(Close Window)
Topic: ORIGAMI illusion history....
Message: Posted by: serg (Jan 30, 2013 04:05PM)
Hello,friends! As I right understand Jim Steinmeyer creator of Origami illusion.And he create this illusion for Doug Henning,so D.H.first who perform this trick. And build this illusion John Gaughan. And we can see design of Origami on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oB988DB8gk .In many years, the design has little changed,but generally the same principles. And second Origami perform David Copperfield or not??? Who build D.C. origami? John Gaughan too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSMrLl62cts May be somebody have photo of D.C. origami,interesting to compare with today designe....Can anybody answer me please,very interesting!I find some photos,on one old booklet,which sell Daniel Summers, we can see the design of Origami very close to David Cop., so may be anybody know who on photo and who builder of this Origami? Thanks beforehand for the answer,Sergey.
Message: Posted by: serg (Jan 30, 2013 04:06PM)
And one more photo big size....
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 30, 2013 04:18PM)
One of the best illusions around. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Ingo Brehm (Jan 30, 2013 05:21PM)
I recommend asking Jim Steinmeyer. He can surely answer all of your questions more competent then anyone else here.
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 1, 2013 04:47PM)
Thanks Ingo Brehm, may be this better advice....i ask Jim!
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Feb 3, 2013 10:27AM)
Serg, the design of the Origami Box Illusion has changed very little over the years. Johnny Gaughan built both Doug Henning's and David Copperfields.

There are only two official builders of the illusion and that is Gaughan and Wellington Enterprises out of New York. I have seen these two versions side by side and there are very few differences. The overall design and dimensions are the same.

I know the prop inside and out and even have talked with the creator about its development.

Steve
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 3, 2013 11:58AM)
Thanks Steve! But Doug Henning's and D.Copperfield's versions little different. So I think before builder not the same....D.H origami first, but more like modern design, and D.C. build later but side rail under the base other design.Yes I know that only two official builders,and how look and which difference between. But who on photo,which I attach ( on BOOK,which sell D.SUMMERS),and who builder of this origami? Best wishes to all,Sergey.
Message: Posted by: Frank Simpson (Feb 3, 2013 02:41PM)
Steve is correct. Gaughan built both Henning's and Copperfield's. There are stylistic differences, and Copperfield introduced an popularized the larger swords, but the are fundamentally the same.
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Feb 3, 2013 03:48PM)
One primary difference between Doug's and David's is that David's does not employ any bevel.
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Feb 4, 2013 09:59AM)
You doubt me? I've been at this for quite some time ...

Sure, Doug's looks a bit different and there are reasons for that. It was the first, a prototype if you look at it that way. Doug was also opposed to using swords ... he just didn't like the idea. The massive swords used in later versions are to visually make the box look smaller. All part of the overall illusion.

Steve
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Feb 4, 2013 10:07AM)
As for your previous question about an Origami featured on the front of the book, it's very difficult to tell because of the lack of detail.

I believe this is Roger Despard and from what I can tell it's a Gaughan model of the Origami. The photo may have been altered for print and of course the mirror has been removed.

Steve
Message: Posted by: Eldon (Feb 4, 2013 11:31AM)
Serg, Steve is right on.
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 4, 2013 04:21PM)
Thanks Steve and Eldon. On photo Roger Despard! But I have question to Illucifer: I know you have experience,so you exactly know that in D.Copperfield Origami don't use bevel? Very interesting!!! May be side rail under the table not semi-transparent?
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Feb 5, 2013 09:51AM)
So the tables may have been made a little different ... what are you getting at? I've seen David's up close ... it's just the same as others that Gaughn built. There is nothing different except maybe the finish and materials.

Are we building a copy to scale or something?

Steve
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Feb 5, 2013 01:28PM)
My understanding from a reliable source is that David had it built with no bevel. That is a fairly significant difference, in my opinion. My information could be wrong, I grant that. I'll defer to Steve if he's actually seen the piece up close.
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 5, 2013 02:15PM)
Steve, for me interesting history,how this idea born and developed. And why side rails under the table have difference between D.C. and modern versions. Even Doug Henning have other design than D.C.,and more look like modern. But if you see close, I must trust you Steve. Believe me I know all detail of this illusion,and all difference between Gaughan and Wellington,and I must to say that both model very very perfect(but my personal preference is Gaughan!).You joke Steve.... if I decide to perform this illusion I buy ONLY original !!!For me not interesting speak about how it build,and dimensions.
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Feb 5, 2013 09:26PM)
I know the prop inside and out. I've worked on the Gaughn model and I own a Wellington myself. As far as how the design may have changed over time well, that's how things go. A builder can make the same prop for years but, change the design or the way it's manufactured to either improve the prop or save some money in production.

I've got two Modern Arts built by Owen Redwine ... that's another story. What's interesting is there are some significant improvements from one model to the next. I thought once you have your jigs and design .. things should pretty much stay the same.

I was wrong ...

Steve
Message: Posted by: hugmagic (Feb 6, 2013 09:18PM)
Materials change or become unavailable and feedback from customers to improve an items are both items that can cause designs to change. My products, as most guys that have been in the business this long, are always changing to small degrees. Think about lacquer paint, Krylon, and the use of laminates in magic building that was unheard of before. Necessity becomes the mother of invention and change.

Richard
Message: Posted by: Eldon (Feb 6, 2013 10:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-05 14:28, Illucifer wrote:
My understanding from a reliable source is that David had it built with no bevel. That is a fairly significant difference, in my opinion. My information could be wrong, I grant that. I'll defer to Steve if he's actually seen the piece up close.
[/quote]

I always thought the bevel was one of the neatest subtlety of the illusion.
Message: Posted by: Sorcerer (Feb 7, 2013 01:02PM)
I had already noticed that design of the side rails of David's origami was different. I had never watched carefully, but you are right: in addition to different side rails there is another big difference, much more than ornamental (sorry to contradict you, Cheezaday). I've watched video again and it's clearly seen "something" that I had never seen at other Welligton nor Gaughan's models. Oddly this difference does exist in other fake origami... After years you can always learn something new, this is a very interesting thread :)
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 7, 2013 01:04PM)
Totally agree with you Eldon and Richard!
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 7, 2013 01:13PM)
You are very attentive to details Sorcerer!!! I exactly speak about this....but may be people believe more to your words.For me very strange, prototype Origami illusion ( Doug Henning) have one design,second illusion (David Copperfield) have other design, and after all origami"s almost the same and like D.Henning?
Message: Posted by: Sorcerer (Feb 7, 2013 02:10PM)
Sure Serg! ;) As the proud owner of a Gaughan, I'm in love with this prop, so I find all details and variations fascinating.

I've been searching a little more and I'll go a step further:
This different design we are talking about appears at the very first patent and remains at the recently renewed one, but I had never seen it in any of the manufactured props (except DC)

Guess the right thing in this case would go to the source, only Jim Steinmeyer knows all the details and design evolution. I'm sure the story of this illusion could be the matter for a lecture.
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 7, 2013 04:10PM)
By the way Sorcerer I reviewed the video of D.C. again and again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ElNtH8i7O0 and even find second link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Ua3yFGelo .So I think D.C. version have not bevel on tot,instead have additional step between legs on bottom, and side rails not semi-transparent and little wider then(Henning and all modern).Another design of mirror and mount the casters underneath the legs does not matter.But you are right, I ask from Jim Steinmeyer,i just send message to him now...
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 7, 2013 04:12PM)
Sorry top bevel...
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Feb 7, 2013 06:03PM)
That is correct, Serg. As I mentioned above, no bevel. My understanding is that David requested it this way.
Message: Posted by: Mad Jack (Feb 8, 2013 05:53PM)
I'm sure several things influenced David's decision to slightly alter the design of his Origami. 1) He knew that the CAMERA would be critical of the unusual shape of a beveled table (something most of us don't have to worry about). 2) He would have total control of not only lighting, but camera perspective, thus allowing him to increase the size of the "fins" under the table while actually INCREASING the deceptiveness of HIS prop. 3) Aesthetically, the prop is incredible for David. Watch the video again and notice how the lines that attach the "bird perch" to the mirror seem to match the angled lines in his set pieces perfectly... David is a master of this. His prop fit HIM. Plain and simple.

Just my random thought...
Mad Jack
Message: Posted by: Matthew W (Feb 8, 2013 08:47PM)
I just have to share this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizXACXwwwY
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Feb 8, 2013 09:54PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-08 21:47, Matthew W wrote:
I just have to share this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizXACXwwwY
[/quote]

OH MY GOD!!!! That is the biggest knock off of a performance I have ever seen!
Message: Posted by: Mad Jack (Feb 9, 2013 12:21AM)
Wait... That wasn't David Copperfield? Seriously though... I just threw-up in my mouth watching that :(
Message: Posted by: hugmagic (Feb 9, 2013 12:01PM)
I guess the parachute did not fit on the stage in the theme park.
Message: Posted by: serg (Feb 9, 2013 12:42PM)
Believe me I see before about 200 knock off Origami copies, and about 10 exactly like D.C.design( they think,that his illusions look like D.C) But in reality his origami is terrible, and even so should not be called ORIGAMI. By the way this link ....build in China. All this copy (knock off) is very very sad for the illusion art and creator...very embarrassing for this magicians to the audience :-( To many copy in the world....I advise to not even talk about it, it's not interesting to normal people.Lets talk about something good!!! It is precisely point Mad Jack.Wait on answer from Jim Steinmeyer.
Message: Posted by: ArielIllusionist (Nov 6, 2013 09:46PM)
I'm looking for a JG used Origami but in good condition. If anyone knows someone who is selling it, let me know. I would also consider a Wellington. You can email me at rema0612@verizon.net
Message: Posted by: videokideo (Nov 7, 2013 12:57PM)
I knew that wasnt Copperfield in that video when half his collar fell down flat at the end of the routine!

ArielIllusionist....when you reach 50 posts you will see a "for sale" section. I noticed Taylor Reed has a JG in new condition for sale at 5500.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=529957&forum=79&0
Message: Posted by: ArielIllusionist (Nov 27, 2013 02:55AM)
Thanks videokideo. I think he sold it already. I've been in contact w/him. Yes, I try to post but I'm so busy. But hopefully I will reach that in the near future. Again, if you know someone, would you email me?