Was it Right to Divulge the Ultimate 3 Fly Gimmick?

[Richard Kaufman]

This is a poll which allows you to give your opinion regarding the fact that the nature of the gimmicked coin in Ultimate 3 Fly was explained here on the forum.
This is NOT a poll about whether magic secrets in general should be dicussed on the forum--I've already made that decision and the answer is yes. In fact, I encourage people to discuss magical methodology here.
This IS a poll about whether the gimmick in a marketed item should be divulged.
Please vote!

[Guest]

Uhm, there was no candidate labelled "Who gives a rat's ass?" so I voted 'no'.

So, if I get ahold of YOUR trade secrets, Richard, like your mailing list, is it ok if I post them?

Burke

[Richard Kaufman]

I haven't heard the gaff in U3F referred to as a trade secret, and I'm not sure it would fall under that legal definition in order to be afforded the protection of a trade secret.
Also, divulging something that is sold is entirely different than divulging something that is private information and not sold.
Let's have more votes!

[Ian Kendall]

Gosh, and there was so much more to say...

If the vote results in a yes, does the whole thread get the axe, or just certain bits of it?

Take care, Ian

[Guest]

If you need a poll to determine that it is wrong to openly divulge magic secrets I feel very sorry for you.

Dan <-- someone who doesn't need a poll to make right decisions in life.

[Richard Kaufman]

Ian, the thread will remain. Only the words regarding the type of gimmick will be deleted.

[Bill Mullins]

Absolutist position:
Secrets should be kept, because revealing them lessens the "Art" of magic. The only way to acceptably transfer a secret would be through the master/apprentice relationship, in which the student "earns" the right to secrets, in parallel with learning the craft of magic as a performing art. Therefore, selling books, gaffs, gimmicks, and performing lectures is wrong. Cleary, the magic community has moved away from this position.

IP position:
The law does not generally respect magic secrets as a type of intellectual property deserving of statutory protection -- despite the attempts of Harbin and Kohler to come up with a way to do so. But the magic community can, as a group, grant such protection, and codify it as an ethical standard which must be respected in order to remain a valued member of that community. How does that specifically apply to the U3F case? Two issues: How much of U3F is unique to Kohler, or can be considered "his" intellectual property? The gaff isn't -- discussion here has shown that it predated U3F by years. The routine is -- but no one has revealed it here. (although the routine _is_ revealed every time it is performed). Is the fact that a specific gaff is a part of a specific routine a "secret" within the context of this discussion? It wasn't a secret to me -- as soon as I heard a clear description of the effect, I thought it must be shell that allowed a coin to slide sideways. The first time I saw it performed (by Paul Wilson), the strength of that belief grew (although Paul did nothing to divulge anything -- as Ballantine would say, "How else?"). Eventually another person who bought the routine told me what the gaff was, and the only part I hadn't figured out was the method that held the coin inside the shell. I can't believe that many reasonably knowledgable people couldn't quickly come to the same conclusions. (and despite Dan Watkins' assertion that he didn't know how U3F worked, I've gotta believe he had a pretty good idea, or he'd never seen it performed or heard a clear description of the effect).

Coloring my thoughts on whether Kohler's "rights" or "secrets" should be respected are the (apparent) facts that he originally released it as limited yet sold so many copies as to belie that claim. If he promised anyone that it would be limited to 200 copies, then as soon as he sold the 201st, he stole from those who bought the first ones.

Practical position. There is no way that an item which sells this many copies will remain a secret (and in fact, it hasn't). The Genii Forum didn't break the embargo, and like Kaufman said, the mention of a (quasi-)secret was in the context of a fascinating, valuable discussion amongst some serious thinkers and creative people.

To the extent that there are any real secrets left in magic, they are held by creators who are keeping the secret -- they aren't selling it, licensing it, telling their buddies, or lecturing about it. They keep the secret.

[Ian Kendall]

Here's an interesting off shoot (to me, anyway) that occoured to me over a bowl of strawberries just now. This time, the BK holdout.

After reading the article in Magic I think I understand the ideal; you sign a licence and then get sent the apparatus on the understanding that if you show it to anyone you get sued to the far reaches of Dar Es Salaam. And they know who you are.

With that in mind, it's a safe (?) bet that only the few will know the workings of the holdout.

Let's say, now, that someone in the middle of nowhere designs a holdout. He has no knowledge of the BK system, and it is a completely Clean Room build. By chance, and the dint that all good ideas come to more than one eventually, he nails the BK design. Of course, he does not know this, and publishes his holdout.

How do BK prove this is the same system without negating their own licence?

An interesting connundrum. And no, I haven't designed a holdout, I have no intention of designing a holdout, I've never seen a real holdout, I know a holdout is a kind of gaff and I have no problem with that, I would never use a holdout, and I can now type the word holdout with alarming speed and precision...

Take care, Ian

[Guest]

What occured to me over my bowl of stawberries was how if the presedent is set that secrets can be openly divulged here, I am just waiting for someone to go through the advertisers index of Genii and expose all the secrets to the tricks sold by the advertisers here.

What a wonderful day for a free and limitless exchange of information!

Carrying the absurdity forward... I think the Genii Magazine reviewers should simply write how the tricks they review are done for now on. Leave the guesswork out of the review.

Thats what we are driving at here right?

[Pete Biro]

I do not think a MARKETED secret should be openly revealed without the marketer's permission.

However, if a marketer said "Limited Edition to 200" and he keeps selling them... he is (as someone else said) STEALING from those that bought what they thought an exclusive item.

Ken Brooke went crazy when folks like Tony Spina and Bob Little ripped off his limited edition (or any)items.

Ken felt that a really good item that was in limited supply was a good selling point. He felt that if you had one it was likely (hoped) that no one in your territory would have the same item giving you a good chance to be the only one.

Then, for example, when Spina replied something like, "IF someone asks me for a Ken Brooke trick and Ken won't wholesale it to me, then I have to make them."

HUH?

He and I had a heated discussion on this. He just didn't get it.

It was like a Chevy Dealer having a customer asking for a Ford, so the Chevy dealer MANUFACTURES one without permission.

Frankly, if Kohler has someone else start to make the gimmick and sell it, he has little to complain about having gone over his stated limited limit.

I would guess that a lot of folks have made up similar gimmicks and played with the handling since the price was pretty high.

I almost bought one, but the price stopped me.

And frankly, I prever non-gimmicked coin work anyway.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I voted to leave the thread and discussion alone.

While free speech allows much that might be better unpublished and unspoken to fill our public conversation, the content of the speech and character of the participation do have social reprecussions.

I am interested in reading the opinions of others. This helps me chose those whose opinion and feedback to seek. I offer my own opinions knowing my elders and betters will review my words and ideas and respond accordingly.

I don't understand how a magician can hold a view similar to that of a parent protecting a child from ideas and opinions not welcome in the household. As magicians and among magicians it is presumed that on THIS side of the looking glass reality; anything not borrowed is gaffed, and anyone not coerced into assisting is a trained assistant. Likewise any language or motions used in the performance is there to serve in the mechanics of the 'magic'.

Are some magicians dissapointed that the Kohler gaff is merely mechanical and does not use nanobots to build/unbuild coins? Or perhaps wishful that other magicians would believe a compact with dark powers comes with the instructions? In any such case there is a double standard involved and the matter of their internal consistancy and external inconsistancy reflects on them.

My position remains that I prefer not to discuss the exact mechanics and routining of a market item. I have no problem choosing to discuss and in what detail the mechanics of my own material. So I leave my view and opinion with the question posed earlier in this thread:

Is this YOURS to discuss?

[Steve V]

The most interesting part, to me, was that the declaration of the gimmick used actually confirmed what I believed all along. I know very little about coin magic (don't want Gallo to feel like I'm gaining on him) but I was able to determine how a gimmick would have to be made to obtain the effect. Seeing Kohlers handling at the A1 Convention further lead me to what I know now to be the truth.

That said I am an old style magician, and putting information out where the lay public can look at it bothers me. Then I realized that the likelyhood of some one looking here for the answers is minimal. I have to fall into the catagory of "I guess nuttin' is 100%"
Steve V

[Robert Allen]

Ok I voted.

I've already had most of my say about this issue and will only add:

1) Keep in mind that the two words used to describe the effect have little or no meaning to the laymen, so this is IMHO not about blowing the gaff to non-magicians.

2) The discussion of the gaff was within context, and was not a gratutious spoiler answer or based on a rube asking "hows it done"? If precise detail was gone into about how *I* could build said apparatus, I do believe THAT is going beyond good taste, or utility, as it can only be used to cut into the current sellers market. Anyone who wants to so that should feel free IMHO, it's a free market, but common decency requires that they pay for their own R&D costs.

[John Smetana]

I vote for secrets being held and kept as secrets.What does surprise me however, is the lack of hue and cry when the secrets of mentalism are revealed..or a TV show exposes the work of others. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.Really a shame

Best thoughts,
John Smetana

[Bill Duncan]

I have to say that the furor this has caused amuses me. Does anyone here really think that a layman might happen on this board, search through the thousands upon thousands of words, stumble upon the thread in question and then read ALL THIRTY of the very boring (to a layman) posts that preceed Richard's to find out a "secret" which he hasn't a prayer of decoding unless he has more than a passing understanding of magic in the first place? Puhleeeze!

If Richard is guilty of anything it's being a bit rude to BK by discussing the method employed in his marketed trick. Since I know of several cases of people buying the trick only to sell it for a loss when the find out the secret it might be the case that some people will now, knowing it's not "real magic", not make the purchase. However, since the removes some "used" sets from the market I'm guessing even that won't hurt BK too much.

When will people start beliving what they preach?
IT AIN'T THE METHOD THAT MATTERS.

[Ryan Matney]

I voted to leave the text as is.

Several reasons. It's a very expensive trick and it's not (or no longer) limited. As Richard Kaufman says, you would have to be crazy to spend that much on something if you had no idea what it is and you still DO have to buy it from Bob Kohler. You can't just make it yourself, without going through more expense than it's worth.

Does magic 'marketing' make anyone else as sad as it does me?

[Jeff Eline]

I really don't think anyone is truly worried that a discussion here will be found by laymen. I think most are upset that magicians will find out the secret.

I thought the discussion was interesting and well handled. Lee Asher provided a great summary of the printed record. Many tipped in on their own handlings, inventions and improvements. And the mention of the 'secret', at first, didn't bother me because of the context it was presented in. And I agree with Richard that the value of U3F is in the quality of the coins and the routine provided.

However, when I began to extend my logic out to other areas of our craft, I started to re-think my position. Am I entitled to know how a Copperfield illision is done? I can't afford the gimmick and it may be based on an old technique.

How about a new book with revolutionary card technique? If I want to play, I got to pay!

I only hope this doesn't dampen the quality of discussion here on the board.

[Chris Aguilar]

I voted to keep the thread as it is.

As many have have already stated, I feel that the context was appropriate for the information given. Dusheck was well within his rights to discuss his own gaff if he desires. It is not his fault that the UF3 gaff works on a similar principal.
_________________________________________________
http://www.conjurenation.com - "Cards Only" Forums

[Robert McDaniel]

One of the things that distinquishes the Genii Forum from other magic boards is Richard Kaufman and his common sense approach about revealing methods. This is a discussion board among serious magicians. Where else can serious magicians share secrets like this, but here?

I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that non-magicians are lurking on this board trying to discover our secrets. Besides, we speak in a code that only we (experienced magicians)understand.

The only exception to this, in my opinion, would be exposing a secret or method to a marketed trick that someone can easily duplicate, and therefore cheat the creator out of his hard earned $$. I don't think it's wrong to discuss gimmicked coins, since most magicians can't manufacture their own.

The Internet offers a wonderful opportunity to share secrets and methods among magicians all over the world, and I think we're blowing this opportunity if we continue to fuss among ourselves about this issue. Relatively speaking, we're a very small club, and no one is seriously interested in this stuff except us.

Robert McDaniel

[Robert Allen]

Jeff, regarding your point about a hypothetical new card technique, check my point in the other thread about cost giving one an (unknown) leadtime on an advance look at something. Sooner or later it will be documented, probably when the inventor has personally moved on to something better. Buy it, use it quick, and be prepared for the day you have to buy/use the next Big Thing.

Everything we do was once a secret, but I don't think anyone would advocate banning magic books or videos.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about Daryl. What I heard was this: that in his early years he didn't have lots of spare cash to buy the books of the day (this was before DVDs, or even VHS). So he figured out all his own material. No need to buy the latest super-duper card material...unless you just enjoy buying and reading about it (like I do).

[Richard Kaufman]

Fascinating: it is exactly 11:25 pm here on the east coast, and exactly 70 people have voted in the poll and it is split dead even: 35 people yes, 35 people no.
What will tomorrow bring?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
What will tomorrow bring?

Mark Lewis voting both ways under two different aliases.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
What will tomorrow bring?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Lewis voting both ways under two different aliases.

Or maybe photos of Steve and Dustin in their mesh things.

Mike

[Guest]

If the question is "Do laypeople visit these forums to learn about the secrets of magic?", then the answer is very unlikely. However, let me ask another question "Does everyone of you know EVERY method or secret that it out there?" If only the elitists in magic are heard it would appear to be so.

Magic is composed of people of different levels and these frequent this forum and other magic forums on the internet. I still love to be fooled and astonished. I also will always consider myself a neophyte despite 25 years in Magic. To reveal a gaff with the statement that "everyone already knew or suspected it" speaks of arrogance.

As a physician, the day I believe I know "everything" in medicine is the day I should stop seeing my patients in fear of harming them because of my own pride and arrogance. Sorry about my rant, but I felt the need to say it.

[Sean Macfarlane]

I'm not bothered that the secret was exposed on this board. I would be bummed if it was exposed on public t.v. though.

I mostly perform for layman anyway, I don't care if magicians know the secret to this effect. I don't think you can stop it really, once it was made available to consumers, you don't have any control over the secret anymore, it's up to the individual if he wants to share it with other magicians.

I kept U3F too myself pretty much, I've now decided to drop this effect from my repertoire as it is no longer a limited edition, I guess it's been that way for a while.

So I'm not bothered at all that the effect was exposed, I work for laymen, and I don't think that they are all that interested in the secrets to come to this board to find out. If they are, then more power to them. That's how I started learning, was by searching for information in lybraries.

[Terry]

From what I have read in the 2 different threads, there is a confusion of 2 subjects.

1. Exposing secrets - according to the "magicians code of ethics" (snicker snicker) we should never expose secrets to anyone other than another magician.

Did Richard violate this "code" :rolleyes: ? No. My interpretation of his posting was comparing the cost of the trick verses the cost of the gimmick used in previous tricks.

Most secrets are available to "outsiders" in any public library or just by walking into any magic shop. All the gimmick coins are displayed for anyone to see. Will they associate the gimmick coin in the shop to the trick performed in person? Only if the "performer" is so inept he exposes the method.

The 1st subject ties into the second, which is...

2. Overblown & misleading hype/price of effects.

Most trick descriptions read like the trick is bigger than the second coming or at least equal.

According to most posts, U3F was to be limited and thus justify the cost. If this is false and it is being mass produced without a price reduction and/or offer of partial refund, then previous purchasers were either mislead or outright lied to.

The situation only concerns Bob Kohler and the purchasers of the trick. If the purchasers feel they were mislead, they need to contact Bob and get it settled. It should not turn into a chest thumping pissing contest on a public forum.

[Michael Edwards]

The issue here is not exposure to lay audiences. Nor is it whether the details of the gimmick appear self-evident (which, in this instance, they do not). It is whether it is appropriate to describe the precise nature of a marketed gimmick in a public forum designed for magicians. I side with those who would urge caution. I find it telling that most reviewers -- including those who have frequented the pages of Genii do not generally disclose this information even in their reviews. Why is this? It's not because some potential spectator might happen upon an old issue of the magazine lying around, read the review, and have all the mystery of some effect he or she has seen evaporate like a fading cloud (sorry, I've been reading Thurston advertising material all morning). It is out of respect for the proprietary and financial interests of those who make, market and perform the effect. Take a look at Danny Orleans review of Ultimate 3 Fly in the October 2000 issue of Genii. (Vol, 63, No. 10). While Danny's parenthetical comment that Chris Kenner's version uses regular coins could lead one to infer that Mr. Kohler's routine does not, he seems to take great care not to say this directly. Indeed, here's how he explains the gimmick: "The gaff is a modified version of something most of you own, but the differences are significant and allow you to frequently show your hands void of anything but the three Morgan silver dollars that mysteriously 'fly' from hand to hand in this four phase-routine." This obliqueness isn't accidental. It's the approach echoed in virtually every magic magazine and across shop counters in magic stores every day. The secret's not told until the trick is sold.

The argument that a magician could figure out the precise nature of this gimmick and thus it is all really self-evident simply is not persuasive. While it is certainly possible a magician could come to the correct conclusion, there are a wide range of other gimmicks and sleight of hand approaches that can obtain the same effect (Thank you Jonathan, Chris, Gary et al). Indeed, I was at a magic gathering some time back where during the workshop six separate handlings of coins across at the fingertips were presented...each using three silver dollars, including Ultimate 3 Fly. The method and mechanics of each were quite different, but to the observer there would not have been any way to associate the correct approach and mechanics with a particular handling.

While I understand the concern about what was to have been a limited edition having become a more widely distributed item, the number of Ultimate 3 Fly sets sold really has no bearing on whether the details of the apparatus should be publicly shared with those who have not purchased the product.

In my view, there really was no compelling reason to reveal this particular information and thus discretion should rule.

At least that's my 2 cents (or at least my three 1921 Morgan silver dollars) ;)

[Sean Macfarlane]

I have had my friends (non-magicians) come up to my place many a time and see all my magical literature around. Some even had a look in them to see what they were about.

Not once did any of them take a secret out of there, they all found it too technical and boring, after a few minutes they were done.

Have no fear.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Also, divulging something that is sold is entirely different than divulging something that is private information and not sold.

One could apply that logic to any TV exposure show and use it as a rationalization to justify said exposure.

In fact, under your assertation, one need not even BUY the effect they seek to expose. Merely finding out how it's done, as long as it's also commercially available, is enough.

Burke

[Guest]

"Assertation"?!?!

Jeez, I need sleep.

Burke

[Doomo]

Ok people,

This is getting silly.

Should we or should we not talk about a secret method of an effect? Please people...

We are supposedly all magicians here. We are supposed to be able to talk about things here. Not in a secret code, but actually TALK about them. I am a member of several boards, both paying and free,because I enjoy speaking about magic with some of you people.

But when you start saying, I can't talk about the subject I want to talk about on a board designed to talk about that subject...then you might as well shut it down.

I have no desire to speak about how much I like or dislike David Blaine, or if I noticed that a magician had a bit part in a film or tv show. I PREFER to talk about the magic itself.

PLEASE do not tell me somebody from outside might learn a secret. There are no secrets, at least not in commercial magic. I have been going to conventions since I was a kid. I have no idea how many times I have seen the "pillars of our community" discussing methods at the hotel bar right in front of the bartender and waitstaff, etc. In fact, early on, I asked about this. I was told the following the first time,"You worry too much..have a beer." I was 14. It was a good beer.

In conclusion, I come here because I like the people (in general), and Richard said this was a place to actually talk about magic, not to hint about magic, but to have real discourse on it. If we can't talk about methods among ourselves, then we might as well pack up and go home.

Doomo

[Guest]

Now that Doomo is done hogging the computer, I am going to have a say.

First of all, reviews are just that. They say whether something is, in the reviewer's opinion, worth purchasing. They do not need to reveal method to tell you that. They say things like, "This is a reworking of the Princess Card Trick", or "This is another version of the Kapps Wallet." In both cases..they have told you what it is without telling you. Magic reviews, unlike moview reviews, have to give you SOME indication of what you are buying. Otherwise, if you paid $300 for a piece of thread and a sheet of instructions you might be kinda cranky.

On the other hand if the reviewer says, "This is a brilliant reworking of the Fred Kapps's Floating Cork", once again, he has told you everything about the effect...yet you are prob going to buy it if you like that effect already.


I might suggest for those who don't want to know anything about techniques or methods, just stick with the gossip sections. A compromise could be a little indicator placed on threads by the forum moderators to indicate that topic may discuss methods and gimmicks. On movie review sights, when they are going to expose a plot point for a review, they put in big letters "SPOILER". That way people who like to be surprised, can still be surprised. Those who are grown up and don't believe in Santa can continue reading.

That way everyone could be happy..isn't that nice... :D

"Rosie"

[Tim Trono]

In my opinion, such exposure is no different from one magician buying a video tape and then making dozens of free copies for his pals. The end result is that magicians will no longer release their material because they can't make any money. They sell a few tapes and then suddenly the rest of the world gets their hard work for free and the creator gets nothing. It HURTS the creators and it HURTS magic. Am I concerned that another magician is learning a secret... no. Am I concerned that it hurts the creator, hurts their sales, and cheapens the whole allure of the secret... yes. Now granted duplication of video is a copyright issue, but a BIG part of the sale of a magic trick is the intrigue of "exactly" how it is done. By exposing the secret specifically that question is answered and the intrigue is lost, the sale is lost, and the creator is hurt. How many of you bought Dean's Box or Dean's Blizzard simply because you were fooled? I did. I watched people throw money at Dean when Blizzard first came out as they were fooled and wanted to know "how". Likewise, when U3F first came out most people were throwing money at Bob not because they understood the gimmick, not because they wanted a collectors item (though some may have per the posts) but because they got fooled badly. So if I just told you how these were done would you still buy them and other great items such as this that fooled you? With few exceptions, probably not. By the very nature of the responses it is clear that not everyone knew the secret to U3F. I have talked to many people before this debacle that did not know how it was done. Look at the responses to early U3F threads on this and other forums and you will see that many people were not sure how it was done. The damage is done.

So then by the logic to date, I presume it is OK to get on the Genii Forum and expose Dean Dill's "Dean's Box", Peter Loughran's "Elevator", John Kennedy's "Card thru Window", etc. I bet if one asked the creators of these and other items how they felt about publicly exposing their items they would strongly vote against it. The success of these items is due in large part (in addition to them being wonderful creations) to the fact that the consumer (magician) is interested in the secret.

The problem with a "poll" is that you are getting many of the individuals who don't want to spend more than $20 on a secret yet want to be in the know (I am NOT saying everyone here OK'ing exposure fits this category).

Part of exclusivity on U3F and the items mentioned above is the price point... not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have these items (and thus the specific secrets) unless they want to pay the price. And an "assumption" on how something is done is NOT the same as having the answer served on a platter.

Openly exposing the secret cheapens magic and I would hope that the IBM and SAM ethics committees would take a look at this and take a stance on this. I would also hope that creators, dealers, etc., would take a stance on this as well.

The supposed logic that "you cannot do it without the apparatus anyway so it is OK to expose" is just ludicrous... I can't afford to build "Flying" but does that mean I should openly expose it and discuss it (and don't many of us have an "idea" of how it is done anyway)... the answer is NO.

Doomo, I too am a member of many other boards both closed and open. In those a great deal of magic is discussed but try to talk about a specific secret and watch how quickly you get shut down. Discussing magic generally is VERY different from discussing specific secrets. One is productive and beneficial, one most likely hurts. I am not "as" concerned about non magicians (though that concern of non magicians looking in does have "some" validity - if you don't think non-magicians peer in on these boards you are dreaming) but a huge part of the success of an item is, as mentioned above, is the intrigue of those who do not know (meaning other magicians). And if we don't support the creators watch how fast the wonderful effects released stop (would you want something you've spent years working on openly thrown out, instantly divulged, and thus revenue you'd make off of your creation possibly hurt), how fast magazines like Genii and MAGIC close down as creators don't want to sell their "babies", etc.

Rosie, I know Tony has a few effects coming out. Do you mean to say that it is OK and will not hurt the sales if the basic idea of these is exposed/discussed?

This is sad, as Dan Watkins stated, when we have to have a poll to determine a stance on ethics.

In the beginning of this thread Richard Kaufman states "This is NOT a poll about whether magic secrets in general should be discussed on the forum--I've already made that decision and the answer is yes. In fact, I encourage people to discuss magical methodology here. This IS a poll about whether the gimmick in a marketed item should be divulged." So then this raises other questions in reference to this forum:

- is it OK to discuss techniques and ideas in books such as the specifics of the Aronson Stack?

- is it OK to discuss effects put out that do not use gimmicks or easily made gimmicks (ex. Healed and Sealed)

The answer to me is obvious but I am just amazed so am asking. Don't many people buy Simon Aronson's book to learn his stack. By Richard's rational it could essentially be discussed and explained openly here.


Tim Trono

[Guest]

FWIW, I voted in favor of censorship, but I was and remain right on the edge on this one.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Tim Trono:
- is it OK to discuss effects put out that do not use gimmicks or easily made gimmicks (ex. Healed and Sealed)

Wait a minute...you mean there's an EASIER method than the body-loaded electronic combination fluid injector/soldering iron I just bought for $600 at Tannen's?

[reed mcclintock]

You bought a gaff big deal! So it was exposed, big deal! The real public has bigger and more important things to worry about, than your trick. It is your job to make it magical anyway, to elevate it above more than a gimmicked trick. Most of the people I have seen, magicians do the effect an injustice and they expose the gaff.

The public has a short attention span, look at all of the stuff that has been exposed on television. People forget the workings of something because it is not important to them. If it was important to them and they did remember, it was your job to make it so impressive that they say something like I saw something like that exposed on television but you did completely different than that guy, I have know idea how you did it.

MOST guys buy a trick; to see how its done,Or realize afterwards it is not necessary. go perform it that night or maybe perform it for a week. Then they throw it in a drawer because it didnt make them a million dollars. Guys come on there is so much material out there, and you all are fixated on this subject.

Most of you are upset you paid a lot of money for something most guys have NOW. Its not whether or not the gaff was exposed on the board. If you are really upset about it,you would know the following from performing in the real world. You would not be giving this any more thought any way. I do however think this publicity is great for everyone involved.

How many people have you seen expose a Svengali deck, Linking rings, Vanishing silk, Fantastick, let alone more advanced stuff like the pass, classic palming of coins or a coin, etc. these are just a few examples. Most people that do magic performing for a living could care less, Lord only knows most magicians do not practice nearly enough to perform the stuff they do perform, I feel that is a true statement, what about you?

I think many of you are just jumping on the bandwagon. I suppose realizing these are TRICKS and nothing more. Makes me really satisfied and hungry to make my magic even better. How about you?

Nothing makes me happier when I hear from someone I saw a trick like that over at such and such place and I saw how he did it. You did it and I have no idea. Do you see the difference people, or am I off base?

Also, I have a Kohler gimmick it sits in my drawer because its not necessary for the effect. Boohoo you exposed it, lolololo, whatever, expose it all, you make those of us that do this stuff even cooler for us, from our clients perspective.
Cheers
Reed

I have been taking private classes on my English and Grammar and writing to help me with my disability. How is the typing on this and grammar? Getting better I think. Sure there are some errors, I am sure but it looks a lot better. When you have a problem do something about it, fix it, or just dwell in your own misery, and complain all the time. No thanks live life, it is to short, die trying to learn and be a better human and not slam on people to make your self look and feel better.

[Brian Marks]

Most exposure isn't done on this website, it isn't done Fox and it isn't even done when people copy tapes. Its done when people do bad magic.

Stop talking on this website and practise.

[reed mcclintock]

Preach it brother, preach it :D

[Chris Bailey]

Interesting thread...

Tim Trono says "In my opinion, such exposure is no different from one magician buying a video tape and then making dozens of free copies for his pals. The end result is that magicians will no longer release their material because they can't make any money. They sell a few tapes and then suddenly the rest of the world gets their hard work for free and the creator gets nothing."

People have been able to copy tapes for 20 years and yet there are less and less books being created an more and more tapes and DVDs. One way to protect their work is to not put them on video tapes. We all know most new "magicians" don't read books anyways. They have to see it on a tape or DVD. You yourself make a living selling tapes and DVDs that others can easily copy for their friends.

Dan mentioned one of the main reasons he was upset about this exposure was that it brought the value of his investment down. I hate to break it to you Dan but BK selling 800+ more then promised with a supposedly unlimited supply in the works brings down the value much more then someone talking about the gaff (which is very old.) I remember when Greg Wilson told me about the routine. I thought "Hmmm...2 in one and, one in the other then one jumps over cleanly. It must be a ********************." I didn't have a ************ at the time but I do have a noodle in my head that works normally. Seeing as how Dan is such a "coin man" I'm quite surprised he couldn't figure it out without buying it first. Regardless of knowing how it worked, I bought one when there were "only a few sets left" a couple of years ago because I read how good the ROUTINE was and also that the gimmick, which wasn't available was a run of 200 ONLY. I was thinking I was getting set #190 or close to it. Reading that BK has sold over 1000 is quite distressing to me and it certainly doesn't to a whole lot for his reputation. Will I continue to buy his products? Sure, if they're good. Will I ever believe him again when it comes to a products exclusivity or any type of promise like that? Hardly. That also goes for his holdout system which I believe is also supposed to be quite exclusive. I remember how badly I wanted Hollingworth's video of his Reformation but there were only 100 made available. Could he have made a truckload of money selling more? Absolutely. But he didn't and I admired that in him and his values on the matter.

[Ian Kendall]

Apart from agreeing with Reed for most of his post I have to say Wow for the improvement in the language skills. The private work has definitely paid dividends. Good stuff :)

Back on track; I think the internet has more to do with this than people think on the surface. These days I can log onto any number of websites and watch video demos of the latest effects. Nine times out of ten I can get the method first watch, and the others take another viewing or two. I mention this because Tim brought up Dean's box, Blizzard and Elevator, three effects that I know but do not own. Despite this fact I have never discussed the method with anyone as I respect the creators' work and because I did not buy the knowledge it is not mine to give away.

As Tim said, people will buy an effect to find out the method, which will never change. If our community exists on the knowledge of secrets people will _always_ want to know the unknown secrets of the effect that fooled them (a phrase I detest, but that's another story...)

It seems that in this matter, common sense is the least common of the senses being used. I find it hard to believe that the extreminsts cannot see the difference between 'let's discuss double life technique' with 'let's discuss Dean's Box'. Every now and then someone posts a routine or move on the forum for everyone to read. This, I believe, is the methodoligy that Richard would like to see discussed. If we have a virtual session where everyone is sharing information pertinant to our common interest the board looks good, people enjoy spending time here and we all learn (kind of like the EG in the very early days). I'm not sure how many people would be comfortable discussing this stuff in a face to face session, especially if the creator was sitting across the table...

Also, people have lost sight of the origin of this subject. It arose from a number of people being peeved with BKM and their marketing practices. Then the topic changed to who invented the thing in the first place which is when Asher gave us the almost definitive bibliograhy. I'd wager that a number of people checked at this point. I will put my hand up to that; I have not seen the effect but from the descriptions I had a very good idea of the method, or at least how I would have done it. As it happens I was pretty close...

Remember that this was born of frustration, not malice. I really can't see this happening again soon.

Take care, Ian
Who voted to clear the board/air/room.