|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
DavidPeace.png "View Profile") New user Cork, Ireland 36 Posts 
|
Here is my Sentinel Review is anyone is interested ????
https://youtu.be/61Ll9KB0StY?is=D0mvkMadIYOOMGAb |
|||||||||
ArtIn Inner circle 2057 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 20, 2026, Alakazam Magic Official wrote: Quote:
On Mar 11, 2026, dadswell wrote: Oh, that is how to keep the conversation respectful around methods? So much so that it should remain a secret. That's really a bad joke, guys. The fact that today everything really always has to be disclosed and is offered for all searchers (even outside the forum) with a link is really to cry. |
|||||||||
|
Bruce T New user 70 Posts
|
Hey David:
appreciate the review. |
|||||||||
|
ArtIn Inner circle 2057 Posts
|
I would like to share my impressions of Sentinel.
I paid £57.49 including shipping to Germany, plus £18.00 in customs fees. In addition to the gimmick and a sturdy storage case made of reinforced material, you also receive a pack of double blank cards, which are used here as billets. The double blank cards are an expensive but high-quality and universally accessible compromise. Agreeing on an international card format (American, British business card sizes, etc., with standardized cardstock) would likely have caused issues when sourcing refills across different countries. Since you keep the drawn cards as part of your own collection and give away the duplicated cards as souvenirs, these cards fit the concept very well. The tutorial is concise, to the point, and teaches a total of three peek methods. About 90% of it focuses on technical aspects rather than presentation, which I personally appreciated. All three methods are very clean and convincing. One of them is even designed to work without the gimmick, which I found to be a very nice bonus. It definitely succeeds in taking a well-known concept (with proper credits—great to see) and presenting it in a new light or from a fresh perspective, enriching the DD plot. What stands out most are the handling ideas and the minimalist, practical design of the gimmick: well thought out, integrates seamlessly, delivers on its promises, and is highly deceptive. However, I cannot understand why the gimmick had to be openly shown in the Alakazam product demo. There will certainly be people who will simply recreate it themselves. That is not fair to paying customers and seems poorly considered. My only real criticism concerns the gimmick itself. Due to the material and color, it will inevitably become dirty and unattractive over time, even with careful storage. It also cannot really be cleaned or wiped down. I would have preferred a more durable construction. Additionally, the crucial part of the gimmick is functional enough, but due to the design and a specific element underneath, it appears unnecessarily uneven. For the asking price, I would have expected a more refined and durable component. For that reason, I don’t find the pricing entirely justified. It is simple and functional rather than premium and functional. There is room for improvement here. Conclusion: Overall, I like it very much. It follows a proven and convincing concept and offers some excellent handling ideas (my favorite being the Retr. Peek). |
|||||||||
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 13252 Posts
|
I think the gimmick is brilliant and probably the best it could have been constructed. Just keep those cards moving. I like the effect. other methods can be used along with it.
|
|||||||||
|
DavidMac New user Stafford, UK 83 Posts
|
I've been on the fence about purchasing Sentinel and have been close to pulling the trigger and ordering on several occasions but there are two repeated questions I keep asking myself...
"What does the spectator remember about the process?" "Does the spectator care the card is replaced and displayed in the middle?" I think the answers are very little and no. Whilst this may be a magician/mentalist fooler with a really clever gimmick, from a spectator perspective is it any different in experience to other routines out there? We learn with peeks not to emphasize it's placement, whether that be into a stack, a folded billet being returned to the mentalist's hand or a peek wallet. Drawing attention to placement clearly fools magicians, and I was fooled by the video of the full routine looking for the peek, but feel that's because we are looking for it. A spectator isn't. I'm a fan of Adam's releases through The 1914, Mindhaus and directly through his website or patreon (and Work Horse ESP is in my EDC), but Sentinel is currently a no from me (not that my opinion matters). |
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 23, 2026, DavidMac wrote: Agreed. My sentiment (already shared earlier) echoes yours - you can do the same thing (arguably even more deceptively) without gimmicks. But Sentinel works for those who want to use a gimmick. |
|||||||||
|
Stunninger Inner circle 3079 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 23, 2026, PatrickGregoire wrote: I agree with both of you. Sentinel is a very cool, clever device. And it absolutely does what it claims. However, it's not going to replace any of the several full billet peeks I already use with business cards and double-blanks. And, as cool of a device as it is, I really don't care for the fact that (as suggested by the creator) the gimmick should be removed from the deck, placed inside a protective case, and carried separately when not in use. Then, when you are ready to perform, you need to remove the gimmick from it's protective case, put it into the stack in order to use it. I know it's not that a big a deal...but it's steps that aren't necessary with the peeks I currently use that not only don't require a gimmick, but allow the stack to be set on the table and examined if someone cared to. Spending $56 for something that is essentially made of card stock, and, as pointed out in a couple of posts above, it will wear and get dirty or discolored over time, as will any double blank cards with use. If there was a way for the gimmick to be made more durable, like Marc Oberon's Insider, that would be great. And finally, I don't like buying something that is expensive to replace if I lose it. A number of years back there was a specific card trick I loved and carried with me. I bought a Joe Porper card clip ($50) to carry my $35 deck around. I almost always had it on me. Then one day, I went to grab it from my pocket and it wasn't there. It had fallen out and was long gone. My fault entirely, but I had to spend another $85 to replace it. Sentinel is an ingenious device. It's super-clever. But I already have several super-clever full billet peeks that don't require any gimmicks or gaffs at all and work great. And if I lose a stack of double blanks, I'm only out a couple of bucks. |
|||||||||
|
Roberto W Inner circle 1544 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 23, 2026, DavidMac wrote: Your opinion does matter and it is important. Every post from anyone inputting, is often a learning curve and should take us outside our own box’s to sit back and think a little. It’s good that not everyone agrees with each other and it’s healthy that’s not the case. People for different reasons are coming at comments from different angles and perspectives, which unless pointed out, we wouldn’t be guided to think a little different and from a different angle. If I’m being brutal with just my opinion of spectator observation, they will notice and remember having to place the card back in the middle, with you then glancing down to take a card from the middle. If anyone thinks you can sell your audience you are a real mind reader and them believe that, then sadly it’s delusional. So sadly the majority of spectators are wondering at what point you were able to peek what they had drawn. When discussing it later I’m pretty sure the comments of you getting the card from the middle or inside would be a red flag and talking point - even as clean and as quick as it looks. It’s in a way irrelevant how clever a gimmick is (which sadly is what we focus on and get consumed by) to me what’s important is how everything looks and plays. Out of curiosity I showed the performance demo to my Daughter asking her opinion on how she thinks he knew, she referred back to when he took the card from the middle I think he somehow seen the drawing. |
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2026, Roberto W wrote: I agree with your overall post, but regarding this specific statement - I'm sorry to say, from personal experience, this is incorrect. People constantly ask me if I'm psychic and if I can really read minds (trying to confirm what they believe to be the case). It's really not that difficult to make them wonder if you do your job right. |
|||||||||
|
Roberto W Inner circle 1544 Posts
|
Sorry and yep agree with you. I should have maybe rephrased the overall comment. What I was meaning to say in context is, if you are thinking people will believe you are of that description based on performing this as a stand alone effect, then no I don’t think people will believe it. As a general opinion if like you said not only have you done your job properly, coupled with the right effects, then yes it can be questioned, because I think done well can be believable enough. Anyone performing mentalism (well enough) and not mental magic, I would think has had alike comments along the way. It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise as like you, I have had similar references, which looking at everything I perform, I have had people talk like this mainly after using Lumen products.
|
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
I will make the claim that even if you only perform a drawing duplication for someone, you can get them to believe you really got the image from their mind. Sometimes that's all someone sees me do in walk-around. If something is deceptive enough and done realistically enough, you don't need to stack layers of effects to convince them.
|
|||||||||
Jared Inner circle Rhode Island, USA 1763 Posts
|
Like others have said, there are many solid gimmick less ways to achieve the same results. The main hurdle that I've been unable to overcome is after the card stack is closed, the performer cracks open the deck to apparently retrieve a blank card. This makes absolutely no sense. Let's be honest, if you wanted to remove a card for your own drawing you would OPENLY remove it from the top or bottom of the stack where the spectator can see what you were doing. The LAST thing you would do is split the deck at around the same place where the card was just inserted seconds earlier. Plus, how did the performer even know there would be a blank card there in the first place?
I know that actions like these will almost always 'fly' in the real-world, but as performers we should strive to do everything within our power to replicate the way someone would normally handle a demonstration like this if they were doing it for real. When I first watched the demo for Sentinel, I thought the peek might happen when the card was being shown one last time before it was being pushed flush with the deck. That would be much more logical. You close the deck, place it aside, and then openly remove a blank card from near the top of the deck. All done above board. You NEVER want to be opening the pack after the spectator's card was just inserted. Anyway, I give lots of credit to Adam for coming up with such an ingenious gimmick, but I think the handling needs more work. There has to be a better way to get the peek without unnatural or unmotivated actions. |
|||||||||
|
Roberto W Inner circle 1544 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2026, PatrickGregoire wrote: Yes true, but do you honestly and truthfully feel bold about that statement, if you solely just performed this effect for someone? Again just my opinion, but this compared to alike premise effects, just don’t feel it’s logical and strong enough to create that perception. |
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2026, Roberto W wrote: That's literally what my claim was, so yes. And again, speaking from experience. I'm not claiming that every single person who experiences it will walk away believing it's real, but you'd be surprised. It's all in how you do it (a.k.a. 'doing your job right'). And the first step towards that goal is mentioned in my first post in this thread. |
|||||||||
|
Roberto W Inner circle 1544 Posts
|
Agree, my only criticism though is it doesn’t matter how good you do your job (which agree is important), if there is an illogical process they may think or question, this I feel leads to more I wonder how he did it, rather than a I believe he did it. But as we know it’s not just black and white with more complex layers and nuances to achieve what should be done.
However if people are having the success and are really happy achieving what they want from it, then that’s the main. |
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
So you're only specifically referencing using Sentinel? I was talking about a drawing duplication in general. I still think you could convince people using Sentinel, but in my opinion, it's not the best methodological approach to a close-up drawing duplication.
|
|||||||||
|
Roberto W Inner circle 1544 Posts
|
Yep again agree with you. Sorry for any confusion, but yes my comments on what we are referring to was referencing sentinel as an effect presented. Not DD as an effect. Some of the greats as we know perform DD inc Uri Geller, Derren etc. So my take on what people think, is not necessarily what effect is performed, but how it’s performed and the process used to perform it.
As an example performing a DD using say electronic impression device. It being able to look as clean as possible, leaving it virtually impossible for there to be a method involved, would obviously look a lot stronger and impossible than you illogically having to put their card back in the middle of a stack, to then break the stack in the middle, look down to take another card to draw on. All these actions are what people log when watching (I don’t care what people say - they do analyse and see it). Spectators are not stupid and just because they don’t verbally/physically indicate anything, doesn’t mean they don’t think it and discuss it all later - which they do. I and anyone with experience in the real world, know this is what happens. For anyone to believe what we have performed is ‘real’ and not a trick, the effect or performance has to be that logical and clean hopefully leaving them no where to go, but hopefully come to the conclusion it must be real and not simply a trick. Sadly imo, this effect I feel does leave the impression of the later. With far superior cleaner methods/gimmicks out there that will accomplish the same effect and premise, but in a cleaner, more logical and more motivated way to achieve the same result. |
|||||||||
|
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2893 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2026, Roberto W wrote: We agree on this 100%. But you don't need electronic methods to make people believe you actually read their mind. A billet peek is just as good if you can do it well. I understand you will agree with me on this, because your point is that if it's clean and logical, it will work, but just wanted to put it out there that just because it's electronic, doesn't mean it's any better or cleaner to laymen than using a billet. I use an electronic method sometimes for stage but not because I think it's cleaner, I just have specific criteria that I want to check off and an electronic method takes care of those. But a lot of the time, I just use analogue methods and it's the exact same effect and result to laymen. In close-up, I always use analogue. I appreciate this respectful discussion with you, Roberto. |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 8204 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2026, PatrickGregoire wrote: I Have to agree that using an analog method as opposed to an electronic method to get the information will not diminish the impact on the spectator. I simply don't like to use electronics for the chance of them failing. The Great Bob Cassidy also never used electronics for the same reason and was super successful in the entertainment industry and forever will be an icon for what he accomplished.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » SENTINEL BY ADAM DADSWELL & DECEPTIVE SECRETS (23 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 21, 2026 03:40 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2026 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|