Yes yes, you still contest that "doing it with a Blue backed deck" somehow entitles you to usurp the paternity of the effect. It doesn't.

You are not performing something that looks like Misled, you are performing Misled.

So again by that logic. ive I take a misled gimmick and colour it back I can use it on my sharpie and itll work?

Once again, this is the original Misled
https://youtu.be/RzQLQRaigj4?t=161
and this is your handling of Misled
https://youtu.be/bekqwitaFzU?t=23
The effect is clearly identical.

Both use the same methodology, a slit, agreed?

Here I've made schematic drawings of both versions, and have circled where the work is done. It is accurate, right?

Are you able to point out which of the two drawings that is "yours" and which is the original?

So yes, according to that logic, it is possible to do Misled with a sharpie, it is clearly evident from your own video.

Avoiding the question again Tom? that's becoming a habit. If I take my gimmick and place it on a pencil I would NOT be able to do misled with it. Not in any way shape nor form. In my video I use my gimmick to make a pen go through a bull not a misled gimmick. However if Tim wants to make hos own gimmick in sharpie then id love it. its that simple..

Simply because you say ( some one that dosnt own it) its the same dosnt make it so. unfortunately.

so are we goign to keep going round in circles here?

Tom's logic has fallen apart. By his logic, every version of the rising card is a rip off of the original rising card. Taking a picture of the final display proves nothing. Misled clearly does not use a "slit" and alan's version clearly does not use a gimmick that looks or functions anything like the Misled gimmick.

No, every version of rising card is not a ripoff. A Devano is not the same as Britland's Angel's Card Rise and so on. But a Devano is still a Devano, even if the brand is changed from Bicycle to Tally-Ho, or from a deck of playing cards to a pack of Tarot cards.

Read the manuscript. Misled started with a permanent slit, then Wenk figured out how to make the slit moveable and removeable. Rorrison put the identical kind of work in the cap, just at the same spot as in the original.


But according to your logic emyers99... since the item that comes with Misled fits only a yellow hexagonal pencil, you would argue that if someone made a version that fitted a round black pencil, it would become a completely different trick. Unless I misunderstand you.

As usual, you DO misunderstand me. I know you like to claim you are the god of intellectual property and you like to bully people into submission, but even you are wrong on occassion. This is one of those times. Move on.

It is just as easy to adapt your trivial variation to a pencil, as it was to adapt the original to a sharpie. In fact, you would not even need to make any secret modifications at all:

I know Alan, and I can't see him stealing anything from anyone.

I've just had a video chat with Alan. Before doing so, I took another look at "Misled" online to refresh my memory. Then Alan performed his version of "Misled" for me and also showed me the gimmick.

First, Alan's gimmick is NOT the same as the one used in "Misled." His version of the trick does not require anything to be added or taken away, and it is examinable at the end.

Second, how many tricks that are versions of other tricks have been marketed over the past 100 years? There's nothing wrong with this and nothing new about it.

"Mislead" came out 15 or 20 years ago: what's the problem with someone else, like Alan, marketing a new version--and it is a NEW version. It is not the same gimmick as "Mislead," which requires that a gimmick be secretly slipped onto the pencil before the trick and then secretly removed after the trick. There's nothing like that required with Alan's version of the trick!

Also, Alan quite clearly credits "Misled" in his product, so obviously he's not trying to steal it!

To Tom and Timothy, I think you really need to actually see the gimmick and compare the two items in person before you make accusations like this. You are the ones who will come out looking like you went off half-cocked.

I repeat: they are not the same gimmick, and Alan's version is a valid variation that he has every right to sell.

I wonder: Alan, would you welcome me making a trivial change to one of *your* signature gimmicks, making it worse, and marketing it as original "because look! it doesn't fit the previous item!"?

Because I just might.

I will of course make sure I mention the original as much as possible in the marketing so that people assume it's at least as good as yours and fully endorsed by you as an "upgrade", so don't worry. It's not like it'll be unethical theft or anything.

Well said Richard. This entire debate is insane.

Smoke 3.0 by Bob Sled, an original twist on Smoke 2.0. Your spectators will be astounded that the smoke SMELLS LIKE CHERRY. This is a BRAND NEW take on the classic effect, but so much better... only on DVD with full instructions for how to build Smoke 3.0, a completely original take on a modern day classic.

Please note that this is incompatible with Smoke 2.0 because Smoke 2.0 is scentless - adding a cherry scent to Smoke 2.0 would no longer be Smoke 2.0 but Smoke 3.0.

Oh well. I can't make my point any clearer than what I've already done.

Bob. what you are saying would only hold water if the gimmickes where so close it wouldn't warrnet release. however everyone who has seen its have categorically said it is different and has some glaring difrences.

Just to chime in again. From my last post I unbiasely sided towards TStone without discrediting Alan Rorinson. But The more I read into it: Then I have to ask...If Alan's sharpie thru bill is nothing the same as Misled Then why did Alan credit/mention Timmothy Wenks Misled.

Graham

The angles on this effect are very poor for a working close up entertainer.
One on one or maybe one on three, with proper management it looks very good.
In a typical strolling gig, this effect is not usable for me.

The gimmick is different however the effect is the same and I cant say it wasnt inspired by it so I happily credit him

Bunky.. if you want I can find some time to have a chat with you and we can see if we cant make it more workable for you

Bunky, maybe my Smoke 3.0 would suit your act better than a Misled variant?