On Jan 19, 2023, Bartelli wrote:
Why did Nique Tan have to take down his review? Too honest?

On Jan 20, 2023, 252life wrote:
Davids audiences seem to be his subordinates, and patients. Now, he's got chops, and knowledge, no doubt. But, the arrogance is hard to circumvent at this point. Any commentary he offers is overshadowed by his inflated ego, and simply not worth it. It's really a shame, because I used to enjoy, and look forward to, his reviews. They are not (always) unbiased from my observations.
Full disclosure; Bill and I "know" each other through polite emails, centered mostly around discussions related to mentalism. He knows this is my full time bread and butter. He also knows I always give him my honest opinion on his releases. So, I also have no skin in this game. But fair is fair, and disrespecting his very workable p$$k option is flat out of line imo.
Good luck convincing the people here, that have appreciated his top shelf thinking for years, otherwise.

Have a nice day.

On Jan 20, 2023, nique wrote:
Hi guys,

So… many of you who managed to watch the episode, have contacted me privately via private messages and emails, to express that there wasn’t a need for me to remove the video. I thought I’d just say something here.

Out of respect, I cannot publicity list the reasons why Bill wanted the video removed. I can however, say that it did not involve the exposure of methods in any way whatsoever, nor was there any ill intent on my part. My subscribers can vouch for this - I’m simply not like that.

Let’s just say that Bill had opinions on my opinions in the video and I decided it was for the best for me to make the video private.

I’m relatively new to the review game, and am only just learning how it works. I will no doubt get better after this.

Alright, back to The FOMO Peek guys!

~ Nique

On Jan 20, 2023, Vraagaard wrote:
Great additions by Scott Creasey as well as the Phone Mo version. Just shows how the FOMO peek can be adapted to suit everybodys style.

I think with Scott Creaseys subtle touches it is now clean as a whistle in a walk around/close-up performance situation. Same goes for the Phone Mo version.

Just excellent - thanks a lot.

Jan

On Jan 20, 2023, Scott wrote:
OK,

I don't want to get involved in this argument but felt I should say something regarding this peek.

But first, let me say Bill is one of a very small group from within our fraternity that I have been corresponding with for years and in particular we both have a mutual passion for the Q&A which we've discussed at length. I count him as a friend with a very creative imagination where mentalism is concerned but that friendship, contrary to what has been insinuated, is not an influencing factor especially when it comes to mentalism which I take very seriously. If I thought it was crap I'd have told him so, privately.

As for the FOMO peek, he sent me a copy when he first released it and I read it and then read it again with the required props at hand. The handling Bill explained I struggled with at first not because it is difficult but because we are different people with different hands and I hadn't put it the practice required it's as simple as that.

However, I never take any sleight no matter how simple, or any routine at face value, I always spend time trying to adapt anything I learn to fit me before I dismiss it or offer any comment and this was no exception. I shared my thoughts and how I'd adapted the handling with Bill which he read digested and decided were worthy of inclusion in one of the supplements.

There are hundreds if not thousands of peeks out there and all peeks without exception can be angle sensitive, especially when working close up. All handlings require hours of practice and choreographing to suit our own style and levels of competence and of course, what one person see's potential in another will dismiss as rubbish.

So adapting and refining to suit me, I reduced the number of cards, I did away with the numbered envelopes and used the large envelope to have the banded stack sealed in after a coloured rubber band had been chosen from that same envelope. I then incorporated an idea that Nique actually proposed in this thread before the crap hit the fan where he suggested asking the spectator to write a number from 1 - 9 on the outside of the envelope before they put it away, but as I write this I'm actually thinking 0 - 21 and give a tarot reading instead.

But of course no matter how many modifications you make, without the original to work from there'd be no starting point and that is what is important.

Have I performed my modified version using the original peek? Yes just to road test it for my own amusement, in total six times admittedly for people that I know but to be honest they are my harshest critics. Is it suitable for walk around, well in its original form no but then Bill never said it was and he presented it as a formal test conditions demonstration. Could my adapted version be used in walk around? well yes I'd just make up five or six envelopes with everything required stored in them

So I stand by my original comment about this being good and even if you don't like the props or the routine, the peek itself is another to add to your arsenal.

Cheers.

On Jan 18, 2023, nique wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 15, 2023, nique wrote:
Not sure what else I can bring to the table, but I chat about it here!

~ Nique

At the request of Stunninger, I have taken down my review. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

~ Nique