(Close Window)
Topic: Sherlock Holmes Inductive Test
Message: Posted by: ALEXANDRE (Aug 8, 2006 09:12PM)
I received this book test a couple of days ago and have had a chance to perform it twice already. Fantastic!

My presentation was different than the one included with the instructions, but don't get me wrong, the instructions are clear and creative! I just approached it instinctively.

The seriousness and quality of this work has turned me into a true customer and I've already ordered the Dracula Book Test. I'm sure I won't be disappointed.

Looking forward to the future.

I advise fellow mentalists to take a look: http://www.blacksmagicshop.com/public/sherlock.html
Message: Posted by: drmagic (Aug 9, 2006 11:30AM)
This is a c/p from the website above:

"A BIG thank you goes out to Richard Osterlind for his on-going support and invaluable advice."

Does Richard support this book?
Message: Posted by: ALEXANDRE (Aug 9, 2006 12:56PM)
I have the Sherlock book here in my mitts ... the second to last page has this centered on it:

With special thanks to
Richard Osterlind
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Aug 9, 2006 03:32PM)
The Sherlock Holmes book test is one I suggested to James and is based on a very standard method, but very powerful. It is meant to be used in conjunction with other book tests.

Richard
Message: Posted by: ALEXANDRE (Aug 9, 2006 05:29PM)
Here's how it works:

The performer explains how this Victorian age CSI expert, Sherlock Holmes, would use his five senses to discover clues and deduce facts that would ultimately lead him to solve crimes that stumped the famous Scotland Yard and stopped them dead in their tracks.

This book is handed out for an audience member to examine. This person is chosen at random. It can be anyone!

This person is then asked to look through the book and tell the audience how many pages there are. With nearly 300 pages to choose from, this participant is asked to choose one at random and without looking. It is a free choice. The number is then revealed to the audience.

Another person is then freely chosen from the audience and asked to pick up any other book sitting on a table. This second person is instructed to turn to the page number previously chosen at random and to begin reading the page in their mind as if they were projecting it to you.

You reveal the first word as they are getting through the first paragraph. You then begin to reveal the contents of the whole first paragraph. The participant is instructed to continue reading and you are able to piece things together just like Sherlock Holmes but even better. You are able to tell the participant about the whole page! You "see" what they are reading.

It's really nice. I like it.
Message: Posted by: Roth (Aug 9, 2006 06:00PM)
You guys should look at HOMICIDE. No page numbers to call out, free choice of victim and.. you describe a murder scene, victim, method, weapon used, the killer etc., etc.

If you like the "C.S.I." scenario!

And there's a British version too!

Rick
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Aug 9, 2006 06:28PM)
Homicide trilogy is one of the greatest innovations in book tests - so sadly, I fear - it will get ripped off too one day (on the bright side, that means you are confirmed as a genius for the Hall of Fame).... I'm still ranting and raving over all the bizarrist mentalism you can do with them...

I'm still waiting to see what the scoop is on this Sherlock Holmes Inductive Test - as I love Sherlock Holmesian things
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Aug 9, 2006 06:36PM)
(I think I'm going Jim/Jack mindset)
Just for a change of mood on this thread - didn't Sherlock Holmes use Deduction as his preferred method over induction? Or is that a humourous joke? Or just to get that interesting acronym? SHDT I guess is not as interesting - but honestly, I really think the current one is fun for a second but I'd hate my work to be associated with such a moninker ?

By the way, does the patter have a pseudo-scientific explanation for how you get the words etc? i.e. to be true to the way Sherlock Holmes always does his reveal - freaks out good ol' Watson and whomever, and then explains in detail his amazing DEductive powers - which is even more amazing.... it sounds like it does according to Alexandre... but just checking!

Is there a Watson angle to this as well? (i.e. ST**GE hee hee)

I'll be sticking to the Homicide series in the meantime - although this thread does make me think about creating more physical evidence props
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 9, 2006 07:41PM)
Last night I confirmed with Ted the problem he had mentioned to me on July 17, 2006.
Just a little while ago I was informed of the following:

There was a discussion between Ted and James which resulted in a misunderstanding where Ted thought that one of his principles was going to be used. The principle was not incorporated into the Sherlock Holmes Inductive Test. Ted recognizes this now.

I've asked Ted for a statement that I can post here, but rather than wait and leave what has turned out to be an unjust and erronious group of posts, instigated by me, to stand and spread further information, I am posting this now and will endeaver to remove the offensive material posted.

I was wrong in only taking one party's word as sometimes they can be mistaken, especially when the idea of wrong-doing comes from a heated exchange.

I apologize to all of you members of the Cafť for my actions, and to Richard Osterlind and James Clark.

In the future, I will heed Mentathought's advice from this and another forum, to get both sides of the story before being drawn in and making conclusions.

Tony Iacoviello
Message: Posted by: sandman690 (Aug 9, 2006 08:05PM)
Tony,

I sincerely respect you for having made that post correcting things. Thanks for being a person of intergrity.

Stan
Message: Posted by: Philosophry (Aug 9, 2006 08:06PM)
- to be true to the Sherlockian, Holmes always does his reveal

After revealing his method to the red-headed man, the reply was "oh I thought for a moment you'd actually done something clever."

"omne ignotum pro magnifico" was Holmes' reply.
Message: Posted by: Lord Of The Horses (Aug 9, 2006 08:07PM)
Yes, Tony. And let me add... a RARE person of integrity.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Aug 9, 2006 08:09PM)
Hehheh - don't you just love it :)? Thanks Philosophry!

Of course, one could create a patter about Doyle's obsession with psychics - and although Sherlock was a skeptic his creator wasn't - and thus you have the following effect of how Doyle would have wanted to outdo Sherlock ;)

Tony is one of the good guys - he has a pattern of doing good
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 9, 2006 08:11PM)
Hello all. I'm Troy, one of the developers of The Dracula Book Test and The Sherlock Holmes Inductive Test. First I'd like to offer my apologies, as I'm not able to keep up on all the posts that go on here regarding our products or our company as a whole. It appears that some posts are an expression of opinion, and while I appreciate free expression in this country, I don't always believe it's wise or productive to respond. Other posts may sincerely be an expression of confusion or a question, and to that I'd urge you to contact us (Black's Magic Group) directly at any time for clarification. Always better to get it straight from the source (and I may add, if there are two parties involved that includes two sources not just one).

Second, I'd like to express my gratitude for those who take the time to get to know us on a personal level and find out what kind of people we really are. I try not to take things personally, but occasionally it's a bit discouraging when assumptions are made and then spread publicly. I'm grateful that Richard spoke up and helped clarify some of the confusion. To shadow what Tony said in one of his posts, "Richard is not the kind of person who would endorse theft of another's work," and to that I agree. To clarify, permission wasn't "denied" to us by Mr. Karmilovich because permission was never asked of Mr. Karmilovich to produce our own book test. Sherlock has nothing to do with him or his book, and neither were consulted. We haven't even seen a copy of MOAB or its instructions, let alone possess them. The development of this project spawned out of a creative conversation with Richard, not Mr. Karmilovich. That being said, I can't even say for sure how specifically Sherlock is somehow tied to MOAB, but I think we have demonstrated our eagerness to give credit to the true contributors to our ideas and products.

I'll try to keep an eye out on this post for a bit to see if it's helpful or beneficial to field more questions or respond to statements. Mr. Clark is now at training for a month and will shortly be deployed to Iraq so I will likely become more of an active voice for our company. I would like to say briefly, a thank you to Alexandre for your support and endorsement of our product, I'm grateful you've been satisfied with it and with our service; you're the kind of customer people love to have. To all else, I appreciate the opportunity to address you, I hope you find my comments humble and helpful.
WOW...It appears that while I was posting my response, Tony has withdrawn several of his comments, so if anything in my earlier post no longer applies, please disregard. I want to shadow what Stan posted to Tony by saying that I truly respect you for your diligence in seeking out the truth and to make right anything that was said in error. I'm sure we can all admit to speaking from assumptions or hearsay at one time or another and it takes a lot of integrity to eat words. Thanks for your humble apology, it is well accepted, appreciated, and the incident forgotten.
Message: Posted by: Tony Razzano (Aug 9, 2006 09:18PM)
Tony Eye,

This shows your integrity, that you are a man of principle and that you are a big man in your heart. You have my admiration!

Best regards,
Tony Razzano
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Aug 9, 2006 09:48PM)
Magician's and Mentalist's and any hybrid's of the two group's,must be some of the most impulsive faction's on the planet.

I hope in the future,before any unfounded comment's are presented,a deep breath can be taken..before posting.

I have been guilty of this myself in the past,but 'I am learning' to hold my tongue until I have unequivocable information,and even then,present it in a way,so it does not have to be retracted.

Tony:You are a stand up guy,to correct thing's forthrightly.

Rich
Message: Posted by: Roth (Aug 9, 2006 10:55PM)
Tony, I want to have your children. O.K., there I said it. Whew, that felt good.

Now let's get back on the subject. We were talking about my Homicide book right?

Rick
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Aug 9, 2006 11:25PM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-09 23:55, Roth wrote:
Tony, I want to have your children. O.K., there I said it. Whew, that felt good.

Now let's get back on the subject. We were talking about my Homicide book right?

Rick
[/quote]

Hey Rick! Is that any way for an OUTLAW to talk? Take this ...Bang!Bang!Bang! Bang!Bang! :)

No this was not about your Homicide Book!

It was about a Sherlock Holme's Book!

However,I wish it was about Manhattenville,which I am still finessing and developing before adding it to my work. :)

Just please ..no more girly-man talk :).

You are supposed to set an example to all Outlaw's.

Rich
Message: Posted by: Roth (Aug 9, 2006 11:26PM)
That was the whiskey talkin.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 9, 2006 11:56PM)
I can use some of that whiskey right about now, but don't get any ideas Roth!
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 10, 2006 01:39AM)
Quick reply to Dr Spektor, a segment from our instructions explaining a bit on the choice of name (Induction as opposed to Deduction)...

"...This particular skill set and methodology has often been referred to as 'Holmesian Deduction' by legitimate scientists and others interested in logic but the term 'deductive' may actually be inaccurate given that much of what Sherlock performed appears to consist primarily of 'arguments to the best explanation' - or inductive reasoning"

We do indeed weave induction into the story line of the effect...but yes we thought inductive as opposed to deductive produced a humorous ackronym. And by the way, I might note that it should acurately be referred to not merely as S.H.I.T, but THE S.H.I.T...if you will...but of course, simply Sherlock Book Test will do. And BTW no stooges required.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Aug 10, 2006 08:46AM)
Ah... I didn't think of that i.e. THE S.H.I.T. -> then it makes it tres kewl ;) Without the THE... I was worried... the THE makes it! Just like Batman is way better when referred to as THE Batman

Thanks for the info! No doubt I'll be picking this up regardless since I'm a Holmesian fan...

But I think from what the effect is - I will portray it as being Arthur Conan Doyle outdoing his creation, Sherlock! "When you have eliminated the impossible.... etc etc... hey its Psychic Powers!!!"

Hmm.. that is a good premise -> like the gambler vs. the magician -> the Psychic vs. Sherlock
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 10, 2006 03:06PM)
LOL...thanks for the laugh
Message: Posted by: Anabelle (Aug 10, 2006 10:06PM)
I'm really interested in this and also the dracula test, could they work together? For instance, could one of the books available to be picked up by the spectator be the dracula book?

Anabelle
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 11, 2006 12:35AM)
I would venture to say yes. One of the ways we present the Sherlock effect is by having an audience member on stage choose a book and hand it to a seated audience member. There is a pattern in Dracula but it is highly unlikely that the audience member would find it, especially if he/she is not looking for it, and especially if the seated audience member is paying attention to the show and not diligently searching for some code in a book they have no idea is gaffed. Dracula is especially useable if there's only one participant handling both books, as you are in control regarding the amount of time they have to inspect the book if indeed it is inspected.
Message: Posted by: Reuben Dunn (Aug 11, 2006 02:01AM)
Realising that this is a mentalist board, and I should be able to read minds, I do have a question.

The link http://www.blacksmagicshop.com/public/sherlock.html works fine however there is something missing, something important from that advertisement that would even stump Sherlock himself; anyone want to guess what's missing?

The cost!

How much?

The page says "Price Unavailable"....

Or is there a clue craftly hidden on the book cover?
Message: Posted by: Maddened (Aug 11, 2006 03:24AM)
You'll have to create an account and log in to see the price. If it's ok to reveal it here, the price for both Sherlock and his darker evil counterpart is $49.90.
Message: Posted by: todsky (Aug 11, 2006 10:57AM)
Umm, is there anyone else who has the Sherlock Holmes book test who can give a review here? That is what this thread is about, isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Aug 11, 2006 02:43PM)
Todsky,

:) Nice....yes it is but can Dracula be added also? Im still getting nice results with it, especially at night strolling.

Candini
Message: Posted by: MentaThought (Aug 11, 2006 05:03PM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-11 03:01, mindguy wrote:
The link http://www.blacksmagicshop.com/public/sherlock.html works fine however there is something missing, something important from that advertisement that would even stump Sherlock himself; anyone want to guess what's missing?

[/quote]

Reuben,

While you were referring to the missing price, I initially thought you may have been alluding to the fact that the headline at the page touting the Sherlock Holmes Inductive Book Test (wonderful name!), oddly enough, reads "Get your own Dracula Book Test."
There's another page at the website, bearing the same headline, which does (approprately enough) feature the Dracula Book Test. Seems the page featuring the Sherlock Holmes one needs a different title, though.

Chuck
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 11, 2006 07:03PM)
Thanks for pointing that out, the site has been updated. Anything else that we may have missed in haste? PS thanks maddened for pointing out the need for logging in to view prices. Perhaps it deters a small few, but our cart is set that way for obvious marketing purposes.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 11, 2006 07:12PM)
Tod (Cherry):

Candini has a question on using the Dracula book as the other book for the Sherlock Holmes test and wants to know if it will work. My understanding is an unqualified YES, as from what I understand from the two books. Could you confirm to him whether or not the two work in conjunction?

Tony
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 13, 2006 10:28AM)
Thanks Tony for alerting my attention...oh btw its Troy ;)

Anabelle had a similar question above... I'll copy my response here, as I understand that we don't catch every post:

[I would venture to say yes (you can use Sherlock with Dracula). One of the ways we present the Sherlock effect is by having an audience member on stage choose a book and hand it to a seated audience member. There is a pattern in Dracula but it is highly unlikely that the audience member would find it, especially if he/she is not looking for it, and especially if the seated audience member is paying attention to the show and not diligently searching for some code in a book they have no idea is gaffed. Dracula is certainly useable if there's only one participant handling both books, as you are in control regarding the amount of time they have to inspect the book if indeed it is inspected.]
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 13, 2006 12:57PM)
Sorry Troy, after having read Tod's post, I had his name on my mind.

Tod, I mean Tony :)
Message: Posted by: ALEXANDRE (Aug 13, 2006 01:01PM)
What I have recently done with guests is have out my Sherlock and Dracula books. They do work well together, no problem at all.

If they pick up Sherlock, I have them inspect the book and choose ANY page, they then pick up the Dracula book and I commence telling them the contents of the page in more or less detail.

If they pick up Dracula first, I have them inspect it, I ask them to flip to ANY page and I tell them a couple of words from the chosen page, then I take it a step further and have them inspect the Sherlock book and choose any page from THAT (making the page selection even more random!), going back to the Dracula book for me to go into even MORE detail on what's contained on that page.

Is that clear? Anyway, it works.

As far as the pattern in Dracula, I AM reading it as a normal book, catching up on the classic I read so many years ago. Sometimes it's a little weird how the words fit together, but you guys did a phenomenal job keeping this pattern secret and well hidden allowing for smooth reading a good 95% of the time.
Message: Posted by: todsky (Aug 13, 2006 01:20PM)
Troy, I mean Tony, my name's not Tod, it's actually Todd. :)
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 13, 2006 01:34PM)
Hello Todd, my name is Mudd. :)
Message: Posted by: todsky (Aug 14, 2006 09:51AM)
Hi Budd.
Anyone else using the Sherlock Holmes book test? Other reviews?
Message: Posted by: tcherry (Aug 17, 2006 12:05AM)
Lol...thanks for the laughs guys.
Message: Posted by: todsky (Aug 17, 2006 09:41AM)
No problem, Tod.
Message: Posted by: ning (Aug 21, 2006 01:34AM)
Sherlock Holmes Inductive Test sounds good! Kudos to the guys who first came up with Dracula and now this :) Anyone performed with it yet? Full reviews please!!!

Thanks much :giving:
Ning: CSI/ Sherlock Holmes nut
Message: Posted by: magicmind (Aug 21, 2006 11:54AM)
I am looking forward to adding both of these to my shelf of regular books, incase someone comes over and wants to see a trick ;)
Message: Posted by: todsky (Sep 29, 2006 08:20PM)
Something that hasn't been asked yet about the Sherlock Holmes book test: how examinable is it?
Message: Posted by: ALEXANDRE (Sep 29, 2006 10:15PM)
Very. I have them look through it pretty good.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Sep 29, 2006 10:31PM)
But prep them first :drinkup:

It helps
Message: Posted by: jclark (Oct 26, 2006 04:37PM)
Todsky:

I've let people hold on to the book, thumb through it, et cetra before going into the routine. Thus far never had a problem whatsoever. We took care to lay it out so that the gaff isn't an issue until they are directed to it. Even then, done right, it never becomes an issue and soon Sherlock doesn't even matter.

James
1-877-877-7878
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 16, 2007 09:22PM)
Hmm, I've had the Dracula Book Test for a long time now and I love it.

I am only now bothering to actually look into THE S.H.I.T. I really am kind of surprised I didn't do so earlier. So I understand that it is used to force a page number? Are they able to stop anywhere in the book, as in close to the beginning or end without the anything looking out of place?

Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Intuition (Feb 16, 2007 09:59PM)
I don't understand the 'Sherlock Inductive Test'. From what I read, the sherlock book is handed out to the first person who thinks of a number. Then that number is used by the second person to find the contents of a completely different book. Will somone help reiterate the effect?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 16, 2007 11:14PM)
Yes, more or less.

Basically it is used in a two book book test. The ******** is opened by someone to a random page and they just note the page number.

A second book (which I understand can be any book you want to use and is [b]not[/b] gimmicked or gaffed in any way) is opened to the same page as The ******** and then the contents of the page are divined by the magi/mentalist.

In other words, they just use The ******** to get an apparently random page number and then turn to that page in any other book and that is the page used in the test.
Message: Posted by: Intuition (Feb 17, 2007 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-17 00:14, gdw wrote:
Yes, more or less.

Basically it is used in a two book book test. The ******** is opened by someone to a random page and they just note the page number.

A second book (which I understand can be any book you want to use and is [b]not[/b] gimmicked or gaffed in any way) is opened to the same page as The ******** and then the contents of the page are divined by the magi/mentalist.

In other words, they just use The ******** to get an apparently random page number and then turn to that page in any other book and that is the page used in the test.
[/quote]
Why does a mentalist have to introduce a book solely for the benefit of finding a number. It sounds to gimmicked and unnatural in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: John C (Feb 17, 2007 01:12PM)
[quote]
Why does a mentalist have to introduce a book solely for the benefit of finding a number. It sounds to gimmicked and unnatural in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you are a mentalist and you have performed using books you know that it isn't a problem.

If all you have are books then it makes sense to flip through, have someone call stop, then use that "random" page. As long as you do it nonchalantly.

Make it look like it wasn't planned that way.

Later, you can hand them a book and have THEM pick any page.

Good luck on your journey,

John
Message: Posted by: Piers (Jun 17, 2007 03:36AM)
Any more up to date thoughts on this ?

Forgive my confusion, but the words revealed are from the random book, not the Sherlock Holmes book ?

Piers.
Message: Posted by: Virungan (Jun 17, 2007 08:08AM)
Correct... in the other book.

I think what is causing some confusion here is that this is more of a tool for book tests, rather than a single book test effect using the text.

I use it in a multi-phase book test and its perfect for what I need.

This is some good S.H.I.T !
Message: Posted by: Piers (Jun 17, 2007 02:48PM)
Thank You.

( Does anyone know if any UK dealers are selling this, or do I go U.S direct ? )

Piers. UK
Message: Posted by: charris (Jul 25, 2007 08:25AM)
I was just wondering if anyone uses this as a prediction effect rather than as a mind-reading. I have a whole prediction routine planned. The prediction is kept in a sealed envelope from the beginning. Part of my prediction will reveal what page number was chosen and another part will include what word from that page they chose from the other book (not the Sherlock book). There are other items included in my prediction as well. Anyways, has anyone else done this?

Thanks,
Craig
Message: Posted by: Chad C. (Aug 27, 2007 12:00PM)
I haven't done it exactly that way, although it would definitely work. I use it in conjunction with several other books - I first used it with the Dracula Book Test at a demo for my show. Needless to say the lady was very, very amazed when I described to her the entire paragraph she was reading. I also got the booking.

I love these book tests! I also have the Houdini book test.
Message: Posted by: DerZauberer (Aug 27, 2007 12:16PM)
To give the spectator a false sense that he/she is in control, I provide 4 books. An ungaffed Da Vinci Code, an ungaffed Harry Potter and the Sherlock Holmes and Dracula books.

I usually introduce the books as two of my favorite classics and two of my favorite modern classics. If the spectator chooses one of the ungaffed books, I simply get a second volunteer to take the Sherlock Holmes book and go into a deductive reasoning story. If they go for the Dracula Book; I go into the story itself and explain how Dracula had a psychic connection with Lucy and they could read each otherís thoughts.

The reactions I get are phenomenal and I cannot say enough about the Sherlock Holmes and Dracula Books. I love how the simplest of tricks can become truly powerful entertainment when handled well.
Message: Posted by: HollyMental (Aug 27, 2007 02:28PM)
So this basically works like the Hoy book test - except the spectator can flip through the book and stop wherever they want?


Holly
Message: Posted by: Kaarlo von Freymann (Jan 3, 2008 05:40PM)
[quote]
On 2007-08-27 13:16, DerZauberer wrote:
To give the spectator a false sense that he/she is in control, I provide 4 books. An ungaffed Da Vinci Code, an ungaffed Harry Potter and the Sherlock Holmes and Dracula books.
I usually introduce the books as two of my favorite classics and two of my favorite modern classics. If the spectator chooses one of the ungaffed books, I simply get a second volunteer to take the Sherlock Holmes book and go into a deductive reasoning story. If they go for the Dracula Book; I go into the story itself and explain how Dracula had a psychic connection with Lucy and they could read each otherís thoughts.
[/quote]

Thank you Zauberer. It would be nice if we could have more posts like yours giving us some ideas how to use props. Sometimes we do not like props we bought because we lack a good presentation idea or a solution to a perceived drawback of the prop. Kaarlo von Freymann Helsinki Finland
Message: Posted by: Kaarlo von Freymann (Jan 3, 2008 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2007-08-27 13:16, DerZauberer wrote:
To give the spectator a false sense that he/she is in control, I provide 4 books. An ungaffed Da Vinci Code, an ungaffed Harry Potter and the Sherlock Holmes and Dracula books.

I usually introduce the books as two of my favorite classics and two of my favorite modern classics. If the spectator chooses one of the ungaffed books, I simply get a second volunteer to take the Sherlock Holmes book and go into a deductive reasoning story. If they go for the Dracula Book; I go into the story itself and explain how Dracula had a psychic connection with Lucy and they could read each otherís thoughts.

The reactions I get are phenomenal and I cannot say enough about the Sherlock Holmes and Dracula Books. I love how the simplest of tricks can become truly powerful entertainment when handled well.

[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Floyd Collins (Jan 3, 2008 06:05PM)
Good idea! I like this and I have the Dracula book test, just need the other two. Nice
Message: Posted by: Athos (Jan 5, 2008 04:59PM)
I have been using this book test since I first began mentalism. It's a very easy book test, and it's a complete stunner. If you are creative you can use that book test for a range of effects. You can present this as photo graphic memory, muscle reading (you go trought the book while muscle reading them), ESP, remote viewing (personal favorite).

You can do this blindfolded, the method is simple, the explanations are clear and precise, they even give you a presentation that goes with.

a 10/10!
~Athos
Message: Posted by: Ben_cardall (Mar 8, 2014 03:13PM)
Hey all! before I begin I have yet to read all of the thread though I do intend to go back and revisit it after this post but the inductive book test.Worth the purchase or not?
Message: Posted by: George Hunter (Mar 8, 2014 07:36PM)
Ben:

Who not go ahead and read through the thread? There is enough insight and testimony in there for you to inform your decision.

George
Message: Posted by: George Hunter (Mar 8, 2014 07:38PM)
Ben:

Who not go ahead and read through the thread? There is enough insight and testimony in there for you to inform your decision.

George
Message: Posted by: C.J. (Mar 8, 2014 08:17PM)
Ben, that's a very hard question to answer, since I don't know what you are looking for or how you perform.

I have the SHIBT on my shelf, never used, but that's not to say it is a bad purchase. It is a tool as much as it is an effect. In the book you have a full collection of genuine Sherlock Holmes short stories by Sir Conan Doyle, so even if you never use it in performance, you've got some cool bedtime reading.

I can't give too much away, but what this book test allows you to do is a bit different to most book tests. This tool allows you to peer into ANOTHER book and know what the spectator is reading. That is, you might not be able to tell them what they are reading in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes itself, but they could be reading a completely different book and you can tell the first word, the first line, the contents of a paragraph, or pick images and themes from that page (depending on how you frame it). Miraculous? Yes, I suppose it is. And for that reason, this is a cool effect to pick up. But I reckon that many people will buy this and be disappointed to realise that they could actually achieve the same effect in other ways.

I'm not going to lie to you - I think the $50 price tag on this is pretty high. I also think that if I was in your shoes asking this question, I would rather be directed to alternatives than to pick this one up. As I said, I haven't used it in performance (which is not to say that I never would, mind you).
Message: Posted by: Ben_cardall (Mar 9, 2014 07:47AM)
I had read through the thread afterwards george I just wanted to get my question in while it was on my mind.

Much appreciated insight though C.J thank you
Message: Posted by: Jamie D (Mar 9, 2014 09:39AM)
This is best used in a multi phase BT, rather then just a one off. Although, there is nothing wrong with doing so, I just find it plays a lot bigger in say something like a 3 phase routine. I used this for years and always played huge. What's great is you can use any other book you want to go along with it. CJ makes some great points and points out things you need to take into consideration. As for the price, I'm glad it's that way as it somewhat keeps it from being exposed by the just curious but remember, you are paying for a tool which can turn out to be priceless if used properly.
Message: Posted by: cirrus (Mar 9, 2014 11:55AM)
Is it still available?
Message: Posted by: Doc Ben (Mar 9, 2014 12:44PM)
[quote]
On Mar 9, 2014, cirrus wrote:
Is it still available?
[/quote]
I, too, am interested very much...sounds like a gretat tool ! :yippee: :question:
Message: Posted by: Jamie D (Mar 9, 2014 01:12PM)
I beleive the newer version incorporates another method wich allows you to do two different things, I could be wrong.
Message: Posted by: Doc Ben (Mar 9, 2014 09:00PM)
The old link does not work, so where might it be purchased?
Message: Posted by: cirrus (Mar 9, 2014 10:09PM)
I don't know if it's this one, but it says inductive book test and it's version 2.0.
http://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/the-sherlock-holmes-inductive-test-2/
Message: Posted by: C.J. (Mar 10, 2014 06:11AM)
[quote]
On Mar 9, 2014, cirrus wrote:
I don't know if it's this one, but it says inductive book test and it's version 2.0.
http://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/the-sherlock-holmes-inductive-test-2/
[/quote]

Don't think so. The description on that page is a very different effect to the one being described in this thread so far. And there is no mention of the sort of routine that the original SHIBT lends itself to, so I would have to guess that the working of the original isn't included in version 2.0
Message: Posted by: Art Vanderlay (Mar 10, 2014 08:14AM)
The new version has the same method as Frankenstein book test.

Not worth the $ if you ask me, the same effects can be done with a regular book picked off the shelf.

But magicians do like their toys! ;-)

Cheers
Art
Message: Posted by: London (Mar 10, 2014 08:56AM)
[quote]
On Aug 8, 2006, ALEXANDRE wrote:
I received this book test a couple of days ago and have had a chance to perform it twice already. Fantastic!

My presentation was different than the one included with the instructions, but don't get me wrong, the instructions are clear and creative! I just approached it instinctively.

The seriousness and quality of this work has turned me into a true customer and I've already ordered the Dracula Book Test. I'm sure I won't be disappointed.

Looking forward to the future.

I advise fellow mentalists to take a look: http://www.blacksmagicshop.com/public/sherlock.html
[/quote] Is this link correct? It would not work for me. Could not find a blacksmagicshop.com either.
Message: Posted by: Doc Ben (Mar 10, 2014 09:01AM)
That blacksmagicshop link did not work for me either... :question: :exercise:
Message: Posted by: Jamie D (Mar 10, 2014 09:17AM)
[quote]
On Mar 10, 2014, Art Vanderlay wrote:
The new version has the same method as Frankenstein book test.

Not worth the $ if you ask me, the same effects can be done with a regular book picked off the shelf.

But magicians do like their toys! ;-)

Cheers
Art

[/quote]

This is why the main method (original method without the second addition) makes it unique. You can not do that method with any book off the shelf as fair as you can with this test. It is available online, just dig for it.
Message: Posted by: sjdavison (Sep 3, 2014 06:05AM)
I may have to order this, I normally don't like gaffed books (preferring Richards terrific poor man's booktest) but given my day job is a detective it will fit in with my performing style perfectly!

I'm from the UK, can I ask if this books looks 'American' ie dollar price on the back etc?

Many thanks

Simon
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 3, 2014 06:34AM)
Even if it does have a dollar price, surely you'd just whack a uk sticker over it that says £2.99 or something?
Message: Posted by: sjdavison (Sep 3, 2014 06:58AM)
True, thank you,! I was using that as an example, just wondering if it looked like the genuine article was my concern! I have the flashback books and am not a massive fan of their look.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 3, 2014 07:00AM)
I agree with you - not many book tests actually look like genuine books... joshua quinn's did the best job of all in my opinion...
Message: Posted by: C.J. (Sep 3, 2014 07:26AM)
The front cover is as it appears on most magic retailers websites. I can take a photo of the back of the book for you tomorrow when I'm at my proper computer. A glance at it now shows that things look as they should: Barcoo, ISBN, publisher's logo and RRP shown in USD, CAD & GBP. The fonts on the back cover are a little odd, but not so extreme as to draw attention. It looks suitably bookish.
Message: Posted by: sjdavison (Sep 3, 2014 07:50AM)
That would be great thank you! I think that's why I've always steered away from gimmicked books, also whenever I do a test it's normally grabbing one nearby

A thought for you guys - why use a book? I've always thought it odd that if you are getting a word, why not just have them think of a word, why get a spectator to select one? My presentation is thus:

Have then grab a book, it can be from a library or ideally one they are reading.

'Ive always been a fan of books, my parents were in publishing for years and I've always loved the power of the written word. If I was to ask which version of a story you prefer, would you say the film or the book?'

Generally they reply the book

'Every time I've asked that, people say the book. I think it's because it is much more personal to the reader. You experience everything, you visualise it your own way. It's almost as if you're inside the book, observing what is happening but in your own imagination.

We're going to try something with words. Word number one is subconscious, word number two is a conscious one, well come back to that shortly.'

I then have then select a word from their book. I generally use osterlind's poor man's book test but don't find out the word yet

'Are you happy that's a free choice!?' I have them wrote the word down, even though I will find out what it is later

'Word number two is a conscious choice, and is different as it shows me how you think and visualise images. Here, look at the front cover of the book. I don't know if you've read, but I want you to look at the image, put your hand on the book and close your eyes. What I want you to do is slowly imagine you're going into a that scene. Picture you are there. Imagine the scene playing out in front of you. Now look around. Focus on one image that jumps out at you. Change your mind if you wish. Are you happy with your choice?'

I then have them open their eyes, and write the object they are thinking of. I have them write this down on the same card and screw it up.

I then reveal the second word first, as this is apparently 'easier', as I can apparently picture how they are thinking. You can also give insightful descriptions of their thought patterns as you know the start point (the picture on the front of the book) and the end result from a p**k

They will react, and you can then conclude the handling from the poor mans book test. This also nicely gives time misdirection from the selection of this word. Emphasise that this is tougher as this is a random choice, and then get the word. I use banachek's subtelties to reveal letters first

I'd like to know your thoughts on this, I hope it makes the books relevant and gives a reason for using a book, adds layers of deception and also builds it into a more involved and involving act that simply selecting a revealing a word.

Simon