(Close Window)
Topic: Peeled Coin by Lloyd Barnes
Message: Posted by: Magic KL (Sep 27, 2017 12:24PM)
Https://www.ellusionist.com/peeled-coin-by-lloyd-barnes.html

Interesting idea.

===

Ad copy:

Peeled lets you tear a real coin in HALF. Avail
Ripping the metallic fibres straight through the middle.
Unlike some impossible objects, this is something the spectator CAN EXAMINE.
An actual piece of currency, sliced perfectly in two.
Then, at your fingertips you slowly pinch the edges closed and hand them a perfect coin. Their coin.
- No elastic to break
- No Magnets to find
- Stunningly easy to do
Peeled is an effect where your audience should be encouraged to burn your hands. It's so perfect, you want them to see the illusion of the coin splitting. 
This is the next generation coin bite.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 27, 2017 12:43PM)
I don't have this, however...

Wouldn't it look better if when you hand back after you've sealed it back up, that there's a scar/deformation for them to obsess over?
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Sep 27, 2017 12:45PM)
You could arrange that, I'm sure.

But it is a trade off. More to carry/handle, and it limits the repeatability in a strolling situation.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 27, 2017 01:16PM)
I don't think you would want the spectators to burn your hands because they will obviously see something in the one hand if you open it. And this illusion is visually strong and you can bet Spectators are going to want to see that other hand. Now if your very good and quick at Misdirection to be able to ditch and retrieve the other thing then all will be good.

But for me, I'll pass though I now pass on all Ellusionists releases. But I am sure some will enjoy this, the more experienced in misdirection. If I did purchase from Ellusionist a question that would need to be answered before purchasing would be the durability of the gimmick, the opening and closing of the gimmick Time After Time and how long before it loses its realistic look and/or breaks, if at all? Maybe it won't? Who knows.
Message: Posted by: danskefogden (Sep 27, 2017 01:33PM)
Worst trick since HUG by Nefesch
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Sep 27, 2017 01:55PM)
I don't think the gimmick can be opened up or closed. It's fixed in that position. It's the handling that creates the illusion, I'm sure. My order is in for the 10p version. Shame it's not available in 50p.

I will not bother with the restoration, just take the coin back in the bent state and put it back in your pocket. Much cleaner imo.
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Sep 27, 2017 02:30PM)
Y'know, I thought Mr. Barnes left coins behind long ago...Guess not completely, and I'm so happy he didn't. :) This is a nice idea. I always wondered what would come from the Bent Coin and the Karate Coin, just what would be next?...And so this idea seems to be progressively it. And you know the great, Jay Sankey is somewhere shaking his head saying, "Now why didn't I think of that?" :D Very clever! :)

As a decent-at-best coin guy, I clearly see the benefits of this as real thinking and progress as to this magical genre of impossibilia. Simple enough moves make the magic happen in an absolutely impossible way. Believe me, the visual of the coin appearing to be split in two will be shocking to spectators, progressively more so than the popular bending of a coin. This is better, more amazing IMHO. :)

It's a trick that people will remember you by, done at the right time in a bar or at a fancy party, it will be amazingly remembered. And glad he thought to also do this in American quarters, could half dollars be far behind? :) I can already see that this will last you a lifetime, easy-to-do brilliant anyway you decide to present it, restore or not. Definitely will pack small and play BIG!

Lloyd continues to let some brilliant things out of his head that weren't quite here before he did it, or did it so much more amazing and better. [b]Peeled Coin[/b] is another winner from this young man. What a wonderful impromptu trick to do anyplace, anytime, anywhere you go.
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Sep 27, 2017 02:43PM)
I'm thinking of taking this to an event I have next month. It'll add some variety to my usual material to play with.

There are no moving parts in the gimmick, by the way.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 27, 2017 02:45PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, WitchDocChris wrote:
You could arrange that, I'm sure.

But it is a trade off. More to carry/handle, and it limits the repeatability in a strolling situation. [/quote]

yeah, I'm sure I could... but its happening again! repeatability and strolling...ha!

just cos we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD... especially if its being presented as some form of mentalism or bizarre...do something once for someone with a little prestige attached, or for the person who booked you...that's how I always see things - I mean, I don't do strolling, but if I did, I wouldn't be doing weird coin bending or this at every other table... :)
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Sep 27, 2017 02:53PM)
I don't normally do strolling any more, either. But I want to expand back into that as I feel the gigs will be more plentiful for me, and I like the idea of having a few little pieces that are only done a time or two throughout the gig.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't do what you mentioned - but it does have to be considered.
Message: Posted by: Calvin826 (Sep 27, 2017 03:01PM)
Years ago, I recall seeing a demo video of the always great Paul Richards putting a slight tear in a half dollar. A switch was employed, of course, but it was super clean looking. It felt like the coin never left your eyesight, even if you knew what to look for.

I think this would be neat if the coin didn't hide for so long, or if a more open handling was used.
Message: Posted by: normative (Sep 27, 2017 03:28PM)
In theory this is a strong, cool little effect. In practice it at least appears it’s got the same drawback as everything else in the borrowed-quarter-gaff family these days: Eagle-tailed quarters haven’t been minted in 20 years now, and it’s increasingly likely you’ll hit a group of spectators where nobody has one. So either you’ve got to supply your own at the outset, or handle the peeled coin carefully & skip passing it out for inspection. (It’d probably be safer to have a state-tail on the peeled coin and a matching one to return: most people aren’t going to remember they gave you a Rhode Island when they get a Minnesota back, but the eagle design is strikingly different enough from the states that I’d expect more than a few people to notice they’re getting a now relatively rare “old quarter” back.) And that’s still an OK effect, but the marketing copy here indicates they understand it’s way, way stronger when the coin is borrowed and they actually get to hold the impossibly “peeled” quarter. If in practice you can’t usually do that, it’s probably not quite strong enough to coax $40 from my pocket. Makes me wish there were a Big Magic lobby that could pressure the U.S. Mint to factor this stuff in to their design decisions, but we’re probably outnumbered by the numismatists who want more variety. <Shakes fist: “numismatiiiists!!!”>
Message: Posted by: tonsofquestions (Sep 27, 2017 08:46PM)
Marion - you're always too humble. You're more than a "decent-at-best coin guy"! But as usual, I agree with you very much - this feels more like the next-generation coin bend (or maybe Garrett Thomas' Profile/Skewer) than a bite, which to me was always about the instant reappearance than the slow melt.

In that light, $40 does seem a bit high - you got Profile *and* Skewer for $40, and most bite coins are significantly cheaper.

I also agree with the concern around state vs eagle quarters; I feel like I'd have a hard time doing this without being sure of what coins I'd get. I know I would also prefer to get one in half dollar, but I also know that a big part of the impact of doing this would be that it's with a borrowed object.

All that said, it's a cool idea - I like the evolution on the thinking here.
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 27, 2017 08:56PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, Calvin826 wrote:
Years ago, I recall seeing a demo video of the always great Paul Richards putting a slight tear in a half dollar. A switch was employed, of course, but it was super clean looking. It felt like the coin never left your eyesight, even if you knew what to look for.

I think this would be neat if the coin didn't hide for so long, or if a more open handling was used. [/quote]

No sense in splitting hairs.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Sep 27, 2017 10:06PM)
This is fun but I don't think it will be perceived as magic. It's a stunt like tearing a phone book in half or knocking the bottom out of a beer bottle.
Message: Posted by: PhilJake (Sep 27, 2017 10:08PM)
Hi spectators, did you know that quarters used to be called two bits. Well in the old days the Spanish Real de a Ocho or the Eight Royals Coin was commonly known as a piece of eight. It was worth 8 reales and was often split into 8 pieces or 8 bits each worth 1 reales to make change. So two bits is a quarter of a piece of eight and that's why we have quarters and why the slang name for them is two bits. Heck even cents are named after Spanish centavos. I was doing some research about the origin of two bits and I discovered that some of those old copper clad quarters, the ones with the eagle on the back, sometimes split in half. That's why the mint switched to the new state quarters. I have been practicing how to split them into two bits but I can only do it with the old style quarters. The new state quarters have a stronger copper nickel clad. Does anyone have one of those old quarters so we can see how well it is made?
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Sep 28, 2017 03:00AM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
This is fun but I don't think it will be perceived as magic. It's a stunt like tearing a phone book in half or knocking the bottom out of a beer bottle. [/quote]
Then it's the same as presenting the coin bend as a test of strength. But coin bending can and should be presented as a mental effect. I don't see why it can't be done with this peeled coin.

Also, if someone is worrying about people looking at the other hand, I'm sure their first guess is that the coin is special in some ways, and if they think about the possibility of a switch it's more likely after you hand them the coin. What I would do is to ditch the gimmick while reaching for a lighter, and use it to "restore" the coin back to normal. Of course, as you ditch the gimmick, the normal coin is in display.

By the way I don't see why there is no euro version. Europe is a big market...
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Sep 28, 2017 09:49AM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
This is fun but I don't think it will be perceived as magic. It's a stunt like tearing a phone book in half or knocking the bottom out of a beer bottle. [/quote]


Mike, I truly appreciate your opinion here, but have you ever seen Eric Jones do his version of this genre (as to Karate Coin), called "Tai Chi Penetration?"

You should check it out, as to how he takes a "stunt" and makes it a most magical effect and routine. :) And actually, to my eye, there is no better Karate Coin routine out there than what Eric presented by adding a little further thought to the play of it.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Sep 28, 2017 09:54AM)
[quote]On Sep 28, 2017, Mb217 wrote:
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
This is fun but I don't think it will be perceived as magic. It's a stunt like tearing a phone book in half or knocking the bottom out of a beer bottle. [/quote]


Mike, I truly appreciate your opinion here, but have you ever seen Eric Jones do his version of this genre (as to Karate Coin), called "Tai Chi Penetration?"

You should check it out, as to how he takes a "stunt" and makes it a most magical effect and routine. :) And actually, to my eye, there is no better Karate Coin routine out there than what Eric presented by adding a little further thought to the play of it. [/quote]

http://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=210771&forum=3
Message: Posted by: Jared (Sep 28, 2017 11:13AM)
It's an interesting idea for sure. But there's going to be a heck of a lot of heat on that switched (palmed) coin because the feat is so incredible. Perhaps the creator offers some additional routining options to end cleaner. Nevertheless, it's great fun to see such advancements in plots as this. I could totally see David Blaine performing this on one of his TV specials.
Message: Posted by: Nick-V. (Sep 28, 2017 02:31PM)
Great idea. Nothing like doing an effect no one has ever seen. Great creativity here.

Next Goal .... State Quarters and Updated Currency all around.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Sep 28, 2017 05:23PM)
I remember buying a half dollar coin many years ago that looks to be kind of similar in construction.
It's purpose was to be used as a kicker to a karate coin routine where the second time you did it your finger went into the edge rather than through the face.
I'm sure I still have it in a drawer somewhere. Anyone else remember that gaff?
Message: Posted by: tonsofquestions (Sep 28, 2017 08:28PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, PhilJake wrote:
Hi spectators, did you know that quarters used to be called two bits. Well in the old days the Spanish Real de a Ocho or the Eight Royals Coin was commonly known as a piece of eight. It was worth 8 reales and was often split into 8 pieces or 8 bits each worth 1 reales to make change. So two bits is a quarter of a piece of eight and that's why we have quarters and why the slang name for them is two bits. Heck even cents are named after Spanish centavos. I was doing some research about the origin of two bits and I discovered that some of those old copper clad quarters, the ones with the eagle on the back, sometimes split in half. That's why the mint switched to the new state quarters. I have been practicing how to split them into two bits but I can only do it with the old style quarters. The new state quarters have a stronger copper nickel clad. Does anyone have one of those old quarters so we can see how well it is made? [/quote]

I have to say that I really enjoyed this patter. Excellent justification of why it makes sense to try and split it, *and* why it has to be an old quarter. I've made that justification for the Sacajawea dollars before, I just didn't think through far enough on this one. So thanks!

In fact, I think it makes me like the use of a quarter for it than the half dollar coins I'd normally rather use. It could be a cool follow-on if you go deeper - start with a half dollar and split it into two quarters then follow up with this.
Message: Posted by: tonsofquestions (Sep 29, 2017 03:20AM)
[quote]On Sep 28, 2017, videoman wrote:
I remember buying a half dollar coin many years ago that looks to be kind of similar in construction.
It's purpose was to be used as a kicker to a karate coin routine where the second time you did it your finger went into the edge rather than through the face.
I'm sure I still have it in a drawer somewhere. Anyone else remember that gaff? [/quote]

I don't recall that one, but it sounds interesting, and I'd be interested to learn more.
Do you mean that the hole was on the edge rather than centered? Or that the coin turned into a C (rather than an O) where your finger came in from the side?
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Sep 29, 2017 09:13AM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, Mb217 wrote:
Y'know, I thought Mr. Barnes left coins behind long ago...Guess not completely, and I'm so happy he didn't. :) This is a nice idea. I always wondered what would come from the Bent Coin and the Karate Coin, just what would be next?...And so this idea seems to be progressively it. And you know the great, Jay Sankey is somewhere shaking his head saying, "Now why didn't I think of that?" :D Very clever! :)

As a decent-at-best coin guy, I clearly see the benefits of this as real thinking and progress as to this magical genre of impossibilia. Simple enough moves make the magic happen in an absolutely impossible way. Believe me, the visual of the coin appearing to be split in two will be shocking to spectators, progressively more so than the popular bending of a coin. This is better, more amazing IMHO. :)

It's a trick that people will remember you by, done at the right time in a bar or at a fancy party, it will be amazingly remembered. And glad he thought to also do this in American quarters, could half dollars be far behind? :) I can already see that this will last you a lifetime, easy-to-do brilliant anyway you decide to present it, restore or not. Definitely will pack small and play BIG!

Lloyd continues to let some brilliant things out of his head that weren't quite here before he did it, or did it so much more amazing and better. [b]Peeled Coin[/b] is another winner from this young man. What a wonderful impromptu trick to do anyplace, anytime, anywhere you go. [/quote]


The more I think, watch the video, and read here about this new release from Lloyd, the more I really like it...Man it looks good! :D

www.ellusionist.com/peeled-coin-by-lloyd-barnes.html

*Oh, and I think the "old quarter - new quarter" thing is an easy-enough get around as to this. You could (should) just always carry the extra old quarter on you (as I always carried a extra regular half dollar when doing my "Crimp Karate Koin") and offer it out rather than ask for a quarter. Or you could pull out some change or have some lying on a table, and casually give them the old quarter from it. A few things you can do that would not raise any suspicion in the presentation of this impromptu effect.
Message: Posted by: normative (Sep 29, 2017 01:01PM)
You can do that, of course, but if you’re doing something with a gaff coin—and especially if the manifest abnormality of the coin is itself the effect—I think it’s just always going to be a lot weaker if you can’t create the extra layer of logic buffer between effect & method that a borrowed coin provides. Because sure, using your own coin isn’t inherently suspicious, but any adult’s *immediate* thought when you peel it is going to be “oh, that must not have been a normal coin after all.” It takes a lot longer (relative to the duration of the effect) to backtrack to “could my coin have been switched out at some point?”—and usually you can have it back in their hands reestablishing the premise “this is the normal coin from my pocket” before they get there.

If they get there FIRST, your convincer isn’t doing the easy job of cementing their default belief (“that’s my normal coin”) anymore. Now you’re trying to defeat the already formulated hypothesis “trick coin.” And they’re going to find it a lot easier to defend that hypothesis against an ex-post attempt to defeat it than it would be to formulate it for the first time at the end of the effect, normal coin in hand, with its ordinariness “proven” at both ends.

Realistically, an intelligent spectator who decides to burn brain cycles on it after the fact IS going to be able to eventually reconstruct how an effect like this must have worked. And that’s ultimately OK by me provided there’s enough lag in the backtrack process that it doesn’t happen fast enough to step on their emotional response to the trick in progress. Because then they’ve gotten the experience you were aiming to create, and ideally that sense of astonishment is pleasant enough that it ends up dampening the impulse to go into puzzle-solving mode later. Without that extra layer of logic buffer, though, they’re apt to get there fast enough that it preempts the experience from playing out, at which point you’ve really got more of a visual gag than a proper magical effect.
Message: Posted by: magicmind (Sep 29, 2017 01:13PM)
It is kind of appealing (pun) to watch the tear/split. The reparation, not so much.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Sep 29, 2017 01:34PM)
Normative, your first paragraph reminds me of what I said, earlier. So I 100% agree with your comment in general. This is another example of why there are tricks that are good and tricks that aren't, for the same reasons there are good and bad magicians.

Unlike a coin bend, this kind of performance doesn't seem real. It can't. But if you can create an effect in which the coin can split slowly, in full view, the spectators will be much more convinced that it actually happened, even though it would remain less real than a coin bend. This is why, when I do coin bending, I use the optical bend. People can see it bend in "real time". With Peeled, they don't see the process, they don't see the coin melting and changing its shapes. They see the beginning and the end, not the process.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Sep 29, 2017 03:27PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
This is fun but I don't think it will be perceived as magic. It's a stunt like tearing a phone book in half or knocking the bottom out of a beer bottle. [/quote]

I agree. However some performers will be able to make this work. But I don't see how most spectators won't see it for what it is. Which in my opinion is why Lloyd filmed the current demo in studio rather than in the real world with spectators.

It's too bad there is no easy way to DIY as then the performer could leave it with their spectators, as you can with the other stunts you mentioned.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Sep 29, 2017 06:14PM)
I won't be restoring mine nor handing it out for examination. I will simply give them their borrowed coin back, after apologising that I ruined "their" one, which I had ditched in my pocket beforehand.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Sep 29, 2017 06:53PM)
There is a lot of covering of the coin during the peeling and then squeezing it back together, which I think you can probably get away with when first splitting the coin because they don't know what to expect.

But if you squeeze it back together people are really going to be burning your hands to see if the coin ever leaves their sight. And of course it does, so any spec who is the least bit skeptical is going to want to see if anything is in your hands because they will naturally suspect you switched the coin.

For anyone who is an advanced coin worker who can make this look super clean, then it may be an okay effect. But unfortunately for most of us I'm afraid it's going to look like you're doing exactly what you're doing. Although I suppose you might get away with doing some type of shuttle pass and immediately squeeze it tight in your closed fist while your dirty hand takes something out of your pocket to wave over it. The clean up would probably be best if you used a TKO, Topit, or even just sleeving.
Message: Posted by: tonsofquestions (Sep 29, 2017 09:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Unlike a coin bend, this kind of performance doesn't seem real. It can't. But if you can create an effect in which the coin can split slowly, in full view, the spectators will be much more convinced that it actually happened, even though it would remain less real than a coin bend. This is why, when I do coin bending, I use the optical bend. People can see it bend in "real time". With Peeled, they don't see the process, they don't see the coin melting and changing its shapes. They see the beginning and the end, not the process. [/quote]

In the trailer, the performer does just that - a slow split that's very similar to the "real time" bend, and uses the same concept. It works well, though is a bit more obvious for the split than the bend, especially if you know what you're looking for. But definitely still possible to see the process here.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Sep 29, 2017 09:21PM)
There are lot's of potential handlings to be explored. I think a spellbound move would be an effective way to close the split. This coin could also be deep backclipped and would lie mostly against the back of the hand in a way that a normal coin wouldn't. It would be fun to play with.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Sep 29, 2017 10:53PM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, tonsofquestions wrote:
In the trailer, the performer does just that - a slow split that's very similar to the "real time" bend, and uses the same concept. It works well, though is a bit more obvious for the split than the bend, especially if you know what you're looking for. But definitely still possible to see the process here. [/quote]
No. That's not what I saw. And spectators won't see or feel anything like this anyway. It's nothing like a "real time" peel. They don't see the moment when the coin begins to split at its edge. And it uses cover (both hands!). The revelation is not super convincing, but even worse is the restoration. It's not due to Lloyd's performance, it's due to the nature of the gimmick.
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Sep 30, 2017 09:01AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, tonsofquestions wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Unlike a coin bend, this kind of performance doesn't seem real. It can't. But if you can create an effect in which the coin can split slowly, in full view, the spectators will be much more convinced that it actually happened, even though it would remain less real than a coin bend. This is why, when I do coin bending, I use the optical bend. People can see it bend in "real time". With Peeled, they don't see the process, they don't see the coin melting and changing its shapes. They see the beginning and the end, not the process. [/quote]

In the trailer, the performer does just that - a slow split that's very similar to the "real time" bend, and uses the same concept. It works well, though is a bit more obvious for the split than the bend, especially if you know what you're looking for. But definitely still possible to see the process here. [/quote]


Agreed!
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Sep 30, 2017 12:12PM)
The gradual splitting of the coin is what sold it to me. Looks very convincing imo.
Message: Posted by: tonsofquestions (Oct 1, 2017 05:22AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, tonsofquestions wrote:
In the trailer, the performer does just that - a slow split that's very similar to the "real time" bend, and uses the same concept. It works well, though is a bit more obvious for the split than the bend, especially if you know what you're looking for. But definitely still possible to see the process here. [/quote]
No. That's not what I saw. And spectators won't see or feel anything like this anyway. It's nothing like a "real time" peel. They don't see the moment when the coin begins to split at its edge. And it uses cover (both hands!). The revelation is not super convincing, but even worse is the restoration. It's not due to Lloyd's performance, it's due to the nature of the gimmick. [/quote]

You might want to rewatch it - specifically the split ~1:47 on. It definitely has a similarity in feel to a real-time bend. I thought the second half was rushed, but the beginning looked very nice to me, even if I knew what was going on.

I agree the restoration looks too suspicious - I'd personally do a switch where I continue to show the "together" half of the coin visible above the fingers (first condition once on this "pinching" (but hidden) position - and then you can mime squeezing the bottom half of the coin while the top half remains visible.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Oct 1, 2017 06:46AM)
Even if the splitting looks like a real-time split, which isn't (and I don't need to watch it a 3rd time to understand that), the number 1 problem is the restoration. It's not real. This is more than enough to make the trick feels "unreal" to a spectator. Of course, some will believe, but some definitely won't.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Oct 1, 2017 01:29PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Even if the splitting looks like a real-time split, which isn't (and I don't need to watch it a 3rd time to understand that), the number 1 problem is the restoration. It's not real. This is more than enough to make the trick feels "unreal" to a spectator. Of course, some will believe, but some definitely won't. [/quote]

Perhaps work on your coin handling skills??
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Oct 1, 2017 02:00PM)
I'm not surprised, you missed the point. I explained already there are bad and good tricks and why this one is a good illustration. I don't expect you can understand that, though.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Oct 1, 2017 02:56PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
I'm not surprised, you missed the point. I explained already there are bad and good tricks and why this one is a good illustration. I don't expect you can understand that, though. [/quote]

You just need to work on your confidence. I know you can make this work.
Message: Posted by: Slackerking (Oct 1, 2017 04:39PM)
I disagree that this is either a good or a bad trick. I guarantee that good coin workers could make this look astounding. Most people like me won’t be able to make this look effective. That makes it a poor choice for me personally but not a bad trick.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Oct 1, 2017 05:02PM)
Pegasus : I don't see you as either a serious performer or even a serious thinker. And I don't think you're a great contributor here, either. And if you feel I don't make sense, I couldn't care less.

Slackerking : You're a cook, if you have inefficient tools, you are disadvantaged compared to a situation when you have efficient tools, which allow you to do the job faster and better. It's no different here. There are tricks which involve unnatural moves, so that make them a bad trick. There are tricks which are inherently suspicious because of "what" they are (e.g., biting a coin with your teeth). Some tricks are surefire, some definitely aren't, and those tricks have outcomes that are clearly more sensitive to the type of audience you're facing. If it works one day, the next day, it may not. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand. It's so simple-minded to think that the only thing which matters in magic is the performer and only the performer, and nothing else. That's not true. Many other factors matter as well.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Oct 1, 2017 05:20PM)
Mh1001 wrote:

[quote]There are tricks which are inherently suspicious because of "what" they are (e.g., biting a coin with your teeth). Some tricks are surefire, some definitely aren't, and those tricks have outcomes that are clearly more sensitive to the type of audience you're facing. If it works one day, the next day, it may not. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand. It's so simple-minded to think that the only thing which matters in magic is the performer and only the performer, and nothing else. That's not true. Many other factors matter as well.[/quote]

This is well stated. Would you also agree it is simplistic to label a trick good or bad? A good stage trick may be a bad close-up trick. A bad trick for a hobbyist may be a great trick for a pro. A good trick for a Eugene Burger may be a lousy trick for me.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Oct 1, 2017 06:37PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Pegasus : I don't see you as either a serious performer or even a serious thinker. And I don't think you're a great contributor here, either. And if you feel I don't make sense, I couldn't care less.

Slackerking : You're a cook, if you have inefficient tools, you are disadvantaged compared to a situation when you have efficient tools, which allow you to do the job faster and better. It's no different here. There are tricks which involve unnatural moves, so that make them a bad trick. There are tricks which are inherently suspicious because of "what" they are (e.g., biting a coin with your teeth). Some tricks are surefire, some definitely aren't, and those tricks have outcomes that are clearly more sensitive to the type of audience you're facing. If it works one day, the next day, it may not. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand. It's so simple-minded to think that the only thing which matters in magic is the performer and only the performer, and nothing else. That's not true. Many other factors matter as well. [/quote]

Look, I can see that you've thrown your dummy out of the Pram because there's no Euro version, so why not just be happy for us that can, and will perform it without raising any suspicion.
;)
Message: Posted by: videoman (Oct 1, 2017 06:52PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
Would you also agree it is simplistic to label a trick good or bad? A good stage trick may be a bad close-up trick. A bad trick for a hobbyist may be a great trick for a pro. A good trick for a Eugene Burger may be a lousy trick for me. [/quote]

Yes, that is why every review or opinion has to judged against what is right for the individual reading the review.

But virtually every marketed effect is intended for a certain situation or type of performance. So I would presume that anyone expressing an opinion is doing so based on using the trick in the correct environment. If someone states that they think the latest card or coin trick is terrible, I assume that they are NOT basing that on the fact that they perform grand illusions in an arena show and it's too small for their venue. That's a given.

So when anyone expresses their opinion here I think we all assume that they are basing that within the context in which it was intended for, and within that context I think you can state whether you believe it to be bad or good, especially if you also present the reasons that your opinions are based on.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Oct 2, 2017 03:06AM)
MeetMagicMike, we are not talking about the same thing. There are tricks so well designed that it takes a lot of imagination to understand how it works. And there are tricks which are so simplistic that people easily understand how it works. One such trick is the ring on chain, or ickle pickle. One of the very first non-card tricks I learned and performed. My handling was super clean, no finger movement, and yet about 1/3 of the time, people understood what happened, even worse was children, every time I did this for children, at least one or two of them gave the correct answer. Even if they were wrong, it's irrelevant to them, as they believe they are right. Whether they are actually right or not, the consequence is that they are not impressed. Even if they enjoyed it : every time I did that trick, people enjoyed it and discussed about it. But I stopped doing it.

There are several objective reasons why this trick isn't good, despite what you and videoman say. Compare it with a signed coin bend. Objectively, a signed coin would decrease the likelihood to suspect a switch versus a non-signed coin. Furthermore, by giving away the coin as a souvenir, people know it's not an illusion, or a trick coin. When I did this to people, sometimes, they tell me "I know magic is just an illusion, nothing is real... but this bent coin, it's not an illusion !". You can't have this kind of reaction with Peeled, not just because of the nature of the trick (a peeled coin is an outcome that is much more unreal, by definition, compared to a bent coin) but also because you're actually not giving away the peeled coin. So people actually give you their coin, and they end up with what ? The same coin which they have started with. When I use my Quantum Bender, I give them an impossible souvenir. Their coin has changed, and the change is real. Unlike with Peel (let alone the unconvincing peel and restoration of the coin during performance).

videoman & MeetMagicMike, you mention at some point stage shows. This is not comparable at all. There is first the issue of visibility, the audience can't see the coin anyway, unless you have big screen with large zooming. I'm not talking about tricks which are more suited for stage vs close-up, as such comparison would be completely irrelevant. There's also the issue of examinability. People know and understand that the magician will not let you examine their props. Many stage shows don't even involve spectators getting on stage. I'm convinced that people know that when you do close-up magic, which is much more intimate, they have the importunity to examine your props, as they know it isn't possible to do that when they see magic on TV, stage shows, street magic, etc. Even if you compare among tricks best suited for stage shows, it's always (and objectively) stronger if you do a trick which involve people leaving with an impossible souvenir, something that makes them believe what they witnessed is (or may) not be an illusion. No matter what your skills (ability or presentational) are, there are tricks which themselves make you a reputation (if you perform them at least correctly, e.g., without flashing, but not necessarily with great skills).

Here's the thing. Good thinking creates good tricks. Bad thinking creates bad tricks. That's why there are bad and good tricks for the exact same reason there are good and bad thinkers, good and bad performers, good and bad ... in everything.

It's as simple as this : tricks are not "neutral" like air, sky, earth, water, etc. It sounds silly to say that but it's people who create tricks. Some creations are bad, some aren't. By saying that there aren't good or bad tricks, I feel sometimes that people forget it's us who create tricks.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Oct 2, 2017 08:45AM)
I'm saying it's simplistic to label a trick good or bad. It's much better to describe the tricks strengths and weaknesses. I agree with a lot of you're specific points but not in applying such a broad label.

The ring and chain trick isn't a bad trick. A lot of people like it and it gets the reaction that some magicians want. It's not the deepest mystery.

"I don't see any potential in this" is a factual statement if that is how you feel. "This is a bad trick" less useful.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Oct 3, 2017 02:32PM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
"I don't see any potential in this" is a factual statement if that is how you feel. "This is a bad trick" less useful. [/quote]
"This is a bad trick" is useless if you don't explain why. Same as saying "you're a bad performer". Such comment isn't helpful because of the absence of any arguments here.

When I say a trick isn't good, I always explain why. Some are so simplistic than nearly anyone can figure that out, such as the ring on chain trick. Some however are so impossible, e.g., Business Card Revolution, to name just one, that it needs such a high level of imagination that I don't think it's possible to attain. For instance, BCR gets reactions that are 1000000000...0000... times way stronger than the ring on chain, no matter how good your skills are and your presentational skills are.

It's an objective remark to say that Peeled weakness is the inability to give away the "modified" coin. I've seen several, not few, mentalists, here, saying that gimmicked keys and forks which bend themselves are not so nice because you can't give it away. And this takes away the magic. And that's right. Yet no one has made that comment regarding Peeled. It doesn't matter if this is what I feel, because I'm confident this is also what 99% of the spectators will feel.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Oct 7, 2017 01:35AM)
I like it - seems a bit like mismade bill done with a coin. You change the coin in a really surrealistic, almost comical way, wait a beat, change it back and hand it out. Bam, you're off to the next thing.
Message: Posted by: KazMagic (Feb 18, 2018 10:17PM)
Hmmm not sure if it is worth 30 bucks
Message: Posted by: tophatter (Feb 18, 2018 10:59PM)
Maybe better illusion with a shuttle pass grab a lighter melt & tear apart the coin End Clean ! no restoration of the coin .
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Jan 12, 2021 07:06PM)
I just ordered this and I'm looking forward to it. One of the posts on this thread talked about switching this for a "scarred" coin at the end to leave them with an impossible souvenir. I really like that idea. It's not that much more difficult to do two switches than one. I'm thinking of just taking a dremmel fine disk cutter and cutting down the middle of the edge of half the coin. That would only take around a minute or two per coin, and it would make a great souvenir.

On a related, but separate note, I would love to learn how to make a cut-out angel in a penny. I think that would make an even better souvenir, maybe a seque from this trick to a penny trick.

KJ
Message: Posted by: tophatter (Jan 13, 2021 12:37PM)
I am also interested in purchasing this were did you oreder from ? I thought ellusionist is out of business ?
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jan 13, 2021 12:41PM)
[quote]On Jan 13, 2021, tophatter wrote:
I am also interested in purchasing this were did you oreder from ? I thought ellusionist is out of business ? [/quote]

Not yet. Quite.

https://ellusionist.com/
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Jan 13, 2021 01:42PM)
[quote]On Jan 13, 2021, tophatter wrote:
I am also interested in purchasing this were did you oreder from ? I thought ellusionist is out of business ? [/quote]


it seems they are out of the US coin, but do have the UK at less than $10

https://ellusionist.com/products/peeled-coin-by-lloyd-barnes
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Jan 15, 2021 10:49PM)
Yes, I bought the UK coin version. I don't even know what it is. Once I get it, I'll figure out if I purchase a regular coin to match or if I try to make one out of a quarter. I really would prefer to have one made from a quarter.

KJ