What's new about Digital Dissolve?

Discussion in 'Product Questions and Reviews' started by joshua barrett, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. Hey Bizzaro, love your articles, I would like you to write one about theory 11 !
     
  2. The DVD for Steve's routine is only $10, really, wow. I assume no gaff is included. Where does he suggest obtaining the gaff then?

    As for DD, I was reading in a locked thread on the Cafe about other people releasing material using this type of gaff. It lead to a debate about using gaffs etc by other people in your own completely different routines.

    the argument was that you have to contact and credit the originator of the gimmick in question.

    I have no problem with the necessity to credit, mind you, where doe sit lead? Who do we credit, and get permission for using a double backed card in a routine? How about a regular shell, or expanded shell?

    I don't see anyone arguing about proper credit when ever someone publishes an effect using a half shell.

    Any who, we all can clearly see and know what the presentations and effects presented in DD are, does anyone actually know what was done in Steve's effect? Besides the obvious C/S transpo.

    I am imagining (pure guess and assumption here) that Steve used the gaff to create a temporary C/C coin, which could them be examined by simply removing the gaff. I read that he also had something using two gaffs for a hand to hand transpo.

    Where as DD adds a very visual and open handling to the effect.

    Again, I speak with no authority on Steve's effect and am just speculating.

    Does anyone know what it consisted of?

    In the end, i don't care too much, and I think that DD is worthy of its own release.

    I am just curious about what C/S transpo consisted of.
     
  3. Here, from Steve's website, is a description of the effect:

    "C/S Transpo - A half dollar is freely shown on both sides. An English penny is also shown on both sides. The half dollar is placed into a spectator's hand and he is warned not to take his eyes off the English penny at you finger tips. The English penny instantly changes into the half dollar and is immediately shown on both sides. The English penny is in the spectator's hand. Both coins may be examined yet you may instantly repeat the trick. Yes, the secret gimmick is the famous one now copied by all the other machinists who don't like to give me credit for my creations."
     
  4. someone will surly cry for saying it here but what the heck. watch the DD trailer thats what it consists of. just being honest
     
  5. LOL, to the last part of the quote.

    Sounds a LOT like DD.
     
  6. Duscheck's routine is similar in plot to Digital Dissolve, but with different handling. I have seen both. And VERY extensive credits are listed in the Digital Dissolve DVD. Credit is definitely given where credit is due, and I respect that. BJ Bueno never claims to have invented the gaff - the full public record for its creation are listed in the DVD credits for all to see. The gaffs are manufactured by Jamie Schoolcraft, THE most respected coin gaff manufacturer who was personally given permission by Steve Duscheck to make this particular gimmick, although to be fair, the gimmick's origins are in dispute (but that's neither here nor there).

    The fact of the matter is that the routines are similar, but not the same, and Digital Dissolve is one of the slickest coin effects I've come across in a long time. I only do 3 coin tricks in my performances, and this is one of the three. The coins are extremely well made, as well. No surprise there. Treasure it and use it wisely, and it will get you some GREAT reactions.

    James.
     
  7. Sweet. Finally, thanks for chipping in with this info.

    I am sure that there is also lots of additional ideas and insight on the DD dvd.

    If only I had a credit card, or they had paypal cough cough.
     
  8. So, whats the differents?
     
  9. Well, in that case, then I guess I will just release my handling with the use of the same gaff then. I'll just credit Bueno and Duestcheck and all's good, right? I'll call it "Rip-Off"

    I mean geez, come on everyone, including the team. What ever happened to respecting magic enough that nothing was ever released to anyone, but other confirmed magicians. Back in the day, no one ever had to argue semantics with crediting.

    How about this...I'll perform Panic with Aces and then release it for profit. Whether or not I get permission from Aaron, do you think it's right of me to do this? Meaning taking someone elses idea that they perfected over the years and simply change something as small as a king to an ace and make money from it. Is that right? No, it is not. The situation with Digital Dissolve is damn near the same.

    How about one of the team members ask Aaron if I have permission to do this and take full profit for it. No joke...someone ask and let's see what he'll say...Anyone willing to make a wager on what his answer will be?

    Don't get me wrong, a copper silver transpo has long been a classic and a great. But it's all about the money anymore which is extemely depressing...


    -Dave T. Wiltrout-
     
  10. #31 joshua barrett, Sep 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2007
    dave said it just right. if someone did that with panic would aaron like it, no. but that what happens. Everyone gets mad at those who complain about it., but one day somone might steal your work.
     
  11. That's not a fair comparison if you're attempting to be factual. This is not a witch hunt, guys. Your metaphor is apples to oranges. Panic is an original plot with an original gimmick used in an original handling. Everything about it is original to Mr. Fisher. The Panic gimmick is original as well (although Aaron does credit earlier variations thereof in the DVD).

    The Copper/Silver plot has been around for centuries - I'm not exaggerating (1584) - and there are TONS of variations and versions. The Sun and Moon coin included. Scotch and Soda included. Many of these variations DO utilize the same gimmicks, but these gimmicks have been around for decades, and the exact origin is more often than not in some state of dispute. I don't know who the true inventor of the gaff is, nor is that fact relevant in my performances. What IS important to me is that the public record of facts and credits is truthfully to the best of ability researched and listed, and that is exactly what Digital Dissolve includes in the video.

    They've done their homework. They aren't mind readers though - they can only credit what the public record states. But to make this into a witch hunt when all of those involved in theory11 clearly have nothing but good intentions is simply offensive. Jamie Schoolcraft, who Mr. Duscheck gave permission to manufacture the Half Shell Gaff, is the most respected coin manufacturer in the industry, and he's joined by a lot of other creators I hold in extremely high regard in theory11. These guys credited the complete and accurate published record (check the DVD), and have done nothing wrong.

    Is DD as an effect similar to C/S Transpo? Absolutely. But there's nothing wrong with that. DD's handling is unique, and DD is a new product. There are hundreds of variations of bill switches published as well; almost all of which vary only in the specific handling, which is - in the end - what can make or break an effect.

    Sorry for the rant, but someone has to stand up for the facts.

    James.
     
  12. panic is not a orignal plot. there are other vanishing decks, and there are some that vanish all but curtain cards. lets go over your "facts"

    we already covered one. panic is not a original plot. thats fine but your still wrong

    DD handling is unique. wrong, handles the same. sorry

    Duscheck did NOT give permission for them to release this or market it with his gaff. if you don;t beleive me send me a PM and ill show you the email steve sent to me on this

    i don;t care how many C/S tricks there are or have been the fact of the matter is the handling/gaff/usage is the same.

    iv tried to get out of this discussion but your supposed facts are fabricated or uneducated
     
  13. I agree but I also wonder, When someone creates an effect using a double back card should someone be credited for inventing the db card? (If it usually is I have never seen it). Or should the double lift be credited for every routine using it? How about the classic pass? This isnt an argumentative post, Im simply curious.
     
  14. justin, think about it this way. you create a trick using that double backed card, and sell it. i make the same effect using nerely identical handling and sell it with a new name. should i have asked you first? and if you said no, and thats what happened here, should i do it anyway and plead that mine is better even tho its the EXACT SAME
     
  15. Joshua:

    If that's your opinion, that is fine, but the facts do not say the same. I have PERFORMED both versions. Have you? Have you even seen both versions? You have to go by the facts and the public record. Duscheck unequivocally gave Jamie Schoolcraft permission to create the gaff. Did he give Todd Lassen permission? Why is Todd Lassen selling it on his website? I think not, and no credit or footnote is included there. That's not the case here. Credit is given exactly where due. I bought the DVD myself. If Mr. Duscheck is upset that another C/S effect is now released, that is unfortunate, because there will surely in time be many many more C/S effects released. The plot has been in print and around since the Discovery of Witchcraft. 1584.

    The effect inarguably has distinct differences in handling. I know because I have PERFORMED both versions. The only authorized manufacturer of the coins to date is Jamie Schoolcraft, and that is who is making these. The homework has been done for Digital Dissolve, and the credits are listed in the DVD.

    I think that the published record speaks volumes in this case, and it's sad to see incredible creators being burned at the stake by those less than completely informed. For the respect to both artists, if Mr. Duscheck does have an issue, he should discuss it professionally with BJ Bueno. But because there is no wrong being committed here, I see no reason for ill will and bad feelings.

    I'm sorry for another lengthy post. Now I'llget back to the magic. There's already some great new handling ideas on this very forum (in addition to the ideas on the DVD by Mr. Asher and Mr. Fisher). I've already read some stuff that have polished my act even more than it was. What's important to me is that credit is given where credit is due, and that we respect all of those creators who - with positive intent - work to advance this artform.

    James.
     

  16. Back in the day, lol. Hell no that was not the case. There was PLENTY of dispute about proper crediting "back in the day." That's what Marlo was for.

    As for DD, well, the gaffs are being made by Schoolcraft, who was given permission by Steve to make them. Also, so far, Steve seems to be to the only person NOT to pipe in with an opinion.
     
  17. #38 Gary Yin, Sep 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2007
    Changing something making a variation doesn't make you the "inventor" :mad:

    and yes, Joshua has both routines.

    edit: Oh yeah about the credit thingy. It is good if I make a DVD teaching how to do the Harada Hold and give credit to Daiki Harada? Well, Teaching the Harada Hold is not even mine, and that makes me cannot make the DVD EVEN if I'd put credits to Daiki Harada.
     
  18. Actually, Steve has voiced his opinion on the cafe.

     
  19. That post from Steve Dusheck is rather interesting. It almost appears as if he is looking to take back the permission he gave Schoolcraft because of his involvement in this project. Then again he apparently didn't give Lassen permission to make the gimmick either but he continues to produce it. I guess it doesn't matter either way these days....
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results