The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » David Penns Mystery Solved (131 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..19~20~21 [Next]
LeeEarle
View Profile
New user
4 Posts

Profile of LeeEarle
Here is one recovering magician's solution to the problems presented:

1. Why use the box? "To keep the object safe" is a null program since the object would be equally safe just sitting on the table, bar, or someone's hand. Obviously, the box is necessary to do the switch but unless there is an easily understood reason to have the darned thing at hand, it will always seem affected and, thus, suspicious.

2. Since the box is indeed gimmicked, leaving it in view after the 'dump' is problematic. This suggestions covers that with a very innocuous 'cleanup'.

Were I forced to use it, I'd design and print a liner closely to fit all 6 sides of the cube on the inside - something glossy and colorful that would mimic retail packaging, complete with a UPC code. It would also be designed to conceal the eventual bill, card, or billet that must be installed in preparation. The liner would be pulled out of the box to facilitate removing the contents, in this case a tuft of the 'shredded currency' that's available from multiple sources. The patter line could be along the lines of, "The ad copy says there's over $100.00 in shredded bills making up this little haystack. It's a shame we couldn't reassemble them into spendable currency. Still, since the box has an affinity for money, let's try it with a single bill - one of yours, signed, please." Shortly after the 'bill' appears in the box and is dumped out, the little haystack of shredded currency could be stuffed inside which would allow the box to remain present, if not fully examinable, laying on one side with the open top toward the audience.

Click here to view attached image.
paperinick
View Profile
Inner circle
my faro is starting to look nice after
1127 Posts

Profile of paperinick
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2014, Funnybaldbloke wrote:
a subtlety from Steve Bedwell to enable you to hear something rattling inside

Intriguing. Where was this published?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to say "scr*w you" if you persist. [Voltaire Smile]
saysold1
View Profile
Eternal Order
Recovering Cafe addict with only
10498 Posts

Profile of saysold1
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2014, LeeEarle wrote:
Here is one recovering magician's solution to the problems presented:

1. Why use the box? "To keep the object safe" is a null program since the object would be equally safe just sitting on the table, bar, or someone's hand. Obviously, the box is necessary to do the switch but unless there is an easily understood reason to have the darned thing at hand, it will always seem affected and, thus, suspicious.

2. Since the box is indeed gimmicked, leaving it in view after the 'dump' is problematic. This suggestions covers that with a very innocuous 'cleanup'.

Were I forced to use it, I'd design and print a liner closely to fit all 6 sides of the cube on the inside - something glossy and colorful that would mimic retail packaging, complete with a UPC code. It would also be designed to conceal the eventual bill, card, or billet that must be installed in preparation. The liner would be pulled out of the box to facilitate removing the contents, in this case a tuft of the 'shredded currency' that's available from multiple sources. The patter line could be along the lines of, "The ad copy says there's over $100.00 in shredded bills making up this little haystack. It's a shame we couldn't reassemble them into spendable currency. Still, since the box has an affinity for money, let's try it with a single bill - one of yours, signed, please." Shortly after the 'bill' appears in the box and is dumped out, the little haystack of shredded currency could be stuffed inside which would allow the box to remain present, if not fully examinable, laying on one side with the open top toward the audience.


So cool to have you here Lee... thanks for sharing
Creator of The SvenPad Supreme- "One of the most versatile and well made utility devices I have ever used. Highly recommended." Bob Cassidy www.SvenPads.com
Funnybaldbloke
View Profile
Veteran user
Blackpool, England
377 Posts

Profile of Funnybaldbloke
Paperinick I've PM'd you.
Tomorrow's bottom of the bill...Today!
Fatgumbo
View Profile
Veteran user
Melbourne, Australia
301 Posts

Profile of Fatgumbo
Are people actually saying the box is suspicious? WOW really...

after you do card to impossible location, card tranposition or whatever, you've already established you are awesome at 'sleight of hand'. You hands are obviously ' too quick' for their eyes to catch.

If you do mystery card box by putting the mystery card on the card on the table, they will assume you've switched it with your god like quick hand skills. But if you put a box in their hand for safekeeping, so you can't get to it, and its clear so you can obviously see whats inside, what could possibly be more fair?

F
Aus
View Profile
Special user
Australia
925 Posts

Profile of Aus
I only ever browse this section of the Café and rarely if ever comment on things but after reading all 5 pages of this thread I was left a little amused by the antics.

We magicians are our own worst enemy we over complicate things unnecessarily, I still do the double lift from Royal Road but if I wanted to I could get the DVD Double Take by Greg Wilson from a magic shop and learn over a dozen different ways to do it. How did holding two cards as one get so complicated?

Methods seem to me to be the modern day currency for magicians these days, when the real factor should be how the method affects the effect of a trick and how it is perceived, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately even this seems to be a point of analysis paralysis since the semantics of a clear box being questioned as a secure way of holding an object seems to be a sticking point. With security lock boxes in banks, treasure chests (a form of box) and clear display boxes in jewellery stores and the like, are we really going to waste sleep on this issue?

One thing I see increasingly with judgement of a trick is the linear perspective we all seem to judge a new effect by. There seems to be no conceptual thinking on what I the magician can bring to this effect, if said magician sees a flaw or something wrong the usual result is the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. So many issues with tricks we relegate to the draw of no return could so easily be solved with a little thinking.

As far as suspiciousness goes, three things need to be considered, the trick, the prop and our actions, granted sometimes one of these things can affect the other but as I said before a little thinking might just remedy that. Tricks that draw suspicion by their own nature are tricks like a T&R card effect where an original state is changed then brought back again by whatever means; this is why I never liked versions of the trick that couldn't be examined after. If a coin vanishes from your hand then most probably they will want to see your hand empty, it’s simply the nature of the trick. In terms of this trick however I think you shouldn't have any suspicion since the box is clear offering a sense of openness well maintaining security, a point which I feel won’t be lost on your audience. As far as the rest, we will just have to wait and see.

Just as a side note if you have the November 2014 issue of Genii is to check out “Clear Glass Concept” in Magicana for the same idea using a drinking glass, sometimes the simple things are usually the best.

Magically

Aus
Jon Allen
View Profile
V.I.P.
England
1701 Posts

Profile of Jon Allen
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg
Paragon 3D - the most incredible Card to Clear Box you will ever own. Be fooled here: http://youtu.be/GQxRZ1OGkUo
The Silent Treatment - Digital Edition: this iconic routine just got upgraded! Watch - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phTDUhX0m9o
Watch the brilliant effect, Rule of Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CytuXsCbL0 and order it from www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
Order the bar-raising DVD set 'Connection' at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
3054 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
I think the fact that this box is being marketed at both magicians and mentalists is causing some of the confusion on this thread.

The examinability of the box seems to be more of an issue for the magicians. Most mentalists seem more concerned with justifying its existence in the first place. I remain to be convinced that a little, clear perspex box of uncertain origin is the most natural home for a prediction in a pure mentalism routine. But I'd love to be proved wrong.
Tom G
View Profile
Inner circle
2633 Posts

Profile of Tom G
As stated on one of the many other threads, check Alex Linian's take using a regular drinking glass in the November Genii. As it stands Paperclipped is as clean and organic as it gets.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1320 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg


Interesting point Jon. Surely the Sam logic could be applied to your routine Double Back. That's a routine that's based on an existing routine (Doc Dalleys Last Trick) which you improved and marketed. By improving it you made it unexaminable. I'm assuming though you feel the the fact it can't be examined was worth it for the improvements you made.

As you say not being able to examine something is a consideration so how do you justify using your effect instead of the original which is the same effect but is examinable. And whatever justification you come up with why can't that be applied to David's effect?
Christopher Taylor
View Profile
V.I.P.
British Columbia Canada
2132 Posts

Profile of Christopher Taylor
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg


Jon, I cannot agree more; both on your point about the newest toy and Mr. de Cova. In fact, I have been using another innovention of Alexander de Cova's for many years to facilitate a switch. The device is totally above suspicion and can be fully examined by a spectator. After all this time using it, the switch is never noticed and the device is put a way leaving me completely clean. Sometimes, I even have the spectator remove and open the billet. The device that facilitates Mr. de Cova's brilliant switch is called a paperclip.

CT
Christopher Taylor

Member P.E.A.

www.taylorimagineering.com

MAKING MENTALISM MORE IMPOSSIBLE
Christopher Taylor
View Profile
V.I.P.
British Columbia Canada
2132 Posts

Profile of Christopher Taylor
Upon reflection, I feel that I may have come across as being overly dismissive regarding the value of this switching device. Performing as magician, the box could certainly prove worthwhile and could add an extra note of mystery to a magic effect. Speaking personally, in terms of my persona as a mentalist's however, I want any prop I use to be invisible or completely innocuous. Hence my preference for the simple paperclip.

All the best,

Christopher
Christopher Taylor

Member P.E.A.

www.taylorimagineering.com

MAKING MENTALISM MORE IMPOSSIBLE
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
It seems that magicians will jump on the newest toy purely from the methodological point of view. You have to ask yourself why you would want to perform with any prop. One thing mentioned in another thread is that a card in a clear box is a completely different effect to the card in an opaque box. You need to decide what you want from your box of choice. Do you want the appearance of the card inside the box to be a surprise... or do you want people to see the card and wonder how it was able to be in the box all the time? Is your audience management good enough to leave a clear box on a table, or in someone's hand, and be confident they will not want to have a peek at the card or open up the box? These are the important elements to performance that sometimes get lost in the excitement of a new release.

Magicians will talk amongst themselves (at some length!) about examinable props. Most don't need to be but what will you do when that one eagle eyed, suspicious or intelligent person wants to examine the box? "It will never happen!" some say. That's what they said about the Titanic sinking. While it is not the most important aspect to consider, it is *something* to consider.

When it comes to clear boxes, you may want to check out Alexander de Cova's Lager Switch. It is brilliant! The box is examinable and if you want to give it away, you can. You won't, but you could. In the following video clip, he uses a double backed card which may confuse you but it is all legitimate. Here it is: http://youtu.be/DlJ7ofptpvg


Interesting point Jon. Surely the Sam logic could be applied to your routine Double Back. That's a routine that's based on an existing routine (Doc Dalleys Last Trick) which you improved and marketed. By improving it you made it unexaminable. I'm assuming though you feel the the fact it can't be examined was worth it for the improvements you made.

As you say not being able to examine something is a consideration so how do you justify using your effect instead of the original which is the same effect but is examinable. And whatever justification you come up with why can't that be applied to David's effect?


Big flaw in your logic is that Penn's box isn't an improvement on Jon's. It's a step backwards.

In Jon's not only is the mystery of the box much better, you can load anything, card, ring, note, coin etc.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1320 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
Firstly I'm not taking about the quality or perceived quality or usefulness of a prop. I am referring specifically to Jon's comment that the examinability of any prop should be an issue and not dismissed. If he feels this way then he must have the same thoughts about his own trick Double Back which faces the same issues.

Secondly I am not comparing Mystery Solved to Destination Box I am comparing Mystery Solved to Double Back. Your opinion is that Mystery Solved is not an improvement on Destination Box which is fine that's your opinion but that has nothing to do with what I posted. If you wish to reply to my post then answer the question - do you feel that Mystery Solved not being examinable an issue? If so do you feel this is also an issue with Double Back?

For the record I used to use Destination Box and stopped as it was too bulky for me. I have tried many boxes and have been unhappy with all of them. I currently use Card 2 Phone for a Mercury Folded Card revelation. Will I use Mystery Solved? Maybe, maybe not. However unlike you I will not judge it without having even played with it or watch the DVD.

Craig
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Well although I can't judge the prop without seeing it, I can judge the premise. And in my opinion a box where you can see the climax as soon as you display it is a backwards step.
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
I must also say that this does look very well made, and the illusion is great.
Ustaad
View Profile
Inner circle
Iindia - States
5629 Posts

Profile of Ustaad
Nice to see you here Craig. Smile

Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

. . . I have tried many boxes and have been unhappy with all of them.


. . . then, probably you might like the Lager Switch by Alexander de Cova. Smile

On the Lager Switch, you might like to check out -----> Latest and Greatest? » » Clarity Box vs. 3Sixty vs. Mystery Solved

Smile
MAGIC is a SECRET, without the SECRET, there is no MAGIC.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1320 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
If you are judging the premise then you really shouldn't compare Destination Box and Mystery Solved as they are two totally different effects. Destination box is a card (or object) to impossible location. Mystery Solved is more like Bro John Hammons Mystery Card. A card that has been on display the whole routine becomes the card selected. You would be better off comparing Mystery Card with Mystery Solved.

I personally love the mystery card premise, a card that is clearly seen throughout the routine turns out to be the signed selection. It's very strong and I have played with many versions. I equally like Card to Impossible location but saying the mystery card premise is a step backwards from it is frankly shortsighted. Have you ever tried this premise with audiences? You would be surprised how strong it is. It's one of the reasons I feel David's prop has potential - I love the mystery card plot and this seems to be a very clean and commercial way of doing the same thing.

Craig
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Good point Craig, instead of spending £45 on this,maybe study Bro. John Hamman and others work on mystery card. The Hamman routine is available on DVDs and books and you don't need to do a MCF or have a suspicious looking box.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1320 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
How is the box any more or less suspicious than a big wooden box with little metal tins in it. You keep bringing up issues with David's release that can equaly be applied to Destination Box. I'm sure you don't have an agenda but it's sure coming across like that.

Also you could spend time on looking at Bro John Hamman instead of spending £45 on Mystery Solved. In my opinion Mystery Solved improves the Mystery Card plot by allowing you to isolate the card and hand it to the spectator and eliminate the use of the table meaning it can be done Walkaround. Of course your logic could once again be applied to the Destination Box, why spend £100+ on a Destination Box when you could learn a card under spectators watch routine which would be equally as strong and requires no props other than a pack of cards?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » David Penns Mystery Solved (131 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..19~20~21 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL