talkmagic.co.uk

This item sounds great, but when you realize the method its sort of... meh...

Here is what they DON'T tell you in the add - I have highlighted it in bold.

You ask someone to think of any word that has an opposite (such as big/small, heavy/light and so on) and then you ask them to write down the opposite word to the word they were originally thinking of. You can then reveal the original word.

Now from the description I gave it should seem obvious to any mentalist how it is done; in fact one might even call it exposure, but I can tell you this is exactly what the spectator see's. In the original add it mentions nothing of "writing down the opposite word", and if it had, I have no doubt it would not have sold half as well.

While it is true the original word they are thinking of is never spoken, or written down, the other word is, and this makes it very suspicious. We should not patronize our audiences and think they will not see through this deception. Not only that; but this method does not work 100% of the time - what if someone were to write "light" as their second word, and you predicted the first word was "heavy", when in fact it was "dark"? There are a number of things that could go wrong.


I cannot honestly recommend this item, and am putting it up for sale to anyone who wants it for half its original price. If I had seen it being performed, instead of a deceptive description, I never would have bought the product.



Overall: 2/10
It does not even tell you how to discover the second word that has been written down.


Tom
xx

completely disagree with pretty much all you've said...

Eshly wrote:This item sounds great, but when you realize the method its sort of... meh...

Welcome to magic

Eshly makes a good point here about misleading adverts. Time and time again one reads reviews where this practice exists. I completey sympathise with him on this..

I bought a trick recentetly with the playing card appears inside a pop up birthday type card. The video was 100% a con as when he performed the trick his hand did not go near the birthday card giving a false impression .
Also the gimmick broke after two days, thats another issue
Obviously we all know that the laws of Physics cannot be broken but it still leaves a bitter taste when we know that something has been missed out to mislead.

Clearly many adverts are a breach of trade descriptions . Bring back hanging i say

Thanks for the heads up Eshly

We've all bought dreadful effects and regretted it later because we had higher expectations of the method. Eventually, as has been said before and quite recently on this forum, you 'grow out of it' and concentrate on the effect.

I'm afraid I don't pay attention to Eshly's reviews because, as far as I can tell, he spends virtually no time using anything before writing about it. I prefer reviews where someone has actually done some performances and can give an idea of an audience's reaction which is, when all said and done, the whole point.

I can't comment about this particular effect, but it can be a problem when an effect's description misses out a vital step. Often our appraisal of an effect is based on the idea of "control". A thought of card to wallet has a greater level of control than a selected card to wallet. A selected card to wallet where the wallet is unhandled has a greater level of control than a card to wallet where the wallet only comes into play after the selection. And so on. This isn't just magicians' sophistry; this is the stuff that audiences pick up on, consciously or otherwise.

We will often decide whether we want an effect based on the level of control mentioned in the marketing. The trouble comes when the description really needs to miss out the vital step because it will tip too heavily to those already in the know (where we are buying the application of an existing technique, rather than the technique itself). But perceptions of control and assumptions made about the existing knowledge of your customer base are both subjective. Also, what the participant actually perceives of the method is a factor. Preshow can open the door to absolute miracles, but most people would not expect a preshow based effect to announce the preshow in its description. Most billet work hinges on the idea that the billet becomes invisible - the audience may recall that a word was thought of, but not necessarily that it was written down. There's a lot of second-guessing you have to do, and it's not always possible to get it right. It's never possible to get it right for everyone.

If you feel you have a genuine grievance about a particular effect, don't grow an ulcer, get in touch with the vendor or creator. Politely. He may refund you; he may choose to change the way the effect is marketed. This seems to be a much better approach than just calling "rogue vendor" at the first.

Ted wrote:We've all bought dreadful effects and regretted it later because we had higher expectations of the method. Eventually, as has been said before and quite recently on this forum, you 'grow out of it' and concentrate on the effect.

I'm afraid I don't pay attention to Eshly's reviews because, as far as I can tell, he spends virtually no time using anything before writing about it. I prefer reviews where someone has actually done some performances and can give an idea of an audience's reaction which is, when all said and done, the whole point.

Name reviews where you think that has been evident?

This I admit I have never performed, as I like to think I give my audience more credit than that; and they will see through the method.

This is my first truly negative review, but all the others I have used many times before reviewing.

Eshly wrote:Name reviews where you think that has been evident?

It's an impression I've formed from reading all of your reviews as well as posts where it's evident that you are buying a tonne of stuff very quickly without reading or mastering anything. You want an example, though, so here's one. Your review of The Master Levitation System cannot have been based on much experience with the product because you start off by saying:

Eshly wrote:I ordered this about a week and a half ago

In this latest review you've clearly bought something, don't like the method and have reviewed it immediately. And then put it up for sale. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm guessing the method put you off so much that you've not even tried it for real once.

That's why I've formed the view that I have.

At this point can we move on and concentrate on the effect being reviewed please?

I would like to point out that when I bought The Master levitation System I used it hundreds of times in the first week alone, and still do sometimes for small children (Mentalism doesn't entertain them as much).

As for the effect itself, maybe I am being slightly harsh by giving it a 2/10; but I really really hate bad advertising.


Tom
xx

I must say, if an effect is reviewed as "the word is never written down", and it negates to mention that the "opposite" of the word is written down, I would be pretty annoyed too.....

That certainly sounds like sharp practice.

Ted wrote:That certainly sounds like sharp practice.

This post is useful, and adds much knowledge and information to our magical community.

Eshly wrote:

Ted wrote:That certainly sounds like sharp practice.

This post is useful, and adds much knowledge and information to our magical community.

unlike the review - as, you do not have to have someone write anything down at all...there are some massive inaccuracies in your review...

nothing is written down by anyone in the main effect, a page number is generated by the punters, they turn to the page, you do not peek at anything - then you reveal one of two words - you can employ the idea of them thinking of the reverse/inverse of the word - and get double the reveal(s) out of it...

the effect plays out like this:
dictionary given out (and its ungimmicked)
a number is generated (without props)
you reveal one or two words (or four if you want to do the inverse thing)
you could give the dictionary away if you wanted to, as its a real dictionary...

sorry - had to speak out, p*ss poor review and genuinely incorrect in its "information"...

IAIN wrote:

Eshly wrote:

Ted wrote:That certainly sounds like sharp practice.

This post is useful, and adds much knowledge and information to our magical community.

unlike the review - as, you do not have to have someone write anything down at all...there are some massive inaccuracies in your review...

nothing is written down by anyone in the main effect, a page number is generated by the punters, they turn to the page, you do not peek at anything - then you reveal one of two words - you can employ the idea of them thinking of the reverse/inverse of the word - and get double the reveal(s) out of it...

the effect plays out like this:
dictionary given out (and its ungimmicked)
a number is generated (without props)
you reveal one or two words (or four if you want to do the inverse thing)
you could give the dictionary away if you wanted to, as its a real dictionary...

sorry - had to speak out, p*ss poor review and genuinely incorrect in its "information"...

In which case this changes everything. I don't own the effect in question, as based on the review made it sound very bad. I retract my earlier statement