Except when three coins are produced from under the hole.

And the last time, you vanish a normal-sized coin, and it appears from the sleeve as a jumbo coin. How is the growing of the coin justified by the presentational theme that you just described?

Of course, the same could be said about a jumbo coin under or behind the felt hole.

Save the condescension for someone who’ll put up with it. I’ve addressed you with respect and I expect the same.

My question is simple: I would just like to know what those differences and reasons are that make the jumbo coin production a good idea in The Sleeve Trick and not in The Portable Hole. Either you have an answer or you don’t. I’ve reread your posts and, so far, it appears to me that you don’t.

And please don’t bother to tell me again that not all concertos are the same. What is the difference between these two concertos/effects that is relevant to the jumbo coin production?

The hole routine ends with the coins under the hole. If instead one were to lift the hole to find a giant coin and no small coins in sight... perhaps that might resonate as well.

The sleeve... yes, the last time the coin vanishes and is about to roll from the sleeve it is ALMOST a non-seqitor. What saves the production is that the audience is expecting a coin to roll out, and he does say it's his big finish. Not claiming the giant coin is the RIGHT thing to do there, just that it fits as a closer to his act.

Let's not bicker to attempt to browbeat here.

That’s an assessment that I can buy.

(I’m not sure where the comment about bickering and browbeating came from. My concern from the beginning has been only with clarity of thought.)

Talk about smooth....This is the best I have seen in quite a while....

Jonathan,

Perhaps I wasn't clear before, (and judging from some of the other responses in this thread, it's obvious that some readers aren't getting it) but with regard to "The Sleeve" I think it's a mistake to identify the underlying coin effect and say that's what the trick's all about. As you say, the routine appears to be designed to emphasize the final production. And, as I pointed out, the overall premise of the routine is analogous to the Malini block of ice, or the Don Alan Fez, both of which are dedicated to the final load, and little else.

I'm suggesting that it would be as misguided to say that the principal effect of "The Sleeve" is "coins vanishing from the hands and appearing in the sleeve" as it would be to say that Don Alan's "Fez" routine is all about the dime and penny.

The patterline of "the Sleeve" is closer to "during the course of a tongue-in-cheek discussion of magicans' methods, whenever a purported 'secret' is mentioned, it appears in an odd but magical way." David mentions using his sleeves, and it turns out he has an extra one. He mentions mirrors, and one appears from the sleeve. He finally mentions an extra hidden coin, and one appears from the sleeve.

That's the thrust of the script, but in the end, as you say, the trick's about the production of the final load.

So for those who like simple answers, here's one: If the trick's all about the final load, produce the jumbo coin. On the other hand, if you're trying to communicate some other effect, leave the jumbo out.

I don't recall defending the jumbo coins in either routine.

The Sleeve is a physical play on the phrase 'up his sleeve' with the mirror bit as interlude.

The hole is a tip of the hat to the Warner Brothers cartoons.

:)

The Malini block of ice thing was, as Curtis noted earlier, a non-sequitor production. And a tremendous reason to get along with the staff at your local eateries.

Oh look, there's my shoe.

Interesting, I would call the routine a lecture/demonstration with a slight kicker ending of the production. Look it really did go up his sleeve.

Come on Count, if you're after understanding, it helps to read the WHOLE post:

"I would. Or at least, closer to that than to a "visualization of a distinct and abstract concept", which is how I'd characterize Portable Hole, Tuning Fork, Eraser Coin, Silly Putty and the Funnel. "The Sleeve"? Not so much. It's a comparative propfest, and a collection of very clever short effects. (like the precourser to "Twilight") I think, and the point is mostly made by the fact that I can't recall, that the underlying effect with the coins in "the Sleeve" "coins across". i.e. the coins vanish from your hands and appear in the sleeve. That's such a prosaic, simple effect that nothing is lost in the big final production. In this, "The Sleeve" is basically flat version of the Malini Brick trick, or the Chop cup."

Like Jonathan says, "Reading is fundamental".

Of course, if you're out to demonstrate that you don't care what I think of you, continuing to pore over my posts just to misquote them is an odd way to prove it.

And of course, if you're really trying to treat others with respect here at the Café, asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not effective.

Sheesh. Some people's kids.

Wow, I didn't realise I made that video that far back, not that September was too long ago, but . . .

Any who, in my opinion, atleast with the routine in the video, it was simply something I was toying with for it's obserdity.

In regards to the general production of a jumbo coin, in a coin routine, I think that it makes more sense then producing a shoe, unless you did the whole routine with mini shoes, but then you'd have to set a context for the tiny shoes.

Now, although I am not to familiar with The Hole routine, aside from it's association with the WB cartoons, I actually would find that it IS apropriate in that situation. Aside from the simple fact that you are using a "prop" based in a cartoon world where the obserde is comon place, the fact that the hole itself seems to be a device into which things enter, essentially, a different dimension.

Considering that I would find it very sensible to comment on how messing with such things can be dangerous and the effects on things that enter the hole can simply be unpredictible, hence the jumbo coin.

I also worked on a jumbo three fly, but at the time only had the two jumbos, the copper and silver, so instead I used CD's. So, if you are looking for routines for jumbo coins, and want to have a context, why not use CD's. Although cd manipulation seemed to have come and gone, it would give a reason for the larger objects.

Now that I have more Jumbo coins, I am working often unter the pretense of simply saying "It can be hard for some people to see the smaller coins, so here, allow me to use ones a little larger." And hence reason for using the jumbos, but also they would just assume you would be going from maybe half dollars to silver dollars.

Or even playing on the denomination factor. I reteraunts, offer a comment on the tip, saying how you would offer some of your half dollars for the tip, but they seem inadaquite (sp?) so you offer something larger and you produce the jumbo. again, playing withe their perception of what is ment by larger.

With the C/S routine of mine above, I am going with a comment about being a big tipper when I produce the half, and then say, maybe that's a bit TOO big, how about something smaller, and I produce the penny.

This was from some advice I recieved from some fellow magicians at the magic shop the other day. I rather like it as it really pulls them along with their perceptions of what you are meaning by your words. First the large tipper, then offering something smaller, and well, a penny is smaller, and even still how could you have not only produced one jumbo coin from a small purse, but have done so while hiding a second in there somewhere.

Then going on to use them like they are simply something everyday for you. Considering the things you do anyways, that are just everyday things for you, even with normal objects, why not go all the way. Pluse such routines also eliminate the quandry of backing yourself into a corner if they ask you to do something like your other effects with the big coins, as you already have, right after you produce them.

Not only do they obtain their shock value, but you also eliminate the assumption that it was their only purpose.

I do like using them under the pretense of just for better visibility. It works for using jumbo decks on stage, even jumbo indexed regular cards. Also, a surprising number of people have seen such novelty coins anyways. So their authentiity, especially in regards to your other coins, is diminished. I find that also using more everyday coins also helps with this as well. That is everyday coins for your regular routines. Although I still cannot get past the feeling that using regular twonies (Canadian $2 coin) for a three fly, just doesn't come across (hehe, across, get it) as magical as using silver dollars, or even half dollars.

On that note, that is one of the lines I am using for doing jumbo 3-fly for fellow magi (that rhymes.) commenting how Kenner (sorry jt) mentions that he feels that magicians using half dollars for 3-fly don't get the point as they ar too small. Larger coins should be used as it is all about how visual it is and being able to clearly see everything at the finger tips.

Either go right into the jumbo's, or say even, that I disagree and think that Half dollars are fine in size, saying this as I bring out jumbo halves.

Any who, enough rambling for me. I hope I managed to express some point in there somewhere. I'll probably have a completely different one if I try and comment again.

Two words,
Eric Evans.

Garrett Thomas of coarse, his new LL videos "inside the mind of Garrett Thomas" feature his world famouse big coin little purse on the first disc, but I'm telling you if you buy just the first one your gonna want the other 2 so you better just get all 3.

If you like Jumbo coin routines, I have one on my new dvd's Volume 1, called Walking to china where you produce 4 Jumbo coins in a row....a jumbo flurry if you will!

Justin Miller