One desireable goal is to have a solid object appear, vanish or multiply in a spectator's hand. For this to occur they must be fooled as to the number of objects actually placed in their hands. I have had some success using finger pressure combined with repeat moves, but am never certain whether the spectator is actually fooled or just plays along. Perhaps it doesn't matter. I am hoping others have some experience in this area.

For clarity and example I place a single ball in a spectator's hand "for safe keeping." I train him/her in closing his fist and turning his hand fingers down until I ask for the ball back. Later I repeat this request and he discovers two balls in his hand when it is opened. This is accomplished by fooling his impression of what the single ball feels like on the first handling -- but perhaps his willingness to help and be part of the magic causes him to ignore the different sensation the second time.

A number of coin routines have a sequence where the magician places 4 coins in the spectators hand, then removes one before they close it. The coin is vanished and the vanished coin is in the spectator's hand with the other coins.

A couple routines, such as the penny and dime effect, that can use the back of a spectator's hand to rest something due to it's inability to sence things as well as the palm.

There is a short routine with an "Ellis Ring" where the ring is placed on someone's thumb, covered with a hank, removed, vanished, and shown to be back on the thumb.

For sponge balls, I've never had to "train" an audience member. I just go for it the first time.

Just passing thoughts...you might make more progress on this thought line if you actually ask a clear question.

Good luck on your quest!
Keith

Sometimes funsway learns more by asking a fuzzy question, or by implying one. Then more ideas come out in the replies.

Ypu, Bill, I was hoping for some experiences with having a spectator believe something is in there hand besides the true situation. I don't consider sponge balls to be 'solid' in this context -- instead would ask how one does a sponge ball type effect with solid objects like nuts, stones,creamers, bottle caps, whatever.

Buit 'sponge' expereince does bring up an interesting question. The person in whose hands the balls multiple knows they balls are gimmicked, while other spectators may not. How does the impact of magic differ, and why does the knowledgeable spectator keep quiet about what he knows?

I beg to differ with you on this point. The sponge balls are not "gimmicked." They just happen to have a characteristic which makes it difficult for a spectator to feel exactly how many balls they are holding. The balls can be examined minutely. It is better, though, if you don't let any single spectator hold more than one ball after a surprise appearance of a ball in their hand, because they might put two and two together.

I realize this is a matter of semantics, to a certain degree, but it's still a fact.

Agreed with Bill on the dynamics of sponge ball characteristics. I do however wish to touch on something that I feel is critical with spongeball work...

Funsway is on the right path by his "pre-work" of placing a ball in the spectator's hand before the dirty work is done, but it is my opinion that he is doing so for the wrong reason. Allow me to validate my statement...

I first need to back up for a second. I firmly believe that most sponge work involving, "I have one, you have one, I have none, you have two", is done in an inappropriate sequence. A level of suspicion is raised that can cause a spectator to suspect, doubt, and then wish for verification as to what is actually in their hand. This raises the threat that they may prematurely open their hand. This is precisely what prompts magicians to "control", in a heavy-handed manner, the spectator's hand, as they take, or rather, are forced to take a ball. Funsway's method shows a desire to handle this bit of drama in a more subtle manner, but it does exactly what he is fearing it may... that is to give the spectator too defined an impression of what a single ball feels like, compared to the sensation of holding two, or more.

What I have learned over the course of many years, and literally thousands of times doing this trick is that it is possible to create a "memory" of a single ball, without developing the physical attributes too strongly.

In order to do this, I have also combined this with what I feel is a better sequence of action to apparently have both spectator and magician each holding a ball, but in fact leave the spectator with both of them. I will need to describe both of these dynamics interwoven in chronological order, as it happens during the course of the routine.

Assume we begin with two balls in play...

I either hand a spectator a ball, or allow them to pick up one by their own choice. I then go into a brief period of examination, or rather exploration of the ball, so they become minimally acclimated to it. This is NOT done in any manner that suggests "Please examine the ball." I do not wish to start down that path. I merely touch it, poke it, give it a couple rapid squeezes by quickly closing and reopening my hand.

Now, here is an important point... I handle the ball that I have in the hand that is closest to them, which by my own blocking is NOT the hand that will supposedly take the ball when the false placement is ultimately done. For clarity, let me have us assume that I am fondling the ball with my right hand. (keep your thoughts on the trick. )

I position this hand quite close to the hand that the spectator is using to hold the ball they have.

I encourage them to mimic my actions, but if I notice them clamping down on the ball at any point, I stop them by saying anything that will get them to open their hand again. ("Don't kill it!")

What happens, is that a memory is created in their mind that they hold a single ball. This is very important in fooling them in a minute.

Now comes a point where I feel a huge leap has been made in the sequencing of this well-known sponge ball effect. Let me begin by explaining what I feel is wrong with most handlings of this...

The common way to do this is to point up a series of actions that state very simply, "I take a ball, you take a ball." The secret move is done right at the high point of the sequence. Naturally, it must be done flawlessly, but such a simple path is VERY easy to deconstruct. After the effect is revealed, it is a simple matter for the spectator to mentally turn around and look back down a very straight path. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce what happened. The spectator may not know exactly how you manipulated the balls, but they understand quickly that you really gave them two. They understand that this happened when you LIED and told them you were taking one for yourself. Don't forget.... it is a straight path. Connecting the dots is easy!

So, how do we avoid this calamity? Simple... Don't perform the secret move as an action. Perform it as a REACTION. Follow me for a minute...

The ball that I hold is in my right hand, closest to them. I am showing them what it is that I want them to do. In order to show then as precisely as I can, I decide to show them with THEIR ball. (This is a silent script running.)

If I want to show them with THEIR ball, I cannot do this efficiently. WHY? because my ball is in the way.

So... in an action that is NOT a high point in the plot, I put the ball in my other hand (left hand), in order to free up my right hand to do what it is I wish to do. That is to quickly take their ball, squeeze it, by way of demonstration, and then immediately give it back to them, so they can do the same thing I just did. When I squeeze the ball, I "freeze-frame" for a second, so they clearly see the picture of what it is I want them to do. It is better to do this now than waiting until the ball is actually given back to them.

(For clarity, my silent script begins down the path, then realizes that my ball is in the way. So I adjust to make life more convenient.)

Now, here is the important point... if you did not read between the lines, the spectator will not either. OK, WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT??

Back up a second... At the point that I put the ball in my other hand to get it out of the way, I did not really do that. This is when I do the secret move. AH-HA!!!

The move is done in a reactionary moment, and not as an action. An action is important to the plot, and WILL BE REMEMBERED. A reactionary motion is different. It is overshadowed by the action of doing something with the spectator's ball.

Ok, jumping back to the present, we now hold nothing, and the spectator has two. Beautiful place to be, wouldn't you agree?

But we are not finished...

We still need to solidify an important part of the sequence... the fact that we (as the magician) have a ball in our hand (of course we actually do not, but we are pretending, remember?) So what happens next pulls everthing back into frame. The ball that I supposedly hold in my left hand is out of frame. It was only "placed" there to get it out of the way, temporarily. So, I now "put" it back in my right hand. This brings is back into frame. It is again right next to the spectator's hand.

There is also an added stretch of road that make back-tracking infinitely harder to do.

So to wrap it up, when the ball that I hold disappears, it really looks magical. If anything, it may be concluded that the dirty work I may have done happened when I put the ball back into my right hand. But, this is not nearly as magical as when the spectator accepts that epiphanic moment when they realize the logical and inevitable ending, even before they open their hand. In such a case, they aren't playing along. They are trying to cope with their own feelings when their brain suddenly goes, "NFW!"

To further agree with Bill, do not continue the routine by producing more balls in the hand of the same spectator. It will quickly turn entertainment into education.

Some terrific stuff, Micheal, and opens some new direction for innovation. --

but, I don't plan to use sponge balls at all -- thought I made that clear, but I guess not. As an example, say I am using almonds. At various times I have a spectator hold one or more while I perform with others. If I sense they are cooperating in following instructions I may include an effect in which the number in their hands changes magically. They may actually be fooled as to the number they hold by artiface, or 'play along' as being the hero in the situation. If I am not confident in their cooperation I can leave out that part. Your suggestions as to timing and dealing with "their almond" may help.

Over the years I have done such things and never been 'betrayed' by a spectator, but in developing effects for other magicians to use I want to offer the best advice possible.

I admit that I don't care for sponge ball effects because they betray method when it is discovered that the balls are not 'solid'. I have observed other performers where the spectator squeezes the ball with a funny look on their face. While the word "gimmick" may not come to to mind, "fakey" might. The good part for me is that most often the spectator does no betray their suspicion to others. If this desire to be part of the magic is common I wish to use it in other effects -- with as much audience participation as possible "as witness" for other spectators not close by. Thus, spectator and observer reaction to sponge balls is useful in determining how they might act with other small objects.

I don't have anything like your experience, but here's a random collection of semi-related ideas anyway.

It's not what you were asking for, but there's an excellent routine on this theme in The Sphinx vol. 39, no 9; John Braun's "the ball that comes back", that's essentially the cups and balls done without cups. Nothing happens in the spectator's hand, but he has an excellent idea for a color change that would be a surprising thing to happen if you changed the routine so it happened in a spectator's hand.

I think a variation on this routine, done quick, with three spectators each being 'a cup' could be awesome in a walk-around scenario, because it gives you so much contact with the spectators. Maybe add a ravenesque vanish or two since that's a similarly immediate effect (vanishing 'directly' from the back of their hand). Note I'm not suggesting a raven, just that 'style' of vanish.

On this theme, although a spectator can tell the general type and rough number of objects in their hand, size may vary quite a bit, so maybe a small red crochet ball could become a large white crochet ball, or similar?

I'm skeptical about the possibility of multiplying an ungimmicked solid ball into two balls in the spectator's hand without them realising, though I absolutely agree they will probably just go along with it. Two into three, maybe. Three into four for sure, but that's a weaker effect. I personally like using containers in the context of coins, but that's less direct and so, again, weaker.

Multiplying the balls in their palm-up cupped hands, having shown your hands empty, would be much easier.

There's a whole bunch of obvious gimmick/feke ideas that I won't bore you with.

How about a dual reality style effect where two spectators have differing views on what's being referred to by the word 'ball'? It might be a sponge ball for one, and a solid steel ball for another, so when one spectator hands 'the ball' to the other, there's a big surprise. Or you might ask 'sponge ball' guy to throw 'the ball' at you as hard as he can, in order to freak out 'steel baseball' guy.

The word 'balls' could be used in the same way to have one spectator hand two balls to another spectator who was expecting three. After shenanigans is called, the third could then be produced in an amusing way.

And obviously, 'nuts' would be an excellent thing to use in this way. Both for the nut/bolt/food confusion and (in the right crowd) the nut/bolt/food/genital confusion. No, I won't elaborate.

I'm glad this thread came back to the top, as it enabled me to read a post that I might have otherwise missed. Thank you Michael Baker for sharing that little piece of sponge routining. It's a very well thought out strategy that I don't think I've seen stated as well before.

I'm not sure that I think laymen are necessarily as good at "straight path connecting the dots" as you claim they are. However, I'm sure there are some who are able to do that. The way that I've tried to avoid that is to use a retention of vision vanish that lets the spectator 'see' and therefore 'know for sure' that I have a ball in my hand (wink) before I give them a ball. Done in the context of a routine that flows both into and out of that moment, I've never had anyone 'backtrack' on me that I know of. I do love your method though, and may begin to employ it.

Thanks for sharing.

Great stuff, as usual, Michael!
Funsway,there is a Paul Harris effect called Michael's Proposition, that is really just an ending to a coins across routine. It calls for the spectator to cover the 3 remaining coins, that are covered by a card. The card is then removed and the spectator is now covering 4 coins. Not holding, per se, but in possession no less. There is also Bent Penny Transposition wherein the spectator opens their hand to find a bent penny in their hand. When placing small objects into your spectators' hands, it may be advantageous to also press your finger into their hand, thus creating an extra item. Just a thought...

An application for a principle I learned is Psychology! the gestalt principle of continuity is what funsway was talking about "straight path connecting the dots" this is a normal path of perception and actually how most people think. for instance you see a man walking on a path up a hill in the distance and you assume that he arrived at his present location by means of the path and not by coming out of the woods to the left of the path. Mr bakers sponge routine is a good way of coming out of the woods on the left.
When if come to telling objects apart in you hand there is a threshold. an additional stimulus must be at least 50% of the previous stimulus in order to register as another object. is you have 1 almond you feel a second. if you have two you will feel a third but if you have three you may not be able to tell a fourth. because it is less stimulus then is required. David Roths shelled coins across uses this principle. not sure if its the weight that causes the effect or the sensation of the object worth looking into. probably not what your looking for but if nothing else it give you another avenue to look down.

Since my original post I have had occasion to perform multiple object effects in a spectator's hand using creamers, jelly packets, butter packs, candies and stones. I varied effects in which a known and unknown quantiy of object was in their hands, including none when I claimed one, and one when there "ain't none."

I watched their eyes as the major clue as to doubt or wit. My non-scientific observarion is that when performed with a single individual it is unwise to use these subtleties -- but if the volunteer is one of many you can get awasy with anything! Partially this is becasue the volunteer wishes to "be the hero" and plays along. Partially it is because his attention is disfocused. I also beleive that giving their "off hand" something to do minimizes the sensitivity of the primary hand.

I don't perform enough to test these ideas to any point of validity -- but hope someone else might.

I like the ideas presented here. While I'm sure there would be a number of spectators that would go along willingly, I can't help but imagine how the same effects would register, if that particular spectator was fooled, as well.

One of the beautiful things about magic in their hands is when that reality sets in for them that the magician has just invaded their personal space in some unknown manner. This is certainly good when the reveal happens, but I think it is twice as strong when the conviction and anticipation set in at the same time, before the affirmation. The look on their faces is epiphanic art.

Deceiving someone as to the true state of affairs inside (or outside) their hand is surely easy enough to do, that concessions needn't be necessary. Coin under the watch, the extra coin in their hand in coins across routines, and some Ellis Ring stuff quickly comes to mind, but I would imagine even bolder techniques of misdirection can be used to postpone the discovery of things even on an open palm.

I believe it was Derek Dingle who had a coins across with a spectator's hand involved, in which he used a platter palm. This allowed for such a high level of impossibility for sleight of hand, that the appearance (by feel) of the first coin, must surely be very strong in the spectator's mind. Not completely out in the open, but certainly very strong, as aided by the technique used.

Using spectators' hands as the cups is one such scenario with this possibility. In addition to using 3 spectators as "cups", I would explore the possibilities with one and two, as well.

"Dual realities" is a very interesting concept. I have seen this done a few ways, however it generally involves one side of the fence or the other being privy to the truth. Fooling two parties in two completely different ways would be a lot of fun to explore.



...And thank you for sharing!

My arguement here would be that once a spectator understands that actions do not equal expected results, their vigilance and suspicion are raised. It is my contention that it is better to hide such a sleight within a non-action (a reactionary action), than during a highlighted action.

Perfection of technique can surely help add weight to your opinion, as it appears to the spectator that nothing could have happened DURING THE ACTION. But, once it is understood that something apparently did, doubt is cast upon the truth behind any action.

This becomes more problematic if two actions fall in sequence, a chain reaction if you will. In a spectator's retro thought, there is going to be a subtle, but huge difference between, "He put a ball into his hand," as opposed to, "He had a ball in his hand." This difference can affect the level of conviction. One of these has a stronger connection with the second action, of placing the other ball into the spectator's hand, than does the other.

Reading further into my earlier description of my handling, it should be noted that when the spectator's ball is returned to them, the emphasis becomes that they TAKE the ball, rather than me giving it to them. I GAVE it to them much earlier, and nothing happened. In their minds, it is even less likely something could have happened the second time, as they are given the impression of being in control. Details!



I've had a lot of fun with the bent penny idea. I use a small crank made from a piece of bent coat hanger wire. First time when I do it, the penny disappears. The second time is the spectator's turn, and that's when the penny gets bent. They aren't the hero, but the results are funny enough that it doesn't matter. At least something cool happened!

The idea of the finger inside is an interesting formula! Too many, minus something, equals LESS!



For this reason, with the sponge balls, I allow them to create the memory of one ball, without the full sensation of one ball squeezed in the hand. The first time they get that full sensation is the last stimuli in a series of them. This is also the first time that the reality has changed.

Naturally, this would need to be applied differently with objects of other consistencies. The nature of sponge is very forgiving in this sense (every pun intended).



It would be interesting to study the differences between using their dominant hand as the primary hand, or the opposite. In which hand would a right-handed person be more likely to notice differences? Would they be more apt to notice tiny changes in their right hand, the one with more refinement of action, or would use of the other hand occupy their mind enough to override that awareness?

such studies as I have been able to find indicate that the non-dominant hand trains the dominant one, but not necessarily the other way around. So, if a single sto0ne is placed in the dominant hand with a nail-dig for focus, two stones could later be put into the non-dominant hand with a nail-dig and the assistant might not realize there are two stones.

Isn't the debate very much influenced by the atmosphere set by the magician? If the magician is challenging, willingly or unwillingly, the spectators, he will have much more difficulty in letting such an action go by. If on the contrary the placing in the hand of the spectator comes in as an In Transit action, it should be very easy to get away with it.

Even if Michael Baker referred to coins and Derek Dingle's beautiful (but difficult) routine (I have a problem with "windows" in handling Derek's flat purse palm) we haven't so far really covered coin situations. There is the well known finale where three, actually four coins are placed in the spectator's hand and where a duplicate is made to disappear from the performer's hand and "arrive" in the spectator's hand. This classic seems to confirm Funsway's point.

Posted: Oct 31, 2010 7:02am
Here is the way (right or wrong) that I'm working with the concept of pre-placing a ball in the spectator's hand using the Jerry Lukins feint as published in Hugard's Magic Monthly. In my routine the sponge balls are presented as new make up sponges just launched in Paris by famous brands.

Get to a male spectator’s hands and extend your right hand palm up to show him what to do: “Remember keep them straight to prevent them from leaking". Pick both balls from your left hand and place one ball in his right hand, keeping the other in your right, sliding an end of the Fin Jon invisible loop around your right middle and ring fingers. Pass the loop around the ball and hold it over his left hand. Then say, spreading your hand to make the ball seemingly levitate between your hands and travel between your left and right hand, but looking at the spectator: “See, the ball will magically travel from your hand here to mine there” Leave it briefly suspended between your hands without complacency over the effect, just as if you were casually explaining in advance what will happen and moving both hands together towards the left. Catch the ball back with the right hand and place it in his left hand letting go of the loop as if the suspension in mid air was just the most normal thing on earth (they will look at the ball setting themselves for the misdirection to come). This allows your right hand to start taking the ball from the spectator’s right hand but stop, saying: “Oh sorry! This is the sponge for gay guys: I’m not really gay but you may not want it”! Pick up the other one from the spectator’s hand. Use it to point at the spectator’s hands: “You know your left from your right? Yes? So extend your left hand ” False transfer the right ball in the left palm (as in John Ramsay's Hanging Coins) and take the ball at left fingertips (adding the palmed one), pause and place it in the spectator’s left hand which is closed into a fist and turned thumb inside: both balls ended up into his left fist. “Not too strong otherwise you’re going to hurt it. But it’s ok…” (this keeps the mind of the spectator busy on something else than rechecking what he is holding). Point at your closed left fist flashing your right palm “Keep your eyes on mine“! Do a sort of empty shuttle pass as if transferring the ball from the left fist to the right hand which closes around it (nothing actually) and putting your closed fingers up fist over his (Goshman style), the left hand being open and visibly empty as negative misdirection (Al Leech's concept). “Open slowly so that it doesn’t roll all over the place, hits the floor and gets hard to find“. Open your right hand next to his but keeping it around as to prevent the balls to fall on to the floor.

Welcome back! -- I love the concept of the "empty shuttle pass."

Does that kind of presentation really go over well with a guy?

We are magicians and artists, not socially correct public servants: people expect us to emotionally move them, shock them and to let them face paradoxes... Yes it does go over well with guys and it generally gets a laugh from them and from the assistance, but not a laugh of embarrassment. This is without mentioning the strength of the misdirection carried by the line.

If you are that shy how can you sell lies that are at the essence of magic tricks?

Sorry, Larry O

I guess, I don't have your charm and winning ways with the men.