All I can say is, "Wow!" It reminds me that magic is an art.

Thanks Guys ! Glad you liked the routine.
Tim

As he is well aware of I'm a great fan of Mike Gallo's magic. The Gallo Kicker Ending to the coins through the table is however not an effect that I appreciate as much as Michael Ammar or Curtis Kam do (a nice credential, though).

My belief, not certitude, is that the Coins Through the Table had initially two short comings:
It makes no sense that if we toss several coins on a table top only one of them passes through the table
The classic routine had no climax.

I suspect that the Gallo Kicker gained fame only because it was the best finale available. Does it make it a very good one? SOme of us consider that it does and, with due respect for them and for Mike Gallo, I dare not to fully agree. It's a complex phenomenon since a reverse matrix which follows the same principle doesn't seem inappropriate. In the coins through the table however, the return of the first three coins appears to me as anihilating at once the effect progressively reached. I had a similar frustration with the end of the superb Hanging Coins where the last coin doesn't vanish but is used to catch all the vanished coins at once. Actually David Roth had extracted the vanish of four coins by John Ramsay and was only seeking to demonstrate the actual technical advantage of using the Edge Grip over the classic Finger Palm. He possibly wasn't seeking to make it a full routine and his contribution became sufficient for screening its lack of proper ending. That is until Garrett Thomas came with a full vanish of THE FOUR coins AND a finale with the last coin reappearing in full view on the table (very much in line with Tommy Wonder's magic). Thus it seems to me that the sudden cancelling of a progressive effect, if it obviously satisfies the need of a surprise (a condition to a proper climax) is lacking something essential.

Now, rather than making criticism without any positive potential contribution, I'd like to explore a proposition explaining why I think that it may be more adapted. The finale I suggest is to first let all the coins go through one by one, as Tim does, and then to let all the goins go through together in the same direction so as to avoid a form of EFFECT cancellation. This may not be the ideal solution and Juan Tamaris in Monedas Monedas Monedas was doing first an incomplete penetration with the fourth coin, letting it go through the mat but not through the table. Thus we could consider matrializing the "soft spot" with either a SMALL felt "hole" (adapting a David Roth idea), or with a kind of curtain ring (kind of Jardine Ellis but without the sh**l). The effect could then show three coins getting through the table one by one (as in Tim's routine), then meet a problem with the fourth one (Tamariz solution using the magician in trouble concept to gain audience support and express the difficulty of the exercise). Still seemingly puzled by the miss, the fourth coin could then be passed. But then to mark the power of magic, no matter how difficult it has been demonstrated to be, all the coins could be tossed together over the "hole" and pass through together at once supplying the climax.

It seems to me that this would supply a less frutrating ending.

Now I realize that this is really a matter of opinion and possibly it will not be shared or, if shared, the proposed solution can be surpassed by an even better one like having the silver of the four coins remaining over the table in the hole (4 crumpled aluminum foil pieces) and the coins which passed having now only their copper core left, or... anything stronger that one of us may come up with.

Etienne,
Are you saying Coins Through Table makes no sense. But, Coins Across does ?.....lol
I think most of the stuff we do makes no sense really....lol
Great post as always. It's making me think.
Tim

I must have mis-expressed myself: I was simply underlining that, even in our absurd logic, when we toss four coins on a table top, it makes no sense that only one passes through the "soft spot". If there is a soft spot, shouldn't all four coins tossed fall through?

Got-Cha, (sorry for my dry sense of humor)
I have another one where each coin penetrates in a different way. I believe that would justify them going through one of a time.
Here is an old vid of my Push Drop Push routine.
Darn I took it down...rrrrr I'll be back.
Tim

As you know I have no problem with humor (whether dry or not). Did it ever prevent anyone to search for a strong climax?

:)

Ok I'm back. Here is a video of the routine I was talking about.
Push Drop Push.
Enjoy.
Tim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL_SetZPTLk

Again. I love it. I had to rewind the moment you dropped the two coins at the same time. That moment was pure magic.

I recently read Steve Dusheck's C/S Transpo script which is included with Digital Dissolve, and he starts the script by stating how he finds Coins Through The Table to be boring and repetitive, because the magician just "pushes" one coin through the table and then repeats that same action two or three more times. He also dislikes that there is no climax, no killer ending to routines like this. One just finishes the action with the last coin and then.... nothing! It's over, but the spectators are usually waiting for some kind of climax to signify that the routine is over. I don’t necessarily feel the same way as Steve but I certainly can understand the reasoning he uses. A routine benefits greatly from a fitting end, some type of climax that clearly lets the specs know that all actions were leading to this big finalé. I imagine that is part of the point that Etienne is making - though please correct me if I am wrong, Etienne.

Thank you.

Jim

Yeah, that's great too! Nice to see some really aggressive cancellation of methods by other methods and conditions, and the plot definitely has a beginning, middle, and end. I really really like this version.

(One nitpick, though: why a playing card? I know they're traditional for such techniques, but I wonder if a business card or something less magician-y would play even stronger here?)



I agree. Those endings are surprising, but unsatisfying. Pushing things through things is such a practical superpower compared to some of our magical "talents", I hate to undermine that premise in any way.

I like your suggestions (having trouble with the last coin; ending with all the coins at once). They inspired me to brainstorm a few other possible endings:

One coin goes through, then two, then three. Or ten.

(Tim's second routine builds from "one from three", to "one alone". As magicians, we know that the last coin is often the hardest to deal with. This plot structure works fine; it's easy to sell the lone coin as the biggest challenge. Less is more. Works fine. But the opposite structure - more is more - is probably worth considering too.)

You have trouble with the last coin. You try again with extra effort. There's a clink in the glass, but the coin is still under your hand!? Your ring has gone through instead!

You have trouble with the last coin. (Perhaps it's larger than the others.) You try again with extra effort. The coin finally falls in the glass but various other metal objects that were just on the table also suddenly hit the floor. Perhaps something marked or borrowed from a previous trick.

Like a karate demonstration: the coins go through a taller and taller stack of boards. That's why each one is harder than the last: thicker table! ...You have trouble with the last coin, but with extra effort...the coin goes through but the boards break!

You're doing a coins to glass (or to okito box) routine, and you interpose the table just once, to "make it harder".

Push a marked coin through progressively harder surfaces. First through a scarf, then through a table, then into a safe.

(Drinking glass...narrow-necked bottle...solid glass paperweight?)

You push the first coin through. The second goes through without your touching it (under a glass or pushed with a pencil or something). The third...the spectator pushes through! (No, I don't have a method in mind. Just brainstorming effects.)

After a few coins, you get excited and offer to pass some random borrowed object through the table. Say, a ring, or a key. You grab all the coins and the ring. You push...nothing yet...more effort...all the coins go through, but not the ring. Good enough. (I'm thinking the continuity of the ring still being right there would help sell the impression that the coins are really going through from right there. Plus it gets someone involved. Just don't unset someone's diamond with your coins. Probably a key is safer.)

After a few coins, you get excited and offer to pass a borrowed object through the table. You do so. Repeat once or twice if desired, with larger objects.

You push three coins down through the table. Then you explain that, due to the force of gravity, pushing them back up is much harder. You dump the coins from the glass into one hand, put it under the table, and put the other, empty, on top.... The coins make the return journey on purpose, not as a surprise twist.

Demonstrate that there is just one soft spot: Push four coins forward side by side with four fingertips; only the third one goes through, because it's in the right spot.

...Before you begin, draw a circle around the soft spot with a magic marker. Don't use your own table.

Instead of a soft spot, a soft coin: You've got two brass coins and a silver coin. You try to push all three coins through the table at once. Two go through but one remains. Eliminate one brass coin, or don't, and try again: again, the brass passes through but not the silver. Now you have a strong dramatic reason to focus on that last coin, the special one, the magic-resistant one. Have you met your match? You'll really seem to succeed "if" it finally goes through.

Brainstorming is fun! Enough for now?

Loved it Tim. Loved even more Push Drop Push. Very deceptive. Fooled me! Great job!

Tom

Some really nice discussions have come up...Nice
Dan
The reason for the card is this. This routine is for more of a formal situation. Part of a longer routine not impromptu. The card is used because I would have cards on the table do to the card magic I might perform. So in this video it might seems out of place in reality it is not. At least in my mind it's not..lol
My Soft Spot routine is more of a impromptu routine can be done anytime anywhere/ Even though I have done that routine in a formal situation.
I hope that answered your question about the card.
Tim

Loved it Tim !!! Push Drop Push ,looked really good ..Thanks for posting it.

Best

Shaun

Yep! If I'd noticed a deck on the table someplace I'd have assumed that, and not worried. But this video does make it look like an isolated impromptu routine. It sounds like you'd agree with my comment in that context.

Watching it again, I think starting with the card under the glass looks kind of weird. That's probably part of why it caught my eye the first time. I think I'd be inclined to grab a card off the deck at the moment you first mention using it, as if you hadn't necessarily planned to in advance. Takes heat off the card...not that there's too much anyway, since your handling of the card here is extremely smooth! Nice work there.

Since I think this routine is really well constructed overall, I'll venture one more nitpick: do you worry that the middle phase may play stronger than the final one? It sure is startling! Do you worry that it's disappointing to have the last one go under your hand, after that very visual phase?

Nope, doesn't bug me one bit.
For someone that has never seen this and for people that only see it once and can't rewind, the last phase is just as stronge as the second or the first. IMHO Again we tend to over think things too much I feel.
Tim

Absolutely right!

We should overthink things just enough, but not too much.

( Sorry - I couldn't resist.)

Exactly!!! That's what I try to do.

Seriously. Great phrase. Overthinking things just enough is a very useful skill. For example, it's a big part of how a director helps a performer excel. My constructive criticisms are made in that spirit.

I'm not suggesting that your stuff isn't easily good enough already, Tim. It's superb, in fact. It's a struggle to find anything to criticize at all. But I've found that in anybody's work there's almost always something that can still be tightened up, reworked, polished a bit more; sometimes other people can call these things to our attention usefully. In your case this kind of effort might only take it from, say, 96% perfect to 99% perfect. Or, maybe, only to 96.2%. ...Maybe not worth the trouble, since your audience is, I imagine, already totally fooled. I understand that. But if your goal is 100%, it can be useful to question every tiniest detail, even if you then decide to leave it alone.

I'm really not trying to bore you, Tim. It's obvious you know the theory inside and out, even if you don't like to discuss it. But I can learn by discussing it: I think picking at the few loose threads (perhaps) of such a great routine, in the company of so many clever magicians, is likely to provoke useful thoughts for someone. Hopefully me! Hopefully you too, at least once in a while.

In this case, I really love the progression from covered to uncovered coins in the first two phases of Push Drop Push. (I've been reading about exactly that concept in Darwin Ortiz.) So I wondered about the seeming reversal of that trend after such a powerful phase; I'm glad to hear you find the third phase strong enough.

That second phase is about the coolest use for [what I assume it uses] that I've seen so far. And the spectator involvement in the first phase looks really memorable. I bet you can get amazing reactions with that bit.

...This is why I nitpick about slight theoretical imperfections, Tim: you have no big obvious problems, and I don't want to just gush about how great the routine is. Strong dramatic structure, deceptive timing, efficient natural movements, and (in that video) basically perfect technique.

One final nitpick on this one (I promise). If this were my routine, I'd rewrite the very first sentence or two of patter. I don't like introducing tricks by title like a cover band...though it can certainly be tempting! Often I feel like a cover band! But comedians never say "I'm going to tell you a classic joke, the 'Panda walks into restaurant'", which is kind of how you start this video. I bet you could find a stronger lead without much trouble.

Hi Dan,
Thoughts, comments, comcerns are always welcome. Like you said something might provoke deeper thinking on something.
I was just answering your question. sorry if it came off sharp. That wasn't the intent.
As for my patter, who know's hat will pop out of my mouth when doing these things. The one thing I do need to work on is patter. I do agree.
Tim

I disagree Tim, I think your patter is just fine. And I love the fact that you brought up this string as to KISS, because it shows how hard it can be to just leave it simply that way. Sometimes these things are like exploding a bowl of vanilla ice cream as to why it so simply tastes so good, or looking back on the steps a woman might go through to look her very best for you. All she wants is your attracting approval on the final product, right? I mean do you ever dissect such effective beauty? I'm just saying.

To me, what you present here is close enough to just perfect that I don't see any of the suggestions that would make it even a little better. They are just suggestions of doing little things a bit differently but nothing much more than that really. And why is that...It's because what you've done here is just great just as it is, really...Simple, to the point, very well presented and downright amazing! It's like trying to improve a rose, a sunset or the song "My Girl" by the Temptations or something like that.