Guys,
Since my name has been brought up on a few occasions here I felt as though I should respond. I don’t speak for Theory11, but Jonathan Bayme and I are in almost daily contact regarding all of these submissions, and especially Shin Lim’s recent submission, Flawless.
Here’s one man’s take on Flawless. Your mileage may vary.
The overall concept is clearly not original. It not only predates Shin Lim, it predates his grandfather (and mine too for that matter).
Rich23 was the first to mention the Leipzig book as a reference for the concept of removing two cards as one from the rear of the deck (where one card is on top and the other in the middle). Although rich23 is correct in saying that the move isn’t specifically credited to Leipzig as creator, it’s clear he was using the move in his act. Since Leipzig died in 1939, and Buckley’s Card Control wasn’t published until 1946, I would submit that Leipzig should clearly be given precedence over John Brown Cook’s “The Transfer of a Card.”
But, even without the Leipzig reference, the Cook move is enough to establish the concept in print long before Shin Lim.
In my opinion, Shin should credit Leipzig and Cook, as well as any specific modern inspirations that he had, such as Earick’s By Forces Unseen.
I can’t speak for Shin Lim’s leaving out the Cook credit supplied to him by Guile, but I can tell you that the move got by me completely. That’s right – I made a mistake. Although I don’t keep accurate records in this regard, it’s entirely possible this wasn’t the first time in my life I’ve made a mistake.
With regard to the specifics of my mistake, I was familiar with methods of doing double turnovers where one card is on top and the other in the middle from the side of the deck, but I didn’t remember seeing one that took place from the rear short end of the deck.
When I saw the demonstration and instructional videos in the preview stages, I thought the move looked familiar, probably due to having read both Buckley and Ganson’s books over the years, but I couldn’t find any specifics. To be fair, it felt like a modern move to me at the time (for reasons I can’t fully explain), and I concentrated my search primarily in books published in the last 40 years. I didn’t find anything that jumped out at me.
So what did I do? I told J.B. “It looks fine to me. I can’t find anything on it.” I knew that if I were wrong, the community would correct us. That’s how all crediting works. You do the best you can with what you know and you rely on others to step in and fill in the gaps for you.
In alphabetical order, here’s a list of just a few guys that have made crediting mistakes: Ackerman, Buckley, Cervon, England, Giobbi, Hugard, Jennings, Kaufman, Lorayne, Marlo, Maven, Minch, Ortiz, Swain, Tamariz, and Vernon. Some of the mistakes were egregious and others were innocent oversights and the result of incomplete knowledge. The important thing isn’t that you do or do not make a mistake where credits are involved; the important thing is how you acknowledge and handle your mistake.
With that in mind, let me address a few of the comments made by different members here.
Guile stated, “If all of these videos are being screened and I found something to credit in my modest library in 5 minutes, something is wrong here.”
Guile, is that the way the world works in your view? You found it in five minutes therefore there must be something “wrong” here? Did it occur to you that assuming two people have the reference in question and that neither of them has a head start based on prior knowledge, that the person with the smaller library has a much better chance of locating the proper credit than the person with the larger library?
Since I didn’t recognize the move right away, there was nothing to lead me to Buckley, or Ganson, or any other specific title right away. I based my searches on my gut feeling that the move was a modern one. That gut feeling turned out to be wrong, but I resent your implication that there’s something “wrong” with the way this was researched by me and the other members of our team.
Toby wrote: “I think that this product also slipped by because now Shin Lim i very popular on T11 and other web sights, so they let this effect slide because they know they will make a lot of money off of it. Business...”
Toby, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Until a week ago I’d never heard of Shin Lim, and J.B. basically gave me final approval authority over this video. Your statement has transcended ignorance and crossed over to insult. I don’t take those lightly. Apologize or STFU. Your choice.
LBarnes wrote: “This isn't a new move. Regardless of Shin Lims popularity, he should not have released it without permission, if he was going to go ahead and release it anyway, he should have at least given credit where credit is due. So ethically wrong.”
You are correct that this isn’t a new move (conceptually). I fail to see how Shin Lim could have received permission from either Leipzig or Cook. Please let me know if I’m missing something there. As for releasing it with credit to those two parties (at a minimum), I agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with the overstated and melodramatic “So ethically wrong”, but to each his own.
Chriswiehl wrote: “i do somewhat agree with toby tho.
Since t11 saw the move, and it looks great on film, and shin is a name on the wire, they will sell it to get money. and wont care about researching the move. and even after we posted all these comments here, t11 has yet to reply and has even posted it up on their twitter.”
Chris, you’re in the same boat as Toby. Whether you intended to do so or not, you’ve insulted me by insinuating that I’ll purposefully let a move get to The Wire regardless of whether or not I believe it belongs there. You wanna know how much money I get for giving a thumbs up instead of a thumbs down to these submissions? I get exactly zero dollars and zero cents. That’s right. I have absolutely no financial stake in any of these products. I get compensated for the time I spend looking for credits and giving advice to J.B. I don’t get any more money for a “thumbs up” than for a “thumbs down.” I have no incentive to let something slide and many reasons, primarily ethical integrity, to not let something slide. Your options are the same as Toby’s.
One last thing: my computer still shows “1 Day Ago” on praetoritevong’s original post. Please specify how much faster you’ll need replies before continuing as a member here at T11. Perhaps we can fast track some of our future replies just for you.
Trini wrote: “Just because you added Card Control and stated that By Forces Unseen was your inspiration, does not give you the authority to publish something that predates you. I guess its like me publishing Triumph and call it my own, and stating that the Two Card Reverse in Close Up Card Magic was my inspiration.
Mr. Lim,
It's still NOT your move/effect to publish and make money off of. You should do the right thing and remove it from The Wire. Otherwise you will quickly lose respect from many.”
Trini, give me a break. I didn’t invent the top-card cover pass, the bottom deal, the second deal, the push-through shuffle or any number of other moves I’ve taught on 1-on-1’s and in lectures and lecture notes. Am I committing some egregious magical theft by doing so? Marlo didn’t invent the concept of the Ace assembly. Was he lacking “the authority to publish” his variations?
You don’t need “permission” to teach a move that is approaching 100 years old in the next decade. If you disagree, I’ll let you and LBarnes provide all of us with the method for obtaining said permission. The same goes for teaching an effect or a concept. If it’s 100 years old, we can safely say it’s public domain as far as teaching it goes. Claiming an old move as your own is a serious issue; teaching one is not.
The fact is, this isn’t a “permission” issue. It’s a crediting issue. Shin Lim shouldn’t claim the move as his own, but there’s nothing wrong with teaching it as long as he acknowledges the men who came before him, namely Leipzig and Cook. That would be true even if Shin hadn’t added anything to the move at all. The fact that he’s combined the tapping insertion method with the removal strengthens his case for originality. Combination is a form of originality. It’s not the strongest form by any means, and I don’t think Shin’s move is a terrific example of an original combination of two previous ideas, but as far as I know it’s not been done before. That may change as more information comes to light.
Although it’s up to him, I actually think Shin should go a step further than just adding credits and actually alter the name of his product in some manner to reflect it’s older origins. It’s okay to keep the title Flawless as his combined insertion and removal combo, but I would suggest adding a subtitle to reflect the concept’s older origins. Something like, “Flawless: An Approach to a Classic” along with the appropriate Leipzig/Cook credits would go a long way to relieving almost everyone’s gripes about this move.
Continued next post due to length.
