(Close Window)
Topic: Best pocket mental epic
Message: Posted by: Ronald72 (Jan 9, 2013 11:00PM)
Hi guy's

Can you give me advise what you think is the best pocket mental epic and where to purchase one?

Thnx! Looking foreword to hear from you!

Best regards, ronald
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2013 11:04PM)
The best close up version of mental epic is done with business or index card billets. The miniature Epic boards look exactly like the toy magic tricks they are and have no plausible reason for existence except to lighten the pockets of hobbyists.
Message: Posted by: Angel1998 (Jan 9, 2013 11:58PM)
I think you can check it here ! http://www.magicgeek.com/mental-prediction-board-270.html
Message: Posted by: david12345 (Jan 10, 2013 01:11AM)
What Bob said
Message: Posted by: DWRackley (Jan 10, 2013 02:05AM)
Wow! Great minds and all that stuff. As soon as I read the title, I thought what Bob said. He must have seen the future!

I have one of those toy plastic boards from years ago. I don't think I ever used it even once in a real performance. There is TRULY no justification for it. The writing space is actually smaller than most business cards. It just doesn't make sense.

(Mine is white and looks to be better made than the one on Magic Geek. Even as a magician, I'd still never use it!)
Message: Posted by: jimgerrish (Jan 10, 2013 05:02AM)
Purchase Paul Romhany's "Mental Epic Compendium". You'll find a whole section on close-up and impromptu versions of Mental Epic. My favorite, and the one I use from time to time, is Banacek's "Business Card Epic."
Message: Posted by: gbeani (Jan 10, 2013 05:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-10 06:02, jimgerrish wrote:
Purchase Paul Romhany's "Mental Epic Compendium". You'll find a whole section on close-up and impromptu versions of Mental Epic. My favorite, and the one I use from time to time, is Banacek's "Business Card Epic."
[/quote]

very good suggestion... very good book for "Mental Epic" effects!
Message: Posted by: John C (Jan 10, 2013 07:35AM)
OK, so much for this question .... NEXT!!
Message: Posted by: Darby (Jan 10, 2013 09:50AM)
Osterlind's Artificial Intelligence is also a good solution (at least that's where I learned it from, but I believe the method was also documented elsewhere).
Message: Posted by: Ronald72 (Jan 10, 2013 10:53AM)
Hi all,

Thank you for replying. I did a mental epic routine in my stage show and want to translate this to my close up work. One of the big advantage of the board was the methode. I had an chalk board and the secret was hidden at number three. A logical way starting at number one.

I don't mind purchasing books etc but I really like to know if the method is as logical an clean as with the epic board. Can someone put some mind in this :)
Message: Posted by: Ulises Galeano (Jan 10, 2013 04:15PM)
I would highley recomend Richard Osterlinds Steno-ESP its on Disc 5 of his Mind Mysteries series.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 10, 2013 04:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-10 11:53, Ronald72 wrote:
Hi all,

Thank you for replying. I did a mental epic routine in my stage show and want to translate this to my close up work. One of the big advantage of the board was the methode. I had an chalk board and the secret was hidden at number three. A logical way starting at number one.

I don't mind purchasing books etc but I really like to know if the method is as logical an clean as with the epic board. Can someone put some mind in this :)
[/quote].

There is nothing at all "logical" about the miniature epic boards. Unlike the stage version, which is somewhat easier to justify, the miniature boards look like they came right out of a kid's magic set.

The billet methods, on the other hand, are as about as clean and logical as you can get for close-up work. I highly recommend Romhany's Mental Epic Compendium referred to earlier by Jim Gerrish. It's an exhaustive collection of almost every major approach to the effect, both close-up and stage versions.
Message: Posted by: Andrew_Jeffrey (Jan 10, 2013 04:36PM)
One of the dangers of Mental Epic IMHO is that it is performed very badly in too many cases and the method is telegraphed by magicians who miss many of the nuances that really sell it.

I used to have the big blackboard version which I admit was fun - it helped to disguise the method but these days I prefer to just use a clipboard and sheets of A4 on stage. I like the idea of business cards for close-up too; I confess I've rarely used this particular effect in that setting, except once with a s****e. That was fun and even a couple of magicians were puzzled - "wow, we thought you were going to be using o** a****" !
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Jan 11, 2013 09:00AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-10 10:50, Darby wrote:
Osterlind's Artificial Intelligence is also a good solution (at least that's where I learned it from, but I believe the method was also documented elsewhere).
[/quote]

Before he died, Ken Krenzel and I were discussing this. We had both come up with similar ideas (although neither one was published) and agreed that we would both put our own in print.

Certainly the idea was used in playing card effects, but I am not aware of the idea being published before. Of course, with so much in the literature, I may be wrong.

Richard
Message: Posted by: mindmagic (Jan 12, 2013 03:22AM)
I've used a modified version of the routine in the Mark Wilson course. For business cards,there are routines in the Fogel book and Bill Severn's mental magic book.

Barry
Message: Posted by: eb02 (Jan 12, 2013 04:50AM)
The best is the mini mental epic by Koontz but at the moment it is out of stock.
Many Café member have both it from me and I am pushing Koontz to re manufacture them.
I hope I can come with good news regarding this soon.
Message: Posted by: The Baldini (Jan 12, 2013 05:33AM)
I would certainly be interested in the Koontz version.
Message: Posted by: Demitri (Jan 13, 2013 11:24AM)
Peter Nardi and Marc Spelmann have a great take on a close up mental epic routine on the unexpected DVD set. The effect is called three for the money. It's something worth looking at. It's based on traditional techniques, but a solid effect. Some study on traditional billet work will open up even more possibilities into bringing mental epic to a close up environment.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Jan 13, 2013 11:45AM)
I will humbly recommend my "3 Moments in Time" from my book Mysteries Anywhere 2.

Just 3 business cards, each one signed. This piece has served me well for several years and I know that several others around the globe are using this demonstration.

Best
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 13, 2013 11:53AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-12 06:33, dave wrote:
I would certainly be interested in the Koontz version.
[/quote]

Maybe it's just me, but based on the photo, it looks like a magic prop and resembles nothing that anyone has ever seen before. I can't imagine performing that and not having someone ask, "Where did you buy that trick? Can I examine that thing?"

Of course, if you are presenting yourself as a demonstrator of magic tricks my comment doesn't apply.
Message: Posted by: Ronald72 (Jan 14, 2013 01:32AM)
Thank you all for your inspiration. It gives me more then enough information to research.

Thanks!!

best regards,
Ronald
Message: Posted by: rickmagic1 (Jan 16, 2013 12:01AM)
If you want what is, at least in my mind, the best "mental epic" type effect, Fourth Dimensional Telepathy! I've seen Bob's version on his dvd, as well as others, and I developed my own handling from the original. This is on of the strongest things you can do for a group, and you can't get cleaner than a few small envelopes and some paper, business cards, or index cards.
Message: Posted by: SamNJ (Jan 16, 2013 07:53AM)
While they share some common elements, it seems to me that the mental epic effects are indeed basically different from 4DT routines. In the former, for the most part the participant openly makes known her thought before it is revealed by the performer, whereas 4DT usually involves a p**k, sw***h and/or mis***l and the participant keeps her thought to herself till the end.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Jan 16, 2013 08:03AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 08:53, SamNJ wrote:
While they share some common elements, it seems to me that the mental epic effects are indeed basically different from 4DT routines. In the former, for the most part the participant openly makes known her thought before it is revealed by the performer, whereas 4DT usually involves a p**k, sw***h and/or mis***l and the participant keeps her thought to herself till the end.
[/quote]

Exactly. Mental Epic is about predicting thoughts. 4DT is about readings thoughts.

Precognition and Telepathy.

It bothers me when a performer cant communicate a clear difference between this 2 abilities. I saw in the past some performers that apparently got a thought from a participant´s mind and said "I have my prediction in here" , as if " I have my revelation".


Best
Message: Posted by: rickmagic1 (Jan 16, 2013 10:48AM)
Ok, that may be the case, and they are different types of demonstrations...to us. I'm referring to what the spectator sees and will later describe; in that sense, and speaking completely from their lay viewpoint, aren't they similar?

I do reserve the right to be both ignorant and wrong...open to correction. ;)

Rick
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 16, 2013 11:51AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 11:48, rickmagic1 wrote:
Ok, that may be the case, and they are different types of demonstrations...to us. I'm referring to what the spectator sees and will later describe; in that sense, and speaking completely from their lay viewpoint, aren't they similar?

I do reserve the right to be both ignorant and wrong...open to correction. ;)

Rick
[/quote]

The effect on the audience is entirely different. Epic effects are triple predictions. The performer predicts what selections three people will make BEFORE the make them. In 4DT, the performer reads the thoughts of the spectators as they are projecting them to him.

To audiences, not just to us, there is a VAST difference.

It is essential that the performer know what type of ability he is demonstrating and there is no excuse for such phrases, that I hear too often, such as "Think of a word. Concentrate. I will now predict what you are thinking." THAT'S NOT WHAT A PREDICTION IS! That is an example of thought reading.
Message: Posted by: jimgerrish (Jan 16, 2013 12:35PM)
Bob:
Not to get into semantics, but I don't think Hen Fetsch exactly defined "Epic" in quite that way. For Qua-Fiki's newly published Desk Organizer Switch Box I worked out an "Epic-like" routine as a bonus. It is possible to present three examples of the mentalist's skills such as "clairvoyance" (seeing how much money is in someone's pocket or wallet), "thought reading", and finally "prediction of a random event." The various forms of Mental Epic devices (including Qua-Fiki's switch box) are each capable of demonstrating all three mentalist's abilities.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 16, 2013 01:04PM)
I agree, Jim. The presentation of Epic can be changed, of course. My point was that the basic effect is NOT the same as 4DT.

Hope you are doing well, old friend! I think of the Wiz Kids often.
Message: Posted by: Jacob Smith (Jan 16, 2013 01:07PM)
I agree with Osterlind's pieces, I really believe he has some of the best work on mental epic out there, that I have seen at least...I have to add in a little addition by Luca Volpe, who has a fascinating re-framing to the mental epic presentation in his book Emotional Mentalism that really power packs the whole presentation in my opinion.

-Jakob
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jan 16, 2013 01:31PM)
I hear what you're saying here. But I have done ME close-up for years...and put it back into my stage show about five months ago when I finally found one that worked for me. (The Osterlind model.) It's actually my closer now.

I've always had only success with ME, close up as well as onstage.

The routine and presentation -- as well as the effect on the audience -- are really dependent on how it is framed.

"I'd like you to think of your favorite place in the world. Think about how it feels to be there...maybe the scents. Think about the experience." (etc) THEN I write...and THEN I have them say out loud...what they were thinking. Same with the second frame. The third is simply a for*e as we all know. There's drama, anticipation and comedy potential in each presentation.

I've batted this around in several other forums (and been batted around for saying it :) )...but I truly believe Mental Epic is a literal timeless classic. It may be my background showing up as "magician think" but, to me, Mental Epic is a very powerful effect. It needs to be presented with careful thought and care, of course.

I don't think the Koontz model looks like a toy at all. It's the only close up model I own...it's heavy metal and magnets. The Tenyo edition certainly looked like a toy...so did every other close-up ME I've seen. But not this one. Where else can you get a three reveal effect involving three audience members into one pocket?

I also agree that ME and 4DT are two entirely different effects -- although I wouldn't do both in the same show or set.

David
Message: Posted by: PaulPacific (Jan 16, 2013 01:56PM)
Many years ago Tenyo released a plastic version of this trick in an attractive little case that looked like a little wallet or writing pad from the outside.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 16, 2013 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 14:56, PaulPacific wrote:
Many years ago Tenyo released a plastic version of this trick in an attractive little case that looked like a little wallet or writing pad from the outside.
[/quote]

Yes. I saw one. But it looked like a little toy on the inside. (But, the again, almost everything Tenyo puts out looks like a toy!)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 16, 2013 02:11PM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 14:31, David Thiel wrote:

I don't think the Koontz model looks like a toy at all.
[/quote]

What DOES it look like, then? Certainly nothing anyone has ever seen before. Whereas on stage you can get away with things like look like they were specially made for presentational purposes, for close-up mentalism I think there needs to be a rationale for the props used and the only ostensible purpose I can see for mini-epic boards of any kind is to perform a trick.

I'm interested in how you explain the prop to your audiences and what you say if they ask what it is or where they can buy one.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: quicknotist (Jan 16, 2013 02:53PM)
I can't believe this is still being debated! (And now I see it has been moved.)
I agree with Bob.
Even if you don't think it looks like a toy, this thing looks exactly like what it is: A prop, a device, a clever little gimmick which must (in the eyes of a spectator) hold the secret to the "trick."
Do you really want to present a "magic trick" which raises these thoughts in the mind of the spectator?
There are ways to present this type effect which do not rely on anything which looks pre-fabricated or like you got it off-the-shelf from some novelty store, available to anyone with a few dollars in their pocket.
Message: Posted by: Jacob Smith (Jan 16, 2013 03:00PM)
I personally love using a steno pad or note cards (ala Osterlind) and sticky note pads work very well too, Peter Turner briefly gave away a great application for stage that I feel most people miss (I know I did, but then again I am not that inventive). I think anything non-organic like a black board really takes away from the realism of the piece, though once again, if it works for others who am I say others aren't right.

-Jakob
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jan 16, 2013 04:41PM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 15:11, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 14:31, David Thiel wrote:

I don't think the Koontz model looks like a toy at all.
[/quote]


I'm interested in how you explain the prop to your audiences and what you say if they ask what it is or where they can buy one.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

With respect: I've performed with it literally hundreds of times. I have never been asked what it is (since its purpose is obvious) nor have I been asked where they can buy one. Why would they ask this? It's simply an item I use in a demonstration. Why would I justify something when no one has asked? Do they ask me about my AREA book? My ParaLa*s cards or ParaPa*? Nope.

If it's reasonable that a prop could be designed for stage use (which it is) why could the same rationale be used with respect to a close-up prop? If I were using that plastic Tenyo prop, I can totally see a case being made for "toy." But the version I use looks professional and is exactly what it appears to be: a specific thing designed for a specific presentation. I think it may only scream "PROP" to the type of person who find any item suspect.

I agree that it's much more acceptable to use on the stage -- especially with the "plain as can be" Osterlind board. And I further agree that it isn't something people can identify. But I honestly can't recall a single time when it's been an issue in a close-up performance.

David
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jan 16, 2013 05:28PM)
I can't keep a straight face reading this. sorry.

Bob's point, to move away from the appearence of being a magic trick use everyday items.
A mind reader should be able to read minds without anything special.

When you bring out things that have no place in the normal world, and use them, it may just be coming across as a magic trick.
This is fine if that's how you wish to present yourself.

If you don't think you are coming across as a magician, you may just be fooling yourself.

It is hard, but you should look at what you do objectively and question everything.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, most people think it's a duck. They are not going to believe It is a penguin.

We are all masters of self-deception.

My thoughts,

Tony
Message: Posted by: rickmagic1 (Jan 16, 2013 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 12:51, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]

The effect on the audience is entirely different. Epic effects are triple predictions. The performer predicts what selections three people will make BEFORE the make them. In 4DT, the performer reads the thoughts of the spectators as they are projecting them to him.

To audiences, not just to us, there is a VAST difference.

It is essential that the performer know what type of ability he is demonstrating and there is no excuse for such phrases, that I hear too often, such as "Think of a word. Concentrate. I will now predict what you are thinking." THAT'S NOT WHAT A PREDICTION IS! That is an example of thought reading.
[/quote]

Well said, Bob, and I see that point now. I guess in reality, the similarity is "they both have three". :bg:

Rick
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jan 16, 2013 08:53PM)
Tony: if you could really read minds it would look like this.

"Think of any word, number, place -- ANYTHING on or off this planet. Got it?"

And then you would simply speak the word.

You could have a person open a normal newspaper and read out loud what they were reading in their mind. I don't know about others...but my ability to actually read minds isn't in that caliber, so all of these things simply aren't possible for me. That's why people write things down on small bits of paper or on pads...they read from a book I've given them...they take part in tests I have designed under my rules. That's the way it is.

Saying that simply because a mental epic board -- pocket sized or stage sized -- is a magic prop because it doesn't look like anything people can identify is patently ridiculous. Of course it looks odd. But how many in the audience handle billets? How many have seen a billet box? How about a Devil Device...or...dozens of different "props." Do we exclude ProMys*ic stuff because no one's seen a die with ESP symbols on it before? Should we choose not to use ESP cards because people aren't familiar with them? How about tarot cards and pendulums? C'mon. It has nothing to do with self-deception. They are props...tools. They make for a more interesting visual presentation. (And no...I don't use all of the above. But I reserve my right to do so without being called down -- which is the whole point.)

The Mental Epic is simply one tool that I choose to use. That's my choice -- just as it is your choice not to use one.

I respect you greatly, Tony. I simply think we have a difference of opinion.

David
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jan 16, 2013 10:04PM)
Hmmmmm .... I also try to avoid anything that looks tricky or magicy....
Message: Posted by: Demitri (Jan 16, 2013 10:18PM)
I find myself agreeing with some of both points. I don't use mental epic boards, because they just don't feel right, for me. However, I've seen plenty of performers use them to great effect, and I don't recall overhearing it being discussed as a magic trick. If you can make it fit, then you can make it work.

However, I find a huge difference between a stage mental epic board, and that wallet sized one, mentioned earlier. At a stage show, it can make sense to have some kind of apparatus, and the nature of the venue makes even an unusual object look normal. However, I don't think this line of thinking translates to the smaller, pocket version. I that sense, yes, I think most people would immediately think magic trick or toy.

I'm aware of the fact that even billet work can be viewed as a magic trick (no matter what you think there will ALWAYS be people who dismiss what we do as tricks). However, as long as my audience is entertained, that's all that matters. I don't sell myself as a magician, but if someone says that's all I am, but still walks away satisfied, mystified, and entertained - I don't care what they call it. I don't try to be a magician, I'm don't yearn to be called a mind reader... All I aim to be, is an entertainer.
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Jan 16, 2013 10:22PM)
Jerry Dunn wrote to me privately and pointed out the principle which I used in Artificial Intelligence, and for which Ken Krenzel had his own handling, was actually used by Peter Warlock in an effect called "The Patient Telegraph" in Lewis Ganson's book "Magic of the Mind". He used small slates but the handling was almost the same.

I have this book, but had completely forgotten of this effect.

So thank you Jerry for keeping me honest!

Richard
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 17, 2013 01:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-16 18:28, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
I can't keep a straight face reading this. sorry.

Bob's point, to move away from the appearence of being a magic trick use everyday items.
A mind reader should be able to read minds without anything special.

When you bring out things that have no place in the normal world, and use them, it may just be coming across as a magic trick.
This is fine if that's how you wish to present yourself.

If you don't think you are coming across as a magician, you may just be fooling yourself.

It is hard, but you should look at what you do objectively and question everything.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, most people think it's a duck. They are not going to believe It is a penguin.

We are all masters of self-deception.

My thoughts,

Tony
[/quote]

Thank you, Tony :). You saved my time to write down my thoughts and convictions. Jan
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Jan 17, 2013 09:01AM)
I really have to jump over to David's side of the fence here.

I totally agree that mentalism props should not have little bunnies and magic hats on them. But neither should magic props!

The world is filled with specialized objects. Lisa is a scrapbooker and she has stuff that is totally different looking. You wanna talk about stuff a plumber has? Artist tools? People who crochet? Taxidermy!

For almost every craft or trade there are specialized tools that aren't part of the "normal world." If you get paid money to come to a show and do something, people expect you to have equipment to do your job with. That does not mean you are any less talented than a guy to uses a guitar to make music.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jan 17, 2013 09:15AM)
Richard,

I agree with you 100%, there are specialized items for every field.
If testing ESP or doing something along those lines, specialized items might be used, cards, dice...
But is something "specialized" needed to write three items upon?
Perhaps on stage or in a parlor setting so everyone can see, but up close and intimate?

To me, and others here as well, it comes across as out of place, especially if it is only used for this work and other things, slips of paper, cards, notepad... are used to write upon for other "effects".
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Jan 17, 2013 09:38AM)
Tony,

I think a lot has to do with the prop itself. I have seen some small props that do look like toys. I avoid these. (Unless, of course, you use that in your presentation. "My granddaughter got this little clock in a game.")

And I always try to go with "the simpler - the better."

But just like with most things in mentalism, your presentation can really get you by a lot of this. When we were doing Annemann's Practical Mental Effects, there were some items there that I would not normally ever do. Such as using cards to pick a page in a book. It was great training for me to make this play. It taught me how much you can justify if you have the right attitude.
Message: Posted by: Simon (Ted) Edwards (Jan 17, 2013 10:17AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-17 10:15, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
If testing ESP or doing something along those lines, specialized items might be used, cards, dice...
[/quote]

Exactly! While you could spend some time boring everyone by creating your own impromptu ESP cards (by drawing on business cards with a Sharpie), someone who reads minds would be expected to have done so at least beforehand. Preferably, if they are serious, they'd obtain some hard-wearing, professionally-printed ESP test cards. Or they should have bought the ESP dice or whatever.

And as Richard said, I think there's a difference between having a few bits of equipment in your pocket and a stash of crazy-looking gear, though.

T.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jan 17, 2013 11:26AM)
I may acutally dig out one of mine from the magic drawer, it could be a fun piece.
-------

[i]“This next thing is so impossible seeming, people think there must be some way I can cheat. So to eliminate any possibility of that, I had this little writing board constructed. It has 6 little areas in which to write. I also have these 3 covers which perfectly fit over the spaces, preventing anyone, or anything from disturbing what may be written there.”

“You sir, I want you to think of a color, don’t make it one with too long of a name, I have to use this crayon and write in this little 1 inch square…”

“So you have a color, great, I want you to visualize a car, a Cadillac that color, and in your mind, I want you to drive that car towards me.”

“Don’t run me over!” [/i]

[b]Scribble, scribble, scribble.[/b]
[i]“Thank you.” [/i] [b]Snap (on goes the cover).[/b]

[i]“See, all secure, it’s also protected from me accidently smudging or erasing it. That would be embarrassing.”

“Sir, what was the color?”
“Aquamarine.” “You b*****d!”
“An Aquamarine Cadillac, interesting. I won’t say what that means about you out loud, But I’ll bet you have a fur coat and shoes with fishbowls in then, in the closet at home.” [/i]
[b]Scribble, scribble, scribble; scribble, scribble, scribble.[/b]

[i]“You Ma’am, can you think of fruit. Remember, 1 inch square, crayon... Now visualize a pie made of that fruit…”[/i]
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 17, 2013 11:44AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-17 10:38, Richard Osterlind wrote:
Tony,

I think a lot has to do with the prop itself. I have seen some small props that do look like toys. I avoid these. (Unless, of course, you use that in your presentation. "My granddaughter got this little clock in a game.")

And I always try to go with "the simpler - the better."

But just like with most things in mentalism, your presentation can really get you by a lot of this. When we were doing Annemann's Practical Mental Effects, there were some items there that I would not normally ever do. Such as using cards to pick a page in a book. It was great training for me to make this play. It taught me how much you can justify if you have the right attitude.
[/quote]

Richard, I guess there is a reason why you - so far I know - produced slates only for stand up and stage. There it is reasonable, and in your case anyhow the way you integrate the slate. But close-up? This is one reason why your "Artificial Intelligence" is so wonderful. Jan
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jan 17, 2013 11:45AM)
:)

David
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 17, 2013 11:46AM)
And Goliath. :) Jan
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jan 17, 2013 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2013-01-17 12:46, JanForster wrote:
And Goliath. :) Jan
[/quote]

Lol. That was funny.
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Jan 17, 2013 11:53AM)
Hi Jan, Good to see you hear! I enjoyed our time together at MindVention a couple of years ago.

About slates. On the latest PME I actually do a routine with small slates for close-up. But that is a spirit writing effect, of course.
Message: Posted by: rickmagic1 (Jan 18, 2013 11:44AM)
If I may, it seems as though our discussion is about two types of props: one that we have to justify using, and one that justifies itself without explanation. To me, Richard's Classic Epic board fits the second category; he's on stage, and needs something large that can be seen by alarger group.

If I were doing a Mental Epic type effect for a smaller group, I don't think a small ME board justifies itself. I might go with a technique like that in "Change of Mind" or StenoESP. I think that in either of those, the pad is innocuous and justifies itself.

Thoughts?

Rick
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 18, 2013 12:14PM)
Your thoughts are my thoughts :). Jan
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jan 18, 2013 12:40PM)
There are a lot of options, I think. And much of it really comes down to the performer, what the performer is about, and the way he wants to be percieved. I like doing ME for small groups. But I also do 4DT and AI.

My point? It really depends on the situation and the audience: in the same way I'll perform MOABT for one group and situation but select AREA or even Luna 1935 in different circumstances.

Some things just work better for me at certain times and certain circumstances.

David
Message: Posted by: George Hunter (Apr 15, 2013 07:17PM)
While it is a tad heavy, the Joe Porper "All Seeing Eye" prop for doing the mental epic is mechanically splendid, and would fit in many outside sport coat pockets. I have carried it in my coat pocket with no problem. Without it's wooden container, it fits easily.

George Hunter, "Mentalist Subordinaire"
Message: Posted by: gabelson (Apr 17, 2013 02:32PM)
I always loved the deceptive properties of "Change of Mind". However, once Richard released "Artificial Intelligence", I made the switch and have never looked back. I use it with business cards (about as 'organic' as one can get), and it floors people. I don't, however, utilize playing cards with the final phase.
Message: Posted by: John C (Apr 21, 2013 07:19AM)
... so then, what IS the best pocket mental epic?
Message: Posted by: George Hunter (Apr 21, 2013 08:00AM)
John:

One would have to possess and field test all of them to be sure but, from the several I know, All Seeing Eye is my nomination.

George