(Close Window)
Topic: Shadow coins revisited
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (May 30, 2004 02:40PM)
Hello,
I have read posts here for a few days. I did see the thread about shadow coins and read them thoroughly. However, I would like if someone could give me opinionated comparison of shadow coins and call shot, I understand them to be similar. I do street work primarily, and on a table top. Which routine would you recommend is better for working a table top that is waistline level?
Message: Posted by: Dave V (May 30, 2004 02:44PM)
I don't know about Call Shot, but a requirement of Shadow Coins is that it must be done on the floor as it needs to be viewed from above.

Having it at table top level would pretty much kill the effect.
Message: Posted by: wsduncan (May 30, 2004 02:55PM)
I would suggest that unless you have very small audiences that coin assemblies are not appropriate for street work. Audiences need to look DOWN to see a coin assembly and that limits the number of folks you can perform for at one time. Limit the number of people who can see your act and you limit the size of the hat!

Coins to Glass (Bobo's New Modern Coin Magic) is much better suited to the streets because it's of it's upright construction and the element of sound. There's a bunch of other "platform" and drawing room coin magic which would adapt well to the streets.

David Roth's Ultimate Coin Magic Collection 3 has some good work in this area including a very nice effect with coins and silk. Having the silk gives you some nice segue possibilities and also cover for a dramtic production of some sort which helps the volume of the applause (another good thing when trying to increase the size of the crowd and the amount of the hat).

Cheers
Bill
Message: Posted by: cloneman (May 31, 2004 06:29PM)
I'm going to have to disagree with wsduncan in one respect: the angles for assembly routines are not that bad. True, shadow coins is an "on the floor" routine, but I prefer Roth's Chink-a-chink anyway.

When I perform assembly rountines, I do it on a table with people either standing as I am, or sitting as I am. Frankly, I think the only bad angle would be if they were sitting and I was standing.

Frankly, I'm not sure of the benefits of Ammar's changes over Roth's routine. As for Call Shot, by Dean Dill, its a different effect and relies on heavy use of a gaff. I think most of Dill's assembly work is excellent and inspired. That said, Call Shot is not my favorite, requiring too many moves that just don't appear natural, in my hands at least.
Message: Posted by: Chris S (May 31, 2004 06:33PM)
Cloneman, have you seen a good performer do shadow coins in person? If you haven't I think you will not understand the benefits of Ammar's tweak to Roth's routine. Its all very well for us to just mention the illusion of height and its impact, but you have to see it...
Message: Posted by: cloneman (May 31, 2004 06:41PM)
Actually Chris, I have seen a few good coin performers doing Shadow Coins. The height is a nice touch, but in my opinion, does not make the routine that much of an improvement over Roth's work. If done right, Roth’s handling also makes it appear as if you do not touch the coins. Maybe I’m blessed with thick thumb bases (since you know the routine, I won’t tip the secret any more than that), but when people are standing and looking at me perform on a table, they usually say that I didn’t touch the coins when I do Roth’s routine. Nor do I think that I’m that amazing a performer, its just that I think Roth’s routine does the job as well.

If you can point me to an online Shadow Coins video that will change my mind, I will definitely view it with an open mind. I'm always interested in improved assembly handlings.
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (May 31, 2004 08:12PM)
Cloneman,
Do you use sugar cubes for chink-a-chink? I have it in print in Tarbell and a version by Johnny Thompson, but have not seen Roth's version.
Message: Posted by: cloneman (May 31, 2004 08:19PM)
No, I use coins, usually dollar size (I have big hands). To view Roth's handling I highly recommend his "Expert Coin Magic Made Easy" DVD. The basis for the routine is a great jumping off point for table routines.
Message: Posted by: Jason Wethington (Jun 1, 2004 10:03AM)
The big difference is the use of a [ in the routine. It affords a level of cleanliness that Roth's routine doesn't. It allows a cleanup that doesn't require specific performing conditions outside of the performing surface.

I'll see about posting a video of me performing a routine I use. I'll post back when it's up.
Jason
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jun 1, 2004 11:42AM)
I just purchased both dvd's and the requirement for shadow coins. All in all, it will not be bad to know both routines. Also, I look forward to seeing the video.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Jun 1, 2004 11:54AM)
"Shadow Coins" does not require working on the floor; the lower your working surface, however, the "higher" off the surface your hands will SEEM to be.

Try John Kennedy's "Translocation", or one of the many variations of that effect. It uses the same [ gaff, but is a much longer (and potentially more entertaining) effect.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 1, 2004 02:22PM)
Thomas, how HUGE an engineering problem would it be to make something that allows you to do the trick on an almost vertical plane? I'm thinking along the lines of magnetics on a fridge.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Jun 1, 2004 09:51PM)
[quote]
On 2004-06-01 15:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Thomas, how HUGE an engineering problem would it be to make something that allows you to do the trick on an almost vertical plane? I'm thinking along the lines of magnetics on a fridge.
[/quote]

Funny, that reminds me of some early billiard instruction videos. The host had cut small (1 1/2" diameter) pool balls in half and inserted magnets into the flat side; a green-colored metal plate with simulated rails served as the "table", and he laid out shot examples for explanation purposes. Having been involved in pool and billiards from a young age I found it somewhat odd to look at.

The problem with using the magnets-on-a-fridge principal to create a "vertical" Shadow Coins - assuming a [ is involved - would be the natural attraction between the [ and a ... um ... "special" coin. Also, what would hold the [ in place?

Perhaps a reverse approach to the problem: shimmed coins and [ and a ... um ... "special" surface?

Unfortunately I fear that such a display would SCREAM of mechanical trickery. On the other hand, what if you were to use a large (legal size) envelope and lick-n-stick postage stamps?

Or even BETTER... pound four framing nails into the four corners of a thick wooden board and then assemble them - one at a time, ala Shadow Coins - all together at one corner of the board... and the board could be examined afterwards.

Oh wait; Michael Weber already did THAT one.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne
Message: Posted by: Dan Watkins (Jun 1, 2004 10:39PM)
[quote]
On 2004-06-01 22:51, Thomas Wayne wrote:
Or even BETTER... pound four framing nails into the four corners of a thick wooden board and then assemble them - one at a time, ala Shadow Coins - all together at one corner of the board... and the board could be examined afterwards.

Oh wait; Michael Weber already did THAT one.
[/quote]

Wow - now THAT sounds pretty darn impressive. Never heard that before.
Message: Posted by: Jason Wethington (Jun 2, 2004 09:56AM)
I had heard of it but I wish I could have seen it done.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 2, 2004 10:01AM)
If you can get in touch with him, ask about the thing.
Message: Posted by: Chris S (Jun 2, 2004 05:50PM)
I don't think you can compare shadow coins with routines like Translocation. Shadow coins is all the stronger BECAUSE it is so brief. Often patter only interferes with a routine like shadow coins. Translocation is more of an interactive piece that is intended to be one that involves a dialogue. Its a beautiful routine in itself, but its a different animal.
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jul 4, 2004 10:57PM)
I have been actively performing "shadow coins" and have had good responses from it just as well on a table top as while I perform it on the floor.

I have found it to be more of a filler/quick effect to use in a down moment. Now that I have studied, learned, and performed the effect, I understand the reasoning behind performing it at ground level, but have not had any problems with angles while performing it on a table top.
Message: Posted by: levitate (Jul 5, 2004 01:00AM)
Oooh I dunno about that. Translocation is one of the strongest things I do when done very very slowly and fairly. I mean you can SO fairly show no extras and its just impossible. Plus you can build it as you go, selling it even more as you go, then backfire it.

Michael
Message: Posted by: wsduncan (Jul 5, 2004 01:02AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-31 19:29, cloneman wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree with wsduncan in one respect: the angles for assembly routines are not that bad.
[/quote]
Thomas,
My concern is'nt that the angles are bad for exposing the trick... but that they're bad for large crowds to see the trick.

Assembly routines require a viewing angle that's not ideal for street work because you want to have enough people watching to make the hat worth your times and the more people you have in the audience the farther back they have to be and the fewer people who can see down onto the table.
Message: Posted by: Dan LeFay (Jul 5, 2004 05:18AM)
I've been experimenting with some 1" ballbearings on a soft surface. Because of their height it automaticly lifts your hands from the surface. Looks very clean...It allows the fingers to stay in motion (like pianoplaying) which adds to the effect.
Cleaning up the final ball needs some thinking;-)
Message: Posted by: magicinsight (Jul 13, 2004 09:45AM)
Shadow coins, while an excellent trick, can of course only be peformed on the floor with the spectators looking down whereas Roth's Chink-A Chink coin routine as peformed on his Expert Coin Magic DVD is more verstile in that it can be done on a table top and does not need any "gimmicks."

Mr. Dean Dill's "Call Shot" as well as his "Call Shot Instant," "Isolation," "The Dinner Napkin part 1 and 2," and his other matrix effects as performed on Mr. Dean's DVDs set are all excellent and should be viewed and performed by anyone seriously interested in doing simple and direct and amazing coin magic.
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Jul 13, 2004 05:05PM)
Hey guys. I take lessons from Dean Dill. He is great. Before meeting Dean, I always performed Ammar's Shadow Coins, which, by the way, is great. The only problem with Ammar's Shadow Coins is the ending; I think it's not very clean, and kinda sloppy. Dean has a very clean ending and looks amazing. If you live in LA, and want to meet Dean, and see some of his stuff, go to his shop. All his location info is on his web site, http://www.deandill.com. Ok then. I hope I helped you guys, bye.
Message: Posted by: magicinsight (Jul 14, 2004 11:25AM)
Magicmaven,

How are Dean's haircuts?
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Jul 14, 2004 01:14PM)
They're okay, my dad got one, but I just go to his shop for the magic...
Message: Posted by: wsduncan (Jul 14, 2004 11:46PM)
[quote]
On 2004-07-13 10:45, magicinsight wrote:
Shadow coins, while an excellent trick, can of course only be peformed on the floor
[/quote]
What makes you think that?

Ammar moved the effect down to the floor so he could create the illusion that the hands were inches above the coins (which is difficult when working on a table top).

Ammar's routine works just fine on a table but doesn't benefit from the height illusion.
Message: Posted by: luismagic (Jul 15, 2004 02:35AM)
Ammar’s Shadow Coins could easily be done on a table and get the benefit of the illusion of height.
I perform it regulaly and as I deposit the coin I lift my hand which creates the illusion. I use dollar coin and the reaction I get is “your hands never touched the table.”
Message: Posted by: bdekolta (Jul 15, 2004 12:27PM)
Other than the ] how is doing 'Shadow Coins" on the table different than Roth's "Original Chinese Assembly"?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 15, 2004 01:19PM)
Was nice of Mike Ammar to tour with the Roth coin trick. If you look in the notes/book, Ammar cites Roth.

A guy named Joe has a version of the barehanded coin assembly that you can do and keep your hands off the coins and carpet... it's spooky.
Message: Posted by: bdekolta (Jul 15, 2004 05:24PM)
Roth's effect was already published long before Ammar was performing it as part of his lecture. I first saw Ammar perform the effect in the early 80's (82 or 83?). My first thought was I didn't know Roth's routine looked *that* good! I had not seen Roth perform his routine.

When I tried what I saw I realized you couldn't do what Ammar had done on the table without exposing the effect.

I'd like to see the guy Joe's routine. Sounds really magical.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 15, 2004 05:47PM)
Joe has not published his routine yet. It was something that he showed in NYC one afternoon.

It's a trick where the method will get you thinking. :)

PS, Joe is on the Café. I'm probably gonna mess this up but here goes: Joe Rindfleisch ( sp? nobody likes to see their name mis-spelled sorry )
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jul 15, 2004 08:43PM)
[quote]
On 2004-07-15 18:24, bdekolta wrote:
When I tried what I saw I realized you couldn't do what Ammar had done on the table without exposing the effect.
[/quote]

I now regularly perform the trick on a table top without any exposure problems. Of course, the hands do not seem to be inches off the deck, but above the coins nonetheless.
Message: Posted by: bdekolta (Jul 16, 2004 06:57PM)
[quote]I now regularly perform the trick on a table top without any exposure problems. Of course, the hands do not seem to be inches off the deck, but above the coins nonetheless.[/quote]

Sounds like you reinvented Roth's trick only using the ].
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jul 16, 2004 11:17PM)
[quote]
On 2004-07-16 19:57, bdekolta wrote:
[quote]I now regularly perform the trick on a table top without any exposure problems. Of course, the hands do not seem to be inches off the deck, but above the coins nonetheless.[/quote]

Sounds like you reinvented Roth's trick only using the ].
[/quote]

Well... yeah. I sort of did I guess. But I still do the mysterious waves over the coins.