talkmagic.co.uk

Personally, I'm not making any judgement, but the general consensus seems to be that it's not.

Chris Congreave wrote:And do you think it's ok to watch a demo of a marketed effect and then go and make up your own version?

I don't know, wasn't aware that this would be frowned upon.

I make my own ID's too. Am I going to hell?

I do think it is a grey area. Sometimes it's really clear, like when a principle is entirely new, or when someone is copying a specific design. When the concepts are more general, I think it can be a little more difficult to say...

I haven't seen Ace T's routine and I know nothing of the workings of this effect, so personally I'm not making a judgement. Did Ace T blatantly copy someone's routine and method wholesale? Or was he inspired by someone's routine to come up with something new?

I really think this is a worker. When i made the decision that i would be going back to offering close-up magic (still doing the bizarre!) i thought i needed some new material to go with the stuff i used to perform. I choose this because straight away i could see that this would fit in perfect with a close-up set, i really rate this piece of magic and i hope the simple nature will not put some people off. This is a worker!

The Devil's Tailor wrote:I do think it is a grey area. Sometimes it's really clear, like when a principle is entirely new, or when someone is copying a specific design. When the concepts are more general, I think it can be a little more difficult to say...

I haven't seen Ace T's routine and I know nothing of the workings of this effect, so personally I'm not making a judgement. Did Ace T blatantly copy someone's routine and method wholesale? Or was he inspired by someone's routine to come up with something new?

To be honest - I, potentially know nothing of the workings of this effect either. My routine is slightly different, as I imagine everyones is with any effect. The method, I have no idea if mine is the same or not. I can only assume it is.

To come up with my method all I did was watch the promotion video, ONCE, and thought "that looks remarkably simple" so I got together the cards I needed and 10 minutes later hey presto, it works.

Stephen Ward wrote:I really think this is a worker. When i made the decision that i would be going back to offering close-up magic (still doing the bizarre!) i thought i needed some new material to go with the stuff i used to perform. I choose this because straight away i could see that this would fit in perfect with a close-up set, i really rate this piece of magic and i hope the simple nature will not put some people off. This is a worker!

What is meant by "a worker"? An effect that is reliable? Or an effect that is commercial?

ACE T wrote:

The Devil's Tailor wrote:I do think it is a grey area. Sometimes it's really clear, like when a principle is entirely new, or when someone is copying a specific design. When the concepts are more general, I think it can be a little more difficult to say...

I haven't seen Ace T's routine and I know nothing of the workings of this effect, so personally I'm not making a judgement. Did Ace T blatantly copy someone's routine and method wholesale? Or was he inspired by someone's routine to come up with something new?

To be honest - I, potentially know nothing of the workings of this effect either. My routine is slightly different, as I imagine everyones is with any effect. The method, I have no idea if mine is the same or not. I can only assume it is.

To come up with my method all I did was watch the promotion video, ONCE, and thought "that looks remarkably simple" so I got together the cards I needed and 10 minutes later hey presto, it works.

Haven't seen your routine and do not know the workings of this or iContact, as I say, but it looks to me like you've liked the general plot of this effect and have put together your own routine using that plot, rather than blatantly copied someone's routine/method.

The Devil's Tailor wrote:

Stephen Ward wrote:I really think this is a worker. When i made the decision that i would be going back to offering close-up magic (still doing the bizarre!) i thought i needed some new material to go with the stuff i used to perform. I choose this because straight away i could see that this would fit in perfect with a close-up set, i really rate this piece of magic and i hope the simple nature will not put some people off. This is a worker!

What is meant by "a worker"? An effect that is reliable? Or an effect that is commercial?

Both because it is easy to do and reset and is a very good effect. This will not let you down

It's on my list but it'll be a while...

Though I also like the phil deck effect with the names. In plot these seem very similar.

Chris Congreave wrote:And do you think it's ok to watch a demo of a marketed effect and then go and make up your own version?

Yes

I'm happily convinced that the methodology that both Ace T and I came up with to achieve this effect is different from iContact.

The Devil's Tailor wrote:What is meant by "a worker"? An effect that is reliable? Or an effect that is commercial?

As Stephen said this is both ! If you was going to work some tables you would take this ! It resets quick, is easy to do and hits hard ! Whats more can you ask for !

As written in my thread i used this in my 1st gig with a crowd watching and me $hitting myself and shaking and had no worries of it going wrong and ended up with applause GET IT !!!!!

jon_kent wrote:
As written in my thread i used this in my 1st gig with a crowd watching and me $hitting myself and shaking and had no worries of it going wrong and ended up with applause GET IT !!!!!

Nice one!

LOL

Rob delivers again

Chris Congreave wrote:Nice one!

Cheers mate