F/S: Tommy Wonder 'Ring, Watch & Wallet...MINT, UNOPENED!

[brownbeauty]

F/S: The Tommy Wonder 'Ring, Watch and Wallet....MINT, UNOPENED!

For those who love exclusivity, few will ever do it simply because they won't find the apparatus. As was typical of so many of Tommy Wonder's mechanical effects, it was exquisitely engineered and designed and only a very skilled craftsman could ever really make this prop correctly.

This set being virtually hand made and fitted, it is a FABULOUS outfit, perfectly engineered and exquisitely built with absolutely no expense spared. Normally this would sell for $1695 however I am selling it for $1495

Please note that this was a one of a kind custom manufactured piece!

All welds have been laser welded, includes a fully adjustable custom harness and custom improved reel. Also includes the gimmicked Quartz Dress Watch with Money Gimmick and matching Quartz dress watch, ring, special envelopes to get you started, and a special lambskin black leather wallet that even has the thumb notch as specified in Tommy Wonders fantastic books 'Book of Wonder'.

This one of a kind piece was custom manufactured for a private collector, so this is extremely rare! In excellent like new condition. This is an opportunity of a lifetime to own this classic piece of Tommy Wonder magic!





$1495 includes free shipping in the USA



Rudy Sanchez
13047 Lakeland Rd.
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
562-5777584

[mrgoat]

I don't mean to be an arse, but if it is unopened, how did you get the pics of it out of the packaging?

[Brad Henderson]

I don't mean to be an arse, but haven't you sold several of these already? does that not contradict the one of a kind claim?

[Dustin Stinett]

As everyone knows, we do not allow comments, but these are legitimate questions which are allowed.

Brad, I do not see (on this site) where he has tried to sell this before except for one eBay auction. Of course, that doesn't mean that it sold. So "several" seems a bit overboard, unless you know something I don't.

However, Damian's question is compelling: IF it is unopened, that would make it impossible to photograph as seen in the ad.

IF he has more than one set (enabling him to photo an opened one) it is not one of a kind, which goes to Brad's point.

My question--and I do not mean to be an arse--is did Tommy Wonder make this, as the ad copy seems to hint, or was it someone else (as I suspect) and if the latter, can we know who that is?

Rudy might want to answer these questions, but he certainly doesn't have to.

He has sold items here before and I have never heard of any complaints about him, but that's all I can say: this is NOT an endorsement, simply a statement of fact.

As always, Caveat Emptor is rule #1 of the Marketplace.

[Brad Henderson]

It is my understanding that more than one of these is floating around. A noted magic list dealer recently gave some details on this effect. i understand that 'one of a kind' may be being used carelessly, but it is important to clarify with an item of potentially collectible value.

[Roger M.]

I think you'll find that Rudy was making reference to a "one of a kind" and very specific design and method of construction.

It appears (to me) he was also trying to make clear that this is the last one he has left for sale.

A confusing choice of words does tend to leave folks confused

[brownbeauty]

Hello,
Since I am the manufacturer of this 'custom made, one of a kind' prop (technique, design, construction), I can take pictures prior to packaging.

Although the pictures I have posted are of my own personal prop.

I have made several when asked by owners of the Tommy Wonder Books or DVD's and will be glad to provide this service to anyone that is interested as long as they own the books or dvd's.

This prop is posted on several sites.

I own an original R,W & W made by Tommy and we have taken Tommy's genuis and have made huge improvements. Nobody makes them like we do. Nobody provides the self adjusting harness that we supply nor the custom lambskin wallet.

This particular prop was commissioned by a magician that failed to follow thru on his order and is for sale.

This is the only one available at this time. This is a very time consuming, very detailed prop to make and the props price is a reflection of this.

Thank you,

Rudy

[Richard Kaufman]

I think you fail to understand the "rights" conveyed to you when purchasing a book. You can make items for your own use, but you do not have the legal right to sell any of Tommy Wonder's material.

[brownbeauty]

Richard...if somebody owns the book and asks me to make one they have every right to make one. If they choose me to make it that is there prerogative. The book gives the owner the right to make or have made the prop.

[Tom Stone]

Richard...if somebody owns the book and asks me to make one they have every right to make one. If they choose me to make it that is there prerogative. The book gives the owner the right to make or have made the prop.

You are a dishonest crook.
It is as simple as that.

[brownbeauty]

This is now on hold!

[Richard Kaufman]

This gentleman will no longer be doing business here on the Forum.

[Bill Mullins]

Tom, Richard -- are you saying that owning The Books of Wonder gives you the right to make one of TW effects for yourself, but not to hire someone else to do so for you?

I'm not arguing against (or for) that proposition, I've just never seen it explicitly stated like that.

Rudy -- If this is the logic that gives you the "right" to manufacture the props, then why don't you limit the sale of it only to people who own the books/videos?

[Thomas Van Aken]

Tom, Richard -- are you saying that owning The Books of Wonder gives you the right to make one of TW effects for yourself, but not to hire someone else to do so for you?

I'm not arguing against (or for) that proposition, I've just never seen it explicitly stated like that.

Rudy -- If this is the logic that gives you the "right" to manufacture the props, then why don't you limit the sale of it only to people who own the books/videos?

Hello Tom and Richard,

I second Bill question: I don't understand the difference between manufacturing a prop myself and hiring a local to do it for me because I don't have the tools, the skills or whatever; assuming of course that the prop is for my personal use in both cases.

Regards

Thomas

[Chris Aguilar]

How useful would this item be to someone who didn't already own the book that describes it?

[Roger M.]

Good grief, Rudy is a very well known and respected buyer and seller of high-end magic props.

I happen to own The Books of Wonder myself, and frankly if I were to want one of these items, Rudy would be the first on my list to contract to make it for me.
I would never be able to construct anything of similar quality on my own, in my basement.

Rudy does insist that you own the Books of Wonder prior to purchase, so I utterly fail to see the problem that appears to have manifested itself on this thread.

Would somebody please explain to me how ... suddenly ... owning the book DOESN'T give me the right to have somebody construct the prop for me, or for me to purchase the prop on a contract basis?

[Dustin Stinett]

Now that I know what's going on, this is pretty simple. (Roger, I think I may answer your question below.)

Rudy, first of all you should have identified yourself as the maker. By not doing so it appears that you are hiding something. To many, a lie by omission is still a lie. It also leads me to believe that you know that you are doing something that is at least unethical and at most illegal. That's the reason you omitted who the "skilled craftsman" was: you deflected the "guilt" by making look like you were simply selling something you acquired.

But that is not the case. Yes, you have the right to manufacture these for yourself or someone else when/if you are solicited to do so. And that buyer has a right--with full disclosure--to sell it when they are no longer going to use it.

[Here is the key, Roger.] But unless you've made an arrangement with his estate, you do NOT have the right to manufacture, advertise, and sell them on an unsolicited basis, particularly under the Tommy Wonder name, which is exactly what you are doing here. That's just plain wrong.

[alexboyce]

Usually, when someone buys a book they have the rights to make the effect themselves for their own performance. It is also usually accepted if someone buys a book that they can have effect made for them for their own performance. When someone buys a book they do not have the rights to manufacture the product and sell it to others who do not own the book. Or they could buy multiple copies of the book and sell the book along with the manufactured effect to each customer. (I've heard this used in Steinmeyer's Modern Art)

[Dustin Stinett]

Rudy can make and sell as many of these as he is asked to make by people with the book or DVD. The key point is that he needs to be approached by his customers. He cannot make, advertise, and sell them on an unsolicited basis without permission from (and monetary compensation to) Tommy Wonder's estate. He should have handled this differently--and frankly it's not too late to fix it. Losander found himself in a very similar situation some years ago and made it right. Rudy can do the same thing.

[Dustin Stinett]

Roger: I did not mean to make my post condescending to you. I honestly meant just to call your attention to my post since I believed it answered your question. Sorry to make it sound so bad. I have tried to fix it via an edit.

And it's not my "opinion." This is a case of black and white ethics. We (The Genii Forum) have been counseled by a lawyer is cases just like this, so we know what we are doing.

[Roger M.]

No worries Dustin, thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Richard Kaufman]

Bill, did Dustin's explanation clarify for you?

[Bill Mullins]

Yes, and from my direct question to Rudy I hope you can see that I was thinking along the same lines.

But it initially appeared that Rudy was banned for making and selling a prop that, when he made it, was done in accordance with "standard" magic ethics -- the person who commissioned it had the right to commission it (assuming what Rudy says is true), and Rudy had the right to make it for them (assuming he did in fact verify that the commissioner owned a copy of the books or videos). And if his initial post here had made clear that he would only sell it to someone who verified ownership, it looks to me, given full disclosure of the circumstances that caused him to have an "unclaimed" copy, he would have been okay there.

His only ethical lapse seems to be offering it for sale to _anyone_ without clearing it with the Wonder Estate (and for all we know, he did just that).

I'd be inclined to allow for the possibility that he was acting ethically when he made the prop, that the initial buyer dropped out and left him holding the bag for a prop that represented a big investment of time (and possibly materials) -- what may be a near-unique situation -- and in his attempt to recover from that, he left out a step that he should have taken (limiting the sale to a valid customer). It's your call to ban him, but it may be that what he did was inadvertent rather than unscrupulous.

I do think it is jumping the gun to boldly say that he is a "dishonest crook" without knowing more about the situation.

[Dustin Stinett]

His only ethical lapse seems to be offering it for sale to _anyone_ without clearing it with the Wonder Estate (and for all we know, he did just that).

If he had, don't you think he would be advertising that fact versus hiding behind a veil of anonymity?

[Brad Henderson]

nevertheless, "one of a kind" is definitely misleading when it comes to describe that which was being offered.

[Bill Mullins]

His only ethical lapse seems to be offering it for sale to _anyone_ without clearing it with the Wonder Estate (and for all we know, he did just that).

If he had, don't you think he would be advertising that fact versus hiding behind a veil of anonymity?

Probably so. Even if all his ethical ducks are in a row, I don't think he did a good job of offering this for sale -- full and early disclosure benefits everyone.

But folks here are jumping to the conclusion that he didn't, and we just don't know. Like I said, I don't think it's right to call someone a "dishonest thief" based solely on what's been in this thread. He may be one, but I'd have to have more facts than I do to publicly call him one.

That's all I meant by the statement.

[Bill Mullins]

Another thing -- In The Books of Wonder (1996), he says he has been doing the trick for "years". The Jun 1984 Linking Ring (p 121) describes a lecture in which he taught the trick. If he had patented the apparatus then (and he didn't), it would be in the public domain by now, and Rudy (and anyone else, for that matter) could build and sell all he wanted.

How long does a dead magician's estate get to keep exclusivity for props?

[Richard Kaufman]

It's a matter of IP, Intellectual Property, and has nothing to do with patents. In Europe, people are granted much more control over their creations than they are here.

[erdnasephile]

As an FYI, the authorized commercial version of these props is here:

http://www.cupsandballs.nl/

which is sold in the US by:

http://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/tommy- ... an-dokkum/


As a side note, when Mr. Wonder was still with us, I contacted him for permission to have an artist construct a prop from his book for me since Mr. Wonder did not offer that particular prop for sale. He graciously granted me permission, so I suspect he had no problem with owners of the book having a prop made for their own use. OTOH, commercial rights to all of the stuff in the books were specifically reserved by him according to the copyright page.

[Tom Stone]

Tom, Richard -- are you saying that owning The Books of Wonder gives you the right to make one of TW effects for yourself, but not to hire someone else to do so for you?

That is not what has been happening here.
When a builder is soliciting orders, it is commercial manufacturing.
Also, he's been selling these "one of a kind, custom manufactured for a private collector" pieces since at least 2006. Google the combination "brownbeauty" and "Tommy Wonder".
Here's one: http://www.internationalmagicauction.co ... n_id=98098
Another: http://www.magiccastleauctions.com/1062 ... on_details
...and so on.

See Dick Koornwinders post about the "one of a kind" item Brownbeauty sold here 6 years ago:
viewtopic.php?p=170014#p170014

[hugmagic]

First off, I absolutely respect intellectual property and Tommy Wonder. There is a point that no one has addressed to this point.
This effect is very old and has been in print prior to Tommy's books. I know Alan Shaxon had it in one of his books. I believe it was an old plot then when he published it. Maryvn Roy put it on his video tape from Stevens Magic.
My point is that often just because this is the latest person to do something does not mean he was the originator. Many of the "latest and greatest" miracles are being repackaged as brand new.
I will admit I have not done an exhaustive study of the differences between the plots and methods for this effect. I just think it is something that people should be aware of and consider.
I agree though that if you are soliciting for business to make a prop that the rights are only for the book holder, it becomes more of a commercial venture.
Richard

[Tom Stone]

First off, I absolutely respect intellectual property and Tommy Wonder. There is a point that no one has addressed to this point.
This effect is very old and has been in print prior to Tommy's books.

No, do not confuse this specific effect for the general plot that the effect builds on.

No one have attempted to hide the lineage of the piece, so I'm not sure what the purpose of the objection is. The basis for the plot was created by Oswald Williams. Lot of people have made additions, changes and versions of the original routine: Oswald Rae, Alan Shaxon, Jim Steinmeyer, Rich Marotta, Vanni Pule, Maryvn Roy... various improvements, some more significant than others, of basically the same routine construction.
Tommy Wonder's routine shares nothing with those, more than the general plot. It is a complete reworking of the routine construction that is significantly different from all the predecessors. "The Ring, The Watch and The Wallet" is not a case of something old repackaged as something brand new, and to suggest that Tommy wasn't the originator of the piece discussed here is simply wrong.
Tommy wasn't the latest person to explore the general plot either. For example, Ben Seidman have recently taken the handling in a completely different direction with his unpublished piece.

I agree though that if you are soliciting for business to make a prop that the rights are only for the book holder, it becomes more of a commercial venture.

Good!

[Syd]

First – this is a thread that addresses an important topic. I hope someone might consider moving it to an appropriate heading.

I think there are a number of issues at play here: ethics and law both foreign and domestic.

Ethics

As to ethics, I think there are two areas being discussed. Ethics in advertising an item for sale and the ethics of manufacturing and selling an item. Unfortunately, people’s ideas of ethics vary from person to person – in some cases widely and in others less so. There can really be no right or wrong when opinions differ.

Manufacturing

Given this – I will stay away from my thoughts on the issue of the manufacture and sale of this item. From personal experience, I created my version of a “Pen through anything” and approached John Cornelius personally at a convention and not only did he give me his approval he thanked me for asking permission. And while I have never mass produced these – rather only produced a small number for select collectors – I personally feel better knowing John has consented.

Advertising

As to advertising – my personal issue lies within the use of “one of a kind.” Dictionary.com defines the term as “unique; pertaining to a singular example.” While I know that there are many pieces of one-of-a-kind magic, I do not own any. I do, however, own pieces that are part of a limited edition or even small run. In each case they were marketed that way. A thousand can be a limited edition – or any number for that matter. But, to me and to Dictionary.com, one of a kind is simply that. So I agree with Brad that, at least for me, it was a bit misleading. The “only one available at this time” (also implying “from the manufacturer”) is a bit misleading. Again, at least to me.

Law

Generally

One problem with Intellectual Property and with online forums that reach across the ocean, what is “legal” in one country may, or may not, be legal in another. It appears that the manufacturer is in the states but willing to sell overseas so the difficulty begins in trying to ascertain what is “legal.”

Within the context of the law, there are a number of issues but the two most prominent are Copyright and Patent.

Copyright

I have no idea if the manufacturer include “instructions” that quoted from the books. It does NOT appear that he did – at least from the ad – so I doubt there is a potential copyright issue.

Patent

It does not appear that a US Patent exists for this effect although I could be completely wrong. If one DOES exist then the manufacture CANNOT make it without authorization. If one does NOT exist then he can – legally – ethics notwithstanding.

As to foreign law – I have no idea if the effect is protected or not. Tom, I think calling the manufacturer a “crook” is a bit harsh unless there is some evidence the law has been broken. He may be - in your opinion (I am specifically not expressing mine here) – unethical but that does not make him a crook.

With regard to Dustin’s statement “… That’s just plain wrong.” I think Dustin is right – if your view of the ethical issues aligns with his. If Dustin intends his statement to be a statement of the law (I can’t actually tell) then the statement is incorrect. I disagree with Dustin’s comment about “black and white ethics.” Unfortunately the magic community doesn’t really have an enforceable “ethics” code such as ones that lawyers, doctors and other professions or trades do. The ethics code is one we voluntarily agree to. Not everyone follows it and as to those that do – not everyone agrees on what is or is not ethical.

Syd

[Tom Moore]

It does not appear that a US Patent exists for this effect although I could be completely wrong. If one DOES exist then the manufacture CANNOT make it without authorization. If one does NOT exist then he can – legally – ethics notwithstanding.

There is considerably more (in american law and the laws of every other country on the planet) to prevent, control, license or permit the production of something besides Patents. Just because there's /not/ a patent in place does not mean LEGALLY someone can just go ahead and manufacture something that someone else has designed/developed/created.

This whole world is a murky one of legal and ethical issues - it's best not to go around making such simplistic statements as "no patent = ok to make" as that only leads to a whole new generation of people getting the wrong legal impression

[Syd]

I think I made it quite clear I was only speaking of US law. You decided to leave that out of the quote. As to the US, the few circumstances that might apply other than Patent do not appear to be implicated even remotely. But since you think otherwise, why don't you enlighten us.

[hugmagic]

Thanks Tom. You refreshed my memory that the original story plot creator was Oswald Williams.

[Roger M.]

All this hand-wringing and reputation bashing seems a bit disingenuous to me.

It would seem the major culprits in this type of nefarious activity (Magic Makers et al) enjoy relative "hands off" from the magic community in general, while guys like Rudy appear as an easy target, and get excoriated by some of the folks here on the forum.

Those who support rip-off companies like Magic Makers by assisting them in generating new product, and overtly supporting their crooked business model continue to enjoy a good reputation here on the Genii Forum, and are given a "pass" for reasons that escape me.

I'm aware that "this" is a classic hot-button issue, and I'm aware that the Genii Forum is not to be considered a bastion of free speech, rather a privately run forum with an owner who has every right to run it as he see's fit ... but it might be worth considering that simply deleting an offending post and notifying the poster that the forum owner considers the circumstances surrounding the their proposed sale item to be a bit to gray to allow the post to remain up might be a better path to take than allowing somebody to be unfairly labeled a "crook" by a poster with a well known agenda, and then for the opportunity for the OP to offer a reasoned rebuttal or explanation to be taken away entirely.

[Syd]

Well put Roger.

[Tom Moore]

I think I made it quite clear I was only speaking of US law. You decided to leave that out of the quote. As to the US, the few circumstances that might apply other than Patent do not appear to be implicated even remotely. But since you think otherwise, why don't you enlighten us.

Actually Syd you'll note in the very first line of my response I acknowledge this applies in American laws...

I'm simply correcting the (rather common) false assumption that patents are the only legal framework to prevent other people manufacturing your designs/creations/ideas. Admittedly in the US there's not much else apart from patents but none the less there are other legal devices, tools and methods to protect works OTHER than patents hence why I corrected your original statement that if there's no patent then there's no legal barrier to someone manufacturing someone else's creation.

Other countries have much better and clearer IP protection legal devices than the US does but the US does still have some good ones of its own.

[Syd]

Thank Tom. I agree, other parts of the world have protections in place that the US lacks. It would be nice to have a uniform system that the US, the EU and other countries recognized. As technology makes the world smaller, it would be nice to make it easier for artists to protect their work.