Joshua Jay has released the phantom deck. Basically clear cards that assembled will make up a whole deck. So I read the newletter, I followed the link. And then I saw the trailer.
Here is the ad text (part of it)
"So, what is the Phantom Deck? It's an Omni Deck, but every SINGLE CARD is completely clear. Imagine ending your favorite card routine by turning the entire deck CLEAR!"
A milky mess that isn't clear at all.
The beauty of the Andrus' trick is that the you have a clear block. Making a switch even harder to imagine. Ironically the block made the work much easier. Not having loose cards in your pocket.
So now we got this. Loose cards that when put together look like mist that has been caught.
Not recommended.
Next Level? Nope! Different Level? Yeah!
28 comments:
I have seen the advert for this, but I'm not sure what to think.
On one hand, I had the exact same thoughts as you. It's just a pain to have a number of separate cards in your pocket.
But on the other hand, perhaps it would make a nice ending for the ambitious card like follows:
1. Cards turn clear (phantom deck)
2. Cards then fuse together (omni-deck)
3. Pen used to sign card turns clear (omni-pen)
I've never tested said routine out so I'm not sure how well it would play. I also know the omni-pen has gotten a lot of hate in the magic community. But perhaps... just perhaps... someone might be able to work them all together.
I'm not clear on the concept.
wasn't there a 'crystal deck' released some time ago, along with a DVD. pretty sure I have a set.
This trick is completely illogical.
Why inorganic, plastic cards?
You are better off with Joe Berg's Ultra Mental deck.
And what about the deck switches taught in the DVD? Anything useful/neat? good stand up switches?
Thanks!
But.. but.. it's the ultimate ending!
You guys are in serious need of some positive figures in your life. It's one thing to not like an effect because it doesn't suit your style or needs but to sit on a blog and bash other peoples hard work is just pathetic. I've seen Josh perform this live and he left the audience in wonder. The presentation was entertaining and magical but all you guys see is an opportunity to bash someone and get your jabs in. It's a sad thing you are doing here but I'm sure it's a direct reflection of the way you live your lives as well.
The Omni deck sucked and this is neven suckier.
"You guys are in serious need of some positive figures in your life. It's one thing to not like an effect because it doesn't suit your style or needs but to sit on a blog and bash other peoples hard work is just pathetic. I've seen Josh perform this live and he left the audience in wonder. The presentation was entertaining and magical but all you guys see is an opportunity to bash someone and get your jabs in. It's a sad thing you are doing here but I'm sure it's a direct reflection of the way you live your lives as well."
What does expressing your opinion about a product have to do with the way you live your life?
I live a great life and have many positive figures in it. That is why I can discern the difference between people who are sincerely trying to offer me the opportunity to obtain something good or someone who is merely trying to make money off me so they can make the rent.
I bet you wouldn't buy this crap. He probably gave you one for free.
Wrong! I did buy it and I have already planned its spot in my walk around sets. A website dedicated to bashing products that people spend years creating is the furthest thing from positive. Having an opinion is great as is constructive criticism. seeking attention by bashing other peoples work is the real failure. For you to say something is not good is an opinion and yours to have but when a sites soul purpose is to bash effects on a weekly basis in my opinion it does more harm to the magic community then it does good. Looking through the posts on this site it's clear that there is no justification of the products posted. For every product here titled as a failure there are plenty of real world performers who like and use the product. Like I said it is sad what you are doing on this site and in my opinion reflects poorly on your character. That's all for me as I just get a dirty feeling even writing on this blog at all.
"That's all for me as I just get a dirty feeling even writing on this blog at all." -Anonymous-
Good, please don't come back.
This is my favorite site pertaining to Magic.
When Roland speaks I hear the voice of reason.
Somewhat like Stan and Kyle.
If you are a hack you will naturally be offended by some of the comments made here, especially mine. If you're a hack you should get used to being offended anyway since most folks will think your magic sucks.
This site is necessary. It is the only place you can speak your mind without being banned or deleted for merely expressing an opinion.
Beware - If you are a creator and seller of magic tricks and you produce crap just for the money, your product will be bashed here and rightly so.
If you can't take a good bashing then straighten up and fly right.
Is the whole Omni deck effect one that spectators like? I've never really got into it myself as a thing. Just thought that most would think "oh, he switched in a perspex brick at some point" rather than it changed. Always thought solid deception was just a more natural effect, but still not one I would do personally. Seem to remember there's a pretty nice thing similar on the talk about tricks set using fused cards? Will have to go back and look to be sure I'm right on that front though.
Like I say, talking from total ignorance here, so let me know. Are omni deck routines of any kind really that strong?
I switched from Daryl's Ultimate Ambition to an Omni-deck finisher for my AC routines about a year ago. Both are powerful finishers, but the surprise factor of the omni-deck made it memorable.
In my opinion: Yes, the omni-deck is something you should consider using if you have a good enough deck switch and use AC routines in your act. And most importantly: if it fits your performance style.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I do agree that the deck looks a little dodgy (somehow the fact that it's not completely transparent irks me).
But Anonymous makes a good point. This blog has turned into a constant stream of 'Look at this, it's so stupid, omg I hate it'. We need to be able to differentiate honesty and mindless ranting. The negativity is starting to get to me as well.
You're mixing up the comments with Roland's original blog post. Reread it. He's not over the top or "hating." He just says what he doesn't like and gives his opinion - exactly why I read this blog.
He also posted the trailer. I'm guessing the increased awareness from that gets more customers than the review loses.
I don't use the omni deck because, for me, it just jams a surprise in where I don't want it, a kind of "where do I go from here?" moment that I find jarring.
Roland seems to be upfront about what he likes and doesn't. That's a valuable thing when we are so swamped with hype and recommendations based on friendship instead of honesty. Don't underestimate how much good Roland is doing.
The trick is weaker than the omni deck and here is why:
Omni deck was an extension of Paul harris's solid deception. In that trick the deck becomes solid. It is a layman and magician killer. The effect is the deck becoming solid. It is an unusual moment which is experienced both visually and tactilely. The climax makes the preceding moments of the trick more effective and the preceding moments of the trick make the finale more effective - it would be impossible to have done any of it with a solid deck.
The omni deck arguably adds an element to solid deception in that the visual element is increased by changing the deck into a solid clear block. In both cases the effective magic moment is the solidifying of the deck. the transparency is an arguable improvement, though Tamariz and others have discussed the problems of effecting two effects simultaneously.
This new thing is nothing more than a color changing deck. A great trick, but NOT the next evolution of the omni deck. One looses the tactile surprise of solidity. One COULD perform a preliminary card trick with this new deck as cards could be removed and/or inserted from the clear batch of cards. It is easy to believe one could perform with that deck just keeping it's condition hidden. That is not a reasonable assumption to make with the omni deck performed well. How did I pick a card? How did I put it in the middle? All of that is lost in this version
So, as a new color changing deck this is fine. To say it extends the omni deck demonstrates shallow thinking and lack if understanding
Well said Teller.
You're welcome, Penn.
I personally like having sites like this to read.
As a creator I feel it is important to read all info on new products, especially when they turn into controversies.
It allows me to infer what is causing the reaction, (Lack of work, un-originality, bad demo, theft of idea, poor research.)
I always try to keep these things in mind as I decide what I may put into the marketplace, and what I may just keep for myself. (Maybe it only works for me, is something I can only do, or it just isn't good enough for public consumption).
That doesn't mean that I won't end up here one day, as any of us are going to make mistakes.
And if I do, I will probably have a good chuckle from Roland's style of writing, then have an introspective moment as to why it happened and if it could have been avoided.
Surely I don't agree with everything written in this blog, but that is why freedom of speech is so great; I don't have to.
Just like this Phantom deck. I think it has a place for someone who needs that prop. I actually have a personal effect that would get an additional climax out of this.
I'm not changing that routine though, as it lives on the fact the cards are in the open, and handled freely. ;)
But someone else may think that the extra climax is worth it.
We all have different tastes, which is why I defend the existence of this blog, (And quite enjoy it), and I will defend the existence of this prop as well.
But I think the issue is about the hyperbole about the usability of the prop. If so, then that makes sense. As I can only think of two routines I would even consider it in.
But if I did decide to use it, then it would be worth it.
Just like it breaks my heart to say, the omni pen falls in this area too.
Although I did have a knee-jerk reaction when I saw that, and its price.
It should only be a couple of bucks. (But then again, I haven't seen what kind of routines they included. Hopefully it is not all re-hash. idk)
To each their own.
I appreciate being able to read people's thoughts on products, regardless their intention.
I see so many creators rush to defensive mode. Reading blogs like this, and other hot-spots has kept me in line ;)
Alas, to partially live and operate off the Internet! It is a unique experience.
LokI
I believe the deck you are thinking of is called "Crystal Method".
The problem with anyone trying to solicit the argument of "I get great reactions with it so you are wrong wrongy wrong pants!" is that I can get a great reaction with the simplest of tricks.
We all too often forget that we are idiot magicians. We know way more about magic at 8 years old than ANYONE whose only interaction with magic is being able to spell the word "magician".
So any of you who decide to defend your friend, product or whatever by trying to invoke the almighty "How dare you bash something I KNOW works fine" argument, just remember someone out there could run circles around you with a crappy Adam's ball and vase. Therefore your argument is invalid.
It's interesting you brought up the Ball & Vase. I saw a very nice performance of it by Michael Skinner on his close-up magic DVD's. It was a lovely performance that I highly recommend people check out.
$40.00 for this is obscene! Nothing special here, went to US playing card worked a deal for the blank plastic sheets to be cut into decks. USPC already makes their own plastic decks, not a lot of R and D here. When cut the sides frost and 'turn white' as a natural process of cutting plastic.
JMN
Just as Mr. Newton states above "USPC already makes their own plastic decks, not a lot of R and D here."
It is really unnecessary for Jay to make up this con-babble:
"This has been over a year in developement not just to get the exact thickness and handle of playing cards in clear plastic but also a fused treatment on the sides of the deck so that its completely white and will resemble any deck of cards you want to use."
I will call USPC and find out exactly how long they have been making clear cards with the "exact thickness and handle of playing cards in clear plastic but also a fused treatment on the sides of the deck so that its completely white"
I personally purchased a Disney clear deck back in 2002 on Main St., Disneyland Ca..
If Vanishing Inc. keeps doing this they will surely live up to their name and disappear.
At the end of the day isn't it the reactions (and entertainment) we're doing magic for, so if you get great reactions then job done! Of course it takes a skilled and experienced entertainer to really squeeze every ounce out of an effect, but that's another story :)
Its interesting you used a photo of Australian politician Bob Katter to illustrate your point Bizarro. He is known for stating his opinion and speaking the truth even when it is not popular amongst his peers. But his constituents love him and will re-elect him in perpetuity, because he doesn't kowtow to the establishment, and generally seems to care about the rank and file. Magic could do with more of his type. Although your good self and Roland seem to be handling that fairly well. Tell it how you see it, and let those who disagree, do just that.
When I first saw someone use the Omnideck I thought, "Man, that's fucking stupid." Later I learned it was created by Jerry Andrus, and I immediately thought, "Man, that's fucking perfect." Because it fits Andrus' act. Unlike most people, much less most magicians, Andrus had something to say about the world. He had a point of view. A solid block of plexiglass crashes to the table and it's not JUST "wow, where did that come from?" It had contextual meaning because his act had a through-line.
Post a Comment