I received my early delivery of the Quantum Deck today...however the tutorial to perform it as Craig does in his video is not available until February 14th.
So, even though I have somewhat of an idea of how the trick is performed, I still can't really say I totally understand the nuances that Craig uses to enhance the 'validity' of the magic.
I am holding the deck in my hands now and I don't think I'd be too comfortable letting spectators handle it, but I don't typically leave myself open to those sorts of scenarios...so it doesn't really matter to me if the spectator can handle it or not.

As soon as I can watch the official tutorial for how it's done I will try and offer a bit more feedback (for those who are interested), but if I am able to perform it just like Craig does in his video then I would say this is money VERY well spent!

"They can't name a few from top of the deck and a few from the bottom of deck" This unfortunately kept me up all last night thinking as I'm a bit of a CAAN geek/mathmetician. I thought, even if we went past 'a few' and went with a range of 7 or more from the top and say up to 41 (11 from the bottom) it couldn't possibly work out. How? How?????!!!!! Wasted calories as the latest video states it has to be between 7 and 38. Now that makes sense and my cortisol levels can return to normal. That's not to take anything away from the effect but 7-38 is quite different than suggesting only 'a few from the top and a few from the bottom' are off limits as properly noted by the latest video demo. Anyhow, good to know before ordering and bellyaching. Not that Craig needs me to jump on board, but I WILL order and support Craig on this super cool effect.

I have not received my deck yet but I will say the deck that I made (after seeing the instructions) can not be handed out for inspection , no way - lol. Not yet anyway - maybe after I break it in a bit. I'm sure the deck we receive will be better made. I overdid mine but its working great to get the practice runs in.

I will say on the price....I think the admission price is fair, I just hope refills are available and reasonable enough (say $15) that I don't have to worry about making my own. If not, then it wont replace a similar routine that I do (came out as a PDF a couple years ago so it flew under the radar - again similar idea but very different)

First of all, most of the comments about the ad copy and the examinability of the deck have nothing to do with whether it’s important that the deck be examinable. So no need to keep hammering on about how you don’t perform for magicians or never let anyone inspect anything, or don’t care if it can be examined. That’s not the point.

I also don’t think most people are actually “hating” on Craig's new effect, I think it’s just that a lot of us have been thrown for a loop because Craig has found a new (or at least different) way to market an effect which uses a gaffed deck. When it comes to ad copy there are certain statements which are generally taken to mean certain things. For instance, when a card or bill to impossible location effect claims it can be done with a signed card or bill, that typically means no duplicates are used. When an ad says there is a totally free choice, that means no force or equivoque is needed. Similarly, when an ad says the deck can be completely examined, we generally take that to mean the cards are ungimmicked because it is very rare that a gaffed deck can be examined. On the other hand, if a coin effect claims the coins can be examined we immediately know it’s going to be expensive. 😃 Because examinable coin gaffs are quite common. Same with any prop that can says it can be examined but you know what they mean is that it is precision made. But cards cannot usually be gaffed and also be examinable.

So I do think that the major contributing factor that caused this effect to explode out of the gate and get pages of comments here the first day (not to mention oodles of orders) is the way this was marketed. The well known and knowledgeable magicians this was being shown too I am pretty sure took the things Craig said about the deck to mean that they were completely regular cards, just as I’m sure most of us did. IMO, had these magicians been told something like these cards aren’t totally ungimmicked but you could examine them and you wouldn’t know how they were gimmicked, it very likely may have knocked their level of amazement down a notch or two. But they would still totally want to buy the trick because as magicians that would probably make us even more curious about it. But of course you are not going to tell them that because deceiving is what magicians do and I think it’s totally fine that Craig handled it the way he did.

Let me state that I don’t believe Craig did anything wrong. I don’t think the ad copy is deceiving. But some will feel that way because they were fooled by the statements Craig made and immediately took that to mean the cards were ungimmicked without ever stopping to consider that perhaps the cards actually were gimmicked but in such a way as they could still be examined without discovering the gaff. Now obviously performing it over Zoom worked in Craig’s favor and we and they will never know if they would have discovered the gaffs or not. But even if they discovered the gaffs I think there’s a lot more going on here they still wouldn’t know.

Let me also make it abundantly clear so my tone is not misconstrued, that I love this effect of Craig’s and placed my order the day it became available. I also would have still purchased it even if it was not examinable, but having the ability to allow someone to examine it is a great bonus. Because I’m sure we all have that skeptical friend or colleague who doesn’t trust anything you say or do, so it’s nice to have effects that you can do for them because you know the first thing they are going to say is “can I see those cards?” and saying no knocks their level of amazement down a notch or two.

Videoman completely nailed this one and I think he summed this one up perfectly. Deceptive or not, in my mind, one thing was completely clear - with the way the vid was shot and the way the ad was drafted, neither the creator nor Murphies should be surprised that the examinablity issue would be criticized. I knew how this worked very early and I even sent PMs to several people on the Café along the lines of “I can’t wait to see how this thing blows up when people find out its a gimmicked deck.” By pointing out the examinability so many times in the ad, that put a much unnecessary spotlight on this issue. A simple pre-emptive fix would have been to add a sentence: “Yes, you are handing out a gaffed deck, but the spectators will be none the wiser.”

EXACLTY! Why are people letting others examine a deck of cards.

Amen Craig I hope he eats his words.I just watched your video and it looks like he didn't look at your tutorial. You backed up your claim and you have a lot of people
backing this product. I'm for one is on preorder and can't wait. Keep up the great work you are doing Craig.

Allen

Letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry handle your white blank deck and you will soon not have a white pristine deck any longer.

I love this effect and have no idea how it works. I don't want to know until I actually receive it. I have a question that as far as I know nobody has asked. Can the spectator do the actual counting of the cards in their hands? I understand that acertian move needs to be made depending on the number. After the move can the deck be handed out to the spec to do the counting?

No. The performer does the counting. But you can count the cards into their hands.

The performer has to do the counting and dealing.

Also just to answer Videoman’s point. I can’t talk for any of the other magicians but when Craig showed this to me he told me that it was a gaffed deck and that it can be immediately handed out. He also showed me the performance footage of the spectator examining the deck and if you watch that performance it wasn’t a casual examination, they had a proper look.

I was under no illusions that this was anything other than a gimmicked deck. He also told me that it was very easy to do. Whilst I wasn’t there for the other performances to magicians I don’t think Craig gave me a particular inside track compared to his other zooms as prior to this zoom we had never spoken beyond arranging this zoom and we have never met in person.

Mark

Actually I have been quoted completely out of context in a funny way lol . but its ok !

Sure are a lot of definitive statements going around about this when almost no one actually has the deck in their hands yet and can speak to whether or not they feel it's examinable. The full performances I've seen involved some pretty heavy digging by multiple spectators, including a magician, and they found nothing.

I think Craig is an honest guy, and the video he posted today was pretty compelling. You don't leave the community for a decade, jump back in and intentionally try to deceive people. That's sociopathic behavior, and while I think Craig is out of his mind sometimes, I mean that in the best way possible. I don't think there's anyone that cares about the art of magic more than he does.

I'm thrilled I pre-ordered this and can't wait for it to show up.

This is exactly my feeling too. Frankly, it seems like magicians are prematurely basing their opinions on other effects/decks that use a similar principle. But most of us don’t yet know how the Quantum Deck itself will look and feel, and therefore we really can’t make that call yet.

Craig himself has talked about how many prototypes this took to get right, which to me indicates he was trying to find that balance between functionality and the ability for the deck to be comfortably handled by an audience member without them figuring out the secret.

My post is based after reading the various posts on this thread as well as the number of YouTube videos on the subject, plus my meager experience in the field of card magic. IMO, this yet to be released but highly hyped (23 pages and with many more to follow) effect is just about OK. MY PERSONAL OPINION is based on the following:-

1. For a smooth and cleaner performance the performer must restrict the assistant to call out a number from a small range of numbers. Out of range number will require the performer to get into manipulations so as to achieve the desired results. As long as the spectator selects a within the range number, the effect will play great.

2. The spectator cannot deal & count the cards. This MUST be done by the performer, but that's OK.

3. The deck being gimicked, one must avoid handing over the deck to the spectator (for whatsoever reason), less they mess it up. Though, as I understand & if need be, the deck can be examined by the lay spectator and they shall find nothing but a normal deck of blank cards. This is a a big advantage (provided my thinking/understanding of the gimmick deck is on the right lines).



Kaan, as usual, has given a very nice, honest and balanced review of the product. I suggest, before taking the plunge, one must watch Kaan's video review.

Just my thoughts & opinion, take it if you like, or else let's move on . . . .

Thanks.

Why not simply use the method employed by Max Maven in his "Pocket Nightmare" effect to force and make the card disappear from the deck? An easy way would be to use just one of the gaffed cards used in that trick inserted into a regular deck and Peek Force it, perhaps with a corner short card in front of it.

What is it about Craig Petty releases that generate such long threads!

The effect looks great, at least it looks like it can be handed out for a light/casual inspectation, the same can't be said for invisible deck/cardtoon/phil, infact what other gaffed decks can be handed out?

Craig's contribution to the community is great. This release looks great. Just ordered

Maybe they wanted people to have the instructions early but then people posted that the instructions were posted early and so the retailer was reprimanded or saw that people were posting that the instructions were posted early and so the retailer took them down so as not to be reprimanded.