On 2012-02-18 10:47, magicinsight wrote:

But I will not purchase this effect or any other effect wihout knowing relevant information that has not been provided in the advertisement.

Michael

On 2012-02-18 13:20, Chad Sanborn wrote:
Hey Kranzo,
Can I do this with one hand and a playboy?

On 2012-02-19 00:12, lhookway wrote:
I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture that Nathan held in Tampa, Florida last year.

It was a superb lecture, Nathan is a very funny guy, tremendously engaging and a true pro.

I really like the sound of TRU TEST, it's just the sort of effect I love.

If this were say a $30-$40 effect I'd probably buy it sight unseen because it sounds amazing and its bloody Nathan Kranzo for heavens sake.

It's $100 though and if I bought this it would be the most I have spent on an effect. I'd really like to see a performance demo of some sort before I make a decision to buy. In the absence of a demo some reviews from those that have purchased this effect would be really beneficial.

Regards,

Laurence.

On 2012-02-18 22:28, Steve Hook wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-18 10:47, magicinsight wrote: But I will not purchase this effect or any other effect wihout knowing relevant information that has not been provided in the advertisement. Michael

So....................... moving along...............

On 2012-02-17 22:29, the Sponge wrote:
"Creator of the effect"...LOL

On 2012-02-18 11:15, aukt wrote:
I wouldn't even consider reviewing it on your behalf.

Any experienced performer already knows the answer to the questions you've asked when they hear it's grants/mothers methodology.

As it is I'll leave you to fish.

Maybe you want to know the weight of the paper, or the font size, or if he used spellcheck, or if there are any pretty pictures.

On 2012-02-17 21:07, murray wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-17 17:52, aukt wrote: You know what, the questions here are getting RIDICULOUS no more fishing - you wanna try it, you gotta buy it.

As somebody who's considering buying this, I don't find the questions at all "ridiculous." One reason for all the questions is that the creator of this effect has not provided a straightforward demonstration of its actually being performed (with a spectator).

On 2012-02-19 02:35, Nathan Kranzo wrote:

If you are familiar with Grant's Original, or any of the other classic tests mentioned then you already know the principle.

On 2012-02-18 22:28, Steve Hook wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-18 10:47, magicinsight wrote: But I will not purchase this effect or any other effect wihout knowing relevant information that has not been provided in the advertisement. Michael

Steve,

I already have.

Best wishes to you and your family,

Michael

So....................... moving along...............

On 2012-02-18 22:28, Steve Hook wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-18 10:47, magicinsight wrote: But I will not purchase this effect or any other effect wihout knowing relevant information that has not been provided in the advertisement. Michael

So....................... moving along...............

On 2012-02-19 02:29, Nathan Kranzo wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-17 22:29, the Sponge wrote: "Creator of the effect"...LOL

Hey Chuckles!
I know I am not the creator. I never said I was. Its pretty obvious when you see and read the manuscript.
I am however the only authorized person to use the principle other than Grant and John Murray.
ouch!
Later,
Kranzo

On 2012-02-19 07:55, tmoca wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-19 02:35, Nathan Kranzo wrote: If you are familiar with Grant's Original, or any of the other classic tests mentioned then you already know the principle.

So one would be paying $99 to you, for someone else's work?

On 2012-02-19 02:25, Nathan Kranzo wrote:

If you have never spent that much then I understand your hesitation. It isn't for the merely interested. You get 100 gaffs in the hopes you will be using them all!

And if you do it will pay for itself a thousand times over.....

On 2012-02-20 20:45, Nathan Kranzo wrote:
Tmoca I'm sorry I got your panties in a know. I still like you though!!! Obviously you don't like this type of effect and that's totally cool. I'm ok with that. : )

On 2012-02-21 12:53, tmoca wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-20 20:45, Nathan Kranzo wrote: Tmoca I'm sorry I got your panties in a know. I still like you though!!! Obviously you don't like this type of effect and that's totally cool. I'm ok with that. : )

I never said I didn't like this type of effect...what gave you that idea anyway? The method is what is lackluster and inferior to other methods. Don't take it personally, but it was mediocre at best when Grant put it out and it still is.

As far as my "panties" go, you didn't bunch them up anymore than they normally are....I was once told, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to....

Sorry if you got the impression that you upset me...you didn't. I was merely just trying to help and make sure someone didn't waste his or her money.

On 2012-02-21 12:53, tmoca wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-02-20 20:45, Nathan Kranzo wrote: Tmoca I'm sorry I got your panties in a know. I still like you though!!! Obviously you don't like this type of effect and that's totally cool. I'm ok with that. : )

I never said I didn't like this type of effect...what gave you that idea anyway? The method is what is lackluster and inferior to other methods. Don't take it personally, but it was mediocre at best when Grant put it out and it still is.

As far as my "panties" go, you didn't bunch them up anymore than they normally are....I was once told, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to....

Sorry if you got the impression that you upset me...you didn't. I was merely just trying to help and make sure someone didn't waste his or her money.