(Close Window)
Topic: U3F2?
Message: Posted by: Peo Olsson (Sep 23, 2007 05:04AM)
Anyone got an idea when Bob Kohler's U3F2 is coming out?
Message: Posted by: Mediocre the Great (Sep 23, 2007 12:34PM)
My guess is when the U3F2 Banner Ad linke starts working. I don't know if it's just me but everytime I try to click the link on the Ad banner it goes nowhere.
Message: Posted by: sahunhong (Sep 23, 2007 01:22PM)
It's not just you.

SH
Message: Posted by: RevJohn (Oct 6, 2007 07:07PM)
Before I asked to have the post I started on the U3F2 removed (due to a spiral effect of fighting), we read that a lot of it has to do with Bob getting International Protection of a new gimmick.

In other words, "It will be ready when it is ready." And I really wish I knew when that was!!!

RevJohn
Message: Posted by: pepka (Oct 15, 2007 03:56AM)
I have a feeling Bob may be waiting to clear up some of the unpleasantness that surrounds MM's Illusion Coins. If Jamie is making the new gaffs, I have an inkling I may know what the improvement is. I just hope I don't have to sell a kidney to afford it.
Message: Posted by: RevJohn (Oct 15, 2007 05:10PM)
I think that Thomas Wayne is making the coins... but last I heard it was that Bob was waiting for some international patents to go through to protect a new gimmick.

That was before the thread got hijacked, and then rightfullyso got deleted.

John
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 15, 2007 05:54PM)
Bob Kohler is doing a good job managing his business and will let the market know when his next product is ready to be sold.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 15, 2007 06:52PM)
RevJohn, if you remember it was hi-jacked by the same Thomas Wayne.

I guess you could lump me in as a culprit as well, since I kept responding.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 15, 2007 07:43PM)
Rev, what specifically leads you to think that Thomas is making the coins?

What criteria do you use to decide if something is rightful?

Real questions.
Message: Posted by: RevJohn (Oct 15, 2007 08:50PM)
Jonathan,

Come to think of it, the fact that I am thinking Thomas is making the coins is based on assumptions. My thought was since it was Thomas that made the Vegas Coins for Bob, and that Thomas really chimed in during the last U3F2 thread.

And because Thomas seemed to have inside knowledge of the U3F2 process.

But assumptions on my part, I am seeing now. Cause I really can't answer that.

The Criteria for rightfully so on the mentioned thread was we had two adults flaming each other so much that it was not only rude but offensive. And it takes a lot to offend me (Liberal Lutheran that I am ;) ). But it got to the point it was ridiculous.

You are right, podcastrant, it was partly Hi-Jacked by Thomas, and then Lassen, using an assumed identity, fired back, and it just kept going from there. Got worse and worse. When you move from Magic to attacking someone's sexual preferences or their family... it is beyond.

And of course, I was reading it like it was a tabloid. So I am not innocent on the matter either, I am sure.

RevJohn
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 15, 2007 09:21PM)
My guess is "before Christmas". Let's see how things go and wait on BobK.
Message: Posted by: Review King (Oct 21, 2007 08:50AM)
It was suposed to premeir at Magic Live. Did it?
Message: Posted by: nostrings (Oct 22, 2007 09:06PM)
All I know I e-mailed bob about something else and he said basically no comment on U3F2

thanks

Adam
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Oct 23, 2007 04:12AM)
I saw a set of the "Illusion Coins" tonight at a magic club meeting. This has to be a new low for MM. They are having artificial Morgan dollars made for this thing. They are skirting the law by having the word "COPY" on the tail side of the coins. So far, so good.

Here's the rub. One of the coins does not say "COPY" on it. Maybe, just maybe, someone will tell someone who just might decide that enough is enough.
Message: Posted by: nostrings (Oct 23, 2007 06:12AM)
Illusion coins what is the effect? Is it a U3F Knock off?


Adam
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Oct 23, 2007 11:13AM)
Yes. That's basically what they are.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 23, 2007 11:32AM)
It's weird to see Wesley James take a different tack.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=229261&forum=177&post=5250402

I think he's affiliated with MM in some way, but he seems to have a good reputation in the magic community. What do you guys think of this?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 23, 2007 01:11PM)
I don't think Wesley is offering any praise to the product.

Some folks just don't care whether they are buying goods which are cheap, fake or stolen or two of the three or all three.

So fake/copy coins travel from right to left?
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 23, 2007 01:48PM)
Hard to say, kind of cryptic. however he has recently released a dvd on card magic with them if that says anything.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Oct 23, 2007 02:10PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-23 12:32, podcastrant wrote:
It's weird to see Wesley James take a different tack.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=229261&forum=177&post=5250402

I think he's affiliated with MM in some way, but he seems to have a good reputation in the magic community. What do you guys think of this?
[/quote]

Wes is wrong.

Wesley James posted
[quote]
Gents,
Notwithstanding the fact that gaffing coins is illegal--though apparently not unethical because our purposes is just--the gaff being defended by those who haven't done their homework was originally marketed by Steve Duschek, long before Kohler, as "Slippery Sam," and the basic concept appears in "The Art of Magic."

The feke coins being offered by Magic Makers are almost certainly the non-silver replica coins that are fairly ubiquitous in some parts of Asia. These too are illegal, but no more illegal than gaffing real coins. I won't get into the controversy about the "flipper" that was either the invention of Phil Postma--based on an idea in Greater Magic--(manufactured by Eddie Tytlebaum) or Bob Swadling, and no mention of Jonathan Townsend (or Tommy Downs). My point is that in this case the ethical lines don't appear to be clear or consistent. If the set Magic Makers is offering are of poor quality, fault them as not being Ferrari, but not over incomplete knowledge of the history of the effect or the props.

Wesley James
[/quote]

Nice try, Wes. Gaffing coins is no longer illegal in the US, unless it is done for the purpose of fraud.

The original laws were passed to keep people from clipping gold and silver coins and making counterfeits out of them. Since 1964, when we went off the silver standard, that law has been rescinded.

Here is the text of the law:
http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=407

The key word here is FRAUDULENTLY.

Frankly, I guess this is as good a reason to lie down with pigs as any.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 23, 2007 02:11PM)
Thanks for the info Bill.
Message: Posted by: Wesley James (Oct 25, 2007 11:11AM)
Gents,
Jonathan is quite right, I'm neither advocating nor excusing any "rip-off" by anyone at any time. I'm was simply pointing out that U3F was a "rip off" from Steve Duschek, as was the Flipper coin from either Phil Postma or Bob Swadling. I have heard not a word of condemnation of those who have been perpetrating these "rip-offs." Am I to believe that being the first to rip someone off is permissable if the price is high enough? If Rob Stiff is wrong, so are Bob Kohler, Todd Lassen, Jamie Schoolcraft, etc. In other words, I'm simply calling for consistency in the outrage of those who are castigating MM.

The question of whether Jonathan has been "ripped-off" is more problematic to resolve as there was no physical embodiment to be protected and patent, copyright and trademark law would all have failed to provide him the protection he argues should prevail. Even the ethical question is far from black or white in light of the events that transpired. Moreover, we can't un-ring that bell. The plot is out; we can't be asked to forget what we know and Jonathan has now released his information, so the point is moot.

I'd like to see the magic organizations (IBM and/or SAM) or the MDA (Magic Dealers Association) propagate guidelines or create a review board for determining what constitutes a legitimate variation of an existing product/effect. Unless and until such a body exists we are left to the vagaries of the existing standards, the memory of those who contribute to the dialogue and the capriciousness of the marketplace, as has been reflected on this board.

Wesley James
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 25, 2007 12:15PM)
Well said, Mr. James. Thanks for the clarification. Jonathan said above that I read it wrong and now I agree.
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Oct 25, 2007 02:19PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-25 12:11, Wesley James wrote:
I'm was simply pointing out that U3F was a "rip off" from Steve Duschek.[/quote]

Hey Wes, just one point of clarification, Steve Dusheck doesn't feel that is the case. Steve has publicaly stated (in a thread that is unfortnately deleted now) that Bob's use was unique and different than his original use. I have been told that Bob has Steve's blessing regarding his use of this gaff.
Message: Posted by: DP the Great (Oct 25, 2007 09:55PM)
This whole not knowing what is going on is bugging me. By the time it finally comes out I will have probably forgotten about it and moved on to the next big thing...-DP
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Oct 25, 2007 10:13PM)
Jon, I know your position very well regarding all 3 Fly routines ever created without your express permission. I was not addressing that issue, it has been addressed in countless upon countless threads. I was only specifically responding to Wesley's assertion regarding the gaff, and the fact that Dusheck supports Bob's use of the gaff. That's all.

Regarding my published work, I published it so that people would be free to perform it or experiment with the routines as they see fit. I already know of a few people who have taken some of my routines and modified them for their own preference. Some changes I think are awful, some not so, but in any event, my published work is out for public consumption. The day I released it, I knew people may one day make their own changes to the work and come up with new things based on mine. If someone copies my work verbatim, the written record is there, people know who originated it. If someone creates something completely different using some of the aesthetics of my routines, God Bless em... I stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me too.
Message: Posted by: rutabaga (Oct 25, 2007 10:17PM)
Just thought I'd chime in for the heck of it... Dan, JT specifically mentioned your "original" work, not your "published" work. Just an observation.
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Oct 25, 2007 10:43PM)
Good point rutabaga, yes I would not like my unpublished work taken. No one would. But I don't have any fear of that, I don't show my unpublished work to other magicians unless I know and trust them. I was only talking about published works, because that is the only thing people have access to.

I guess the only exception to that is some performance only pieces I have put out on video and the internet, that people could figure out and do. But I knew that risk when I put it out there. My life does not revolve around obsessing on such temporal things...
Message: Posted by: Bob Kohler (Oct 25, 2007 11:37PM)
1) Steve Duschek and Pressley Guitar both gave me permission to put U3F on the market.
2) At last count, Townsend has made 18,497 posts on the Café, written a Genii article and made God knows how many posts on other forum. In my humble opinion, he's done a very clever job of rewriting history.

Chris Kenner should get all of the credit for inventing 3 Fly...period. What Chris and I saw Jonathan perform was not 3 Fly. As a professional magician in my opinion his routine was unusable in a live performance. It happened at waist level with the palms up. It MAY have fooled a directly overhead camera. Chris' routine and method were revolutionary. He made the 3 Fly plot the classic it deserves to be.

In my opinion, the only way to KNOW the truth would be to ask the people that were there. Ask David Roth (or watch him on the Coinvention DVD. Geoff Latta, Michael Gallo, Michael Rubinstein, Seth Kramer and many others. They'll all tell you the same truth.

Ask yourself this question...why hasnt' the Townsend routine been published. In my opinion it's because as soon as it hit the street the Townsend legend would vanish...if the routine I saw was published as I saw it.

Back on topic, U3F2 is still coming out. Like the Post Office neither Townsend's comments, Illusion Coins or anything else is going to stop it's release. Both the gaff and training have undergone huge upgrades.

Because of companies that rent our DVD's the training will be only available as streaming media. The media will be protected. Because of companies that simply copy everything the new gaff now has a patent applied for. While I've read and heard guesses as to exactly what the new gaff is it's much better than anybody's guess.

U3F2 will be released after the new web site launches.
The new training will not mention Townsend's name.
Message: Posted by: rutabaga (Oct 26, 2007 08:09AM)
Well, that's clear as crystal. I must say I find the term "training" as used by Bob above VERY interesting! And protected streaming media too. Can't say I blame anyone in this business for being guarded with their work [assuming it IS their work – uh oh!]!
Message: Posted by: JimMaloney (Oct 26, 2007 08:33AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 00:37, Bob Kohler wrote:
Ask yourself this question...why hasnt' the Townsend routine been published. In my opinion it's because as soon as it hit the street the Townsend legend would vanish...if the routine I saw was published as I saw it.
[/quote]
Bob, I guess you're a bit behind. You may wish to check out the [url=http://geniimagazine.com/back_issues/2006/09/index.html]September 2006 Genii[/url].

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 08:44AM)
I like that Bob is working to offer professional grade products and taking steps to protect those products. His taking a "training" approach may also be a step forward in how quality products are offered.

Some professionals are not so concerned about whose work they are using or whether permissions from the inventors have been gained before the product was offered to them.

I'm glad to see folks taking some positive steps in the "how" side of the business. I sometimes wish they'd be more attentive to the "what" and the "whose" aspects.
Message: Posted by: ASW (Oct 26, 2007 08:49AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 09:33, JimMaloney wrote:

Bob, I guess you're a bit behind. You may wish to check out the [url=http://geniimagazine.com/back_issues/2006/09/index.html]September 2006 Genii[/url].

-Jim
[/quote]

Jim, I think the quote from Bob Kohler that addresses your statement is this one:

[quote]if the routine I saw was published as I saw it[/quote]

Which is related to this one:

[quote]In my humble opinion, he's done a very clever job of rewriting history.[/quote]

Not taking sides, except the side of the I.O.F.E.F.T.R.P.M.C.*

ASW

*(The International Organization For Encouraging Folks To Read Posts More Closely).
Message: Posted by: jimbowmanjr (Oct 26, 2007 09:14AM)
[quote]
Because of companies that rent our DVD's the training will be only available as streaming media. The media will be protected. Because of companies that simply copy everything the new gaff now has a patent applied for. While I've read and heard guesses as to exactly what the new gaff is it's much better than anybody's guess.
[/quote]

Glad to see someone is taking steps to thwart piracy. I am very much looking forward to this release Bob and have been saving accordingly for the time that it is released =)

p.s. Bob is the gaff going to be a dollars only version or are there any plans to do a half dollar version as well? Just curious because of my interest in Walking Liberty coins.

--Jim
Message: Posted by: JimMaloney (Oct 26, 2007 09:19AM)
[quote]On 2007-10-26 09:49, ASW wrote:
Jim, I think the quote from Bob Kohler that addresses your statement is this one:
[quote]if the routine I saw was published as I saw it[/quote][/quote]
Bob didn't give any indication in his post that he's read the Genii article. If he had, then he could state definitely whether or not the routine published there is the one that he saw.

I do read closely. ;)

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Bob Kohler (Oct 26, 2007 11:37AM)
I read it...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 11:43AM)
On the quality side of offering tested and professional performance ready products to working professionals I still like Bob and his overall market approach. As far as I know it's just this one item where we are not aligned.

IMHO Bob's arguments about legitimacy of his coin product have some problems.
To cite a publication which included my ideas without permission and which also includes a sleight from Geoff Latta without permission is awkward as a foundation. May as well just claim to be a pirate up front. The act of taking such secret things public to make them popular is hardly laudable but some folks just don't care about respecting secrets.

The tale of getting permission from Steve Dusheck to use his gaff in this context reflects badly upon all involved. Terrible to make Steve complicit in copying sombody else's work. Then to confuse the folks here about Presley Guitar about this matter is not much help as they already know from Steve Dusheck himself about how the gaff was exposed and explained to Pressly along with Don Alan. That was part of the thread about another vendor from LV who seems to have started selling an item without the inventor's permission and... well some folks don't care about those who invent. Heartbreaking for some. Fairy tales for others.

But since BobK is here only to sell, I would not worry. Many here just want tricks and it looks like he is soon going to offer another item which should sell well.

As Bob wrote, the products will flow. And the pirates will continue to take. And life in neverland will be as you like it.

And please don't give your hard earned money to the folks who are offering a copy of CFWM/U3F... that's not a good thing.
Message: Posted by: magicblademan (Oct 26, 2007 01:59PM)
Would be nice to have seen Johnathan's version performed on a video or dvd so we could have seen Johnathan perform it ...

Don't you fancy performing your version Johnathan on camera ? would be good to see.

Best

Blade
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 26, 2007 05:04PM)
Like Bob Kohler, Dan Watkins, and countless other knowledgeable coin magicians I have become increasingly weary of Jonathan Townsend’s endless retroactive claims to greatness.

Writing his “history” 15 years after Chris Kenner published 3 Fly sure has its advantages. It has allowed him to go back and claim all the versions that have ever been invented thus far. No one present at the time of his original coin routine (mid 80’s) remembers Townsend using any gaffs, but from the September 2006 Genii article that contains Townsend’s revisionist history you can read that he claims to have experimented with the following gaffs and devices:

He claims that in 1975 he used the Flipper Coin (Like Troy Hooser’s 3 Fly)

He claims that in 1975 he worked with the Dusheck sliding shell (genesis of Bob Kohler’s Ultimate 3 Fly)

He mentions a Jack Miller holdout (but doesn’t say he ever used one – I guess is to let people know if anyone does use a Miller holdout with the routine, he thought of that first.)

He claims that in 1976 he talks about considering a cut down coin, shell, and expanded shell (Letting it known that he considered for anything done with a Triple Threat or 3CM gimmick already).

He claims he used a gaff hooked to a pull (so he can take credit for anyone using this as a solution for a final vanish).

In other words, Townsend has pretty much wrapped up the idea of using every modern gaff used for the routine. Let him tell it, he invented everything - which is not hard to do when you get to write the history two decades after the fact.

In essence Jonathan Townsend has used the opportunity to write history decades after the fact to try to turn his lackluster coin trick into something more than it is. Clearly, anyone who reads the September 2006 Genii routine will see that his trick is a weak sister compared to the masterpiece created by Chris Kenner (the true inventor of 3 Fly). I’ve got news for ya, Jon… you can’t polish a turd.

But let’s forget, for a moment, the obvious flaws in Jonathan Townsend’s claims; after all, can’t it be said that these dissenting views are just a matter of opinion? So instead, let’s look at some known, [b] historically recorded[/b] (and therefore unalterable) statements from the past.

[i]On July 24, 2001 05:56 pm, Brian Marks asked his fellow readers of the Genii Magazine online forum the following question:[/i][quote] “Does anyone know what happened to Jonathan Townsend? I heard 2 different things. first I heard he committed suicide than I heard he just dropped out of magic.” [/quote]

A good number of responses followed, some “confirming” the rumors of Townsend’s death, some not. But of extreme interest is a response from Eric DeCamps, who had known Jonathan Townsend quite well and who had been a close friend and confidant of Townsend before he dropped from the magic scene. Within that thread on the Genii forum it becomes very clear that Eric DeCamps liked and respected Jonathan Townsend; it is also clear that DeCamps was unaware of Townsend’s [then] current condition (dead/alive?) or location. So at the time Eric DeCamps posted his recollections of the past he had no way of knowing the outrageous claims that Townsend would ultimately be making in the years to come.

Here, unedited (but with emphasis added), I reproduce the Eric DeCamps statement that – in my opinion – puts the lie to most (if not all) of Jonathan Townsend’s crazy claims:

[i]On July 31, 2001 11:42 am, Eric DeCamps wrote:[/i] [quote]
It's a shame when you lose contact with old friends. Yes you are very close for a while and then life deals you different hands and you go your own separate ways. It's also a shame when the old childhood game of telephone can turn out to be a real life experience. Allow me to elaborate.

Earlier today I finished a telephone conversation with my old friend Chris Kenner. The topic of the conversation was my post in this folder of July 25, 2001. In my conversation with Chris he made it quite clear that he did give Jonathan Townsend credit for the initial inspiration for Three Fly in the Magic Man Examiner. I just did not just take his word for it. I spent sometime today looking through my records and found the issue of the magazine in question (Magic Man Examiner # 2, 1991). On page five it states and I quote "Chris wants to thank Jonathan Townsend for the initial inspiration of this effect". You are correct Chris and I publicly retract and apologize for my past statement.

Furthermore, in our telephone conversation we began to dissect Jonathan's routine. Chris is again correct that the routines are different in other ways. Without having to go into detail of Jonathan's original handling here. Jonathan's routine did have what can be considered an imperfection in the construction of the routine. The handling was designed to be performed really close up for a small group of people standing (max of four or five) and not for a larger group as found in most performing situations. As I have always stated in those conditions the routine is killer. However, if the audience is seated or if you are working in a formal close up or parlor situation the routine cannot be performed.

Giving Chris his proper credit, Chris realized those problems and reworked the routine until he came up with a very strong and much more practical routine. I believe that the only things that that the routines do have in common are the first coin transposition and the sight gag of the third coin traveling 'visibly" across from the left hand to the right and then invisibly back to the left hand. Chris also informed me of something that I did not know that Jonathan applied the sight gag from a Jim Buffalo idea.

Now in all fairness to myself and for the record, I at the time also realized the same "flaws" in Jonathan's routine and independently came up with my own version cutting out the sight line problems.

During our telephone conversation it became quite clear that my old friend was more than perturbed with the fact and that many of his critics have only focused on the negatives of his routine and not the positives. Once again, Chris may be right here because in the Three Fly routine, Chris does introduce some truly outstanding original techniques in his solution to the coins across plot. If for nothing else, the introduction of the Bus Pass instead of using the standard Shuttle Pass is a major advancement in any sleight of hand artist's arsenal.

Now referring back to my opening statement regarding the childhood game of telephone. It never ceases to amaze me how this really is not a game at all but a reality. It does not just apply to what some consider "petty magic politics". Unfortunately it has to deal with the day to day business of life. Since 1991 when Chris published his routine from time to time I saw someone demonstrate Three Fly, I would relate the story that I posted here in this folder on July 25.Today in my telephone conversation with Chris, I found out that through the game of telephone those statements have been twisted and maligned to the point that I could not believe what he told me. That for the last ten years I have been [b] "bashing " Chris for stealing the concept from Jonathan Townsend. To me this is utter nonsense. Unlike some who subscribe to this type of character assassination, by continually passing innuendos and half-truths as facts! The truth will always be the truth. Jonathan taught his routine to Chris and myself. Chris worked out his own excellent and innovative routine using Jonathan's coins across as inspiration and I also worked out my own handlings independently. That's it!![/b]

Chris, I hope this publicly clears up any concerns you may have had regarding this subject. I hope that if there are ever any doubts that you may have in the future you do not wait ten years to air them.

Eric DeCamps
[/quote]
DeCamps was there when it happened, and he is clearly a friend and supporter of Jonathan Townsend. Even so, what he wrote [i]proves[/i] that Townsend’s claims are ********! How much more does anyone need to know?

Thomas Wayne
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 26, 2007 05:11PM)
I would also like to see a live performance of the original VCA, as Kohler and others saw it. Would be interesting to see the timing, structure, etc.

I don't have the issue of Genii with the history but didn't it originally use quarters?

Another question...Vernon created "Twisting the Aces", so would every single creator who puts out their version be required to get Vernon's blessing prior to release if he was still alive? Or are the little changes and additions enough to let them stand alone? Jonathan?

And Jonathan, I think every magician on the Café(in the world for that matter) knows that you claim VCA as your creation. That being said, what do you want? Not being rude but I really don't know. Do you want royalties? Permission to publish anything that has to do with VCA/3 fly? Just your name mentioned in the credits? What? We can all see that is a very sore subject with you but how do we attempt to make it alright?
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 26, 2007 05:58PM)
Hart,
I really don't think this pot needs additional stirring!
Just my opinion!
Mick
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 26, 2007 06:22PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 18:58, MickeyPainless wrote:
Hart,
I really don't think this pot needs additional stirring!
Just my opinion!
Mick
[/quote]

Sorry Mickey, just think that this should be hashed out a little seeing that Café members are exposed to Townsend/VCA drama almost on a daily basis...and the Genii thing was driving me nuts because Townsend and other were treating the article like god's written word when really it was just Townsend's history as he sees it. I think we should hear other views without having to wait for another issue of Genii...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 06:35PM)
I have every confidence BobK's product will be something fine. That's his thing- to put out great products.

Same as I expect Thomas Wayne to craft wonderful things. I've heard his wood work is great and nothing but praise for something he made that looks like a saltshaker.

Since the Café is about magicians helping magicians I'm offering this as well:

Nobody cares how much you know till they know how much you care.

It's not my original advice though I feel it applies here.

For example, recently we had to watch (you can still recover the thread if you know how) as Steve Dusheck felt the need to defend his creation AS HIS while it IS being offered by others without his permission. Those who cared spoke up to support him. Those who don't care about such things were silent. As they did not care to defend the work of another magician's dear work I will have to leave things be without any trust for respect for others work. As to permissions, no means no.

Actions speak louder than words. And silence in a time of troubles speaks plainly to those who listen.

I'm sure the new version of the coins across will be a great product.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 26, 2007 06:40PM)
Mr. Kohler
I'm a little new here, but what Steve Dushecks effect are you talking about?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 06:42PM)
Small note to TW: Eric Decamps was not and is not a close friend or confidant of mine. Anyone close would not be spreading rumors of my death. Nor would anyone in whom I confide go claiming credit for something in Hoffmann's More Magic or its trivial application to another routine. I would have let them know its source and also let them know that I would speak out if they tried to make claim to another's work, in this case Hoffmann's.

Eric is a fine magician and I wish him the best in magic.

No idea what to say about the homoerotic fantasies you claim to experience involving me. I wish you the best and regret to inform you that those fantasies will have to stay fantasies.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 26, 2007 06:46PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 19:40, Al Angello wrote:
Mr. Kohler
I'm a little new here, but what Steve Dushecks effect are you talking about?
[/quote]

I believe he was talking about a gaff that Steve created...
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 26, 2007 06:50PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 18:11, Hart Keene wrote:
And Jonathan, I think every magician on the Café(in the world for that matter) knows that you claim VCA as your creation. That being said, what do you want? Not being rude but I really don't know. Do you want royalties? Permission to publish anything that has to do with VCA/3 fly? Just your name mentioned in the credits? What? We can all see that is a very sore subject with you but how do we attempt to make it alright?
[/quote]


Sorry to quote myself Jonathan, but I really am curious as to what you want out of your creation...Sorry if you have answered this before.

Another thing, why did you wait so long to clear the air in Genii? If you suspected theft why didn't you just publish your routine?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 06:59PM)
Kindly address off topic issues on another thread and let's keep the personal questions to PM.

This thread is about Bob's soon to be released version of the coins across.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 26, 2007 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 19:59, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Kindly address off topic issues on another thread and let's keep the personal questions to PM.

This thread is about Bob's soon to be released version of the coins across.
[/quote]

Good point. Guess the thread just got me wondering....Sorry all.
Message: Posted by: magicandsoul (Oct 26, 2007 07:13PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 20:03, Hart Keene wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 19:59, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Kindly address off topic issues on another thread and let's keep the personal questions to PM.

This thread is about Bob's soon to be released version of the coins across.
[/quote]

Good point. Guess the thread just got me wondering....Sorry all.
[/quote]
Wrong! Your post is perfectly reasonable. Mr J Townsend seems to think that thread discussion is not allowed to evolve unless it is only him that decides to discuss matters beyond the scope of the thread topic (i.e. homoerotic blah blah blah... what was that all about??)

I'm just glad to finally know the truth. I had always wondered why the 4 Horsemen (Roth, Latta, Gallo, Rubenstein) from NY Seminar failed to even mention JT (or his version of events) on their Coins Across DVD during a panel discussion of 3FLY and now I know.

Thank you Mr Kohler and thank you Mr Wayne

M&S
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 07:17PM)
Here's one fact that's constantly overlooked. In his 1991 ThreeFly release, Chris Kenner says that ThreeFly had been a pet trick of his since 1986. Well how could that be, since Jonathan showed it to him and Kohler at a 1987 convention?

In the COINvention DVD Kenner says that he didn't finally hit upon his "ThreeFly" until well after being shown JT's VCA. So how could it be 86 again?

This has nothing to do with who invented what handling. My question is that if the first sentence of the released instructions contains an untruth how can everyone whole-heartedly accept Chris' account?

Also say that we all agree that Chris' version is a totally different animal that JT's. Chris still took an unpublished Geoff Latta vanish for the last vanish and released it with no crediting.

So if you don't think he stole from JT how do you explain his lifting of Latta's vanish?

Just some questions I have. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 07:23PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 20:13, magicandsoul wrote:...
Wrong! Your post is perfectly reasonable. Mr J Townsend seems to think that thread discussion is not allowed to evolve unless it is only him that decides to discuss matters beyond the scope of the thread topic (i.e. homoerotic blah blah blah... what was that all about??)

I'm just glad to finally know the truth. I had always wondered why the 4 Horsemen (Roth, Latta, Gallo, Rubenstein) from NY Seminar failed to even mention JT (or his version of events) on their Coins Across DVD during a panel discussion of 3FLY and now I know.

...[/quote]

First, it's off topic as I mentioned and invited others to have another thread for that discussion.

Did you also stop and wonder why the four horsemen did not speak out to support Steve Dusheck a few weeks ago? Now you know.

I can't condone scheduling a panel discussion of somebody else's private work for all and sundry to make claims upon what they should not even know exists much less be so impudent as to offer opinion in a discussion to which they were not invited. What's yours is yours and I hope to be as directly protective of your work and where I can, as supportive as I can of that which you choose to share.

Yes, finally you start to see some of the truths of this matter.

But even so, BobK does offer great products.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 07:25PM)
At least we know Desouza has creator's backs.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 07:38PM)
Ok so I watched Kenner's part on COINvention again. He says that he started doing the trick his way "a few years" after Jonathan showed VCA to him. So let's assume that Kenner is like every other person and knows the difference between a couple and a few.

That would put his invention of THreeFly, at the earliest, 1990. One year prior to publishing. This a long ways away from being a pet trick of his since 1986, like he says in his 1991 publication.

Now that's some "revisionism".

If you're going to respond to me, please let it concern the questions I've asked. I'm not interested in talking about JT right now. I would like an answer to obvious holes in Chris "creation" story, from all of you knowledgeable people.
Message: Posted by: magicblademan (Oct 26, 2007 07:38PM)
Why do people get so bitter,this forum is about magicians helping magicians...

This topic was about Bob K release but yet gets turned into an attack on JT.

I guess the only people who really know the TRUTH are JT and Chris Kenner .

Can we get back on topic regarding the U3F2! it's not that I don't care about VCA/3FLY but this to me is not for us to judge.

We were not there so to me it's who do you want to believe.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 26, 2007 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 19:42, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Small note to TW: Eric Decamps was not and is not a close friend or confidant of mine. Anyone close would not be spreading rumors of my death. […]
[/quote]

You’re a liar Jonathan. Nothing you’ve claimed over the last five years has any real merit, and those lies are chasing you down now, like a big nasty dog getting ready to take a bite out of your ass.

I’ve just shown that you’ve lied all along about Chris Kenner “stealing” your routine. Turns out you [b]taught[/b] it to him, and one thing we all know is THAT isn’t “stealing”.


[i]On the Genii forum, November 11, 2002 12:25 PM, Brian Marks wrote[/i] [quote][b] “I like to end this thread on a happy note. Jon Townson is alive and well. I have confirmed this.” [/b][/quote]

[i]On the Genii forum, November 11, 2002 01:23 PM, Richard Kaufman wrote:[/i][quote][b]”Yes, I e-mailed the guy who registered under Jonathan Townsend's name on the forum today and he sent me a picture: it's definitely him!
I'm told by someone else who's had contact with him that he had no idea that his fingertips coins across has become the rage it has over the past decade. Never too late to take a bow!”[/b][/quote]

[i]On the Genii forum, November 12, 2002 02:11 PM, Eric DeCamps wrote:[/i][quote][b] Richard/Brian:

I just recieved an email from Jonathan also. It put a smile on my face!
It's also true Richard what you said, he had no idea the impact his original finger tip coins across has had on close up magic.
Now if we can only get him to give up the work on his in the hands Triumph handling!

Eric DeCamps[/b][/quote]

[i]On the Genii forum, November 13, 2002 06:12 PM, [b]Jonathan Townsend[/b] wrote:[/i][quote][b] Eric,

You have my permission to publish the triumph handling.
About the 'fingertip' coins across; What others have been inspired to do probably serves them better than my handling would or could. As you pointed out, my version is an intimate handling best suited to doing seated at a coffee table or standing among a small group. It is also routined from some techniques that require considerable practice.
At some point I will get a performance recorded.
I am interested to know what Chris Kenner has done with the trick.
I am sure your work will be well received when you publish it.

-Jon[/b][/quote]


Right then and there you had every opportunity to correct the Eric DeCamps’ assertion that you originally taught your “VCA” to him and to Chris Kenner. But you didn’t because that would have been a lie (and a awkward one at that). Otherwise you could have set the record “straight” right then and there. But the truth is… no one stole anything from you. It just took some time for you to realize that the only way to achieve the attention and validation you so desperately crave is to claimed you’d been wronged – stolen from. It’s shameful… and kind of embarrassing.

See, Jonathan, you’re caught in the same trap that all big liars get caught in – your lie just keeps growing and growing and eventually it slips out of your control. So now you’re forced to call Eric DeCamps a liar, when all he was trying to do is express his heartfelt feelings about who you were and what you had accomplished. You ought to be ashamed.

[i]On the Genii forum, July 25, 2001 09:15 PM. Eric DeCamps wrote:[/i][quote][b]” Just to help set the record straight on the background of Jonathan's routine, it was back around the Fall of 1986 when Jonathan first demonstrated and taught me his original routine. In the summer of 1987 at the last New York Magic Symposium honoring Dai Vernon that was held at the Sheraton Center in NYC, I introduced Jonathan to Chris Kenner. I remember Jonathan being so impressed with Kenner's work that he not only demonstrated the routine to Chris but he also taught it to him. As far as I know Chris and I were the only two people Jonathan ever taught the original workings of his routine.”[/b][/quote]

Later, it turns out that you also taught your routine to Curtis Kam. Are you going to deny that also, Jonathan?

You’ve falsely accused Chris Kenner of stealing from you and now you’re calling Eric DeCamps a liar. You’re running out of friends, Jonathan, and the new ones you’ve gathered will probably slip away as the truth finally emerges. Don’t you think it’s about time you came out… with the truth?

TW
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 08:08PM)
So no answer to the researchable facts I presented?

So your posts just helped to prove that Jonathan didn't know that everyone was doing a version of his VCA until 2002. That might explain why his formal response was so late in coming.

Why would Genii, and Richard Kaufman, allow something so obviously a lie be printed in their pages? What do you say of their character?

I love people who argue in black and whites. This, like everything in life, is way more complicated than you make it out to be. I'm not taking a side one way or the other. I'm just using facts that I've and you've found and am trying to get some clarity.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 08:17PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 20:45, Thomas Wayne wrote:...
You’re a liar Jonathan. Nothing you’ve claimed over the last five years has any real merit, and those lies are chasing you down now, like a big nasty dog getting ready to take a bite out of your ass....[/quote]

Nothing I've claimed? Not one thing? Really?

Don't know what to say about this latest fantasy about a dog and my ass. Shrugs.

Any simple questions ( no presuppositions or fancy stuff please ) ? happy to address that on another thread.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 08:27PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 20:45, Thomas Wayne wrote:...
Later, it turns out that you also taught your routine to Curtis Kam. Are you going to deny that also, Jonathan?... [/quote]

That is a horribly phrased complex question presupposing something about a previous claim and some denial. Also something icky about asking me to disclose a confidence between myself and Curtis. But let's look at part of that rant and treat it as something close enough to a simple question to work with as an example.

One of the questions is: Jon, did you teach your coins across to Curtis Kam?

Curtis was sent by mail a copy of the three page writeup for review as it was intended as a lecture item a few weeks later.

Simple questions - simple answers. Honest too.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 26, 2007 08:29PM)
Hart
I can think of three or four Dusheck tricks that demonstrated his originality. Is it the "copper to silver transpo", "Ringer", "Funkey", or "lethal tender"?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 08:33PM)
Pod, folks,

people's character speaks for itself if you listen.

do they post to help others?
will they share what is theirs to help others?
how do they respect the works of others in what they write?
how do they respect the feelings of others in the way they write?

very simple truths apparent to attentive readers.

By way of contrast, have a read of [url=http://geniimagazine.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002254#000026]this thread[/url] and notice what happens when a similar subject comes up.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 26, 2007 09:00PM)
Al,
You used the short list! LOL
I was just watching Steve's 82 lecture vid again today and the stuff that always brings a huge smile to my mug are ones like "Waltzing Matilda", "By the Handful" and "Poly-Gripped" (Just to name a small few)! His creativity is unparalleled!
Sorry, for deterring from topic folks!
Mick
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 09:01PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-23 06:04, Peo Olsson wrote:
Anyone got an idea when Bob Kohler's U3F2 is coming out?
[/quote]

Bob says it's happening. Given his recent appearance here it may be even soon.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 09:11PM)
Bob,

Is Schoolcraft or Wayne making the gaffs?
Message: Posted by: magicblademan (Oct 26, 2007 09:13PM)
Well I've spent my budget on gaffs for now ,plenty of stuff to keep me going.

Too many things I need to catch up with.
Message: Posted by: Zhang (Oct 26, 2007 10:19PM)
I really do not know who to believe these days, nobody has even mentioned Gary Kurts, which supposedly was doing 3 fly even before Chris Kenner came up with his version.

Was the person who told me that wrong?

I would love to know.

thanks.

Wu.
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 26, 2007 10:33PM)
Its hard to tell. living in cincinnati I know folks that knew chris and homer growing up and they saw chris do it in the way back , even the real way chris ends the routine (not the latta move). I think jon, chris, and bob have all added somthing to the plot in there own way that was unquie and I just don;t see this discussion ever getting anywhere
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 26, 2007 10:44PM)
I said what I had to say, Jonathan, and I’ll summarize it for you here:

You didn't invent 3Fly, or any of its descendants, and nobody "stole" anything from you. You freely shared your ideas with others and they (naturally) built on those ideas, creating much better and more workable results in the process. Your ongoing accusations of "theft" and claims of prior invention are nothing but lies, designed to exaggerate your contribution to the art and to keep your name in the forefront.

The performance of magic is an art, and - like ALL art - is derivative. Claude Monet is often cited as the “father” of the impressionist art movement, but in fact his work was openly derivative of artists such as Eugene Delacroix, Eugène Boudin, Johan Jongkind and others. These artists discussed and shared their ideas with each other – in much the way you shared and discussed ideas with Eric DeCamps, Chris Kenner and Curtis Kam – and for any one of them to later claim sole proprietary rights to the end results of those collaborations would be [b]absurd[/b]… just as [i]your[/i] claims are absurd.

You gave up the right to claim “ownership” of your [inferior] “VCA” the very moment you began teaching it to others. Credit? Yes. Ownership? No.

In the time since you first taught your routine to others it has been much improved on – to the point where your original work has almost no value to the modern performer, other than as a questionable historical footnote. Many giant leaps have occurred in your absence, and did not require your input OR your permission. It’s the nature of evolution that the earlier, inferior species must give way to the more evolved, improved versions. This would have happened with or without your input – moving the Coins Across plot to a fingertip display was surely a matter of inevitability. Congratulations on being the first to discover this idea (if, in fact, you [i]were[/i] the first), but don’t imagine for a minute it wouldn’t have happened without you.

The art has evolved, and there isn’t a single thing you can do about it. Your revisionist history remains suspect, at best, and is – in the final analysis – irrelevant. No one is going to stop performing the many, many fingertip versions of Coins Across, and no one is going feel duty bound to seek permission from you to do so.

So maybe you should consider ending your incessant whining and nasty accusations and just move on. Maybe, just maybe, you might have some tiny other little grain of a contribution you can offer the art – once you let go of the distant and murky past.

TW
(PS: As for [i]you[/i], “podcastrant”, I was finished discussing anything with you a long time ago.)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2007 10:56PM)
All things are 'inevitable' in hindsight.

Most of us live looking through our eyes.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 26, 2007 11:11PM)
Haha...dispute anything I've said. For others you can check the sources I cite. Wayne stops discussing things with me because each time I've shot cannonball-sized holes through his "logic".
Message: Posted by: ASW (Oct 27, 2007 12:17AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 00:11, podcastrant wrote:
Haha...dispute anything I've said. For others you can check the sources I cite. Wayne stops discussing things with me because each time I've shot cannonball-sized holes through his "logic".
[/quote]

I think you'll find he's not addressing responses to your posts because you are irrelevant. Everyone knows this issue is clearly between several select parties, and you're not not one of them, even if you enjoying trolling for responses.
Message: Posted by: Bob Kohler (Oct 27, 2007 01:57AM)
The reason the dates apparently don't match up is that this happened at the NY Magic Symposium in the summer of 1984 not 1987.

It's true that Gary Kurtz was one of the earliest magicians working on the true 3 Fly plot. No doubt Gary's a top flight coinman and had a lot of great ideas with 3 Fly. But Chris Kenner as far as I know was the first to come up with what is now universally known as 3 Fly.

I've always found it very interesting that virtually none of the other magicians who've released versions of 3 Fly come under Jonathan's "scrutiny." There are a lot of routines in print, most years before I released Ultimate 3 Fly. Daryl, Kurtz, Paul Wilson, Lee Asher and others that are never mentioned or criticized. Please understand I don't think any of them deserve criticism about releasing and publishing their ideas.

In my case, I saw JT's routine and totally dismissed it as usable. I didn't consider doing any 3 Fly professionally and I tried them all until I worked out U3F. My performing style is test conditions. U3F was the first practical routine that allows the magician the ability to show "clean" with only 3 coins after each coin travels. I only worked on the routine from ideas Chris, Gary Kurtz and Daryl showed me years before.

Chris gave JT credit for his inspiration in the original release of 3 Fly. I gave JT credit as well on the U3F training tape because I thought he deserved a minor credit. I still do. I just don't think he's the father of 3 Fly, Chris Kenner is.
Message: Posted by: Andi Peters (Oct 27, 2007 03:12AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 22:01, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-23 06:04, Peo Olsson wrote:
Anyone got an idea when Bob Kohler's U3F2 is coming out?
[/quote]

Bob says it's happening. Given his recent appearance here it may be even soon.
[/quote]
Insightful Jonathan. Bob Kohler is the definition of marketing. He applies the four Ps to perfection, especially promotion.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 27, 2007 06:25AM)
Thanks for the response Bob. I stand corrected. Have you determined who's making the gaffs yet?

ASW,

Really? Oh well, I'm happy in my irrelevance.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 27, 2007 09:16AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 02:57, Bob Kohler wrote:
The reason the dates apparently don't match up is that this happened at the NY Magic Symposium in the summer of 1984 not 1987.... [/quote]

What happened in the summer of 1984?

[quote]In my case, I saw JT's routine and totally dismissed it as usable[/quote]

I don't recall asking you to use my work at the Vernon Symposium in NY or down in DC a few months later.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 27, 2007 10:57AM)
So it wasn't 84? My head is starting to spin.
Message: Posted by: enginemagic (Oct 27, 2007 11:12AM)
Looks like a good thing to see.Its good that Mr Kohler has did well for himself .Sounds as sucessful as the Kohler engine & plumbing company in Wisconsin USA.
Being good at getting your ideas & presintations to market takes a lot of hard work ,being strong,and confident in yourself.
Message: Posted by: zauber (Oct 27, 2007 11:20AM)
J. Townsend.... I don't know you, don't want to. But you are the penultimate provacateur. Just go away and leave the rest of the participants alone. We don't like your incessant psychobabble. Just go!!!! Nobody cares !!!!!
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 27, 2007 11:25AM)
Well since the thread is continuing off course I would like to again ask, what does Jonathan want? Credit? royalties? permission? If he just wants credit for anything 3 fly then what is the real problem? Why cant we just give credit to both guys since technically they are both fathers? You could say that 3 fly has two dads...lol
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 27, 2007 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 12:20, zauber wrote:
J. Townsend.... I don't know you, don't want to. But you are the penultimate provacateur. Just go away and leave the rest of the participants alone. We don't like your incessant psychobabble. Just go!!!! Nobody cares !!!!!
[/quote]

Uh, what? Are you being sarcastic?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 27, 2007 11:39AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 12:27, Hart Keene wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 12:20, zauber wrote:
J. Townsend.... I don't know you, don't want to. But you are the penultimate provacateur. Just go away and leave the rest of the participants alone. We don't like your incessant psychobabble. Just go!!!! Nobody cares !!!!!
[/quote]

Uh, what? Are you being sarcastic?
[/quote]

Nope, it's just someone trying to be provocative.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 27, 2007 11:46AM)
***We don't like your incessant psychobabble.***

I wasn't aware there had been a poll or that "we" had given someone the right to speak for the group! Maybe this is a schizophrenic disorder and "we" is he and them and if so, take your meds!
Mick
Message: Posted by: Zhang (Oct 27, 2007 12:43PM)
What about T Nelson Downs? Dave Roth mentioned him in one of his dvd and he has a poster of Downs, doing something like a 3 fly at least that is what Dave Roth thinks.

Is he right or wrong?
Message: Posted by: Andi Peters (Oct 27, 2007 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 12:20, zauber wrote:
J. Townsend.... I don't know you, don't want to. But you are the penultimate provacateur. Just go away and leave the rest of the participants alone. We don't like your incessant psychobabble. Just go!!!! Nobody cares !!!!!
[/quote]
I like Jonathan and his thought provoking posts. I don't want him to leave us alone.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 27, 2007 01:06PM)
I don't know who "Zauber" is but we don't need to give any attention to his ridiculous post...I should have just ignored it before.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 27, 2007 01:35PM)
Wu,

I think you're referring to "Production of any Number of Coins at Fingertips". It's in his Modern Coin Manipulation.

He produces coins, one at a time, at the end of a wand and invisibly transfers them to the fingertips of the other hand. So it would be more like what Bertini is doing with his Edge Grip production but using the Classic Palm instead. Downs produced a lot more that most do these days though.

It is available cheaply, as an ebook, over at Lybrary.com and has a lot tricks in it, that some people continue to "create" to this day.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 27, 2007 02:00PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 13:43, WU wrote:
What about T Nelson Downs? Dave Roth mentioned him in one of his dvd and he has a poster of Downs, doing something like a 3 fly at least that is what Dave Roth thinks.

Is he right or wrong?
[/quote]

It's what he may think and what he may wish to believe. Downs was far too much the egoist to have discovered and explored this constellation of ideas, gotten them working and not announced his accomplishments by doing everything but actually crowing from the rooftops.

IMHO Downs did not explore this path. However you are free to see how an audience will follow an invisible transit using the tip of a coin wand as a launch or catch point. One can almost envision using the coin want as an intermediary between the coin stand and the Copenetro for a nice platform routine.
Message: Posted by: Zhang (Oct 27, 2007 02:10PM)
Podcastrant,

Thanks a lot for the answer and reference, I'm gonna go to get that book right now.

Thanks again.

Wu.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 27, 2007 03:04PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 00:11, podcastrant wrote:
Haha...dispute anything I've said. For others you can check the sources I cite. Wayne stops discussing things with me because each time I've shot cannonball-sized holes through his "logic".
[/quote]

[b]And later:[/b]

[quote]
On 2007-10-27 07:25, podcastrant wrote:
Thanks for the response Bob. I stand corrected. [...]
[/quote]


LOL! That's one of the best laughs I've had all week.

Hey, "castrant", I've got news for ya... you're no Columbo. But I'll give you a little hint... it was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick.

LOL


TW
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 27, 2007 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 15:00, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 13:43, WU wrote:
What about T Nelson Downs? Dave Roth mentioned him in one of his dvd and he has a poster of Downs, doing something like a 3 fly at least that is what Dave Roth thinks.

Is he right or wrong?
[/quote]


It's what he may think and what he may wish to believe. Downs was far too much the egoist to have discovered and explored this constellation of ideas, gotten them working and not announced his accomplishments by doing [b]everything but actually crowing from the rooftops. [/b]

[...]
[/quote]

Right, Jonathan... no one can rival YOU at that particular skill.

TW
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 27, 2007 04:40PM)
I know...don't believe anything I say.
Message: Posted by: Andi Peters (Oct 27, 2007 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 16:06, Thomas Wayne wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 15:00, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-27 13:43, WU wrote:
What about T Nelson Downs? Dave Roth mentioned him in one of his dvd and he has a poster of Downs, doing something like a 3 fly at least that is what Dave Roth thinks.

Is he right or wrong?
[/quote]


It's what he may think and what he may wish to believe. Downs was far too much the egoist to have discovered and explored this constellation of ideas, gotten them working and not announced his accomplishments by doing [b]everything but actually crowing from the rooftops. [/b]

[...]
[/quote]

Right, Jonathan... no one can rival YOU at that particular skill.

TW
[/quote]
This is better than those old Bruno vs. Tyson fights!
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 27, 2007 06:21PM)
Bob, any word on who's making the gaffs?
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 28, 2007 12:49AM)
TW makes most of bob's stuff do not see why he would not be doing this
Message: Posted by: sleightofhander (Oct 28, 2007 03:38AM)
Can't wait to buy this when it comes out. I missed the first one because I wasn't into magic yet.
Message: Posted by: Irishghost (Oct 28, 2007 08:40AM)
So, what's everyones "HOLD" on this? Is Kenner going to be coming over here to act as referee?
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 28, 2007 11:55AM)
This week I'm favoring the "Camel Clutch".
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 28, 2007 12:51PM)
I'm a Arm Bar or Chicken Wing kinda guy! :)
MickeyMauler
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Oct 28, 2007 04:29PM)
Getting back to the subject at hand, how will the new release tie in to people that bought the first version of UF3 from Bob?

Tom
Message: Posted by: matt.magicman (Oct 28, 2007 04:39PM)
A date for this?
Message: Posted by: magicxman (Oct 29, 2007 12:50AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-28 17:29, Tom G wrote:
Getting back to the subject at hand, how will the new release tie in to people that bought the first version of UF3 from Bob?

Tom
[/quote]

Yes, it's a good idea. People who send back to U3F ' s original video to BOb can buy the first batch of U3F 2.
Message: Posted by: pepka (Oct 29, 2007 03:46AM)
I bought a set a few years ago from someone here on the Café. I wasn't really happy with the gaff, it was always loose. I sent it to Todd and he worked on it, and added the teflon coating on the inside. I still wasn't thrilled, and after 2 months, sold it to someone else. I've been contemplating CFWM, but I'm trying to hold off and see the verdict on U3F2. Very curious to see what comes of it. I assume that either Tom or Jamie would be making the gaffs for it. But they're all clearly not ready to say yet. I have some beautiful coins from both and think they're both suited for the job.

One thing I'm not suited for is the argument of the genesis of 3Fly. (It's a little bit different than the theft that hs been going on regarding the theft of Bob's routine by MM.) This is one of those very few things that really makes me hate our little community. All the petty bickering over who decided to hold a coin a certain way 20 years ago. Really, I don't give a ****. I respect the work of all those involved, but the more they bicker, the less I respect. Grow up.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 08:18AM)
Where's the Magic Lantern been Pepka? I for one miss hearing it.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 12:17PM)
I love it how I'm the liar and misinformed one, while Kenner is involved with another publishing of someone else's trick and gaff. You guys seem to forget that he is one of the heads of T11.

Thomas Wayne called me Jonathan's lap dog on another thread. Jonathan has been a great friend to me and others that show an interest in magic history. Check out the search function and look at Jonathan's posts vs. Thomas Wayne's and then get back to me. Who upholds the tag line of this forum?

But all I'm interested in is the facts. If I come to the realization that Jonathan is wrong about this issue then I will publicly say as much. From what I've seen of Jonathan's posts he'll agree to disagree and that will be that. All of the friends I have disagree with each other's core beliefs all of the time. Who wants to sit in a room full of "Yes men"?

I wish I could pay lip-service to someone just to get some "benefit". I've burned too many bridges in the past to know that if I feel it needs to be done, I'll burn many more.

As I've said many times, don't believe anything I say, take in all the facts and make up your own mind.
Message: Posted by: pepka (Oct 29, 2007 01:16PM)
Hey Podcast,
Thanks for the nice words. We recently recorded an episode, I guess Scott doesn't have it up yet. In that we explain a little what's been going on. The bottom line is the real world has been getting in the way of our playtime. We hope to be back on a more regular schedule soon.
Pep
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 02:55PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 13:17, podcastrant wrote:
while Kenner is involved with another publishing of someone else's trick and gaff. You guys seem to forget that he is one of the heads of T11.

[/quote]

Are you serious dude? You seem to forget you don't know anything about Kenner's involvement. That you are just some guy on a an online forum. So he is an artist for theory 11, big deal! Is his name on that particular effect? No! So stop spreading rumors, OK? Are you going to tell us that Kenner was involved with the Copperfield rape?

When I read your posts and all your "fact" spewing its like you are one of the big dogs. You weren't anywhere near Townsend, Kohler, and others when VCA/3 fly was being created. You are certainly not part of theory 11. You certainly were not involved in talks between theory 11 and Steve D. You certainly are not on the board of ethics. Sorry to tell you but basically everything you know is just hearsay. You don't even start these rumors or spew these "facts" using your real name. You are just some bozo named "podcastrant"(what the hell does that ridiculous name mean anyway) with coins in his eyes.

Just for shoots and giggles...Just what do YOU offer to the magic community? Do you perform professionally(a card trick at thanksgiving doesn't count)? Do create and publish new material? Do you write for any periodicals? What do you do besides come on here and witch hunt, start rumors like the one above, and spew your hearsay "facts"?

Oh, and what is your real name? Just so Kenner and others can know who is starting rumors and can be familiar with the guy who knows what "really happened" with just about everything relating to 3 fly...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:14PM)
Chad Barnard...does that make you feel better?

Google would have given you the answer to your podcastrant question and what my name was. With detective skills like that, no wonder companies keep pushing old products as new effects and magicians blindly go along.

Check this from T11 website:
"theory11 is a group of 11 individuals united in an unparalleled, strategic alliance under one goal, one mission, and one objective: to advance the art of magic."

Did you read the press releases and the build up to the site? It said that this company was started by those magicians.

I do not know what happened with the origin of 3Fly. That's why I keep asking questions. A lot of stuff FROM BOTH SIDES doesn't add up and I'm interested in knowing the answer. Where else but a magic forum can we discuss this? My wife and friends could care less about magic and I know some of you could care less about this topic. I'm sorry I care and was just looking for the truth. My point, is to blindly take a person's side because they have a name in magic is silly, without all of the facts.

So if I'm wrong about the dates, which everyone but Jonathan says I am, so I guess I am, what about the use of an unpublished Latta move?

Latta could have given permission for all I know. That's why I'm asking. I'm just looking for the truth and if sometimes I have to make leading posts to get some light on a subject, I will. Many of things you and others have attributed to me believing in are far from the truth. Check back over my posts and read slowly.

If Chris is not involved in management then the website and initial hype is misleading. If Chris is not in management and has nothing to do with this trick why is he calling Steve Duschek with the CEO? Why isn't it Bueno?

I'm not accusing him, I'm asking questions to stuff that doesn't make sense.

If I was there I wouldn't have to keep asking the questions. It's funny that you're so sure, even though you weren't there either, that I'm wrong.

Kill your idols.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 29, 2007 03:25PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 15:55, Hart Keene wrote:
[...] You are just some bozo named "podcastrant"(what the hell does that ridiculous name mean anyway) with coins in his eyes.

[...]

[/quote]

I don't know what silly meaning he has for his ridiculous screen name, but you might notice that I have shortened it to [b]"castrant"[/b]. I like this version better because it has the appearance (at least) of accuracy. See, Hart, my theory is that the word "castrant" might very well be a good description of a male who has... um... shal we say, "had his work cut out for him"? You know, a eunuch... no nuts... ball-less... you get it, right? Not only is he Jonathan's little lap dog, but he's also been neutered - lol.

So "castrant" seems a very fitting moniker for a complete coward who comes on the forum and throws around insults and accusations without even the minimal courage of using his real name. I recommend you call him "castrant" from now on; he'll know what you mean, and so will everyone else.

TW
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:31PM)
Haha...Check all my past posts and then check Wayne's to see about character. You will also see whose percentage of insults and accusations is higher.

I'm sorry you guys can't work a computer and do a simple whois search. Towards the beginning of the podcast craze I did three to four weekly shows on my podcastrant.com site. I haven't done anything on there in quite a while, but still use this name because people know me from the other forums. It's hilarious this has held you guys up so much. If you were so interested search podcastrant in google and you would have had your answer.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:33PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:14, podcastrant wrote:
Chad Barnard...does that make you feel better?

Google would have given you the answer to your podcastrant question and what my name was. With detective skills like that, no wonder companies keep pushing old products as new effects and magicians blindly go along.

Check this from T11 website:
"theory11 is a group of 11 individuals united in an unparalleled, strategic alliance under one goal, one mission, and one objective: to advance the art of magic."

Did you read the press releases and the build up to the site? It said that this company was started by those magicians.

I do not know what happened with the origin of 3Fly. That's why I keep asking questions. A lot of stuff FROM BOTH SIDES doesn't add up and I'm interested in knowing the answer. Where else but a magic forum can we discuss this? My wife and friends could care less about magic and I know some of you could care less about this topic. I'm sorry I care and was just looking for the truth. My point, is to blindly take a person's side because they have a name in magic is silly, without all of the facts.

So if I'm wrong about the dates, which everyone but Jonathan says I am, so I guess I am, what about the use of an unpublished Latta move?

Latta could have given permission for all I know. That's why I'm asking.

If I was there I wouldn't have to keep asking the questions. It's funny that you're so sure, even though you weren't there either, that I'm wrong.

Kill your idols.
[/quote]

Why would I take the time to google podcastrant? I clicked on your link and the site doesn't seem to work anyway, or is under construction, whatever.

I don't know anything for sure either! No one except for the parties involved know anything for sure. That is why I wouldn't be making generalizations about kenner and theory 11.

Who cares what a press release says!!! It is just a freakin press release! A little commercial. You must get sucked into every type of advertisment you see. So because of that little paragraph about theory 11 Kenner is automatically involved with DD and is a thief? So if Houchin kills some guy in a knife fight in mexico then Kenner should do time as well? Get real podcastrant.

What do you mean kill my idols? You don't know who my idols are. I just don't want no name guys like yourself spreading rumors and talking trash about guys that have done more for our art than you ever have or ever will.

It doesn't really matter though, you will believe whatever you want and spread whatever rumors you want.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:31, podcastrant wrote:
Haha...Check all my past posts and then check Wayne's to see about character. You will also see whose percentage of insults and accusations is higher.

I'm sorry you guys can't work a computer and do a simple whois search. Towards the beginning of the podcast craze I did three to four weekly shows on my podcastrant.com site. I haven't done anything on there in quite a while, but still use this name because people know me from the other forums. It's hilarious this has held you guys up so much. If you were so interested search podcastrant in google and you would have had your answer.
[/quote]


At least T. Wayne signs his own name and actually offers something to the magic fraternity.

I like how you come at us with "if you knew how to use a computer blah blah blah". Now we cant play on the playground during recess! Grow up castrant. I don't really care about "podcastrant" enough to search for it on google.

Whats this I hear? 3 or 4 weekly shows? You must be proud...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:39PM)
Why would Kenner be on the call to Dusheck and not Bueno?

I thought Kenner has nothing to do with this.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:41PM)
Why would you be so involved on a thread about Digital Dissolve? I thought you had nothing to do with it...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:41PM)
One day I'll be cool enough to wear a vest and fan cards like you. And maybe one day I'll be able to live off the house that Lassen built.

Then I'll be cool and you'll like me.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:45PM)
Why would you be so involved on a thread about Digital Dissolve? I thought you had nothing to do with it...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:46PM)
Because I like to choose where and who my money goes to and I wanted answers.

It's clear we don't see eye to eye. Especially since you've joined name calling forces with TW.

You're right about everything, I'm a total sham. People please do not read my posts.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:48PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:41, podcastrant wrote:
Then I'll be cool and you'll like me.
[/quote]

Lets not go too far..

BTW, just what do you do in magic, besides this?
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:49PM)
Nothing.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:49PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:46, podcastrant wrote:
You're right about everything, I'm a total sham. People please do not read my posts.
[/quote]

Finally we agree on something!
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 03:50PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:49, podcastrant wrote:
Nothing.
[/quote]

Well at least you're honest...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 03:50PM)
Quite right.

Any word on a release date for this thing yet? Wayne are you making the coins?
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 29, 2007 04:11PM)
If I may ask, what is the relevance of a screen name verses a real or given name in these forums?
If the persons name was "Bob Smith" would you be able to track him down for whatever reason? So what if he uses "BoSmitty" for a screen name, it's just a handle used on these forums! My nick name, handle, screen name actually was given to me by a colleague in regards to what I do for a living and since my real or given name has no relevance to magic or anyone I'm only conversing in a general way with, it's what I use! Dai Vernon was not his real or given name nor are the stage names of many performers so what's the big deal?
Just curious,
Mick (a nick name of Mike or Michael)
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 04:38PM)
I guess when you are starting rumors or making accusations about real people with REAL names it makes it less anonymous. Kind of like knowing the source. If I told you something that was hard for you to believe wouldn't you want to know the source?

If someone told you that someone else was saying bad things about you wouldn't you want to know who it is? Of course you would...
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 04:53PM)
But couldn't I just make up a name like Chad Barnard, Russell Jones or John Reynolds and you'd be none the wiser. All this importance placed on someone's supposed name is amusing.
Message: Posted by: Andi Peters (Oct 29, 2007 04:54PM)
Mods, please lock this thread. It's gone way off track.

thanks

Andi
Message: Posted by: rutabaga (Oct 29, 2007 05:05PM)
Spoilsport ;)
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 05:07PM)
How dare you engage in name calling with a fake name. What does rutabaga mean anyway?! I'm outraged! ;)
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 05:23PM)
That is why I'm upset with you podcastrant. I am actually Kenner, and T. Wayne is Copperfield. Steve D. is actually J. Bayme. W:H is actually Criss Angel and we are not sure why he is here. You see castrant, all this controversy actually helps sales.

Those are facts Pod. Go spew them about.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 29, 2007 05:24PM)
**** couldn't I just make up a name****

YEP!
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 05:27PM)
With Hart's earlier logic, no one could write about Rome or anything historical because they weren't there. I think a lot of historians and archaeologists would find your logic as silly as I do.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 05:27PM)
"Thomas Wayne and Hart Keene want you all to know that nothing I say is true. Please don't forget it".


BTW, that is the best signature I have ever seen, please don't ever change it.

Hart keene didn't just write that, I'm actually the girl who is accusing Copperfield of rape. I cant say much, but I will tell you that theory 11 is involved...now go tell the world pod. Its a fact because you read it here on the Café, just like all of your other "facts"...
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 29, 2007 05:28PM)
***This is better than those old Bruno vs. Tyson fights!***

***Mods, please lock this thread. It's gone way off track.***

Make up you mind Andi!
Mick
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 05:30PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 18:27, podcastrant wrote:
With Hart's earlier logic, no one could write about Rome or anything historical because they weren't there. I think a lot of historians and archaeologists would find your logic as silly as I do.
[/quote]

I only believe people with silly coins in their silly eyes..

So now you are a magic historian?
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 05:34PM)
Of course not, what's the point in knowing the history of something you're interested in. That would just be silly.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 05:37PM)
Well then don't compare yourself to historians and such. If you were actually a magic historian then I might listen to what you have to say or at least consider your facts.

But you told me earlier that you do "nothing" in magic. Making most of what you say trivial.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 29, 2007 05:39PM)
I could tell you I'm a historian but how would you know it was true?

Ok I'm done. You win. back to u3f2.

Sorry guys for participating in this derailment.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 29, 2007 05:40PM)
One more thing pod. Have you gathered any of your "facts" regarding Digital D, Steve D, Townsend, Kenner, 3 fly, etc. in any source other than the Café?
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 29, 2007 05:51PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 [b]"castrant" changed his signature line to read:[/b]
"Thomas Wayne and Hart Keene want you all to know that nothing I say is true. Please don't forget it".
[/quote]

Actually, the primary thing I want the magic community to know is that Chris Kenner did [b]NOT STEAL[/b] any aspect of his "3Fly" routine from Jonathan Townsend, and that Townsend has been lying about this - and most of his other claims - for years.

Fortunately, in this thread I have pretty much exposed Townsend for the liar he is, since his former friend Eric DeCamps has testified that Townsend GAVE his work (such as it was) to Kenner. Further input from Kohler and others has verified that the many nasty accusations of theft and impropriety cast about by Townsend have been false and unjustified.

As for YOU, "castrant", there's nothing I need to tell anyone about you; you do a fine job of that all on your own.

TW
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 29, 2007 09:00PM)
Webster's New World Dictionary
"History: a learning by inquiry, narrative. 1) an account of what has or might have happened.
"Historian": A writer of history.
Message: Posted by: Review King (Oct 30, 2007 12:41AM)
Not to be off topic, but did anyone hear that Bob Kohler is re-releasing U3Fly?
Message: Posted by: Gary Yin (Oct 30, 2007 03:11AM)
Well, the VCA that Townsend did, is not the VCA we known as 3fly. So Townsend for the concept and Kenner the innovator.

Thomas Edison founded electricity and also created the telephone. But A. Graham Bell improved the telephone. Same case.

3Fly from Kenner.
Message: Posted by: Magic Spank (Oct 30, 2007 03:16AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:25, Thomas Wayne wrote:

I don't know what silly meaning he has for his ridiculous screen name, but you might notice that I have shortened it to [b]"castrant"[/b]. I like this version better because it has the appearance (at least) of accuracy. See, Hart, my theory is that the word "castrant" might very well be a good description of a male who has... um... shal we say, "had his work cut out for him"? You know, a eunuch... no nuts... ball-less... you get it, right? Not only is he Jonathan's little lap dog, but he's also been neutered - lol.
[/quote]

Wow. Utterly sophomoric.

how old are you? Do you eat with that mouth?
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 30, 2007 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 04:16, Magic Spank wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-29 16:25, Thomas Wayne wrote:

I don't know what silly meaning he has for his ridiculous screen name, but you might notice that I have shortened it to [b]"castrant"[/b]. I like this version better because it has the appearance (at least) of accuracy. See, Hart, my theory is that the word "castrant" might very well be a good description of a male who has... um... shal we say, "had his work cut out for him"? You know, a eunuch... no nuts... ball-less... you get it, right? Not only is he Jonathan's little lap dog, but he's also been neutered - lol.
[/quote]

Wow. Utterly sophomoric.

how old are you? Do you eat with that mouth?
[/quote]

I thought it was funny...
Message: Posted by: Irishghost (Oct 30, 2007 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 01:41, Christopher Kavanagh wrote:
Not to be off topic, but did anyone hear that Bob Kohler is re-releasing U3Fly?
[/quote]

Hey bro, I don't think you are the one that is off topic lol. Your post has to be the funniest one I have seen this month. I thought you were serious for a second there Chris.
Message: Posted by: Chad Barnard (Oct 30, 2007 11:39AM)
Honestly, I need to know who is making the gaffs before I buy it. You can probably guess why. Worst case, I'll get it on the second hand market.
Message: Posted by: magiclee71 (Oct 30, 2007 11:42AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 12:40, Hart Keene wrote:
Whats up with the movie adverts?
[/quote]

The site looks like it's in beta testing. Bob mentioned that when U3F2 is available the training will be done online for protection purposes. My assumption is they are testing the streaming video part of the site.
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 30, 2007 11:43AM)
Site is locked down now
Message: Posted by: magiclee71 (Oct 30, 2007 11:44AM)
I was afraid of that happening. Sorry Bob if you did not want the site seen. I was just doing a search on google and it came up.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 30, 2007 11:58AM)
Did someone already mention a price tag on this or has that information not been disclosed?
Message: Posted by: magiclee71 (Oct 30, 2007 12:03PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 12:58, Hart Keene wrote:
Did someone already mention a price tag on this or has that information not been disclosed?
[/quote]

No info like that has been released as far as I know.
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Oct 30, 2007 12:16PM)
Way back I asked if this new update would work with the original UF3 or if it was entirely new. Not concerned with who is making it as with Bob it will be quality.
Any info would be appreciated.
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Oct 30, 2007 12:33PM)
I am not sure if Bob is planning on divulging his manufacturing sources.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Oct 30, 2007 12:54PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 04:16, Magic Spank wrote:
[...] Do you eat with that mouth?
[/quote]


Yes... and I also kiss your mother with it.

TW
Message: Posted by: Bob Kohler (Oct 30, 2007 01:17PM)
Well, a few of you got a peek behind the curtain.
What's coming is revolutionary.
The site you saw was all just placeholder graphics done months ago.

As usual with the new site I'll be on the bleeding edge.

The technology has been in development for almost two years. It's about to
all come together. In a nutshell you'll have video support on our products
that will provide instant gratification. Absolutely no download time.
The capabilities for customer support on products is absolutely scary!

The new site's features are too numerous to mention and now's not quite the time.
But it won't be a long wait. I will tell you the new site is extremely user friendly.

U3F2 won't become available until the new site launches. You'll understand why later...

Due to the way the magic market has "progressed" I can no longer give details away until
the actual release of any product. You can thank Magic Takers for that...

I will tell you that U3F2 will raise the bar for 3 Fly routines in every possible way.
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 30, 2007 01:21PM)
Sounds like it will be a winner Bob....
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 30, 2007 01:23PM)
Great work bob can't wait to see more
Message: Posted by: magiclee71 (Oct 30, 2007 01:52PM)
Thank you Bob for the update. What is the ETA on launching the new site?
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Oct 30, 2007 05:10PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 12:39, podcastrant wrote:
...I need to know who is making the gaffs before I buy it. You can probably guess why...[/quote]

you are not alone.
Message: Posted by: rannie (Oct 30, 2007 10:01PM)
Bob,

Best of luck in your new offering. 3 Fly is wonderful effect and it does play well for laymen. The problem with 3fly....aside from all the bickering is the fact that it has been cloned to the bone. Cloned from the patter, the gags down to all the moves and subtleties. I too have spent a considerable amount of time pushing the envelope to further develop this wonderful effect. I probably have more than a dozen way of doing it as well as presenting it. I would not mind another breakthrough. Actually I am excited about it. Perhaps if we all have an open mind about things...we could continue to be better magicians as well as men.

Sure magic has become a business, thanks to the fad! I remember when we were just a handful of magicians in Manila. It was not even close to what the magic industy is now. I don't think its a crime to develop and to be in business. The use of the word "Thief" has been used way too many times. Usually with an accusing finger or with simply an angry or bitter finger. I am no historian, expert, authority etc....as I have mentioned many times before...we do not have magic stores and sources in magic growing up in Manila..BUT I think facts have been laid , bent and twisted. Truths were laid down as well. I think it is time we just move on and do magic. As in anything the words "Respect" and "Integrity" must be taken into consideration. After all we were not there when things were said to have happened. Who are we to say? We were not there in 84, 86 or was it 87? Lets just let those in the circle or in the know battle it out. It is their right. This thread has become so ugly... Well...more often than not... the truth sucks ...but this has become quite uncontrollable. Oh well...who am I to say...? This is just my opinion of course.

Once again best of luck to Bob's latest offering. Congratulations to Jonathan for a wonderful concept who could very well be the one to start the spark of what is now 3 fly. Thanks to guys like Kenner, Kurtz and the rest for pushing it. I hope you guys have room and an open mind for some of my own too.

Peace from Manila,

Rannie
Message: Posted by: Review King (Oct 30, 2007 10:11PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 23:01, rannie wrote:
.....Perhaps if we all have an open mind about things...we could continue to be better magicians as well as men.

[/quote]

Boss, you're my hero. Bursting with talent and class!!!!
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Oct 30, 2007 11:48PM)
I agree Chris and it's a refreshing attitude aye!
Mick
Message: Posted by: viris (Oct 31, 2007 03:25AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 13:54, Thomas Wayne wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-30 04:16, Magic Spank wrote:
[...] Do you eat with that mouth?
[/quote]


Yes... and I also kiss your mother with it.

TW
[/quote]

WOW, I can only hope he is a part of your family, if not you need to be "takin' outside" for a beating. Sorry for this small rant but talking about someone's mother is uncalled for.
Message: Posted by: Magic Spank (Oct 31, 2007 04:23AM)
Don't worry, my mother is dead. He can kiss her all he wants.

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't like 3 fly.

I don't think audiences think much of it either, it looks like you're just hiding a coin in the back of the other coins. Kind of sliding them around. I've seen Kenner do it and yes, tons of other people and several versions of it and to me it's just magical masturbation. I think if the audience applaudes it's only because they're glad it's over.

I agree also that there's no need to release another version. Much less get undies all in a bundle about who did or didn't invent it. The trick pretty much sucks IMHO. But then again, I don't like coin magic that involves more than 1 coin. It's just confusing coin juggling to me. Asher's version with the chips is the only version that I ever found effective because of the different colors. And that one doesn't require any gimmicks.

To each his own I guess.
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Oct 31, 2007 07:48AM)
Normally I would agree. I don;t even do a 3fly ( although I have worked on kainoas )

but I like bob's version of the trick. so for me its not about the plot but a single version that I find to be very good
Message: Posted by: rannie (Oct 31, 2007 08:03AM)
Its this simple gentlemen.... some like it ...some don't! If you don't like it....don't buy it! If you like it...buy it...its your money or mine after all. We cannot force upon each other what each one should like or dislike. Some have the knack of making an otherwise boring effect into a magical experience...and some turn a miracle into a mere puzzle. It all boils down to personal preference and respect.

You got that right Magic Spank...To each his own indeed.

Rannie
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Oct 31, 2007 09:54AM)
Magic Spank, in Bob's, there is no question or thought from the spectator that there is an extra coin hidden, or coins are being slid around. It looks so clean and Magical, the fact you can show everything so clean, free and open just make it look Magical. I look forward to anything new brought to this routine
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Oct 31, 2007 10:17AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-31 05:23, Magic Spank wrote:
...it looks like you're just hiding a coin in the back of the other coins. Kind of sliding them around. I've seen Kenner do it and yes, tons of other people and several versions of it and to me it's just magical masturbation. ...[/quote]

From talking with Bob, I think he would agree with your assessment of 3 Fly. In fact, he says so here:

[quote]
On 2007-10-27 02:57, Bob Kohler wrote:
...I didn't consider doing any 3 Fly professionally and I tried them all until I worked out U3F. My performing style is test conditions. U3F was the first practical routine that allows the magician the ability to show "clean" with only 3 coins after each coin travels. I only worked on the routine from ideas Chris, Gary Kurtz and Daryl showed me years before....
[/quote]

From experience, I agree with both quotes above. To be brutally honest, I have found U3F to be an excellent routine to perform for the people who are intent on "always burning your other hand" or are trying to figure out where you "get the extra coin". They particularly get crushed by this routine because they can handle the coins before and after the routine, and throughout the routine they get to see only 3 coins extremely clean, dispelling any thought of an extra coin.

Of course you could blast through the routine and lose all the benefits of U3F. I have found this routine works better if you slow it down and let everything register, and take time to show the impossibility of it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 31, 2007 10:55AM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-31 11:17, Dan Watkins wrote:...Of course you could blast through the routine and lose all the benefits of U3F.[/quote]

Or if Bob's latest offers some novel and extensible methodology one could use the componants which serve in ones own original routine/presenations - which would also address the issue raised earlier.
Message: Posted by: Review King (Oct 31, 2007 12:39PM)
If you have not seen Bob Kohler's version ( his original ) then you need to see that and perform it before judging ALL 3 Fly routines. The audience is shown 3 coins. The aduience is GIVEN 3 coins to examine and then the magic happens. However they "think" it works is cancelled out and they are amazed.

I never thought much of 3 Fly until I saw and then bought Bob's version.
Message: Posted by: GeorgeG (Oct 31, 2007 12:47PM)
Having been a "cardman" most of my time in magic, it was Bob's U3F that changed my opinion of coin magic; the second was Dean's Triangle. Now much of my practice time is with coins. Looking forward to U3F2
Message: Posted by: oumagicman (Oct 31, 2007 01:19PM)
Rannie,
thank you for your post, and thank you for your contribution to magic. I love to watch you do everything you do, including 3 fly / Bfly. We all have our opinions about what is and isn't magic. I know people who won't use a sh*** or a TT or any gaff. What is important is, when you are performing for people, that they are entertained. That is it. Nothing else. if you can get them to suspend disbelief for a moment and experience the magic, you have done something. I have done this with CFWM coins (my own routine that isn't 3fly and was in no way inspired by JT) dan does this with his VERY expensive gold copper silver brass. sencilio, one coin in the hand of Slydini, whatever. The effect on the audience guys, that is what we care about, remember?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 31, 2007 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-31 14:19, oumagicman wrote:... if you can get them to suspend disbelief for a moment and experience the magic, you have done something. I have done this with CFWM coins (my own routine ...[/quote]

Bingo, that's how to evolve the magic that suits you and serves your audiences. :)
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (Oct 31, 2007 06:18PM)
[quote]
On 2007-10-31 05:23, Magic Spank wrote:
Asher's version with the chips is the only version that I ever found effective because of the different colors. And that one doesn't require any gimmicks.


[/quote]


That is why Asher's is the only one I do:). It gets used quite often, especially at larger tables. The lay folk love it!