Price$30.00
Media TypeTrick
CategoryClose Up, Mentalism
Date AddedOct 03, 2013
Inferno
Jay, Joshua
Card-Shark.de
(Based on 2 reviews)
a NAMED card appears in a matchbox. No deck, no riffle force, no complications. Just one card in play, inside the matchbox...the NAMED card.
Sound too good to be true? What if we told you that this effect was easy to do, easy to reset, and was entirely self-contained. You can perform without sleeves or pockets or preparation.
If you have the matchbox (included), you're ready to go. "Inferno" is the complete package:
you get an instructional DVD starring creator Joshua Jay, specially-printed "scorched" card,
and the matchbox.
You'll be lighting it up with "Inferno" within minutes.
Reviews
(Top ▲)
B’wave has a permanent home in my wallet but this ‘version’ is a nice change up for more formal walk around.
I give it 4 stars ⭐️
(Top ▲)
Overview
One DVD, two sets of "special" cards, one matchbox, one paper clip, $30 bucks and one Inferno Review. Is it gem or is it rubble? Stay tuned to find out.Effect
The effect in its simplest form is a thought of card revelation. Using some fun visual imagery, you and the spectator burn an entire deck of cards (mentally), and the spectator chooses which one single card to save from the fire. You then reveal a single burned playing card that is the card your spectator namedMethod
The method involves a couple of things. First, a very, very, very, very subtle form of equivoque is employed. It's so subtle and undetectable that it really feels like the real thing. Secondly, the cards (supplied) in the match box play a role. There are two options. You are supplied with gimmicked cards and non-gimmicked cards. Each has its advantages. The trailer used the non-gimmicked cards. The advantage there is that you can let the card be handed out at the end. It does require you to secretly palm out a card. The gimmicked version has no palming, but the card cannot be handed out, and you can't display it as cleanly as you can display the non-gimmicked cards.The method is not what I would call a beginner's method. The palming out of one of the cards is a little tricky. In fact, I was never quite able to get it to look as clean as I wanted, so I modified the method by adding one more layer to the "selection" process that eliminates the need for palming out a card. That said, the method is doable. It'll just take some practice and dedication to get it right.
Product Quality
The product quality is solid. Josh does an excellent job teaching every aspect of this effect. The handling and equivoque are covered in depth. Josh is an excellent teacher for sure, and it shows here as it does in all of the products of his that I've reviewed. The production quality is pretty solid as well. The special cards are well made and designed perfectly to do effectively complete the task at hand.Ad Copy Integrity
This is an effect that I use occasionally, so when I decided to review it, I figured it would be easy to write since I do the effect, etc. However, as I'm reading through the ad copy, I'm finding a lot of issues. So for all you doubters out there who need more proof that just because I love an effect that doesn't mean I'll give the product a great review.Let's take a look at bullet point number 2 in the written ad copy. It says that there is "no sleight of hand to speak of." What does "to speak of" mean? There is definitely sleight of hand. There are two specific places where sleight of hand is used. The first place is very minimal, and one could argue that this is "no sleight of hand to speak of." However, the second place, is very much "speak of-able." It's secretly finger palming out a card and hiding it while you open up another card. That's sleight of hand folks.
Bullet point 2 continues on by saying that the technical aspects of the trick are "quite easy." This is debatable for sure. I was not able to "easily" do that part of the effect. However, that could just be me, so it's hard to say.
Bullet point 4 makes another claim that I must dispute. It claims that there are "no angle restrictions whatsoever" and that you can "do it surrounded if you like." Um. Nope. This most definitely cannot be done surrounded. During the performance, anyone standing sort of behind Josh on his left side would most definitely see him steal out the card.
The last thing I'll point out is not an untrue statement. However, I feel it needs clarity. It's more of a method thing, but it kind of fits in here too. They claim that everything you need to do the trick is in the matchbox. This is definitely a true statement. However, the set up in the matchbox is 3 matches, and the paper-clipped "card." Each performance uses the three matches, so after each effect, you need to add three more matches to the match box.
Again, I don't feel that any misleading statements were made. I just wanted to make sure you understand that if you're going to do this trick multiple times, it's not as simple as just putting the Inferno matchbox in your pocket and going. You have to either carry around another box of matches to replenish the used matches or you have to not use matches. Not using matches is certainly an option, but it does eliminate some of the theatrics of the effect.
Next up, we have the ad trailer. There are two problems with this. First, at 1:21, Josh says that you're about to see an uncut performance of the effect. He then says "that's how it looks every time you do it 100% of the time." Both of those claims are not true. First, there is a cut, and second, it doesn't look like that every time. If it's true that it looks like that every time you do it 100% of the time, then you'd be able to watch 10 different performances of it and not spot a difference in the verbal aspects of the presentation. This is simply not true.
Granted, the difference between different scenarios certainly would feel the same to different sets of spectators. In fact, if you were to show this to 10 different groups and they all compared notes later, they would all be convinced that the procedure was identical. However, it is not true that it looks the same every time. This one bugged me a little, but the next one really "got" me.
The uncut performance of the effect has cuts. Most of them of them are insignificant. They don't "hide" anything. However, there is one cut at 3:21 that is right at the moment the extra card is palmed out. Right then, it clearly cuts.
Here's what bugs me the most with all of these mistakes in the ad copy. There was no need to make any of these claims. Leaving all of the inaccurate claims would not have hurt anything. Rather, it would have helped them get a better review from me. But maybe my review doesn't matter.
Final Thoughts
Sadly, this would have been a 5 star product easily . . . if it weren't for the misleading claims in the ad copy. What's worse is that those misleading claims could have been left out without damaging the awesomeness of this product/trick. If I were judging effect or method alone, this would be 5 stars. However, as we know, effect is irrelevant since you may or may not like the effect.But the method does count a little. What counts the most is ad copy integrity and product quality. In the product quality category, this product shines. It's the ad copy where things fall apart a little bit. Having said all that, if you like the effect, you'll be very happy with the method and this product. Also considering everything that you get, $30 bucks is a small price to pay.
All of the little things that were misleading were minor and were almost true. The problem I have is that if you're going to go out of your way to make a claim like "you're about to see an uncut performance" then make sure you really show an uncut performance.
If you're going to go out of your way to say that it can be done surrounded, then it better be doable surrounded otherwise don't mention it. Or better, say something like "virtually surrounded" or "98% angle proof." Be honest, accurate and transparent.
Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars with a Stone Status of Gem.