talkmagic.co.uk

I think I guessed it as well...
Which means I couldn't bring myself to spend so much money on something I could make myself, and I would feel bad if i made it.
Looks like I'll just have to stick to thr*ads and m*gnets...

spooneythegoon wrote:I think I guessed it as well...
Which means I couldn't bring myself to spend so much money on something I could make myself, and I would feel bad if i made it.

Why feel bad? You're only guessing. Make it and see what happens. You might be wrong and it might not work - or it might be even better than the method being marketed.

It would be different if you downloaded the method from the internet, in which case you should feel bad.

I suppose your right. I might give it a go.

Clearly priced so 'every man and his dog' doesn't get one but there has to be a halfway point.

£200 is a lot of money to spend to find out it doesn't suit you.

Looks great but too rich for me I'm afraid......but I will keep my eyes open for one nearer the £100!

Anyone wandering into magic with a business head on would be appalled at the pricing structures for some products. It seems as if some effects are deliberately priced to stop them selling. If that's the case, what's the point in offering them at all, and of trailing them for months with pre-orders? To make the great unwashed jealous? To encourage cheap Chinese knock-offs? It makes little sense until you consider the business plan.

I'd really love to see the business plan justifying the need for Ultracinese. The mark up is phenomenal to the point of open contempt. Maybe, just maybe, the margins are set so healthily to very easily attract debt capital to the venture (that's where you borrow money to get started and pay it back, rather than selling a portion of your future company profits). You could probably get any two of the investors from Dragon's Den to wrestle each other naked for the chance of some of that action!

Tomo wrote:You could probably get any two of the investors from Dragon's Den to wrestle each other naked for the chance of some of that action!

Hmm, but which two would you like to watch?

Ted wrote:Hmm, but which two would you like to watch?

Ha ha! It's more a case of which two would I least object to watching!

I am also shocked by how cheap it is to make it yourself, compared to the RRP. By the way, it turned out my guess was right, and I am in the construction stages of the proper model (the first one I made was just a bunch of household appliances taped together, to see if I was
right)

I wonder how many of these have been sold? Any retailers out there willing to share whether its been a money spinner? I presume that at a RRP of £200 the wholesale price must also be a little scarey?

Personally I'm all for rewarding creativity, however, why would this be worth more than say a Tarantula? I appreciate there's a few more 'goodies' involved but, as already been said, they are not that expensive to pull together. Therefore it must be the creativity that deserves the premium!?

spooneythegoon wrote:I am also shocked by how cheap it is to make it yourself, compared to the RRP. By the way, it turned out my guess was right, and I am in the construction stages of the proper model (the first one I made was just a bunch of household appliances taped together, to see if I was
right)

I accept that once you have seen a demo of a routine or effect then you may well figure that you could make one for yourself. However what you are missing is the cost involved in researching, trialing and bringing a prop to market. Printing, advertising and promotion all involve a cost that the copyist does not have.

Instead of making your own copy of someone else's effect, we should be encouraging people to think for themselves and come up with totally new routines.

Over the years many effects have been released at costs which are designed to keep them "exclusive" and thus limit the exposure. The solution is to find the cash or look for something else to perform, not to try to justify plagiarism just because you can't afford the original.

Max Gordon wrote:The solution is to find the cash or look for something else to perform, not to try to justify plagiarism just because you can't afford the original.

I don't think he's guilty of plagiarism. He's seen an effect and used his brain to come up with a workable method. If he'd stolen the instructions first then I'd say that he was a thief. If he went on to sell his own copies then he'd also be a pirate. But what he's telling us he's done does not match these terms, IMHO.

The solution is to find the cash or look for something else to perform, not to try to justify plagiarism just because you can't afford the original.

Plagiarism is often a fine line - this trick isn't the first one to use this 'kit' but it certainly is the dearest....

Or there is the original version that can be found here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vynX_ZM1spM

It is from a show that teaches children on Saturday mornings here. It is actually quite good and they show some reasonably advanced stuff.

I recall doing a version a long time ago with the nut and bolt undoing in a handkerchief

Peter

Max Gordon wrote:

spooneythegoon wrote:I am also shocked by how cheap it is to make it yourself, compared to the RRP. By the way, it turned out my guess was right, and I am in the construction stages of the proper model (the first one I made was just a bunch of household appliances taped together, to see if I was
right)

I accept that once you have seen a demo of a routine or effect then you may well figure that you could make one for yourself. However what you are missing is the cost involved in researching, trialing and bringing a prop to market. Printing, advertising and promotion all involve a cost that the copyist does not have.

Instead of making your own copy of someone else's effect, we should be encouraging people to think for themselves and come up with totally new routines.

Over the years many effects have been released at costs which are designed to keep them "exclusive" and thus limit the exposure. The solution is to find the cash or look for something else to perform, not to try to justify plagiarism just because you can't afford the original.

I think you've misunderstood what it was I did. I watched the demos, and a method popped into my mind. I was encouraged to have a go at creating it to see if it would work, not because I wanted to rip anyone off. I'm not selling it, or even using it in performance, but making it for my own interest. I am sorry if I offended anyone, I really did not mean to.