Have you heard?

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 1:49 pm

Well I must be an idiot then (I'll say it to save anyone else from having to). I bought it within the first months of its release and had not a clue what the gaff was.

I had the strange notion that part of what I was buying was a secret.

I'm glad to learn that magic secrets are without value and can be discussed and exchanged openly in this forum.

Chris Bailey
Posts: 317
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Chris Bailey » June 6th, 2003, 2:00 pm

Well it IS a magicians forum for magicians. At least I don't THINK people come here to talk about plumbing or sheep herding. One of the things I like about this particular forum is it's full of knowledgable people.

Jeffrey Cowan
Posts: 271
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Bob Kohler & Tim Conover
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Jeffrey Cowan » June 6th, 2003, 2:08 pm

I respectfully submit that the Head Genii has missed the boat on this one. It's wrong to flagrantly expose secrets in the way that has just occurred. This is not a secure site; any person in the world can access it. It's one thing to discuss techniques and methods in a general way that keeps the information from those who do not already know; it is another to openly disclose core information without shame so that the uninformed reader can instantly gleam the secret to an effect. Is this really good for magic? Is it really good for magicians who already own the trick in question?

It's the Head Genii's forum, but I suggest that he revisit the issue and edit his post.

- Jeffrey Cowan
-- Jeffrey Cowan
www.cowan-law.com

User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Glenn Farrington » June 6th, 2003, 2:10 pm

imho...this topic should be closed.
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.

Sean Macfarlane
Posts: 201
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 1:26 pm

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Sean Macfarlane » June 6th, 2003, 2:12 pm

I wouldn't worry about it Dan, it's not like it's on public television. I don't think that many lay people will care about the secret that much. even so, after reading a lengthy thread like this, they wouldn't be able to make heads or tails out it. They would probably find all this boring.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5913
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Bill Mullins » June 6th, 2003, 2:14 pm

Originally posted by Asher:
-No actual recorded dates (late 60's early 70's) Presley Guitar starts playing with the **** shell gaff along with the China town half and other coins that he actually has US PATTANTS on.
Any idea of the patent numbers? I did a cursory search through the USPTO database on their website, and couldn't find anything with Presley Guitar as an inventor.

Also, Thomas Wayne on the Magic Cafe said that the Kohler Holdout System was being protected with patents -- I can't find any completed patents or applications that seem relevant (although I found a number of billiard cue patents from Joe Porper). Can someone who leased one confirm that the Holdout does have patent protection?

Robert Allen
Posts: 616
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Robert Allen » June 6th, 2003, 2:35 pm

Harley, you raise an interesting question and as a bystander here I find the whole thread fascinating. I've been thinking about it quite a bit as an exercise in logic. This is what I've come up with:

1) Would the same hue and cry be raised if the item was $3 instead of $300? I don't think so.

2) High prices for *any* item come as a result of basic market reasons: a) limited production, b) earlier production is higher quality than current production, and/or c) cost of manufacturing is high.

3) Any reasons for a high price other than those enumerated in #2 above seem to me to be artificial, either due to price fixing, lack of competition, etc. Such reasons are quite prone to come down once the bubble bursts. Recent examples are anything from the Internet Stock downturn or Beany Baby collecting. If there's no inherent worth, the market price will eventually lower.

4) Paying a high price early in the release of a product gives one a certain amount of exclusivity, but that exclusivity has been shown to historically last only a fixed amount of time. Over time enough people will pay that price that your exclusivity will be worn down, unless production is limited. Due to competition, if money is to be made and patents aren't in place, the price will come down. In this case it sounds like there was prior art so patents could not be had by the current manufacturer, and it also sounds like production may not have been limited (?).

Given all the above, it's hard for me to disagree with Richard Kaufman or Steve Dushek in their discussion of the gimmick, particularly since it's in context. Frankly I don't necessarly *like* that it's this way, but logic dictates it. If I paid a large amount of money for some apparatus and then I found that the workings were well known, then the *only* comfort I could take would be if the apparatus was well made.

I'm thinking back to other hot items in magics history. The Zig Zag illusion really strikes me. When it first came out it was amazing. It literally seemed impossible. A good part of the reason was the cost of the apparatus. When cheaper copies came out, copies which tipped the gaff due to poor manufacture, the value of the trick dropped. Original high quality equipment would retain some value, but only the basic value based on quality of manufacture. Since there was no "routine" being sold in that case, there was no concept of part of the value being in the rights to the routine, as might be the case here. But for $300 for U3F, taking into account the tooling for the gimmick and the cost of raw materials, there's not that much worth in the routine itself, IMHO, since the cost of the apparatus in effect uses up most the list price.

As for your specific question of "should one expose Copperfields apparatus", I'd say it depends on the context. Why, where, which effect, etc. But I would offer this: if any experienced or well read magician gives serious thought to how to solve an apparatus-based trick, odds are good they will figure out how to to do it. The laws of physics don't change. If I'm holding 2 of an item in my hand, and suddenly I'm holding just one, it's very clear that the other item either collapsed into the remaining one, was removed via a pull or topit, or was not what it appeared to be so there are other methods by which it could "disappear". They key then is, making an entertaining presentation, and/or making a presentation that minimizes the chance of applying basic science/logic to solving something.

Sadly there are many magicians who are NOT well read, who think they know it all (for better or worse). Just because they seem to be in the majority does not mean that basic marketing or economics changes. (I'm reminded of a "magician" I knew who figured that the girl fired from the cannonball into the hanging box was done by some variant of a giant coin slide, and who told others this to impress them with his knowledge)

Anyhow, this thread is very interesting. I'll close this post by suggesting: the next time you go to buy a trick, read the catalog descripion carefully, preferably see it performed, then try to solve it in your mind. It's a good exercise. Just because you know how something works doesn't mean you won't still buy it, or that your audience won't still be amazed by the effect when it's properly presented.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 2:43 pm

Originally posted by Chris Bailey:
Well it IS a magicians forum for magicians. At least I don't THINK people come here to talk about plumbing or sheep herding. One of the things I like about this particular forum is it's full of knowledgable people.
Chris, I don't have a problem with people coming in and talking about things magical. I don't even have a problem going through history lessons like Lee just did, but doing in the context of divulging the secret of a marketed item is wrong in my opinion.

Let's take another example. I don't know how "The Elevator" self levitation works. I don't feel I should be able to come to this forum and ask, "Hey guys could I have a full expose' on the methods employed to create this particular levitation." Who the heck am I to expect a full discourse on it.

Giving the secret of a marketed item to someone who did not pay for it is exposure, period. Is the world going to see the exposure? No. Does it make it any less wrong? No.

Orginally posted by Glenn Farrington:imho...this topic should be closed.
imho... this topic should be deleted. It's done nothing but lower my impression of a lot of people.

Doomo
Posts: 361
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Doomo » June 6th, 2003, 3:06 pm

Hi folks, Long time listener, first time caller!
First of all, Secrets and methods have been discussed on this board before. In fact Richard has encouraged it at several different times. As to the "secret" of the U3Fly. There was NO secret. As Rosie so politely stated earlier, the reason I purchased TWO of the things was I was assured over the phone that it was limited to only 200 copies. I figured that with Todds craftsmanship and the (seemingly) very limited production, I was getting something really special. Once again I was wrong... Before anyone says I was paying for the routine, NO. That is NOT what I was paying for. And from my discussions with other early buyers, I am not alone... Rosie was right... I should have bought the mixer for her... I like the cookies anyway... No unpleasant aftertaste.
RFA Productions yeah... It is cool stuff.

www.rfaproductions.com

Robert Allen
Posts: 616
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Robert Allen » June 6th, 2003, 3:29 pm

Dan Watkins, I went through the thoughts you're describing earlier this morning. But I came up with a reason I think that such thoughts are specious:

Let's face it, magicians tell each other how tricks work. But they usually don't tell people they don't like, or they don't trust. Someone who comes in here and says "tell me how X works" would probably be completely ignored, unless they got an insulting response. This thread has not been like that.

Has anyone here NOT been told how some purchasable trick works before, or told a friend how something works? Have you never had a gimmick shown to you buy a magic dealer you regularly patronized, yet you still bought the trick because the raw effect was powerful, or you felt it was usable in your routine?

The old "you're buying the secret" schtick is primarily used to prevent returns to stores of magic items sold. Not unreasabonly too. Only large chain stores have unlimited returns. Small stores don't have the overhead or multiple branches to lay off the costs of abritrary returns. They may have very limited return policies. Like when you buy a music CD it can often be returned only for replacement in case of defect. You're definately buying the content, not the secret. Magic stores would do well to use a different mechanism to define their returns/refunds policy.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 3:43 pm

You make some valid points Robert.

But when it is deemed acceptable to go forth and divulge the secret methods to a marketed routine on the internet, nothing is sacred anymore.

Just my opinion.

I was hoping the Genii forum would be a step above the "kewl trix xpozed" forum. Maybe I am too much of an optimist.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 4:13 pm

For the record: There used to be a two day convention in Boston every year. I can't remember the name, but I THINK it was called the Magigale, or something like that. Ray Goulet would remember, since he gave me one of his tables at one of them years later (1981 in fact) when I needed some cash and wanted to sell some rare magic (what a great guy, and what a generous gesture!). Anyways, I went to one in 1969 (I remember the year because my dad told me I had to pick one, Woodstock or the magic convention - silly me I picked the magic! JUST KIDDING! but I do remember the year because of Woodstock...). Pressley Guitar was there. He shared some coin magic with me, among the items a copper/silver transposition. I was young, and unschooled in trick coin "stuff". It fooled me badly. I guess Pressley took pity on a young, broke, magic student. He showed me the secret and then he gifted me with a sliding shell. It was an english penny. I still have it. Since I was quite young, I had no idea that there was anything of note going on, and didn't record any pertinent information, or ask any questions about who invented what. But I can say that, for sure as early as 1969, Pressley Guitar was selling this gaff. And yes, who, with any background in coin magic at all, could see the U3F routine and not recognize the gaff? By the way, Steve Dusheck, didn't you have a shop in Worchester, MA in the late sixties/early seventies? There's a coincidence huh, you in MA, Pressley in Boston, sliding shells appearing everywhere, hmmm...

Best, PSC

Steve Hook
Posts: 835
Joined: October 21st, 2008, 11:50 am
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Steve Hook » June 6th, 2003, 4:25 pm

Robert:

I enjoyed your convention. I enjoyed your comedy. You are obviously an intelligent man. But your take on this subject is more fallacious than Dan's is specious. (Huh?)

I don't know of any marketed tricks/routines of yours but let's take your partner's (Danny Archer) body of marketed items. Are you suggesting that it would be alright to discuss here at Genii Forum how all his tricks are done? His eyes would probably pop out of their sockets if he saw such a discussion.

Are you going to then say, "Now calm down, Danny, it's alright because Carl knew how the things worked and he told Fred.....I mean, it's practically common knowledge!"

I, like Dan, didn't know how U3F worked. Now I do by golly! And that's not a good thing .

And talking about "specious", the argument about $3. versus $300. just doesn't hold up. I partially agree with you in the sense that a $3. item hasn't much value. We humans are capable of weighing such things intellectually.

But the concept of giving away any secret, regardless of price, is a whole 'nother subject. I have a card move that Mike Close, Henry Evans, and Allan Ackerman all liked when they saw it. Given the plethora of card moves these days, I don't think any of them would pay $300. for it, though! But...

...if the mechanics were posted here and discussed before I published them , would I not have the right to be upset?

Like Dan, I'm disappointed by the attitude oozing from some in this thread, from my Commander down. Richard in the past OK'd our discussing phrases like, "I'd rather use a second deal than a double lift". But in the past, he's never said we could discuss specific methodologies of marketed tricks. I remain a bit shocked by this development.

Steve H

Robert Allen
Posts: 616
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Robert Allen » June 6th, 2003, 4:47 pm

Steve, I think you've mistaken me for someone else. I have no partners, and have not published or sold any tricks.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 4:56 pm

"My dad's a TV repairman. He's got an AWESOME set of tools."

Tackle by Jefferson !!

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 6th, 2003, 6:09 pm

I can help a bit with some of the history.

Bob Elliot showed me and the whole gang of us in Tannen's the double gaffed copper/silver transposition using the magnetic coins with half shells back in 76 or 77 latest. I bought a set of the coins.

The NY Gang WAS and for the most part still is rather courteous about publishing things based on other people's work that remains unpublished. This courtesy is the reason some of Geoff Latta's coin work is well known though not done. Those who respect themselves usually respect the wishes of other creative people.

The NY gang saw most of the moves that comprise my coins across and the edge grip work and the full routine almost as soon as these things were ready for first impressions and feedback. By 1979 most of what has been dubbed and popularized as 'three fly' was old hat in NYC.

So very much of what is special in this craft is lost to time due to the sorry disrespect of some who feel moved to use, write and sell ideas that are not their own. Hofzinser, Germaine, Leipzig, Kaps are names with hardly a living record of their work. The tiny bit of Fred Kaps reflected in the instructions to the 'chinese coin routine' is wonderful.

Someone mentioned the 'zig-zag' earlier in this thread. I had a chance to spend a few minutes looking at the Harbin book. What a treasure trove! The written record of works shared by creators is sparse. Many thanks to Richard Kaufman for sharing his interest in making such a written record for folks like Brother John Hamman and David Roth and Derek Dingle.

The use of the half rimmed shell in fanned coin display sequences dates back to the 1970s and perhaps before. The ******* gaffed set was a fun toy in the late 1970s. Using this gaff to make my coins across easier for all was a good idea.

Among my sentiments on this issue is gratitude to Bob Kohler for making some of my ideas accessible to working magicians. I am likewise pleased that Chris Kenner liked my routine so much he adopted it, raised it as his own and featured his version in performances for years.

I'm going to close my ramblings with a reminder to all about the accuracy of the written record...
Remember the movie 'Amadeus' about the life of WAMozart? I asked my father about it and he pointed me to a shelf with the collected letters of both Mozart and Saliari and some contemporaries. There I could read for myself what each had to say on the works performed at the royal court and about/to each other. Let's try to remember that the 'written record' is usually not as simple as some might like to believe. Taking this to heart, do you remember your early lessons in American history?

Okay, back to prices and changes...
The price of U3Fly as a ready made routine puts it in line with the Kaps chinese coin trick and a few other gems that made it to market. I do hope discussions on this or other BBS can continue without giving away Bob's work. It was only very recently that someone posted part of the presentation of the 'zig zag' routine that sells the thing to audiences. Forty years of silence. Those who own the book know. Let's keep it that way.

As to the secrets worth paying for... Well one day I would like to buy a copy of the Harbin book. Likewise when I can, I would like to correspond with Andrew Galloway and find out more about John Ramsay as a person. I will continue to value the counsil of those who remember the greats and those who strive to create their own art.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Robert Allen
Posts: 616
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Robert Allen » June 6th, 2003, 6:28 pm

Lee (Asher), perhaps I'm out of line here, but I think your casting aspersions because Steve Dushek didn't date his instructions is needless venom. I was born in 1961, started doing magic in the early 1970s, so I'm by no means an expert here. But as a consumer I will say the only stuff I can remember seeing dates on was Tenyo instuctions, and frankly Tenyo wasn't considered great magic. The rest of the stuff was produced in small quantities, the instructions were often barely readable mimeo. Maybe some of it was dated, such as the Owen and Worth stuff. Hmm. I'll have to dig up a bunch of old instructions and see if I'm completely out of line on this...

Perhaps some people are self-centered enough, or historically aware enough at an early enough age, that they plan for their writings and creations to become important enough to date and copyright them. But not everyone is. Quite frankly it's only with the advent of the Internet that I've seen this whole movement to anal-retentively credit originators become really popular (dare I say it, even a "me too" badge of membership in the Population of Art Concious Magicians). Of course I was not creating effects for sale when I started doing magic. Maybe among the cogniscetti such documentation was common. But all I really recall from those days was magic dealers never really missing a chance to rip off a good idea. The MDA came into being and I can specifically remember one dealer saying "Well I went to their seminar on [IP] and basically what I got out of it was there's nothing to keep me from reproducing their gimmicks"

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I've written here. I'm making no snide inferences or innuendo. I'm just saying a) maybe Steve just had other things on his mind than anally dating everything her wrote then, and b) I can't prove it but many many times nowadays I figure that people spend more time trying to argue over appropriate credits than just doing magic.

I should talk though, I'm not "doing" much magic nowadays, just collecting and reading. I hope to get my butt in gear one of these days though.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 7:01 pm

Seems like all of this is the topic for a separate post. How about getting back to the original topic. Direct from Bob Kohler's website to a Genii board near you (about the holdout):

"That has changed. We now have on our team three persons who are the elite of the manufacturers in magic. When it comes to precision and perfection, they can't be beat. . When I released Ultimate 3 Fly in June 2000, the only man who could manufacture the gimmick to my satisfaction was Todd Lassen. Todd wasnt very well known then, but his work stands on its own because he produces the finest gaffed coins in the world . He is now known internationally as the only man to manufacture custom gaffed coins . When we once again got serious about releasing our system, the first person I retained was Todd. Todd is a master of the lathe. We spent one week, both day and night, in his shop churning out prototypes. We had a blast. Todd came up with some very creative solutions that are in our final design."

I'll let the rest of you make the comments.

Aaron

User avatar
Ryan Matney
Posts: 978
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Abingdon, Va
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Ryan Matney » June 6th, 2003, 7:22 pm

So, Bob Kohler is selling a gaff that is Steve Dusheck's [Note by Kaufman here: Dusheck has deleted his posts and would seem to have withdrawn his claim], in a trick that is Townshend's, with a laughable limited edition marketing ploy, at a price fit for idiots. (I can say that because I was one.) Only in magic could someone get away with this.

Well Done.

I agree with Richard Kaufman. Everyone knows what the gaff is anyway. Everyone I know has a set! In a short time, it's going to be the Svengali deck of coin magic. I can imagine Kohler pitching sets of coins after ever show.

The coins themselves were great and worked fine, but again, I can't see why anyone would pay $300 for this when another version, say Paul Wilson's, is just as good for laymen.
Get the Dirty Work - Available now at http://www.ryanmatneymagic.com

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2003, 7:47 pm

Most magic manufacturers and dealers did not date their instruction sheets for a very specific reason - it would DATE them! Without dates, instruction sheets could be used for decades (i.e., MAK Magic) without change or updates. Besides, any magic trick is supposed to be the latest greatest thing - and without dates, it could have been made yesterday or four years ago, who knows? That's exactly why the TV and film producers used roman numerals on their copyright notices - to conceal the actual production year so as not to date the product! --Asrah

Brian Marks
Posts: 912
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Nyack, NY

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Brian Marks » June 6th, 2003, 9:02 pm

I can't keep my big mouth closed but who cares? Really!

3 fly started off limited edition but was obviously not held to be cause it wa so damn popular. If you can sell 1000 items @ $300, your not going to stop at 200. Obviosly Bob didn't expect for these items to be so popular.

Todd Lassen is a great coin maker. I don't know why Bob stopped using him an I don't care. That is for Bob and Todd to discuss.

I think the sleight of hand version is much better.

Steve Hook
Posts: 835
Joined: October 21st, 2008, 11:50 am
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Steve Hook » June 6th, 2003, 10:32 pm

Originally posted by Brian Marks:

I think the sleight of hand version is much better.
Which one is your favorite?

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 7th, 2003, 12:49 am

Originally posted by Brian Marks:
I can't keep my big mouth closed but who cares? Really!

3 fly started off limited edition but was obviously not held to be cause it wa so damn popular. If you can sell 1000 items @ $300, your not going to stop at 200. Obviosly Bob didn't expect for these items to be so popular.

It doesn't matter how popular it became if it was stated in the ad to be limited to 200 units then 200 units is all you can make.

If you are upset enough, have a copy of the AD which states this was to be limited to 200 sets, can prove that there were more than 200 sets sold and ordered this through the mail the Postal Inspector of the United States Post Office might be interested in hearing from you. They take a mightly low opinion of those folk who use the mail system for fraud.

Pete McCabe
Posts: 2332
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Pete McCabe » June 7th, 2003, 1:02 am

I can't believe anyone who seriously respects magic thinks it's okay to openly discuss the method behind a currently marketed trick just because "everyone knows it".

Of course there are hundreds of people on the forum who don't study coin magic seriously and have never even heard of this gaff, much less were aware that it is used in U3F.

Paul Wilson sells a trick called Ricochet, which combines a pre-existing gaff with his own new handling. I suspect most knowledgable card magicians recognize the method.

Does anyone think it would be okay if I discussed this method openly here on the forum? I find that hard to believe.

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Ian Kendall » June 7th, 2003, 2:42 am

Wow, _that_ was an interesting morning's read :)

A couple of points caught my eye;

A month or so ago I posted (perhaps unwisely) on the CC forum my thoughts on Elevator and that it was easy to work out the method. Three days later I got an email from someone asking me how the apparatus worked. I directed him to Peter L so he could ask him. Even I don't think the MO of a trick should be openly discussed...

On the subject of value, and since Wilson has been named a couple of times, I have a pertinent story.

In the early 90's Paul published his first 'book' Choas Theories (as opposed to Alias, which were more like lecture notes). The price was 17 pounds, a number that Paul decided on after discussing with Peter Duffie. (At this point I should say that my memory is generally very good with details like this, but if I get something wrong I'm sure Paul will correct me and I'll accept). I was with Paul when he spoke with a dealer at Blackpool about stocking some copies on their stand. The reaction was that the book was over priced and did not compare favourably with the other low spec books (spiral bound home produced etc) he carried. Paul and I moved on...

The book was reviews in Abra by Al Smith, who commented very favourably on the material but did bring up the price. The comments were along the lines of (and I'm dredging up a ten year memory of something I read once, but here goes), 'The price may seem steep, but it is the right of the creator to determine the value of his work'.

I don't know anyone who bought CT who complained about lack of value (and no, I don't have a copy) and I would wager that given Paul's reputation now the book would be snapped up at twice the price.

Again, I caught the tail end of a thread in in Cafe about value, and Paul said he had recieved comments about the cost of Ricochet, given the materials provided. Paul pointed out, quite rightly, that it was the routine and application that was being sold. The gaffs were the tools to do the work (that's my bit).

The bottom line is that we _do_ buy secrets. We buy the time and expertise that the creator has put into ironing out the little problems that always arise in new effects. We buy the time we do not have to spend ourselves, and dammit, we buy the secret upon which our pastime depends.

Personally I think anyone who spends 300 anythings on a gimmick is foolish, and anyone who buys a gimmick to achive the same effect that can be done with sleights and practice is lazy. But that is another story...

Take care, Ian

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 7th, 2003, 3:59 am

Originally posted by Ian Kendall:
Personally I think anyone who spends 300 anythings on a gimmick is foolish, and anyone who buys a gimmick to achive the same effect that can be done with sleights and practice is lazy. But that is another story...

Take care, Ian
I take expection to that bit there Ian..I think what you said is insulting to the other members of this board, not just to my personal magician alone.

While my husband may be foolish (we could start another thread about THAT)..he is far from lazy...and I think if you check out the new Earl Nelson book (see the new section on Miller's Variable Placement), you will see that his ability with sleights is on parr with many of the people on this board and probably exceeds others.

And as for practice, he is rarely without a deck of cards on him so that when he has time he continues to work on his latest innovation. I even carry a spare deck in my purse at all times, just in case he needs one on a moments notice. From other hard-core magicians I have met, I noticed this is a pretty consistant MO. (Thought the extra deck in the wife's purse may not be.)

Gimmicks are tools to an end. That applies to specialty cards, such a double faced cards as well as gaffed coins. I am betting even people like Mike Gallo use gimmicked coins, and he is one of the best coin workers on the planet.

People like to collect these items, whether as tools or simply because they are curious. For example, the u3fly set can be used on more than one effect, just like any other shell coin. Until you have the gimmick in hand, you never know what the possibilities of it are, even if someone has described it to you before hand.

There are times when the best effect can be obtained by using the gimmick instead of the sleight of hand method. If the sleight of hand technique requires you to jump through hoops just to avoid a gimmick, maybe you are working too hard to show the spectator what you want him to see. And that spectator is the final judge of what is being seen, if I remember correctly...he does not care about technique, simply entertainment...

And finally,if you yourself has EVER used a gaffed card or coin at any time, then you should paste the description "Lazy" on yourself as well.

That's my two cents worth...and they aren't gimmicked in any way

"Rosie"
Founding member of the Tony Miller fan club

Brian Marks
Posts: 912
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Nyack, NY

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Brian Marks » June 7th, 2003, 6:24 am

I do Paul Wilon's version with my own additions.

Tim Trono
Posts: 101
Joined: July 16th, 2008, 3:50 am

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Tim Trono » June 7th, 2003, 6:56 am

So Ian... basically in direct reference to U3F you are saying Earl Nelson, Eric Mead, Michael Close, Jamy Ian Swiss, Dan Watkins, etc. are foolish and lazy as THEY USE U3F? Apparently you have never seen the skill level of these gentlemen and others using this effect. I think Rosie nails it in her post more generally about gaffs... to say that one is lazy for using gaffs generally is just absurd and to say that the price of a gaff should determine this is also ludicrous. The value of an item is specific to each of us. If you are performing for your mirror then you may be correct. If you are out there entertaining real people and making money this is a small price to pay. If you are USING an item is it not worth quite a bit? How many hundreds or thousands of dollars in "junk" do you have sitting in your drawers collecting dust. Also, many times an effect just looks MORE MAGICAL using a gaff... it's not laziness... it's caring how one's magic looks.

Also, the question becomes perception of what you are paying for... is it for the gaff (which I strongly feel should NOT be openly disclosed in a forum that anyone can access BTW) or the effect. U3F is one of the strongest effects I have ever seen... I distinctly remember every detail of the first time I saw this LONG before it was released at Dean Dills old shop. Dean and I were flabbergasted. I bet you in you saw Eric Mead or Jamy Swiss do it, as an example, youd still be toasted.

Also, in regards to U3F, I believe if you check the ads there was never mention of numbers. I know Kohler did discuss this privately with a few people initially but then later decided against that route and thus I do not believe numbers ever showed up in his ads (though Close did mention 200 as he was apparently under this impression from some of the talk going around). Obviously, the price kept many curious from purchasing this. If you pull up the ad I believe you can confirm this. I don't say this to further stir the pot but just to be factual.

Also some have compared U3F with a "stock items". Such comparisons are just absurd and stupid... there are many many people like Ian who just won't spend the money on something like this and that is entirely within their right for their specific needs/conditions/desire.

Tim Trono

Seth Kramer
Posts: 42
Joined: January 21st, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Seth Kramer » June 7th, 2003, 7:27 am

Just to echo some of Tim Trono's thoughts; If our goal as magicians is to create magic in the minds of our audiences, there sometimes is no substitue for a gaff to create the clean handling in MacDonalds Aces or stunning visuals such as those Bob created with U3F. The fact that a performer is using a gaff has no bearing what so ever as to skill level. U3F is by no means a self working effect and you need some really decent chops and dead on timing to make it look as magical as Bob, Eric, Michael (Close and Forbes) and Jamy do. Sure, anyone with $300.00 can buy U3F and do a hack job with it, but to make it look magical...that's a whole different story.

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 7th, 2003, 7:45 am

I am betting even people like Mike Gallo use gimmicked coins

SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Mike

Brian Marks
Posts: 912
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Nyack, NY

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Brian Marks » June 7th, 2003, 8:09 am

Paul Wilson uses U3F. I use the Paul Wilson sleight of hand method. mmmm, interesting.

User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Glenn Farrington » June 7th, 2003, 8:13 am

So...how about them Mets?

(probably a vain attempt to change the subject)
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.

Asser Andersen
Posts: 67
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Asser Andersen » June 7th, 2003, 8:26 am

Tim Trono writes:

Also, in regards to U3F, I believe if you check the ads there was never mention of numbers. I know Kohler did discuss this privately with a few people initially but then later decided against that route and thus I do not believe numbers ever showed up in his ads (though Close did mention 200 as he was apparently under this impression from some of the talk going around). Obviously, the price kept many curious from purchasing this. If you pull up the ad I believe you can confirm this. I don't say this to further stir the pot but just to be factual.

-------------------

In MAGIC June 2000 page 85, add for Ultimate 3Fly:
THIS RELEASE IS A LIMITED EDITION...DON' BE LEFT OUT!
OK - no numbers, and I guess that any number will be limited - mathematically speaking :confused:

pduffie
Posts: 383
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby pduffie » June 7th, 2003, 8:48 am

Comments on U3F by Tim Trono:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~roy/magictalk-w ... _3fly.html

Quote:
"Bob is keeping this as a limited edition and once it is sold there will be no more. I know that he is close so if you want one I'd recommend not hesitating any further."

:)

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Ian Kendall » June 7th, 2003, 8:59 am

Oh boy, looks like I hit a nerve. The closing comments of my post were typed in haste as I had to get my kids to a swimming lesson so they probably missed out on the usual mental vetting system (have three weeks' of broken sleep can't hurt...

If I insulted anyone with my comments there is little I can do about it. Perhaps foolish might have been the wrong choice of word, but I still can't imaging spending that amount of money on a gaff (notwithstanding Paul Daniels' comments on value of a prop and the personal value placed by the purchaser). I remember that Mike Close's review in Magic mentioned that the set was priced to 'deter the merely curious'. The prop was aimed at professionals, and they are the ones that bought it.

I've never seen the set, or the routine, but I have seen numerous other versions that do not use a feke.

As for gimmicks, I do not use them (something that has been mentioned on the forum before; I stopped in my early days when someone asked to examine a brainwave deck). The closest I come is a Jerry O'Connell wallet for card to wallet or burned note. (Actually, I _do_ occasionally use a chop cup, so I am LAZY after all).

I suppose I'm a sad purist, but I don't like gimmicks. I make no apologies for that, nor do I need to. Rosie and Tim have both made very good points; a couple I've covered above. I take a wee bit of exception to Tim's opening statement though. Yes, personally (note the word) I think it's odd to spend a large amount of money on something (and I'm not living up to any Scots stereotypes here) that is not strictly neccessary; all of the gentlemen you mentioned are more than capable of achieving the same effect without the fekes. (An aside; I wonder if you asked laymen to describe the effect after watching U3F and a non gaffed version. Would the description differ by much?). It's precisely because I have a box of 'junk' that I bought years ago that I stopped buying gimmicks. The latest thing I got was the Reality twister, binned the pen right away and am working on a twisting fork.

Having said that, I do aknowledge that gaffs can be useful when the effect cannot be achieved in other ways. Reading back, I suppose I label 'Lazy' the person who uses a gaff as a shortcut, avoiding the neccessary practice to achieve the effect.

It seems the collective skin of the forum is thinner than it appears. Still, at least I've deflected the hate away from Bob for a while, and people can vent their frustrations on me instead. I'm used to it.

Take care,

Ian
'Friends come and go, enemies accumulate'

Guest

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Guest » June 7th, 2003, 9:13 am

Oh boy,

I use gaffs quite a bit, but I don't think of myself as lazy, as they are used in concert with multiple sleight of hand techniques that can take a year each to learn. Judicious use of fekes in concert with advanced sleight of hand is the best way to fool everyone in the room. Everyone, including magicians.

As for the U3F gaff, Dan Watkins' position on this is right in principle, though people seem to feel that this is a special case. Maybe it is. Maybe not. At any rate, I don't think anyone needs to jump all over Dan for protesting against public disclosure of the methods of marketed items.

However.

One of the reasons that people may feel it's ok to talk about the dingus is that it is a very close relative of a old, commonly known gaff. I remember fooling around with the mag version of the thing in the seventies with Bob Elliot up at the old Tannen's on 47th Street; I believe the one we were playing with was made by Eddie Gibson but I could be wrong. At any rate, Bob is a true gentleman for whom I have the absolute highest regard and would never rip anyone off. Never.

I distinctly recall seeing the online ad state that no more than 200 would be made. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I recall. If Mr. Lassen says he made a thousand, or close to a thousand, I believe him. Now apparently Mr. Kohler is retooling to produce them indefinitely. He has the right to do this, of course, (it's his trick) but people who felt they were paying a premium for exclusivity also have the right to be pissed off. In this regard nobody wins. Mr. Kohler can continue to make money with the thing, but he's got some serious work ahead of him to convince people that limited means limited if he markets another item this way.

The issue of talking methods here on the forum is a tricky one. If we can't, then all we will be talking about is gossip. Bleh. But even if we talk indirectly, that will expose some things to some people anyway. Frankly, I figured out what the gaff was from the description of the effect and the photo on Mr. Kohler's web site. This was then verified for me by another coin man. So what's the best course? If you want to take this to the extreme, if I discuss a method that has been published in a book, aren't I potentially killing a sale (or more) of that book? Maybe. But then why are we here? And why would we have more respect for a hardware secret than a sleight, or routining secret? Do we?

What a mess. I certainly hope I've helped make things even more confusing.

Best,

Geoff

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27053
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Richard Kaufman » June 7th, 2003, 9:21 am

Here's another comment by Tim from the MagicTalk thread that's interesting:
"As you may already know, Bob is one of the top trade show performers in the country and he could make considerable more money doing a trade show as opposed to selling a magic effect."
From what I've heard, it sounds like Bob has made a quarter of a million dollars selling Ultimate 3 Fly. Few trade show workers make that much money, particularly now that the trade show market is in such a slump.

Please make sure to read this: Let me point out that this is one of the best threads the Genii Forum has had in quite some time. It has brought some well-written posts with many different points of view. It has raised issues of creativity, history, the use of gaffs, exactly what people pay for when they purchase an effect, exactly what constitutes a secret, cries of exposure, etc. Lots of stuff to make you think about the way the wheels turn in our little corner of the planet.
I'll also remind you that my job is to stir the pot and play devil's advocate once in a while.

I should add a few other comments:
1) I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think there's anything wrong with Bob Kohler selling "Ultimate 3 Fly" for whatever price he feels is appropriate: it's a superb gimmick and a superb routine. He deserves to make every penny he does because he took a lot of trouble to bring an excellent product to market. The accolades from talented magicians testify to the item's excellence.
2) I am not a coin man, despite the books I've written. I cannot do any version of 3 Fly using normal coins. Just too damn difficult. If I wanted to do the routine, my only option is Ultimate 3 Fly, and if I was a professional magician and needed to do some highly visible coin magic, I would probably buy the thing myself.
3) The fact that I know in some vague way what the gimmick is would in no way disuade me from purchasing the routine. (In fact, knowing that I'm buying a gimmicked coin that's different than every other gimmicked coin in my drawer is probably going to be an incentive.) It's not as if ANY OF US have this particular gimmick lying around unused in a drawer! (And it must be a ******* version for this handling.) So, the big difference in giving away the exact type of gimmick for something like Paul Wilson's "Richochet" and explaining the gimmick in U3F is that most of us already have the gimmicks for the former in a drawer, and upon seeing or reading the routine could reconstruct it fairly easily if someone stated exactly what the gimmick was. That is not the case with U3F: NO ONE can do this trick without buying the exact gimmick from Bob Kohler. And you also need the routine, too, and you get that with the gimmick.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Steve Hook
Posts: 835
Joined: October 21st, 2008, 11:50 am
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Steve Hook » June 7th, 2003, 9:51 am

Richard,

Are you going to directly address the revealing of secrets issue? As stated before, "...it's not a matter of whether Todd, Bob, Tommy, Steve, Robert, Franklin, or Reginald invented it. Unless the owners of this specific secret want it published publicly, it shouldn't be revealed here."

Geoff Latta is on the right track when he says there are other ways to discuss things than outright exposure. There have to be logical limits to what is posted here. Isn't this decision coming down to you?

Steve H

Edit: As has been stated here, there are people, myself and Dan Watkins, included, who did not know the nature of the coins. We've both been in magic a good while, so it's assumable that there are others to whom the secret has now been revealed.

Whether one has the gimmick in a drawer or not is a weak argument for exposure. Are we then going to start publishing how "Flying" works, the exact mechanics of the "Multiplying Chairs", Han's Moretti's "Box", Sankey's "Killer Key", McClintock's "Stars and Hexes", Loughran's "Elevator", any Tommy Wonder gizmo, etc., just because we can't do the routine without their gimmicks?

I can't wait to hear what all these people think about your new philosophy! Ayecheewowwow!

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 7th, 2003, 11:06 am

Perhaps one of the roots of this question could be examined: "is this item YOURS to discuss?". If it's a work you've seen, your reaction is yours to discuss. If you are an owner of the the product then your comfort and findings on ROI are yours to discuss, as are your feelings about the item as a product. If you believe the item is a derivitive work, or in some way a copy of an existing work then those beliefs are also yours to discuss.

I suspect there is a continum of discourse that ranges between the positions of complete open discourse and vague allusions mixed into gossip. For each item there SHOULD be a middle ground. Finding and speaking to this middle ground is a process and all of us are involved.

I would have to agree that it is inappropriate to disucss someone's unpublished works. Likewise, there is some material that is published though still a source of income to the inventor and primary performer that would be devalued by open discourse of methods and presentations. At the moment, the effects and methods in the lecture by Matt Bich come to mind as good example. For the longer term, perhaps the works of Fred Kaps and Tommy Wonder might serve as good examples. This is simple respect for the art of the creator and the liveyhood of the person who took their work to market.

On the other side of the scale we might agree that open discouse of the magnetic items in the chop cup, the rough and smooth cards in the Burling Hull deck routines, the stack of coins in the Cap and Pence routine, and even the forth ball and pocket loads in the cups and balls are acceptable in this forum as items of open discourse.

Earlier I tried to cite an example using one of the items in the Harbin book of illusions. This book is about forty years old and its contents have been plundered by some. The story about Dante and Mark Wilson comes to mind in this context. Likewise the story of how 'Expert Card Technique' was recorded as a sort of public service to many may bear some weight on this issue.

In terms of respecting the work of others I'd like to stay on the more conservative ground. I don't know what to say about items that borrow from the works not yet in print.

I am pleased Geoff Latta has come forward to remark upon his coin concealment called nowhere palm and his one handed vanish he calls a 'French Pop'. Perhaps after his thoughts on his work are in print there will be some discussion of further applicatons.

Well that's my position and I'd like to thank Darwin Ortiz, David Roth, Ken Krenzel and Sol Stone for helping me understand enough to choose this position.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Yves Tourigny
Posts: 125
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:50 pm

Re: Have you heard?

Postby Yves Tourigny » June 7th, 2003, 11:22 am

Hi all,

Very interesting thread. I didn't know what was the gimmick in U3F and I never saw the trick performed. I must say though that I thought it was some kind of ***** shell! I was really wondering if the trick was worth buying. Anyway I have to say that knowing the gimmick involved doesn't diminish in any way the value of the effect for me. Expert craftmanship and expert routining doesn't come so easely or cheap.

That said I am a very surprised to see it exposed here. I am so flabbergasted that I do not have an opinion yet. Even though Magic is really not just secret gimmick or move or specific handling, very often what we buy is just this, very specific handling of known plots that "sometimes" transcend what have been done before. This is what buyer searches and what dealer sells. Or am I wrong? There is alluring power in secret and I am not sure that a public forum is the best place to discuss it. In ancient time the value of secret was tremendous in our chosen obsession. Why is it that it is now diluted?

I must say that I am a bit confused... still thinking about it though.

Yves Tourigny


Return to “Buzz”