Exposure in Magic Magazine

Talk about what is being written in other magic publications.
Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2007, 3:36 pm

IMHO causing a coin from your pocket change or their coin to vanish is a step toward impromptu.

Methodology is not pertinant to discussions of effect.

I was under the impression the word meant "unprepared".

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2007, 7:04 pm

Impromtu to the specator vs. impromptu to the magician are two different worlds.

You are selling a product to the magician not the spectator.

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7259
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Dustin Stinett » August 3rd, 2007, 11:45 pm

I wish my copy of that dang magazine would get here so I can read this review. Is that the effect isnt strictly impromptu the major issue in the review? Hardly an issue worthy of exposure IF thats the case.

Dustin

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 12:04 am

I can appreciate the points made by Dustin, if a product is really bad it may need to have more of its bad aspects revealed than a good product. I'm sure Brad will jump in here, he seems quick to give his comments from a perceived position of authority at other times. I do prohibition as instruction so let's look at the ad. First off I don't think Charlie Justice or Jeff are claiming that a cap penitrating glass is original, it obviously has been around for years:

No preparation to the bottle.
++absolutely true, the bottle isn't prepared in any way, just a bottle

The bottle can be any color or transparency.
++again true

The bottle and cap may be borrowed.
++you betcha

Everything is completely examinable before and after the effect.
++they can take the bottle and cap to their favorite lab for analysis if they want

As close to special FX as you can get... LIVE
++I'm not sure about this, I'm not an FX guy

You're going to LOVE Prohibition!
++I do! I do!

I think I saw something about your hand, singular, is clean immediately after the penitration, it is.

On a review I did I commented that it used a 'popular gimmick' but didn't go beyond that as I wanted it known that a gimmick was the basis of the effect. Can it be done w/out said gimmick? Yup, can I walk into a room buck naked and after the screams and vomiting is reduced to a roar could I pick up a bottle and grab a cap and then be ready to do the trick? Yup, I could, I would go to the one person not wretching and say "try to shove your cap in there pal" and when he couldn't I'd show him how to do it and then do a penitration. It wouldn't look as good as with the gimmick but I could do it. I'd then shove the bottle into my belly button and leave.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 4:35 am

The review may temporarily hurt sales but in the long run probably not. People tend to have very short memories.

For example how many times have you bought a trick at a convention or dealer dem and later found that you had already bought the same thing a year or two ago and had forgotten that you'd even bought it, never mind how it was done?

The irony with this topic is that hundreds of non-MAGIC readers will now be scrambling to get this issue, will then tell their magician friends about it - so maybe drawing attention to the review will have more of an adverse affect than if nothing had ben said.

However we can do Jeff the courtsey of checking out his website www.jeffpiercemagic.com

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 10:51 am

I should start by pointing out that I own this DVD, like it and think it does a nice job of teaching the routine. I have also read Brad's review and while I didn't find it as bad as some here, I was surprised that he gave as much away as he did. Particularly in light of the fact that Brad is normally the first to stand on the moral high ground.

>> I dare anyone to tell me what part is not true in this advertisement.

It is actually very difficult to respond honestly without revealing aspects of the routine but you asked so ...

>> No preparation to the bottle.

100% true

>> The bottle can be any color or transparency.

Mostly true but there are recommendations in the video as to type/style and I don't think I'd try it with a Corona bottle for example.

>> The bottle and cap may be borrowed.

This is the only part I'd have any real issue with. Bottle yes - cap only partly true

>> Everything is completely examinable before and after the effect.

Everything? Certainly everything the audience is aware of.


Having said that, other than the cap bit, I don't find the ad copy to be anywhere near as misleading as most are. In normal marketing fashion, any "errors" are those of omission. Let's just say that if any political ads were anywhere near as accurate as this one our democracy would be in much better shape!

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 11:01 am

I use a Corona bottle for this all the time. Not sure why you'd feel it's a bad idea.
The effect kills, make no mistake. And it kills even more with an unbent cap. A little more effort involved, but well worth it, believe me.

Jeff Eline
Posts: 647
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Jeff Eline » August 4th, 2007, 5:21 pm

Originally posted by JonP:
>> The bottle and cap may be borrowed.

This is the only part I'd have any real issue with. Bottle yes - cap only partly true
I don't understand what issue you could have with this. You have to do a nano-second of pre-show work, but that doesn't change the fact that the bottle and the cap are definitely borrowed.

Originally posted by Steve V:
I'd then shove the bottle into my belly button and leave.
I was just on Ellusionist and they're now selling this effect as a download. Thanks! Ya happy?

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 7:35 pm

Originally posted by Edward:
...You are selling a product to the magician not the spectator.
Actually you are supposed to selling the "spectator" on the magic. The product is something inpertinant to the spectator.

You are the customer.

And I suppose you can try to pass off a mismade woman box as a phone booth and claim that makes the trick impromptu if you want...

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2007, 8:42 pm

>> I don't understand what issue you could have with this. You have to do a nano-second of pre-show work, but that doesn't change the fact that the bottle and the cap are definitely borrowed.

Jeff Pierce specifically requested comment on what could possibly be considered misleading in the Ad. Looking at it in the knowledge of how the effect works, I felt that was about the only real thing that one could possibly take issue with since it implies that only one cap is used. If the wording had been "Can be performed with a borrowed bottle and cap" I wouldn't even have mentioned it.

I agreed with you that the pre-show is minimal - as long as everyone is drinking the same type of beer - but that wasn't what Jeff was asking for.

I also pointed out that I own it and like it - and that as ads go - it was a lot more honest than most.

Jeff Eline
Posts: 647
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Jeff Eline » August 4th, 2007, 8:57 pm

Thanks Jon. I hope my earlier post didn't come across as harsh. It wasn't meant to be. I understand that Jeff was asking for specifics relating to the ad.

From my perspective, I have no problem with any of the bullet points listed. That's why I was confused by your 'issue' with the borrowed cap point since you do have to borrow the bottle and the cap. Thanks.

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

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Ian Kendall » August 6th, 2007, 9:50 am

The August issue arrived this morning, and I read the review in question. In it, Brad addresses the claims from the website and advertising item by item.

For example, the ad claims the effect is impromptu (as we've seen); Brad questions this, and gives his reason. The ad claims you are clean at the end; Brad questions this, and gives his reason.

Further on he talks about the ancestry of the effect and whether it is, as claimed, a step forward. He gives his reasons.

Personally I find this type of review useful. For another example, were I told that CoinOne required something that I do not own or use before the purchase, rather than in the confirmation email I recieved, most likely I would not have bought the DVD. It's not something that I would ever use, but if I had bought the DVD based on the claims of the advertisments, I would have been a bit miffed.

The review seems to me as a caveat emptor, in the same was as Jason England's review of Breather.

Take care, Ian

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 9th, 2007, 7:56 pm

Now that I've read Brad's review, I don't understand, or agree with, the kurfuffle. I don't think it "crossed the line." Certainly not any more than the review of Breather, in the very same issue!

How is the "exposure" of Prohibition any different from that in the Breather review?

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 10th, 2007, 11:17 am

Stay tuned for my exciting new gimmickShort

Have no fear. It will be priced at $99.95 to ensure that it is only used by real professionals.

OK. In all honesty, many years back, I walked into Tannens and asked if I could buy a Short Card. Yikes!!

User avatar
NCMarsh
Posts: 1223
Joined: February 16th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Devant, Wonder, Richiardi, Benson, DeKolta, Teller, Harbin, Durham, Caveney, Ben, Hoy, Berglas, Marceau
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby NCMarsh » August 10th, 2007, 12:41 pm

Just a quick note, I don't have the issue with me for reference, but -- as I remember it -- the exposure was a specific refutation of the claims of novelty by the manufacturer.

As I remember it, Brad took issue with a very broad, very self-congratulatory statement from the manufacturer about how unique "prohibition" is. He gave specific sources for 1. the application of the gimmick to this plot and 2. the specific moves claimed to be novel.

The exposure hubub, imo, is a way to respond to the review without having to respond to the point of the review.

Mr. Pierce, is Brad wrong about the sources he cites that precede Prohibition?

How should he refute your claims of novelty without citing the places where this material has appeared before?

My sense is that you opened the can of worms with an overboard statement of the novelty of the product, a statement that Brad had the right and responsibility as a journalist to examine in light of the facts.

N.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 10th, 2007, 3:01 pm

Exposure as such is always improper. However, I have always tried, unsuccessfully, to encourage anyone hwo wants to review an effect that they MUST state the pro's and con's for the effect. No effect is perfect and we can all come up with a con for any effect that we have. The con can always be done with discretion. We all learned a long time ago that adv for magical effects can be suspect. Each ad is offering the latest miracle. What was the last miracle you saw? I'll wager that it was the presentation of the performe that made it so.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 10th, 2007, 3:27 pm

Originally posted by ElliottB:
...I walked into Tannens and asked if I could buy a Short Card. Yikes!!
Trimming the corners is a fuss and you need the cutter. It was nice of them to let some of us use those things.

But it's the LONG cards that cost a bunch. And the wide cards.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 10th, 2007, 3:53 pm

HI ALL,

TELL ME, WHATS THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN EXPOSING IN A MAGIC MAGAZINE AND EXPOSING ON TV (PENN AND TELLER ETC)?

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 10th, 2007, 4:01 pm

Originally posted by brian ovens:
HI ALL,

TELL ME, WHATS THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN EXPOSING IN A MAGIC MAGAZINE AND EXPOSING ON TV (PENN AND TELLER ETC)?
the potential market? some folks think they are supposed to be paying for the secret.

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2846
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Matthew Field » August 11th, 2007, 3:21 am

I've been a reviewer for over 7 years (5 reviewing videos for Genii, more than 2 reviewing all products for The Magic Circular). I just read the Prohibition review. I don't see it as exposure.

For the record, I gave Prohibition a good review in the Circular -- Jeff has an excerpt on his website. But it is not a breakthrough idea and it uses an item that makes it impromptu only in the sense that a Card in Wallet is -- if you're carrying a special wallet with you all the time. (I do.)

The Charlie Justice move is very deceptive and, although it might be related to other, similar moves, it is different enough to warrant inclusion on the DVD. The idea of the folded bottle cap penetrating a bottle which has been re-capped is excellent. As I said in my review, it is a great bar trick, well worth the purchase price of the DVD.

I guess Brad disagreed. To explain why, he felt he had to go into some detail. Those details are not proprietary to Jeff or Charlie, so I don't know what he was exposing. If I say a card trick uses the Elmsley Count as its modus operandi, is that exposing?

I had one problem with the trick as performed, and to explain it in my review I had to point out part of the method. I don't think that was exposing anything -- at least not anything proprietary.

Brad felt the ad copy went overboard. I see it as typical magic ad come-on, not at all over the top or out of line.

To sum up my feelings, which I would not be posting if Jeff hadn't raised the issue, Brad did not expose too much in his review, and I continue to recommend Prohibition.

Matt Field

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

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Ian Kendall » August 11th, 2007, 4:08 am

Matt,

I've a slight disagreement with this line:

"I see it as typical magic ad come-on"

It seems that the main beef with the ad/review is that the routine is not impromptu. When selling something to magicians, I believe that this is one of the 'sacred cows' of copy, lest you be tarred with the brush of a liar (and reading that through, it sounds way to pretentious).

As has been said, there is a huge difference between impromptu for us, and 'looking impromptu' for them.

As to wallets, there are versions that can be done with any wallet, which could be described as impromptu. I'm not sure having to carry anything fits in with the description.

/pedantry.

Take care, Ian

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2846
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Matthew Field » August 11th, 2007, 8:42 am

I understand your concern, Ian. My point was that the item (gimmick) in question is something many magicians wear every day (like the card-to-wallet in my example). But I agree the ad might have been a bit clearer about that.

Matt Field

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 12th, 2007, 10:28 am

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can get pretty lazy with that kind of stuff. I think I ended up simply buying a Svengali deck for a couple of bucks. I didnt need the deck; just the 26 pre-cut short cards it came with.


Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Originally posted by ElliottB:
[b] ...I walked into Tannens and asked if I could buy a Short Card. Yikes!!
Trimming the corners is a fuss and you need the cutter. It was nice of them to let some of us use those things.

But it's the LONG cards that cost a bunch. And the wide cards. [/b]

Roger M.
Posts: 1598
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Roger M. » August 12th, 2007, 10:57 am

I think there's more than one conversation going on related to Prohibition.
There's one of exposure, and there's another one of whether the effect can live up to the advance blurbs, or whether some overly liberal statements were made by the creators.

I don't know enough about the previous versions of this type of effect to comment on whether the advance material is making claims which lack credibility, so I won't comment on that part of the conversation.

But I do think that if one can reverse engineer the method, and get a clear understanding of any gimmicks involved in an effect from reading a review, then it's ventured into exposing the effect further than is what's usually considered acceptable.

I believe that there's enough information and detail in the Henderson review of Prohibition to get a clear but basic understanding of what the method is, and a definitive idea of what gimmicks are required and how they're used.

I would therefore consider this review exposes the effect to a degree that is more than typical in magic product reviews.

Whether this amount of exposure was required to address the idea that the effect doesn't really offer anything new to the 'cap in bottle' effect in general is a subjective one, and one that everybody seems to have differing opinions on.

In general, I think the review went too far with some of the details which resulted in exposure that (from a strictly editorial point of view) weren't required in order for readers to clearly understand the reviewers opinion of the effect.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 15th, 2007, 3:11 pm

If a straight up unedited video clip of a whole performance would 'expose' a trick, what are we arguing about?

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 16th, 2007, 5:21 pm

Since Brad appears to be on board this evening, why don't we allow him to comment on what has been said here....

opie

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 29th, 2007, 6:30 am

Hi everybody:

This thread has proved most interesting, and I have read all the posts. Perhaps I open a can of worms now, but the way magic dealers advertise their goods has been a royal pain in the more luxurious part of my body for many years. In my opinion, there is a limit, and often (most of the time?) the dealers trespass this line.

It may have to do with the weird fact that only rarely do they describe the effect per se but an idealised performance of it. They don't describe the effect, they don't even describe it the way an audience would view it but the way they imagine or hope the effect will be perceived.

I bet whatever you want to bet that many or all magicians in this forum have bought a trick, basing their choice on the text in an ad, and when they received the parcel, they just ran around the house screaming. The fact is that the dealers can always phrase any old effect in a manner that makes it sound like a modern day miracle! And there is nothing you can do about it because they can always claim that their spectators swooned in amazement. And they don't take back the trick because and this has got to be one of the greatest of all cons "The secret is what you pay for!" Personally, I don't feel that I pay a for secret but for a trick and its presentation. Since the days of Ken Brooke, no dealer (to my knowledge) offers to take back a trick without questions. One wonders why! I used to work with or help a magic dealer in my own country, and I vividly remember the day when a certain law was passed. It guaranteed any customer that if he bought anything from a mail-order firm, he would have the right to return the goods and get his money back. This dealer was in a rage, he was more than desperate and kept reiterating, "This may break me, this will make me go bankrupt." I never heard that Ken Brooke went bankrupt when he started out for himself after his time with Stanley although many dealers saw fit to cheat him too.

Is it really O.K. to take a breather, construct some effects and sell it all without informing the buyer that it is a collection of breather-tricks? If so, why not print a small booklet with the tricks? Why not print a pamphlet and call it, "New Tricks with a Breather" or "My Personal Favourites with the Breather"? Because such a description would sell a certain number of the books but not mentioning the breather would sell twice as many.

Jeeeez, when I think about the description you could give of an effect based on 52 similar cards!!! Shouldn't a reviewer have the right to call such a bluff? I think he should.

Isn't it annoying when an ad (a fictive one here) reads, "No double backers, no rough-and-smooth, no short cards " and you buy it only to discover that the trick employs a double facer? The reason is, of course, that although it hasn't been said directly, the reader has been led to believe than no prepared card is used! "No threads, no magnets, no wires" may easily translate into, "BUT a rubber band."

I think that the most fair and objective reviews in Magicdom are those given by the many competent and careful book reviewers and, Richard, I miss Jamy Ian Swiss.

Thank you.
David

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 29th, 2007, 8:50 am

David, why would you miss Jamy? His book reviews appear in Genii every other month!
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 29th, 2007, 1:21 pm

Originally posted by Lindgreen:

Isn't it annoying when an ad (a fictive one here) reads, "No double backers, no rough-and-smooth, no short cards " and you buy it only to discover that the trick employs a double facer?
The best dealer ad to exemplify this is "Location Impossible" by Garry Ouellette.

Here is an excerpt: "The truth is: there is no key card, the cards are not marked, do not use a one-way back method, are shuffled before and after, there are no confederates, and the magician got no peeks or glimpses or hints in any way when his back was turned."

When I received the pamphlet, the method was the exact opposite as one of the methods identified. It could even be argued that the cards are in fact marked.

I still feel the burn 5 years later.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 29th, 2007, 7:57 pm

I finally read the review and I personally am glad that Brad was so straightforward with his review. This was another of several versions of this effect using the same (or similar) method in the past year alone. In his opinion (and mine after reading the review) this version takes away from previous versions. I just don't think there is room in the market for a new version of an existing effect using previously published/sold methods. In this version, an impossible object is not even left as a result (an object that does not fit into the bottle is now inside). This version turns the effect into "how did he get that inside without me seeing". On top of this, the advertising is slightly misleading. The effect is not totally impromptu and you do not finish clean. Keep up the good work Brad.

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 29th, 2007, 9:16 pm

"This was another of several versions of this effect using the same (or similar) method in the past year alone. In his opinion (and mine after reading the review) this version takes away from previous versions. I just don't think there is room in the market for a new version of an existing effect using previously published/sold methods"

Wow, John! I am happy that there is a "student" here who can expound on the "several versions of this effect"....

Please do share.....opie

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 30th, 2007, 1:33 am

Hi Richard:

Firstly, I miss Mr. Swiss for the very reason that you mention yourself: He is only there every second month.

Secondly,what I wrote isn't meant to imply that Messieurs Close, Mead and Regal aren't competent because they are. However, Jamy Ian Swiss is, in my opinion, in a class by himself when it comes to reviewing books. His knowledge is vast, his writing is clear and based on well-argued views, and his language is impeccable.

Thirdly, (and I hate to admit this), what I wrote was badly formulated because what I intended to say was, "I miss the Jamy Ian Swisses" - that is people like him.

In all, Genii is absolutely great. In fact, whenever it arrives, it brightens my day. If the mailman doesn't deliver it on a Friday, my wife will hide it and not tell me about it until Friday comes around. That way she sees to it that my weekend will be a pleasant one.

Thank you and kind regards,
David

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 31st, 2007, 12:19 am

Opie,
As the gauntlet has been thrown...

Try "Cap in Bottle" - Rey Ben
"Impossible cap in bottle" - Gerald Kirchner
"Purified Water" - ?
The Porper/Biro cap in any bottle (which admittedly uses a different method for the same effect)
"EZ to do cap in a bottle plus" - Frank Ramirez
This does not even include the "new" versions of coin in bottle, which is essentially the same effect.
In fact, wasn't this version of the effect suggested in the original "Enigma" Sonata gimmick instructions? It was one of the first effects shown me with said gimmick.

Anyways...what is with the "student" comment? I would be ashamed of myself if I ever stopped learning. I was not aware that "student" qualified as pejorative. Are you suggesting that you have stopped learning? You have my pity for what it's worth...

Guest

Re: Exposure in Magic Magazine

Postby Guest » August 31st, 2007, 5:00 am

Excellent....Thank you John.....opie


Return to “Other Magic Publications”