Hello Panlives

Matrix is the name "coined" by Al Schneider for the pre-existing effect where four coins placed in a square formation under two or four cards meet under one of these cards. There are many finale: production of a jumbo coin in the center under the discarded cards, reverse matrix where all the coins magically return under the cards at the four corners...

Basically Matrix illustrates a coin effect performed with cards where the coins meet under one card

The effect existed in the XVII and XVIII century and was being done with corks and plates or sugar lumps and plates or, later, with corks and two hats. A modern performer/clown does a routine with dice under cards (with a method nothing short of brilliant)

Chink a Chink is a way to replace the hats, cards, plates or any covering object with the bare hands. It is then irrelevant if the objects meeting under one hand are coins, bottle caps, weights, sugar lumps, pompoms, C&Bs muscades or knitted balls, rope knots, small baseball or tennis balls, sweets...


As a result, the routines, where cards of any form (not necessarily playing cards) are used to cover the transposing objects, are called matrix

The ones where whatever objects are used but covered only by the bare hands, the hands replacing the cards, are Chink A Chink effects

Hope that this answers your question.

Posted: Dec 16, 2010 7:25pm
I just realized that I had forgotten the very smart new technical solutions by James Chadier that appeared in his French Connexion DVD

Yes, this answers so many questions - thank you!

I was thrown off a bit by the terms, "Shadow coins" and "bare-handed assembly."

Are these variants or the same basic effect?

Thank you again.

Yes they are the same
Shadow coins is the very smart name that Michael Ammar created for his she!! variant of David Roth coin chink a chink variant (David solved the problem created by the impossibility to palm a coin up directly from the table.)

"Bare handed assembly" is the common description of all the variants of Chink A Chink.

Posted: Dec 16, 2010 8:02pm
Just received a PM from Mike Rubinstein
Just reminded me that his work in Intermediate and Advanced Coin Technique had some card moves that have been used in other people's work, such as our common friend Armando Lucero. His Reverse Matrix routines first put out in the Knockout Coin Magic series utilized the No Pickup move,reversing the trend from the time of Al Schneider's Derek Dingle's routine. It was used by Dean Dill in his routines after he saw Mike lecture at the Castle. His Ultra Reverse Matrix was (and possibly still is) the cleanest version around. It was supposed to be part of the New stars of Magic series, but at the last minute Tony Spina backed out of the deal, since there was no gaff to sell. His Quadra Coins reverse matrix was not the first of its kind, but it was certainly one of the cleanest (and probably still is). Both the Ultra Reverse and Quadra Coins reverse matrix use the double steal, also the first move of its kind. Anyway, his work deserves being in this thread.

Etienne - are you referring to Dean's "Tonight Show Matrix?" I currently do a version of that and really love it.

As some have said I have a ton of stuff! But most of it is not in print yet! I only have 15-or 20 thing in print so far! So not vary much!

The Matrix/chink a chink being same or different has been debated for quite some time by many. I'm sorry but Lawrence O's post doesn't prove that I am wrong nor that he is correct.

I was simply trying to get some bright-line definitions, being admittedly ignorant about real coin work.

Sorry if this descended into a right vs. wrong argument.

I understand Etienne's point of view on this, and while it certainly is possible, even useful, to emphasize that all of the effects we're talking about are similar in effect, I think there's more benefit in clarifying one small point. "Matrix" is the name of a specific routine, one that introduced distinct and important elements, which was and is still commerically available, from a creator who is alive today and contributing to our understanding of coin magic. All that being the case, I suggest that we use that name to refer to that effect. That said, I would state the categories as follows:

Matrix, Yank Hoe's "Sympathetic Coins", Paul Harris' Free Flight, and Chink-a-Chink are all "Assemblies". In each of them, four objects placed on the performing surface magically gather in the location of one of the objects. There are Assemblies done with cards, and, as Etienne points out, with corks, pieces of cigarette, sponge balls and flaming bottlecaps.

The best-known version of this assembly requires two covers, because that's the minimum number of covers necessary to apply the method. This is the method used in the very oldest versions involving hats and corks, etc. The salient points are that the audience is aware of every object involved. There is no extra cork or sugar cube. Yank Hoe's "Sympathetic Coins" is a two cover, four coin assembly. It also involves a handkerchief, through which the coins must pass in order to gather.

As Jim Steinmeyer says, "method affects effect". And in performance, the two-cover handlings all have this in common--the performer touches and manipulates the coins. Al Schneider changed this with Matrix, in which the coins are all covered, (four covers, four coins) after which the performer apparently never touches the coins. This is a significant change in the effect, IMHO, and allows for the strongest magical experience. For instance, see Armando Lucero and Paul Vigil's presentations. So I will submit that Matrix is significantly different from the two-cover assemblies because it involves two more covers, which are not necessary to the method, but improve the effect, which is much more important.

So I object to the popular trend of using "Matrix" as the generic term for an "assembly". There already is a generic term for assemblies, it's assembly. Keeping "Matrix" Matrix will make it easier for future students who are interested in that specific effect to find their way to Al Schneider, and I can't think of a better starting point for that particular journey.

Corallary to the above: the phrase "Coin Matrix" is a redundant abomination, created by magic dealers to serve as an easy way to identify someone who has been in magic for less than a year. If someone walks into the shop and says he does "coin matrix" you know you've got a mark who will also buy "Coin Scotch and Soda" and "Coin Miser's dream".

--submitted because I care.

Also I have all ways thought what made ia a " Matrix" Was the instant jump!!

David, I'd say that the "instant jump" is characteristic of the way some people perform Matrix, but it's not a feature of the way Al Schneider does it, nor is it consistent with the way he thinks about the trick. So while the instant jump might be a feature of some assemblies, I have a hard time saying it should be the thing that makes an assembly a version of "Matrix".

On the New York Coin Magic Seminar DVD that features Al, he goes to great lengths to explain that he doesn't like the instant jump. In his original Matix, he mimes invisibly lifting the coin into the air from one card, and magically transferring it to the other card. When he lifts the cards, it is to show that the magic has taken place. He tried to explain what he did to a student who performed the routine by first showing a coin under each card, then making a snap and showing one coin instantaneously went across. The difference was that in the student's routine, the magician made the magic happen. In Al's routine, the magic just happened. More by Al on the topic on the DVD.

Hi Curtis,
Are You sure that's what he has allways thought about it? Or has he changed hid mind in the last few years?

David, you got me curious about what Al wrote in his booklet way back when. Do you have a copy?

Al Schneider wrote a very good two-part article about the history of his Matrix in the February and March 2000 issues of Genii Magazine. Anyone who has a subscription to Genii Magazine can access the article online at the Genii web site. The article describes Al's initial conception of his Matrix routine and also goes into detail about others who subsequently claimed the Matrix as their own. Definitely a good read if you get the chance!

Thank you.

Jim

No I don't but what jim said sounds good!