In a recent issue of Genii, Danny Orleans reviewed a product by Colin Miller and myself called 'Heirloom'.
The review was overall very positive (albeit with a few errors) but I'm not here to quibble about the actual conclusions of the review...
What I don't understand is why it was deemed permissable for the review to:
(1) Explain the entire method of the effect
(2) Reproduce the actual text, word for word, from the letter in the effect.
With the information provided by the review, the entire secret was revealed.
I know that reviews sometimes need to tip a little in order to clue the potential buyer in on what they're money will buy... but I feel that this review crossed a line.
I'm interested in what others thought about that review in this context. I'm also interested in whether Richard Kaufman stands by the reviewer in this respect ?
I can imagine creators of magic feeling very reluctant to have their products reviewed by the magazine if the review is to so meticulously describe the method; surely a good review is possible without revealing so much ?