No Albert, that's not arguable at all. I have always understood how important crediting is; I've made that pretty darn clear, in fact it was my eye for detail in the crediting of this move and the differences between it and similar moves that helped cause this whole debacle! I agree that Theory 11 needs to do more on the product page and I have never suggested otherwise, but I also think that if we have problems with what they do or how they do it, our time is better spent writing THEM an email rather than discussing our qualms in forums, because, as we have seen, if someone gets their facts wrong when making a strong criticism, specially a respected magician such as yourself, the results can be ugly. Yes, of course it is incredibly important that an influential company such as T11 "should make sure their products are not misleading, including the addition of credits", and similarly, if we are going to lead by example, then when criticising their practises we should be sure to get our facts straight. It's incredibly easy to mistakenly peddle in misinformation, as we have discovered in this little exercise!

Look at it this way.. When all was said and done, in these "T11 exposed" threads you are trying to help consumers make an informed choice, right? And to teach them about ethics along the way hopefully. Isn't this the point of these threads? A warning to possible purchasers that they should know what they're getting into when they buy with Theory 11? So now, for example, we have two innocent, uneducated noobs to magic. One sees the trailer and goes to the site, the other comes here. I think the one who just went to the site and saw the trailer would be much better off than someone who read this thread first, despite the problems that exist with crediting on the product page. The first person makes their decision based on the move, what it looks like, the price, etc, but doesn't get to see good crediting on the product page.. but hey, they get it in the tutorial. The second person is worried, angry, then confused by all the arguing in this thread and the actual importance of the move goes out the window, because its all about credits, ethics, who said what, where did it originate, who stole what? etc. My point? I'd rather be the first person and just get on with making my own choices and judgements, rather than the second guy, who came to this thread, and got a very blurry picture painted for him about the origin of the move. I know this wasn't done on purpose but it has happened nonetheless. The point is that the thread did more damage than good, whether you like it or not!! On that note, I think I've said more than enough on this subject so I'll leave it there.

Peace and love to all

Okay, I'm going to break down what you said so I don't get confused. This we agree upon, that crediting is important, so Theory11 shouldn't leave it out, or delete it, like Mark has said. This was the purpose of the thread. I have no idea how this deviated to the crazy concept of "the move is similar to previous creations, so it's unethical to release it without credits" because that is is no way the purpose of the thread and that doesn't even make any sense at all! :confused:

Well, Theory11 doesn't listen to use. Isn't that why we are so heated up in the conversation? Mark, I believe, has done tons to try and tell Theory11 what they are doing wrong. We barely see any changes. That's why we post them here.

We sure have. That was the whole point of this thread and I believe my mistake has done a pretty damn decent job to prove it. ;)

Yes, we agree on this.


Damn right! I completely see your point and have since the beginning. It seems like our debate has evolved into some quite different an issue we debated about before with GPS as the example. But remember, we didn't have issues with people who saw and bought the trick. They get the required in the purchase. Our concern is for those who don't buy it after they see the trailer. They are more prone to leaving with the wrong idea on the original creator after seeing no credits at all on the products page, except for Rick Lax as the instructor and 'creator' of the technique. That's where they possibly receive misinformation!

Sure, this person will be confused and upset at the differences between the Bow-to-Stern, Blind Square, and HighRise in terms of technicalities. But I believe this thread has done more than enough to explain that HighRise is not an original move and that crediting should be done on the products page for the sake of those who DON'T buy the move. Regarding credits, this thread should have done more than enough. This debate evolved into something bigger after I mistakenly said 'slight variation', which I admitted several times and apologized for. That should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

I don't completely agree with the more damage than good, but I can definitely see the damage.

I'll also leave it at that. At least now, we know what the real problem is since it's been broken down. Whew~ :p

@ Albert. Can I ask why you should be so concerned about somebody deciding to buy or not to buy something from Theory11 or any other company? Don't you think Therory11 or any other company should be more concerned since it's their business, not yours?

A simple question...

I don't have any concern for it. I'm not sure whether I sounded like that or you understood it like that, but definitely not. ;)

I'm concerned about people obtaining improper knowledge through misinformation, in which that happens through people seeing trailers, not buying the product, thus not obtaining the proper credits, and then learning falsely that a move is an original creation by another when it isn't.

Mark's example of the Invisible Palm was the perfect example. Up until Mark told me around last year, I thought the invisible palm was Wayne Houchin's as well. I never bought the product because I figured it out, thus, not obtaining proper credits into my knowledge bank (given that they do provide it in the video, which I have no idea if they do or not).

I hope that answers the questions. :)

If you are wondering why I'm concerned about people learning things correctly, I don't know why I do it. I just want people to not learn things incorrectly when they should be and have the capability to. For example, that's what my whole channel was about when I created it and it still is. I want people to learn all the small details that helped me when learning things, which others usually don't teach in a YouTube tutorial video. This way, people don't perform things stupidly and expose it in performances through failing. I'm starting to go off topic again... :thinking:

I think 'GPS' is an excellent example for that too. Until very recently, Theory11 said the term 'impromptu' is completely based on a personal definition of the word. I can tell you that whoever bought 'GPS' when it still said it was impromptu (which it has for over two years till the statement was removed) and who would demand a refund and wouldn't get it, could sue Theory11 and win the case without a single doubt.

We are concerned about the art, not about who buys what and where. We strive to a clean and ethical art. If anyone would be non-crediting or be crediting whoever and use terms in whatever way they want, there is no meaning to either crediting or using such terms at all. They merely do it because it looks and sounds cool (or it doesn't, apparently, in case of credits).

And yes, Fin, I have had contact with Theory11 personally before posting anything.

I kind of understand what idea you are trying to put across but it's a very twisted logic. The part where you say: "people seeing the trailer, not buying the product", should stop right there. I thinks it more likely that the person not buying the product doesn't like the look of the move, not because of the lack of crediting.

I think it's important too that people learn their sleights correctly - and I'm sure that by what Fin says, when someone buys the method to "High Rise", they will learn it correctly.

Another question.
Out of the following, which would you say is more important or more of a concern to your future personal success as a magician, not to the history of magic as an art form:

[1] Magic companies giving the right credit where it is due and where necessary.
[2] Cheap exposure in general.

I know it's kind of off topic but still relative nonetheless.

I'm extremely confused at your question because I'm NOT saying that one shouldn't buy tricks because they don't put credits on the product page. I never said and never will say that because that's stupid. :hm:

Just so that you won't be confused, I'll try to make it as clear as possible: I'm saying that credits due should be given on the products page, not hidden or deleted. This has NOTHING to do with one buying the product or not. I'm concerned for people who mistakenly learn the credits of a move with an older origin wrongly and this happens for those who don't buy the product because they don't have access to the credits (at least for most people). There's no twisted logic there. Crediting someone due and teaching people the correct history of it is respect towards the original creators or contributors.

The "people seeing the trailer, not buying the product" is a scenario where misinformation is commonly occurred. That's why I gave that example.

Going off track again ;)
I never disagreed with this and me doing so will be hypocritical and stupid. Learning moves correctly is what my whole channel is about. There is a humongous confusion right now on what the real topic of concern is. This is a completely different matter that entered the thread here for some reason.

For my personal success as a magician, I would say number 1: right credits.

With the correct credits readily available, it does 3 things beneficial to me:
(1) I would be able to find the correct sources of origin if I was really interested, it would provide me with correct and better knowledge for future references to help people out, and learn the moves from the original sources, which could be an extremely valuable learning experience.
(2) Only those who are ready to spend time and effort into learning the secrets of a trick will search for the sources. In other words, laymen wouldn't bother further into going into the history of magic because that's boring for them. That way, exposure isn't as readily available and the art would still be relatively well hidden from laymen.
(3) If people learn the correct sources, I could learn about it from another if I know it differently. For example, I recently purchased Shin Lim's Splice from Vanishing Inc. to see the various applications he had come up with the move. In there, he gives references to the wrong moves/credits regarding Splice, and the most commonly mistaken credits at that. Even through video purchases, wrong credits were given, which was terrible in my opinion in one's learning experience. If I was new at magic and learned Splice's credits wrongly, at least someone who knew better could then help me out in the future, right? :)

Just to be clear on that, it certainly wasn't a mere suggestion of a "slight variation" that made me feel I had to go "off-topic" in pointing out the differentces between the BTS and High Rise. I was actually only talking about the trailer until you said the following:

It was that which prompted this. The only thing that lead this thread astray was your improper crediting. And I know you have admitted and apologised to that, and I wish I didn't have to bring it up again, but this did not happen because all you said was that it was a "slight variation", and that should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

I hope nobody think's this is about me just picking on Albert. I love Albert,.. :cry: Albert, I hope you can see this; I have as much respect for you as ever. This is not a personal thing. This is, indeed, about getting the credit's right, and I saw the wrong picture being painted of Mr Lax and the move so I saw the need to correct that, regardless of who may have been saying it.

Finny Finny Fin Fin~ ;)

Yes, I did suggest a mere slight variation. When I said that Rick Lax knew that it was the Bow-to-Stern Control and that it was renamed to HighRise, I called that inappropriate because I assumed only a slight variation. From the trailer, the positioning of the fingers looked pretty damn similar to the original BtS from what I could remember. I'll check my book again now. But regardless, yes, through that, I did suggest a mere slight variation. If it was very different, I wouldn't have called the renaming inappropriate, now would I? ;)

Quite funny how we are arguing about why I am wrong! :grin:

You misunderstood me, i never said that either. I was only making the point that most people care more about esthetics than bad crediting when purchasing something.

I also never said you disagreed with me on people learning their sleights correctly. On the contrary, I was agreeing with you about this, only I was also trying to convey, without actually saying because I didn't want to appear rude, that this is in fact probably more worthy of debate.

Interesting you chose number [1], personally I would have gone for number [2].

What I mean by cheap exposure is people in any public domain, claiming to be magicians and revealing methods for reasons that I can't answer. These people no nothing about the magicians oath, whereby one should never reveal the method either outright or through lack of practice etc.
Okay, maybe "personal success" is fairly strong, but look at the MASKED MAGICIAN giving away secrets for nothing. Surely this has an effect on a magicians success, maybe not you personally, but if everyone knew the secrets there would be no magic and much worse, if magic was how you made a living... That's why I'd go for number [2].

Just highlighting what I reacted to Albert, the sentences I put in bold being the main bits. I never suggested you didn't say "slight variation", but briefly looking back I can't actually see where you did use those words.. did you use those words? However thats not my point. Whether you did or not I'm just talking about what parts you did say which I thought was way off the mark, and which is what took me off-topic, away from the trailer and product page debate :) Had you only said it was a slight variation I would have totally understood but we all know you went further than that and THAT is what I was reacting to.
When anyone says "Rick Lax knew that it was the Bow-to-Stern Control and that it was renamed to HighRise", and "renamed it, claiming it as his........ That's the situation here", those are very black & white claims. They don't look like that person is "assuming" anything. They look like he knows, yet they are not correct. The BTS IS NOT the High Rise. And Rick has NOT renamed it, claiming it as his. "Slight variation"? Whatever! I have made it clear several times what prompted this, and it wasn't talk of a slight anything.

Fin, I'm sorry, but this is getting really irritating. For one, I didn't explicitly say the word, but I described it enough to communicate that and even Cris understood it that way (in the last paragraph of his 1st post).

Secondly, I clearly said 'For those who know Ernest's control, we can say "Oh, Rick made some improvements on Ernest's Move."' That is pretty much true. That suggests I implied 'slight variation'. I even purchased HighRise yesterday for the sake of this thread and to compare it with the BTS. Honestly, I personally think there isn't as excessive of a difference as you claimed for the fact that the secret move is more exaggerated than the original. The core principle is kept the same and the finger positioning of the right hand for the first bit is the main difference. Sure, it's enough to allow him to rename it as something quite different, but the difference isn't so big. :hm:

Lastly, the use of the music situation to say "renamed it, claiming it as his" was explicit to that certain situation. That can be clearly understood by the fact that I knew Rick gave credits in the actual video, which proves that he didn't claim it as his. I'm not stupid enough to not realize that. It was to exemplify that people who don't purchase the products and see the credits will understand it like that.

Seriously, I thought that this topic on the matter of me saying slight variation or not has been quite solved and I didn't bother expanding on it to keep things on track as well. Well, is it now? :confused:

see, you really wanna try to be accurate, especially when quoting yourself! Or else it looks like you're confusing things yet again. You even put 'slight variation' in quotations, strongly implying that you actually said that, and that this is all it was that started the drama, just one innocent mention of a "slight variation"; not really misleading at all, if that were the case, but it wasn't..

Then...
Surprise, surprise! Well as long as that's cleared up then. You didn't actually say it was a slight variation but we should have known you meant that :rolleyes: Silly me! And when you said something so clear as "Rick Lax knew very well that this is called the Bow-to-Stern Control", why would anyone be confused and think you meant there was no difference between his move and the BTS? :rolleyes:

"That is pretty much true. That suggests I implied 'slight variation'."

Well, that's nice and clear. You wouldn't make a good lawyer. You see, I ain't a mind reader and to me all you communicated was a confusing picture about the move and made a couple of misleading statements. If you don't believe that they were misleading then there's not much more to be said.

----
Ps. I don't want to irritate anyone by holding them to account for what was actually said, (rather than suggested or implied), so I'll leave this mantra as my final contribution to this thread:

"Crediting is very important! Be sure to always get your facts straight when talking about crediting, especially when criticising others, about crediting!!"

Well, if they were misleading, then I apologize. That was definitely not my intention at all. I had a strong belief that the moves were quite similar, so I made statements that implied slight variation. As for me claiming to say "slight variation," that was my mistake as I truly thought I did say that (seems like I didn't! :eek:)

My memory fails me more so than I thought... :thinking: Regardless, your words "Crediting is very important! Be sure to always get your facts straight when talking about crediting, especially when criticising others, about crediting!!" is the whole point of this thread and thank you for saying that. Let's leave this at that. Continuing to argue will benefit no one at this point, especially as the whole point of this thread is clearly stated. :)

Still friends Fin? ;)

You know me.. Any excuse for a group hug dude :) Like I said, this ain't personal. Anyway, that hug ^_^ Trav, honey, where are you?

Oops my bad I was off hugging my Halo friends. But who are we kidding, I like my magic friends better! :)

This update goes a little back in time but I only just saw this video Theory11 made for the USPCC on Bee playing cards. It TOTALLY misrepresents these cards and I came to realize that all of Theory11's USPCC trailers are basically the same, leaving a very dirty mark at the biggest playing card company in the world:

High Rise and GPS i have all. I don't know the method to do Bow-to-Stern Control. GPS is not impromptu like Mark said and High Rise is some thing you can know :D

Weren't Bees made for gambling, and casinos, not cardistry?

Indeed. This is nuts, and they are getting paid for it too. If I were the USPCC I wouldn't pay them a single dime for a trailer that's this off-topic, no matter how professional it looks. They could and should have asked Jason England for it, and it's a shame they didn't because they got access to him too.

Sorry, I really have missed the point here. What's the problem with this advert? It says they are bees, and they are bees! What's the problem? How is the trailer off-topic just because some guy is using them for cardistry? They're adding a bit of glamour to the cards.. no big deal. Again, it's an advert! They can do what they like with the cards, even have them spouting out of an elephant's rear for all I care, as long as it looks cool :cool: And what should they have asked Jason England for? :eek: Yes, I really haven't got a clue what you're problem is. Did I miss something? :( Perhaps a difference in taste? A different idea of how this particular brand should be advertised? As someone commented on the youtube page.. "theory11 should really make gambling demonstrations to promo Bee cards". If that's the case, then it's just a difference of artistic taste/opinion and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

Well, I suppose it's whatever floats your boat, but in this case, Bees were made for casino's and gambling by Bicycle, not T11. Then again, if Bicycle approved of the advert I suppose that's their right. Still... I just don't like seeing Bees used for cardistry, but that's just my opinion.

well, they ARE one of the best cards used for cardistry( 2 of the world's most expensive flourish decks are blue and brown Bee Wynn, and they have, what is currently one of the stiffest stock and finish there is), so it's fine that they are used like that, but you're right, bees shouldn't be used for performing flourishes.

I agree they look really crap in this vid and don't seem to fit flourishing at all, lol. But still, its just down to taste is it not? And I have impeccable taste, of course ;)

Bee Wynn decks are way different from the ones in the video though. The brown Wynns were actually re-released by T11 for cardistry, and they really suit that purpose thanks to the very simple yet versatile design (and I totally applaud T11 for that re-release). However, Casino Bee decks (and most if not all other borderless decks) don't suit that purpose.

The problem here is that T11's goal is to take over the world. Now, that is the goal of many companies, but I never ever seen a company who did that by ruining other companies from the inside.. by producing ads that are way off and making that whole company 'their own' by doing so.

The embedded Bee trailer, which is totally misrepresenting those cards, now is the official trailer for these cards.. cards that are supposed to be at the card table.. which is why I said they should have asked Jason England since he is T11's master at the card table. These cards and Michael Herp don't go together a slightest bit.

Imagine that someday they will hook up with Disney and produce the official trailer for Disney World, having Mickey, Goofy, Donald and the rest do card flourishes. Yes, it would indeed be cool for us, but not for the world. :hm:

That's a slight exaggeration and another question of taste. They can advertise the cards however they like, but a bad choice of setting and person in this video does not mean they are necessarily just "ruining other companies from the inside"; which is again somewhat overstating your point. In fact are they ruining a company from the inside? Or just helping that company to make more money. I'm pretty sure that T11 will have helped increase the USPCC's earnings, as have the other companies who join forces with them, of which there are many. T11 just made a different choice about who they were aiming for with that ad, plain and simple. Maybe they thought it was time to try to get the cardistry crowd into those cards; in fact I think that's exactly why this has been done.

You can't really say those cards are totally the wrong cards for cardistry, because yet again, what cards you use for cardistry comes down to your own personal taste. It's called finding your target audience, and sometimes brands like to try different audiences to widen their customer base. Its common practise and makes sense, even if you don't agree with their taste on this particular advertising push.

Fin, I don't think it comes down to just opinions. Look at the facts:

- The United Playing Card Company produces the highest quality and most versatile decks of cards in the world, for families, for magicians, for cardists, for gamblers, for collectors, they make it all;
- Each of the official ads for the different kinds of playing cards (all of them made by Theory11) contain cardistry, and cardistry only. That is: two for Bicycle cards, one for Tally-Ho's and now this one for Bee cards;
- Those advertisements, that focus merely on cardistry, could make laymen think 1) that those cards are only for cardists, 2) that each of those decks handle and are exactly the same apart from their back design, or 3) that those decks are all meant for in the same situations (whether it is cardisty or anything else).
- Apart from the four playing card ads, the USPCC has a series on the World Series Of Poker, one educational video (how cards are made) and only one other ad.. which is on playing cards with friends.

This is by no means making the customer base wider, it is making it smaller. Any marketer can tell you that the four playing card ads, only containing cardistry, are not making sense, especially not for a company (the USPCC, not Theory11) that produces cards for literally everyone, and thanks to T11 now seems to focus on cardists mainly, which may very well be the smallest customer base they have.

I also think a kind of Erdnase-vibe perhaps would've been better suited to show off these BEEs, but the USPCC must know what they are doing, they must have the final say in what gets put out.

I really doubt it.

I think that under those conditions, the USPCC accepted the deal and let Theory11 free in making these ads. But Theory11's "new generation of consumers" is merely based on cardists, which is a big (if not the biggest) part of their own consumer base. On top of that, there is no new market for the USPCC at T11 because cardists are called cardists for a reason.. because they already use playing cards.

Web development? Top notch!
Playing card design? Great!
Marketing? Started off okay, but went down the drain.
Brand enhancement? Making the USPCC look like Theory11 or a department of them = success. Other than that, not really.. except for on the website.
Creativity? I guess that these playing cards ads, each of them looking exactly the same while shot at different locations = no creativity.

You doubt that the leading manufacturers of playing cards know what they are doing. Okay Mark.

Not saying Mark here is right or wrong, because I really don't know myself. But there are times consumers know way better than the producers in terms of what would work and what wouldn't. It's not always right to doubt the company, but it's not always right to fully trust them either. I think gathering of facts are important here, but currently we lack a lot of it to come to a final conclusion :confused:.

Tom, I never said that (even though Albert has a good point, and I guess he thought of T11's *sigh* wonderful and extremely well received *sigh* teasers when saying that).

All I said is that I think that the USPCC gave T11 the freedom to do so. I don't blame the USPCC, I blame T11. Theory11 even puts their logo animation in these ads while no other third party would do or even dare to put their logo in another company's ad video, apart from in a credit section (either a credit section in the video or the video's description). Obviously T11 has quite some freedom in this strategic partnership.

That said, the world's leading card company did make several mistakes not that long ago, and has apologized for these after receiving major complaints, which shows that no company, no matter how big or small, is perfect. Same with Toyota some years ago. In the end they are all run by people too. At least the USPCC (and Toyota) apologized for their mistakes. When T11, one of the leading card artistry producers, admitted to be wrong about saying 'GPS' by Chris Kenner was impromptu which was stated for over two years, no single apology was made. 'Nuff said.

Bees for cardistry?
This is ridiculous.:ninja:

Yes Mark, all I was saying was I'm sure the USPCC had its reasons for letting theory11 make the adverts. And yes, judging by the video footage it seems theory11 did have a lot of freedom, with all the Cardistry.
Not really cause for ALERT though this topic.

I have to agree with Tommy here this post was posted in the topic.
I don't agree with Bee cards being linked to Cardistry, but hey, what do I have to say about that? I agree they weren't very creative... But again, if they do not want to be, and the video is well received, why bother? The only thing that disturbs me a little bit, is the fact theory11 is promoting their own stuff by showing cardistry in a video. It would have been better if they had shown some poker being played, or maybe poker sleights. By making the same video for every deck of cards, the cards lose their identity in my opinion.

This was earlier in the thread, but I felt like something needed to be said about the definition of impromptu. I feel like the definition should be something like this (I welcome people to disagree with any of this):
No gimmicks (meaning nothing the spectator doesn't know about) or setup (even "on the fly" setup) and objects could be borrowed and performed with on the spot.
I'm not trying to make myself some magic god with the final decision on a definition of a word, but this is just something I've been wanting to get off my chest since I saw GPS and Ellusionist's ridiculous video on impromptu magic.

I'm not to keen on including "no gimmicks or setup" in the definition of the word, mainly because there are many gimmicks and setups that can be utilized in impromptu manners without any problem, like the 'Invisible Deck' for instance. But yeah, usually setups indeed are not impromptu. ;)

I've planned on making magic definition videos so these may clear things up as soon as these will be released. :)

I found two more things about Theory11 that ticked me off this morning. On The Wire, there was a review for Zach Mueller and Michael Stern's effect 'The Vintage Holdout' which started off like this:
"It's a brilliant idea, not sure if it's original, but no one really cares about that anyway."
:eek: WHAT!
Theory11 (and commercialized magic in general) has made a new generation of magicians think that crediting doesn't matter. Like, at all. :cry:
Second was the trailer for Andy Nyman's new effect 'Insane'. While it sounds like a good trick, and it's getting good reviews (although what else could you get on Theory11), does any one else find it wrong that it's such a hyped up trailer that he never actually performs the effect? Same thing with a couple of tricks on The Wire, people just camera cut through what the effect "looks like". That just shouldn't happen. It's so wrong.