Brilliant, recommending a product that hasn't been released and you haven't even seen or used.

You've just lost all credibility with that one post.

Relax Jamie.

As I clearly said, that was based purely on the aesthetics of it, nothing else.

Obviously none of us own it yet, so that parts a given. Common sense I would have thought? ...

The BOX.



Sorry, in no way I would like to sound rude, nor is my intention to show any disrespect towards Peter. All I want to say is, Peter is simply trying to push a prop that doesn't live up to the expectation in my personal view (it’s OK with me if nobody cares for my views ) when compared to already released similar much more logical and effective props. And as for Peter knowing his onions, it doesn't mean that one underestimate others.

OK, once again coming to your point of view and I humbly quote:-



3SIXTY By Wayne Dobson is another similar prop in competition with Mystery Solved. 3SIXTY boasts of being fully examinable at the end (which is also a major selling point in my view). Would you still say the above for Dobson's prop?



This is exactly what 3SIXTY boasts of.


P.S. If one compares the two fresh releases i.e. 3SIXTY By Wayne Dobson and Mystery Solved by David Penn, I would personally pick the 3SIXTY in spite of it needing a little table management. I am restricting myself by saying table management so as not to expose the working of 3SIXTY.

I find all the excitement over a transparent box to be a little odd...do any of them beat an ostin clip or sankey's paperclipped? You can easily ring in both very naturally..

I'm so glad you're back at the café Ustaad.

All I want to do is applaud your thinking.

I don't think it matters about ditching the box quickly. The box is merely a holder for the card. The card is what is most important and not a clear box. Why should the clear box be left out if it is just a 'clear box' and thus 'empty'? It has done its job and no longer needed. Not an issue.

Clever box!

You just cut through the c*** and delivered a dose of reality.

Great point Iain.

Ustaad,

By editing my comments you are misrepresenting them. My reply to you was completely separate from my comment about Peter, so I wasn't comparing you in any manner, shape or form.

But to address your point again: in a mentalism context I don't think the audience should be suspecting the box, so getting rid of it in a hurry shouldn't cause suspicion. Stick it in your pocket and move on to opening the prediction. Why would you do anything else?

Ustaad, even though 3SIXTY being fully examinable " is exactly what 3SIXTY boasts of", what I'm trying to say is it doesn't need to be.

If the heat is on a clear box instead of the prediciton, then something isn't being done correctly. It's really no different to people asking to see the paperclip in paperclipped (which I use regularly).

Looks really good and for what it's worth who cares about the music it's the effect we as magicians are interested in lol

I just think it is a very odd way to hold a box. Normally it would be at fingertips?

OK, point taken. Thank you.



So may I ask why the great Mr. Dobson leave the box for the spectator to examin?

OK, just forget it, I will reply. I think it is to simply strengthen the illusion in the minds of the spectator that nothing hanky-panky is going on. Rather, in fact this would be more applicable for the magician than the novice audience. It is, IMHO, primarily meant to lure the magician in purchasing the effect/ prop.

We are simply the supporters of the creator(s) (whom at times we don’t even know personally) depending how much we like one from the other.

There is never an end to this and I certainly would not like to get into a lengthy debate. I have given my personal view with logic & reason - May be I am right, may be I am wrong.

Thank you.

Good point. David Penn is a master of marketing and spin. That's why he recruited Peter to promote the product, to widen the potential audience who will buy because his name is attached.

I just remember the bending knives gimmick.
in my personal opinion a waste of money.
for mystery solved I see a not convincing
manouver when removing the folded card.
is unnatural and suspect way of doing this.

Ustaad,

Mr Dobson is a magician. I'm commenting on this from the perspective of a mentalist. For all I know, it may be essential in magic for boxes to be examined. I simply have no idea.

Regards, Martin.

Some of you are being WAY too critical. This is a brilliant use of an ancient magic concept, and one that easily deceives spectators. It looks really innocent and unsuspicious. Great idea Dave!

I'm surprised they didn't do a wooden box version so that certain magicians can "magically transform" it into the transparent one...

Brilliant!

Here's an idea: wait until it comes out, go along to a convention (thereby supporting magic in general) and see it demmed, then make an informed opinion?
I hate the !@#$%iness in magic: pages of speculation before the thing's even out, seems unfair and unnecessary to me.
I really find the Forum useful and interesting - but have to sift through the 90% guessing game: thinly veiled attempts to hound the originator into disclosing his methodology and discover 'how it works', equipping the reader to either rip it off, or loftily dismiss it as "it's only IT" or "not another BA principle".
You're grown-ups, no one's making you order the thing.

My view, for what it's worth, after 20 years of doing the card in box, using a myriad of different models.

The magician in me is fascinated by the challenge of having a clear box, with the climax card on view throughout. I got Clarity Box because it was so clean, and remains excellent for stand-up use. For close up use, however....

Take another look at the Tommy Wonder L&L DVD with his presentation of the Card In Box within the contact of an Ambitious Card. The theatricality is faultless - he builds anticipation and genuine amazement when he simply glances at the wooden box on the table and allows the spectators the time to realise where the card might be. This makes a strong case for an opaque box. I also loved Sankey's Paperclipped, but there is something to consider about the impact of having the revelation a surprise rather than signalling it with the clear box. As ever, the impact on the audience and how you involve them in the routine is, for me, the decider - rather than the technology involved.

That said, I'm sure I'll end up getting both this and Wayne Dobson's 3Sixty. But that's because I love boys toys. And it has to be admired that David Penn's handling of this box looks very clean. Plus, he'll almost certainly have put some workable, thorough routines on DVD with it.

My own favourite clear box version is Mark Southworth's 'The Box'. Beautifully deceptive and clean-looking. And no, you can't hand it out for examination and no, it doesn't matter. If they give any thought to the box with such a strong climax, you haven't done it justice, and you present puzzles rather than wonder-making entertainment.

Hmm! OK, That is very reasonable reason. I agree.

Thank you.