Hi,

Yes, Once in a while Sankey releases an ingenuine piece of magic, and this time it's mentalism. See demo video on http://www.penguinmagic.com/europe/product.php?ID=861

Well actually it's rather easy to figure out how it's done if you are into a little card work and mentalism, but he uses 3 different "forces" to force a Card, a Color and a Shape. Actually the supreme quality here is that he doesn't force the Color and the shape at all, but he gets the spec to reveal it to him - very clever indeed. And finally with a basic sleigh he reveals that card to be in the envelope (Ask Peter Mariucci on this - it's basically building on Mariucci's card to envelope idea). I don't think I revealed anything here, it's all very clear from the demo video)

Now it's clever and although I figured out how it's done I'm actually pretty sure this will play strong on a lay audience. And that's my real question here, do we feel this will play strong??

I mean it's a great combinations of forces, relative simple set-up, most of it is choises made within the spectators mind. Only failure that can happen is if the spectator can't remember the color he/she choose. And there are ways to get around this - too.

Whats your opinion.

OBS: I haven't bought it, I intend to draw up my own version.

Vraagaard

Let me get this straight....

you haven't bought it...

you think it will play strong...

you plan to make your own...

You got it right. My question actually is. Do you/we think it will play strong on a lay audience. Theres no need to buy it, or make your own deck of cards unless you believe in the effect.

And I'm a little confused since I guessed how it's done the very first time I saw the demo. However I think it's clever thinking - but will it play strong?

Thats what I'm asking about.

Yes, of course it will play strong if presented at all competently. It's an impressive effect. Three random choices, all three predicted in advance, all three revealed in one object.

Since you didn't think of it, if you intend to perform it, you need to buy it from Sankey. You don't earn the right to steal other people's money because you are "clever" enough to reverse-engineer their effects. Why should people like Sankey bother making good effects available if they don't get paid for it?

I'll say it again, the demo video is there to help you decide if this effect is for you, if it fits your performance style, if it will play strong in your opinion. It is not a puzzle with the prize for solving it being that you don't have to pay for it.

Robert V Frazier

In see your point, and this is a discussion with "grey zones". Who invented what and who did not.

I don't see Sankey inventing anything here at all, he is just combining several forces that has been combined before, and his revelation in the envelope is a move from Peter Mariucci thats been known during the last 10 years. So if I already bought the books and tapes and know about the forces, and I already knows the Peter Mariucci move, then I actually think I already paid who should be paid. I see your point if this was an original invention like a totally new way of forcing or a totally new sleigh of hand - but it's not.

You see the reason I guessed how it was done right away, is that there is nothing new in the effect. It's Sankey trying to develop mentalism by combining already known forces and moves. No need to pay him for that.

Look at it this way: Sankey "invention" here is similar to several artist trying to sell their "own" Ambitious Card routine, and a lot of them never ever invented a move themselves (I know Sankey has invented a lot of sleigh etc, but not in this effect). They simply just combined already known moves to fit their own style or ability, and claim to have an AC routine up for sale. So do you think they are paying royalties to the real inventors of the moves they are using - no sorry, they don't. And believe me we are talking top pro magicians here.

I'm perfectly allowed to make up my own version without paying Mr. Sankey for this. However I will always give Sankey credit for the inspiration and as such he will serve the benefit of having his named exposed, and hopefully get new buyers of his products.

By the way, I really hope he is crediting all the real inventors including Mariucci in hs instructional videos - or is he claiming the invention on himself. If anybody bought this item - please let us know who Sankey is crediting on this effect.

And by the way have you ever hear a magician saying "I invented this move, only to discover it was invented 10 years ago by another magician". Well it happens all the time, because we are playing around with these effects, cards, silks etc. And suddenly we think we invented something, which we actually did, somebody just did it before us. So who should have the royalty, and are we allowed to make use of this move, and even further are we allowed to commercialise it and sell it??

It is a pretty difficult discussion, see my post as my spontane thoughts on this. Hopefully we can start a discussion and arrive at a consensus on this topic.

How old are you? I hope you realize that you have the moral mentality of a ten year old child. Jay Sankey invented this trick. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a single new sleight contained in its workings. He still invented the connection of ideas that create the effect. If you are going to use something that he put hours upon hours of thought into and not have the respect to put down a measly few bucks for it, I suggest you come up with a better accuse than “There aren’t new sleights”; for your on peace of mind

Vraagaard, why do you keep mentioning several forces. There are two, max. And one of them, half the time you don't even need to use.

-- B.M.

I think Eye Exam is just original gaffs and moves put together. That doesn't mean it was already invented. Sankey invented the routine.

-Freds

i think sankey did a good job at being creative on this one. personally, i wouldnt perform this, but that still doesnt mean i hate the effect.

Please excuse me if I speak out of turn, but...

How can the moderators of this forum allow Vraagaard tp have held this post on the forum for so long?

Aside from it being quite revealing, it's rather unfair to post a review/critique of an effect which you don't even own.

Secondly, I find it profoundly baffling as to why Vraagaard finds it necessary to massage his/her own ego by basically boasting that they know how it's done, and criticise it for being 'nothing new'.

If it's 'nothing new', then why does Vraagaard feel the need to copy it for themself? This is surely a compliment to Sankey.

Sankey is one of the world's top creative magicians.

And as with practically anything magical involving cards or mentalism, it's ALL been done before to an extent.

It's not the WAY you arrive at the final effect, it is the PERFORMANCE. Sankey is a master of performance and impossibility. The ideas and impact of this effect on the layperson are great.

I find there to be only one 'pirate' or 'bandwaggoner' here—and that is the person purporting to be the know-it-all who would slate other people's creativity, and yet not have enough creativity of their own to arrive at such intelligent, crafted and adored magic such as Sankey's.

Ok, Guys welcome in the shooting gallery.

My only intention was to raise the question, "Do we believe this effect will work strong on lay people"??? My reason for asking this questions was that since I figured it out right away, I was afraid that other (lay) people would too - at least partly. It was not to show of buy saying, "hey see how clever I am - I figured it out". No, that was not at all my intention.

I can also see that my line about intenting to draw my own version has turned the discussion in the wrong direction - although it is a valid discussion that I think we should take in a general forum.

I'm simply asking you for your advice, on how strong we believe this effect is, before I go out and either buy it or spend some time making my own version - by own version - I do intend to do it different from Sankey, but I would always credit him for the inspiration.

And to all you Sankey fans. If you read my posts during my time at Penguin, then you will see that I've always credited Sankey as one of the most ingenious magicians alive, a master of simplicity etc. However, I think it's also allowed to be critical too, and on the down side Sankey is milking the cow. With overlapping releases featuring the same effects under different names (e.g. Paper Clipped, and a lot his coin material is on several DVD's), the same sleighs etc. And then I think Sankey is a master of not giving credit to the originators which I personally don't like. Having said all that I still stand by, that Sankey is a master in our time, I just wished his business ethics was less "milking the cow - like" - cause that will eventually hit him like a boomerang because people feels cheated from buying similar effects/methods.

In short Sankey is awesome, and I actually might buy just Imagine only to see if he credits the originators - but if anybody out there bought it - please tell us who Sankey is crediting on this effect.

Back to my question. DO we think this effect will play strong on a lay audience. Will they see it as a prediction/mentalism effect, or rather as a magic effect, where the magician "fooled" them. There is a fine line between mentalism and magic - and I'm looking for mentalism effects.

Yes, it will play strong on a lay audience. No, it's not likely that the typical layman is aware of magic and mentalism as separate categories, or has any idea where the boundaries are, or on which side of the boundary this particular effect lies. They will be entertained by it if it's done right. If you're looking for mentalism effects, I recommend not looking to Sankey. He's not a mentalist. He does have some great magic effects with a mentalism flavor to them, and Just Imagine is one of his better ones. I like magic tricks with a mentalism twist, but I'm not interested in mentalism. Maybe someday, but not now.

I'll look over the instructions when I get home and see whom, if anyone, Sankey credits.

Robert V Frazier