prediction simply rolled up in a Sharpie makes very little sense.

The gag that the pen doesn’t write simply because you apparently stuck a card in there for no good reason seems silly and removes the underlying logic that makes the gag work in the first place. Seems like most people don’t understand that.

On Feb 9, 2021, goldeneye007 wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 9, 2021, UnbiasedMagicReviews wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 8, 2021, goldeneye007 wrote:
No reason to be sorry! That actually proves that quite a few people on here still think she is relevant...

Has she ever given anything a negative review? She sure seems to be more of a promoter and not a reviewer. Show me any real negative review she made, where she trashes the product completely. Exactly!

Interesting - so to be a (good?) reviewer you have to give negative reviews and trash products from time to time? Besides that's not even my point: any review, giving a good or bad opinion, remains an opinion: it's not because I hear/read a good review that I will embrace that opinion; HOWEVER I find that reading/hearing a review, any review, helps me decide whether that particular product will be good for me or not and that's what's the most helpful, not whether the reviewer praises or trashes the product, that's actually close to irrelevant for me. What matters to me is everything else (the description, the thoughts around it etc.) the reviewer has to say about the product.

But hey - you're obviously entitled to your opinion! If you think a (good) reviewer has to give negative reviews from time to time, sure! However hearing different people's opinion, listening to different reviewers works for me and I find it helpful, so it's irrelevant whether I can "show you any real negative review she made". However if it's of any consolation I obviously am not purchasing every single product she gives a good review of, just as I'm not purchasing every single product any reviewer gives a good review of, just as I'm not disregarding every single product any reviewer gives a bad review of.

PS: by the way, not related at all, but thank you for mentioning the Razor wallet section in the penguin monthly issue with the routine involving 2 spectators (and 2 numbers), really love it!

On Feb 11, 2021, UnbiasedMagicReviews wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 9, 2021, goldeneye007 wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 9, 2021, UnbiasedMagicReviews wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 8, 2021, goldeneye007 wrote:
No reason to be sorry! That actually proves that quite a few people on here still think she is relevant...

Has she ever given anything a negative review? She sure seems to be more of a promoter and not a reviewer. Show me any real negative review she made, where she trashes the product completely. Exactly!

Interesting - so to be a (good?) reviewer you have to give negative reviews and trash products from time to time? Besides that's not even my point: any review, giving a good or bad opinion, remains an opinion: it's not because I hear/read a good review that I will embrace that opinion; HOWEVER I find that reading/hearing a review, any review, helps me decide whether that particular product will be good for me or not and that's what's the most helpful, not whether the reviewer praises or trashes the product, that's actually close to irrelevant for me. What matters to me is everything else (the description, the thoughts around it etc.) the reviewer has to say about the product.

But hey - you're obviously entitled to your opinion! If you think a (good) reviewer has to give negative reviews from time to time, sure! However hearing different people's opinion, listening to different reviewers works for me and I find it helpful, so it's irrelevant whether I can "show you any real negative review she made". However if it's of any consolation I obviously am not purchasing every single product she gives a good review of, just as I'm not purchasing every single product any reviewer gives a good review of, just as I'm not disregarding every single product any reviewer gives a bad review of.

PS: by the way, not related at all, but thank you for mentioning the Razor wallet section in the penguin monthly issue with the routine involving 2 spectators (and 2 numbers), really love it!

The whole reason I bring it up is because most of these magic reviews are not from real magic reviewers. They are magic promoters. There's a real difference there. I would argue that if you don't see some harshly negative reviews from time to time then you are NOT watching a real magic reviewer.

There are many magic products that are complete rubbish. Everyone knows it but not everyone is brave enough to come out and say it out loud.

You can also tell because most of those magic promoters can't even demo the effect in their own hands because they literally just unboxed it.

On Feb 11, 2021, TheGingerWizard wrote:
So who is going to be the first to set up a review channel reviewing magic reviewers? Because if that takes off we will need a review channel reviewing the reviewers of magic reviewers. It could get messy.

On Feb 11, 2021, langston3711 wrote:
I really like the idea of the effect here but the more I read about this particular trick, the more there is to dislike. I think I’ll just put an FU card inside a dry sharpie and use Digital Force Bag. They won’t need to name the card so writing it down on a business card still makes sense. Plus removing it from the Sharpe will create some time misdirection from the DFB procedure and build up some suspense before the FU card gag. Then reveal the fine print and let them keep the business card. Pretty sure that would play just as good or better to a layman and save on pocket space.

On Feb 11, 2021, UnbiasedMagicReviews wrote:

The whole reason I bring it up is because most of these magic reviews are not from real magic reviewers. They are magic promoters. There's a real difference there. I would argue that if you don't see some harshly negative reviews from time to time then you are NOT watching a real magic reviewer.

There are many magic products that are complete rubbish. Everyone knows it but not everyone is brave enough to come out and say it out loud.

You can also tell because most of those magic promoters can't even demo the effect in their own hands because they literally just unboxed it.

On Feb 11, 2021, CardGuyMike wrote:
One problem with many effects (mostly downloads) is that they have clearly not been worked in and refined over time with real audiences. I don't know about Summit but if it truly has been road tested and refined over an extended period of time, and if real audiences truly like it, then it doesn't matter if we think it makes no logical sense. Of course, it also doesn't mean we have to buy and/or perform it if we don't like it.

But shouldn't the same go for reviewers? If a reviewer doesn't perform for audiences, then their review means less to me than a review coming from an actual worker. If a reviewer hasn't taken the time to learn the trick to the point that they can perform it, their review means less to me. They're entitled to their opinion and I will take it as a data point but I will give less weight to it. For instance, one of the most well known and popular reviewers around here doesn't perform the tricks in the review and admits that he only performs once a year. You can bash Ekaterina but at least she is a performer.

The reviewer that I give the most weight to is Craig Petty. I don't always agree with him but he:
1. Is a real worker and has been for quite some time
2. Buys all of the tricks with his own money
3. Isn't afraid to eviscerate a bad trick
4. Performs the trick as part of his review
5. Clearly articulates why the trick is good or bad

Of course I also give weight to some of the people here on the Café who have a track record of opinions that match mine. It doesn't mean we're right but at least I'm more likely to like the tricks they do.