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..6~7~8~9~10..19~20~21 [Next]
Jon Allen
View Profile
V.I.P.
England
1711 Posts

Profile of Jon Allen
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

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?


Hi Craig,

You bring up a very interesting point, probably inadvertently.

You said I improved DDLT. Thank you; I do too. I do feel the increased impact created by the use of the gimmick outweighs the use of it. In fact, Richard Kaufman said in Genii that it was one of the best uses for a card gimmick he had ever seen. I think only on three occasions has anyone asked to examine the cards. Part of why such a minuscule percentage is in the routining.

I changed the original routine and created a more magical moment. I use my effect over the original because of the presentation it allows me to perform the original doesn't allow me and the increased impact the gimmick offers.

One cannot apply the same justification here. You wrote "David's effect" but you are wrong. It is not his effect; it is Bruno Hennig's. David is introducing an unexaminable prop to achieve exactly the same effect as it already exists. As such, he is not bringing anything new to The Card to Box *effect* so you cannot group this and Double Back together. I can achieve the same effect as Mystery Solved with an ungimmicked perspex box; I cannot achieve the same effect as Double Back without the gimmick. I am sure there will be a semantics issue...

What can be said for it is that the size is such that it can be carried around easily in a pocket.

When different props that do the same effect are on the market, magicians have to ask themselves what each prop offers. The same goes for wallets. As such, the question is, "What does this bring to the table (pun intended) that doesn't already exist?"

Btw, I agree that my Destination Box and this one cannot be compared. Two different effects and premises.
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
Order the bar-raising DVD set 'Connection' at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
Jon Allen
View Profile
V.I.P.
England
1711 Posts

Profile of Jon Allen
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:
"... 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?


I'd be more than happy to answer that one!

:-)
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
Order the bar-raising DVD set 'Connection' at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:
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?


Well I can't be bothered to argue with you. Funny you accuse me of having an agenda, yet you are defending a product of a company you have a long standing relationship with....

Oh and really, you would hand this out...really....yeah right.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1335 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

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?


Hi Craig,

You bring up a very interesting point, probably inadvertently.

You said I improved DDLT. Thank you; I do too. I do feel the increased impact created by the use of the gimmick outweighs the use of it. In fact, Richard Kaufman said in Genii that it was one of the best uses for a card gimmick he had ever seen. I think only on three occasions has anyone asked to examine the cards. Part of why such a minuscule percentage is in the routining.

I changed the original routine and created a more magical moment. I use my effect over the original because of the presentation it allows me to perform the original doesn't allow me and the increased impact the gimmick offers.

One cannot apply the same justification here. You wrote "David's effect" but you are wrong. It is not his effect; it is Bruno Hennig's. David is introducing an unexaminable prop to achieve exactly the same effect as it already exists. As such, he is not bringing anything new to The Card to Box *effect* so you cannot group this and Double Back together. I can achieve the same effect as Mystery Solved with an ungimmicked perspex box; I cannot achieve the same effect as Double Back without the gimmick. I am sure there will be a semantics issue...

What can be said for it is that the size is such that it can be carried around easily in a pocket.

When different props that do the same effect are on the market, magicians have to ask themselves what each prop offers. The same goes for wallets. As such, the question is, "What does this bring to the table (pun intended) that doesn't already exist?"

Btw, I agree that my Destination Box and this one cannot be compared. Two different effects and premises.


Jon you and I are never going to see eye to eye and most definitely will never 'get on'. You were very rude to me and Blackpool this when all I wanted to do was spend money with you this is not something I will ever forget.

However I also have never had a bad thing to say about you or your products. You are a good performer and many of your effects are very commercial. I personally use a few different effects of your including Silent Treatment (after you eventually sold it to me).

I tell you this because I want you to know I do not appreciate your saying I bring up 'an interesting point, probably inadvertently'. I am not an idiot Jon, neither are you so I would at expect you to not treat me like one.

Now regarding your post, I agree Double Back is an improvement however to an average laymen there is no real difference between your effect and the original. You could perform Double Back then later on they good see a good performance of The Last Trick of Dr Daley and they would not be able to explain the difference. In fact if they were asked to describe the effects they would probably describe them identically.

With Mystery Solved the improvement is the box is clear. To the average audience this is now a different effect depending on the presentation. Using the same example as above a performer could perform the Bruno effect then Mystery Solved and get two different descriptions.

Also you say that David is introducing an unexaminable prop to achieve exactly the same effect as the original. Isn't that what you did with Destination Box? Have 'the move' when you tip the contents of the box out that box cannot immediately be examined. If they were to look in it they would see the secret. The only option is to put the box away and focus on the contents. So how is this different to what David has done?
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
So would I Jon, I've used your box at every show for about 5 years, it's fantastic.
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Aha, the truth is out, he hurt your feelings, and you are sticking up for a mate.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1335 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, tricktac wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:
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?


Well I can't be bothered to argue with you. Funny you accuse me of having an agenda, yet you are defending a product of a company you have a long standing relationship with....

Oh and really, you would hand this out...really....yeah right.


I had to hold my tongue on forums when I was part of the WPR as whatever I said reflected badly on WMS. Now that is no longer the case so I can be myself. This is me being myself and told being told what I cannot or can say.

Let me be clear I don't give a *** if David sells any of these boxes. I haven't discussed this thread with him. I am happy however to call out someone that either doesn't have a clue what they are talking about or has an agenda. That person is you. It's I pity you don't want to discuss this anymore you are probably selling more boxes for WMS than any trailer. David must love you.

Craig

Craig
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Well done you, finally showing your true colours.
Fatgumbo
View Profile
Veteran user
Melbourne, Australia
304 Posts

Profile of Fatgumbo
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, tricktac wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:
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?



Well I can't be bothered to argue with you. Funny you accuse me of having an agenda, yet you are defending a product of a company you have a long standing relationship with....

Oh and really, you would hand this out...really....yeah right.


You can't be bothered arguing because you don't have any more points to argue. Unfortunately all the points you brought up in your argument were invalid and irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. Also you think that an effect performed with the destination box is a stronger effect than an effect performed with the clarity box, but your audiences will beg to differ.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1335 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
I love Jon's products. He's a clever performer and a brilliant creator. His Fool Us performance was great and I have always enjoyed watching him.

It doesn't mean he's always right though.

I find it amusing that you feel I'm showing my true colours because I'm disagreeing with you.

Funny
Jamie Ferguson
View Profile
Inner circle
Alba Gu Bràth
3642 Posts

Profile of Jamie Ferguson
I'm happy to see Craig back on form. I've missed him.

Welcome back Craig Smile
When the chips are down, the duvet is uncomfortable.
tricktac
View Profile
New user
U.K
73 Posts

Profile of tricktac
Well, erm actually, I've used both the clarity box, and the destination box, so I know which worked best for MY audience, thanks very much.
Craig Petty
View Profile
V.I.P.
UK
1335 Posts

Profile of Craig Petty
I thought you weren't going to argue.

That didn't last long!

The fact that you used the Coarity Box means you purchased it. So at some point you must have thought that having a clear box was better than Destination Box as you stated that you used Destination Box for 5 years and Clarity Box is a recent product. By spending money on something you must have at least liked the idea. I imagine that having performed with the clarity box you decided Destination Box is better - why was that?

Oh and Jamie, thanks for the welcome.

Craig.
Jon Allen
View Profile
V.I.P.
England
1711 Posts

Profile of Jon Allen
Craig, we do and will see eye to eye on some things. There's just more that we don't.
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
Order the bar-raising DVD set 'Connection' at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
Fatgumbo
View Profile
Veteran user
Melbourne, Australia
304 Posts

Profile of Fatgumbo
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Craig Petty wrote:

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?


Hi Craig,

You bring up a very interesting point, probably inadvertently.

You said I improved DDLT. Thank you; I do too. I do feel the increased impact created by the use of the gimmick outweighs the use of it. In fact, Richard Kaufman said in Genii that it was one of the best uses for a card gimmick he had ever seen. I think only on three occasions has anyone asked to examine the cards. Part of why such a minuscule percentage is in the routining.

I changed the original routine and created a more magical moment. I use my effect over the original because of the presentation it allows me to perform the original doesn't allow me and the increased impact the gimmick offers.

One cannot apply the same justification here. You wrote "David's effect" but you are wrong. It is not his effect; it is Bruno Hennig's. David is introducing an unexaminable prop to achieve exactly the same effect as it already exists. As such, he is not bringing anything new to The Card to Box *effect* so you cannot group this and Double Back together. I can achieve the same effect as Mystery Solved with an ungimmicked perspex box; I cannot achieve the same effect as Double Back without the gimmick. I am sure there will be a semantics issue...

What can be said for it is that the size is such that it can be carried around easily in a pocket.

When different props that do the same effect are on the market, magicians have to ask themselves what each prop offers. The same goes for wallets. As such, the question is, "What does this bring to the table (pun intended) that doesn't already exist?"

Btw, I agree that my Destination Box and this one cannot be compared. Two different effects and premises.



The examinability issue with double back is a much bigger issue than with mystery solved. Yes your box and mystery solved can't be compared in premise, but they can be compared in practicality and impact on audience (to which yours is sub-par).
Jon Allen
View Profile
V.I.P.
England
1711 Posts

Profile of Jon Allen
Hi Fatgumbo,

Sub-par in practicality and impact? Can you expand a bit on why you feel this to be the case and was is level par? What have your audiences' reactions been to both?

Regards,
Jon
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
Order the bar-raising DVD set 'Connection' at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk
simon hughes
View Profile
Veteran user
London
326 Posts

Profile of simon hughes
Destination box is the strongest close up trick I do by far. Nothing comes close and it's an incredible prop.

If you hold up a mirror to compare both props you'll see many differences.

Reflect on that.
Fatgumbo
View Profile
Veteran user
Melbourne, Australia
304 Posts

Profile of Fatgumbo
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, Jon Allen wrote:
Hi Fatgumbo,

Sub-par in practicality and impact? Can you expand a bit on why you feel this to be the case and was is level par? What have your audiences' reactions been to both?

Regards,
Jon


Hi certainly. You have previously mentioned (not on this thread) using the destination box for walk around by giving it to the spectator to hold at the start of the routine. What do you think is more practical, producing a glass box from your pocket and giving it to your spectator to hold, then place back in your pocket at the end, or carrying that wooden suitcase with you, and carrying it with both hands to the next table?

In terms of impact, a card which has been seen in full view the whole time and in the spectators hands which undoubtedly could not have been switched makes for a stronger impact. I observed this when switching from kennedy's mystery box to mark southworth's the box.
simon hughes
View Profile
Veteran user
London
326 Posts

Profile of simon hughes
Your talking nonsense.
Fatgumbo
View Profile
Veteran user
Melbourne, Australia
304 Posts

Profile of Fatgumbo
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, simon hughes wrote:
Your talking nonsense.


If you want to raise a point for an argument, you have to at least point out where you think I'm wrong. At this moment, you have zero credibility. Nice try though.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » David Penns Mystery Solved (131 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..19~20~21 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 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