I have a small problem, that is other people do. In 1974 I came up with a Matrix variation. I lectured and featured this in my lectures from 1977 to date. The effect is in print (dot matrix print), in my old lecture notes.
Over the years and up until 2 years ago, this method of mine has been in my lecture notes and a feature of my lecture. In 83' I had called it E-Pluribus Ian, and got some flak from the E-pluribus Unim coin guy who, after seeing what I did, coneded that it had nothing but a similar name in common.
In 1998 I renamed it Matrix reloaded, and last year I created a video of it along with 5 other routines on the Matrix.
I am curious as to when a similar effect had come out. Some who have viewed the video featured on http://www.magicians.tv and on a copy on http://www.magicvideodepot.com/view.php?a=v&t=10663 and
compared it to Aldos Chink a chink.
If it is the same method, it is pure brilliance on both our parts but coincidental.
Any comment on any of the matrix variation, please let me know. I have absolutely no knowledge of any other matrix effects other than Al Schneider's and Kennedy's gaff.
My real question is, if my 1977 lecture predates these other routines.
I did this stuff at 5 consecutive Tannen lectures I did in the early 80's at Brown's and never had a comment back then.
-Magic-Ian

First, if you came to that method/approach on your own back than... GOOD GOING!

With all due respect it has a little bit more than just a name similarity with Tim Wenk's EPU. You might like to know that Mike Gallo was one of the guys who also explore that approach to a coin assembly. I'm kind of surprised you went with the cards as that method also works very nicely with a barehanded assembly.

Ian, I have to admit that I wasn't aware of your lectures in `77. I published exactly the same method for a reverse matrix routine in a little book called "All the World's a Stage" in 1982. Of course, I had developed the routine well before that, but I can't say how long before.

If what I see on the clip is precisely your routine, then there is a crucial difference between mine and yours. I feel it's essential to the dramatic structure of the routine for the third coin to vanish, implying that all four coins will be under the last card. Apparently, you don't think so, since in your clip, the third coin does nothing at all.

I also think that in all fairness, these approaches have quite a bit in common with Tim Wenk's routine.

Curtis, any chance of your reprinting your first book and perhaps also the "Stuff" notes?

Yes please.

What is on the clip, is exactly what I do, as a precursor to the follow up which is the standard matrix. Then, I add a gold coin that travels, then four different coins assembly together. I use welded and waxed coins, copper/silver, and shells to achieve some of the moves.
The Clip you saw can also use a gold coin that assembles and then the gold also returns. I absolutely never tried or thought of bare-handed, as my routine requires that the cards cover coins that never leave the spot they started at. This would require a third hand to do. Anyway, there is very little skill but a lot of impact. In my cloistered existance in relative exile in Central Florida I have not been exposed to the developement of other material. The internet has reconnected me with some current routines and I am not totally convinced that the seeds I planted years ago have not come forth with short memory of their derivations.
Thanks for your comments, and my routines were luckily documented in print and video in the 70's. Only those who are old enough can attempt to claim originality and there are of course better or improved versions out there. My inquiry is if there are similar routines that pre-date my material. Aldo's gimmick is the closest to what I do, but I have only heard that.
I lectured along with Michael Ammaar at the PCAM convention in Summer of 82' or 83', I remember Michael doing Kaufmans bare handed matrix which was miracle enough for me not to touch. Therefore, a barehanded matrix was taboo for me as I never wished to have comparisons.
I feel that doing someone elses routine and adding a move is like adding a brush stroke to the Mona Lisa and calling it your own. My creations all have the spoof element and either look the same as what the lay person sees with a totally different method, or are a totally unique item.
During the 80's I had 22 effects on the market and 10 submitted to Genii all had 4 stars rating.
-Ian


Additional comment: Just read some posts on EPU on this site, and I recall in one lecture I did at Tannens (in 82'), there was a comment on the similarity (of the routine) between the EPU and my method. I had named it "E-Pluribus Ian" back then which cause the "red flag" at the convention. My method (after some heated discussions back then) was found to be completely different. The heat came from those who had not seen the routine or method, just the NAME. The gimmick used in EPU is a 3-coin gimmick I believe? Machined? Mine is neither. Again, other than the reference, I have never seen it.

Ian,

Yes, Wenk's EPU gimmick is a 3-coin gimmick. Machined? No, not really, although the coins don't (intentionally anyway) come apart (they might if you drop the gimmick on a hard surface!). Aldo's gimmick for "Snappy Matrix" is a 2-coin gimmick made with wax or blue-tac. Based on your video, I imagine it's the same or very similar to yours. Others have independently come up with the same or similar gimmicks. Mike Gallo's Siamese Coins would be one example that springs to mind.

Thanks, that clarifies the EPU question and mine is definitely not that, nor is the handling. Aldo and I are about the same age (I am 1 year older). We were continents apart when we independently thought of a two coin gimmick, mine is waxed but I suggested a weld in my notes. I take things a bit further by connecting a copper/silver on mine so I can do the GOLD coin returning to its original position. That was also in the 1977 manuscript.
Thanks again.
---Ian


Thanks to a few good friends on this site, my problem has been clarified and I have no conflict or infringements on someone else's turf. My gimmick is different and the handling is totally different except that the effect to the eye looks almost the same.
The EPU, the Siamese, and the Aldo gimmick are all different than my gimmick which is and was non-derivitive at its creation. I have to get out of the woods more often. Go to http://www.dachshunds.biz to see some of my family farm and animals.
-Magic-Ian