Here’s the ad:

QUESTION: What's the most familiar book in the world? The one book that EVERYONE has?

Which book boasts a larger circulation than the best selling book of all time, the Bible?

ANSWER: THE PHONE BOOK

The book test ranks among the most astonishing mental feats that can be performed. The bigger the book, the more astonishing the effect in the eyes of your audience.

And they don't grow 'em much bigger than the phone book!

The phone book is the most familiar book there is, we all have one and you can find them pretty much anywhere. Mental Directory will enable you to perform a mind boggling mentalism demonstration anywhere, anytime, with any phone book.

A prediction is made and sealed in an envelope.
An ordinary phone book is opened at ANY page and a word is noted.
Your prediction is shown to match the selected word EXACTLY!

Your prediction is sealed in an envelope from the start.
The envelope is in full view the entire time.
Only one card is inside the envelope. Only one word is written on the card.
No secret writing or difficult sleights are used.
The phone book can be borrowed.
Can be repeated immediately!




I checked this out. It’s a good idea. I figured the basic method out immediately upon watching the performance but I’m not sure if it’s that the method is not deceptive enough or if my prior knowledge of mentalism allowed me to figure it out. I don’t think the average person would figure it out but I’m not sure.

Even though I basically knew how it was done by the performance, I still had questions and Steve has some good little subtleties here to make the handling seamless.

The ad is correct, except that the claim that the phone book can be borrowed is a bit tricky. There is advance preparation. I can’t say anymore without giving away the method but one would need to take care with borrowing a phone book to ensure the book is usable.

Overall I think it’s a good effect and even if you don’t use the exact performance on the video (which uses an actual monkey as a spectator), you will probably ponder ways to use the principle. In other words, the knowledge will probably come in handy someday, one way or another.

My big problem here is with the fact that I just don’t think this is a ten dollar effect. When I look at Corinda’s 13 Steps (which retails for around $25.00) and see literally hundreds of brilliant mentalism effects and ideas which are still powerful and effective (some as they are and some needing to be modernized), I can’t help but think this belongs as one idea in a book rather than a single effect for $10.00.

Good effect, good idea, possibly not deceptive enough, and probably belongs among a group of effects in a larger publication.


Holly

Thanks for the 1st full review.

>The phone book is the most familiar book there is, we all have one

I'm not so sure about that. The last 3 phonebooks I got went straight to the paperbasket. Who uses a phonebook nowadays with internet. Even at my office I don't see them anymore laying around.

It's most likely still the most "familiar" book. It has been in use so much in the past. Maybe not the most used book.

J

Anyone using this? I have a phone book test Ive used before but have not in a long while. I guess the reason is there are much lighter and smaller books to use these days. Here the trashman will not pick them up unless you bury them in the bottom of your rubbish can.

Also see my review here: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=159&0

Holly,

While I respect your opinion, I must respecively disagree with your assessment of the value of the effect. Here are some of the comments I posted in response to a request for information about the effect posed by someone else in the "Penny For Your Thoughts" forum:

"Mental Directory is very clever -- well worth the nominal $9.97 cost to download the explanatory video; however, it it totally different, in both context and method from either the Richardson or Kohler effects referred to (in Pennies). Unlike those effects it does NOT result in the divination of a telephone number but, instead the PREDICTION (the method does not lend itself to a simple revelation) of a WORD -- specifically a subject heading in a yellow page directory. Alternatively, the same method could be adapted to predict a SURNAME in a white page directory. Apart from that significant difference, and the fact that some advance preparation is required, it IS similar to the Richardson and Kohler effects in that it CAN be done with a borrowed directory, either yellow or white pages, and the directory is not gimmicked in any way.

The method is clever adaptation of that originally used in the old 'Al Baker Dictionary Test,' later in Walter Gibson's 1956 'Predictionary Mystery' (not to be confused with the recent 'Predictionary' book test by Devin Knight and Frank Velasco) and most recently in 'Al's Topper' by Juan Tamariz described in his 'Five Points In Magic.'"

While it certainly COULD be included in a larger anthology of effects, given the plethora of single effect DVDs currently marketed at far higher prices, this one strikes me as a good bargain at only $10. The preparation required is minimal and although, for a variety of reasons, I would hardly place "Mental Directory" among the world's best book tests it certainly compares favorably with many others that sell for many times its cost, especially in consideration of the flexibility it affords (BORROWED yellow pages, white pages or dictionary), the ease of preparation (the performers does NOT need access to the book to be used prior to the performance (provided sufficient similarity to the prepared gimmick can be assured).

In his review (referenced in this thread) Michaelmystic attributes the origin of the method to Lubor Fiedler -- that may well be the case, but if so I'm not familiar with such an effect by Fiedler (who created many effects that I am not familiar with); however, as I noted above, it is VERY SIMILAR to (albeit not exactly the same as the earlier Baker and Gibson effects.

Hi Dick,

Thanks for the informative post. I appreciate your thoughts. And you may be right about its value. You’re certainly right that it’s a clever idea. I like the principle better than the actual effect. I tried to be as objective as possible but of course my view of it is based partially on personal preference. I don’t personally like some of the handling, specifically the way the performer must handle the book while the participant looks at the word. I find it awkward and suspicious. It tipped me off immediately to the method.

While I wish I could better gauge its value to others, I can only really best gauge its value to me personally. That’s why varying views are so valuable. So yours is duly noted and hopefully it will help others make a better informed decision about purchasing this product.

Thanks for your input.


Holly

I love how, unlike most effects utilizing this principle, Steve's is completely justified. Having the prediction envelope as a page marker was a brilliant move.

I don't think many kids under the age of 15 or 16 have EVER used a phone book. Not that this, or mentalism at all would be a kids effect, but I tend to think that a phone book is NOT as common as some may think, even in the 20-30 year range.

As a matter of fact, I got mine today and like others, it went right in file 13. And previous to that, I hadn't seen one since last years got filed there too.

Whether they use it or not, most Canadians at least have a phone book... I know I do, and we rarely use it.

I love this effect, and agree with the Michaelmystic2003 review in the other thread, it was spot on. For all of you debating the validity of using a phone book, and its place in society, I offer you an alternative solution...Try using this with a paperback dictionary. I have set this effect up using my old Websters paperback dictionary, as every single page has words on the corners, just like the phone book. The only difference is, I use smaller envelopes to present this. Also, unlike a phone book, it is easier to carry with you, and there are many more words that are possible to choose from. Just some food for thought.

I went to read the ad for Mental Directory, but didn't find a link to the video performance. Has the link been removed or is my eyesight becoming worse as I age?

Regards, Steve

I found no link to video performance either??

Gentlemen,

I would guess the performance demo must be withheld due to the probability that the average mentalist will almost certainly be able to figure out the method by watching it.


Holly

That's my assumption too, and I'm fairly certain it's the correct. one. Not saying the method is obvious, but most people with any mentalism background would likely be able to figure it out.

Hi Holly,

Perhaps you are correct. Thanks.

Regards, Steve

Quick question on this effect.. In your description, you mention that a "word" is chosen, and that word is predicted accuratly. Does it have to be a word? I currently use Banachek's "Ring of Truth". Would you advise me to stay with that current method, or go with Mr. Fearson's?

I like Barrie Richardson's approach, but making the gimmick is quite difficult. Much more difficult than using a ring. Realistically, I'd like to find out what Keith Barry was using in one of his specials. He used a business card with a hole cut out of it. I'm sure it is a Kenton Knepper idea as he is one of his consultants. But, I've looked through all the Kenton Knepper material that I have, and have not been able to locate it.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a better method? Excluding the Kohler method, it's a wee bit to overrpriced for what it is, just my opinion.

Best,
Aaron

Aaron,

I'm baffled by your reference to Banachek's "Ring of Truth" as it is a "who is the liar and who is the truth-teller" effect and has nothing to do with a telephone directory or any other book test while the Frearson effect is designed as a prediction effect using a telephone book, but as someone suggested in an earlier post to this thread, it could easily be adapted to predict a word chosen in a dictionary.

Frearson's telephone directory test relies on a very different concept that either Barrie Richardson's "One In A Half-Million" telephone book test or Larry Becker's "The Telephone Book Mystery" which is based on Richardson's and uses the 'Line Locator,' a plastic bookmark produced by the Levenger Company, which was easier to 'fix' than Richardson's paperclip. Unfortunately Levenger is no longer producing or selling the 'Line Locator." I refer to all such gimmicks as 'limited viewing devices' and several such gimmicks have been suggested and/or marketed over the years. One is the “Magician’s Bookmark” marketed by Jay Leslie of Leslie’s House of Enchantment which, while designed for use in a standard book test using an ungimmicked book, can certainly be used just as easily for a telephone book test. The gimmick you say Keith Barry used is not a Kenton Knepper creation, but is described in Banachek's “What’s All This Flap About a Phone Book” effect in his 2007 best-seller "Psychological Subtleties 2" and may go back even further. However, none of those methods (Frearson's, Richardson's, Becker's, Leslie's or Banachek's) have anything in common with Kohler's other than that they can all use a telephone directory.

Banachek's "Ring Of Truth" is an altogether different effect and is unrelated to any book test.

An addendum to my previous post:

The use of a business card as a 'limited viewing device' as described by Banachek idea can be traced to “Wordo” an published in the 1940s (as Banachek acknowledged in the introduction to his telephone book test in PS2). An improved version by Fred Peterson titled “Puzzle of the Pages*” appeared in Phoenix No. 221 (January 26, 1951). Max Maven improved it further in his “Isolation” book test. The concept clearly pre-dates Knepper and all of those I mentioned earlier.

Just wanted to clarify.