|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
David Fillary Special user 662 Posts |
I always prefer a coins across effect to a vanish, as then they never think they've caught you out by saying it's in the other hand; that's the point! I only use a retention vanish for my copper silver transposition first stage (with just two coins). I do a real transfer first as we are playing a game of following the silver coin, then I mirror it exactly with the retention. It makes sense to draw attention to the coin as it goes in the hand as they are noting what colour it is, so the retention vanish fits.
Note Lawrence O implied that a put move would be more appropriate in your case because you put the coin in the left hand to be able to pick up the other coin |
|||||||||
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-01 11:01, David Fillary wrote: Lawrence seems to have only goods ideas |
|||||||||
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-01 11:01, David Fillary wrote: A coin across is more difficult to catch (as far as the method is concerned) because the method is more disconnected to the effect that in the case of a simple vanish. |
|||||||||
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-01 11:00, landmark wrote: It's was a trick that I did in order to have time to find an other routine to perform. They watch my hands but not like a hawk. I thing they were very surprised and that was one of the the thing that made it a good trick : a relax performance.... |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-06-13 10:26, landmark wrote: In the hat routine and also the cylinder routine Ramsay used both puts and takes. The "hanging coins" action is a put. The pivot vanish that he liked to use for the first coin of a sequence is a take. In the cylinder trick he also used an action where he poked two coins into his fist. If you study Ramsay's cups and balls routine you can see he was fine with puts, drops, tosses and takes. Here's a situation that seems to work well for a put action - taking a collection of things and getting them into ones hand. When there's a chance the contents already there might spill out a careful put seems motivated. What do you think?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Seems logical to me. Conversely, to get those same objects out of the hand it seems like a drop or toss would be most congruent to real life.
Quote:
An instant latter, I did the same move (retention vanish) in an other context : 2 coins were on the table, one on my right and the other on my left. I took the left coin with my RH (right hand) and put it in my LH but I kept it in my RH by using the retention pass (without showing the vanish). Then I took the other coin with my RH (2 coins here now). I waited a little then I moved each hand and we could hear the click in my RH. I showed the LH empty and and I oppened my RH and let the 2 coins fall from it as they were burning my hand. Something there about how the sound illusion changes the perceived moment of when the magic occurs. Specs thought process: "He put the coin in the LH--maybe not, maybe its still in the RH, now he's picking up the other coin with his RH, watch both hands carefully--huh? what was that sound? how could a coin make a sound now?Did he just do something and I missed it? (as the hand is opened)Holy crap, that was the sound of a coin arriving--I didn't see a thing!"
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
David Fillary Special user 662 Posts |
Sound is one of the reasons I love coin magic so much. If I perform in a noisy bar, my coins across will not play as big as in a quieter venue for this very reason (the click pass also becomes redundant). Same for expansion of texture. People aren't used to hearing magic!
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
At the peril of my theory getting ahead of my hands, I noticed this in another thread:
Quote:
If you produce a coin from FP while calling attention to it, it looks like you are pusing a concealed coin out into view. It looks like that to me, and to every stranger you show it to. Now if instead you use timing and vanish a coin, lets say with a french drop. You focus on where the coin should be. As you reveal the vanish, at the same time with the other hand you produce the coin and then look at it, to the onlooker it will have vanished and magically materialized in the other hand. And it seems to me that the poster is describing a similar phenomenon to the spec in the scenario in my post above. Spec thinks: "There's a coin, he took it in the other hand, wait, did (just about to ask him or herself, did he really take it)--huh, what?--the coin is over there, how did that happen? Is his other hand empty, (magician opens hand only now) oh, yes." In both cases what makes the magic is the pattern interrupt that the magician caused in the spec's thought process. The spec is on the verge of figuring out logically what happened, when the magician introduces a startle (the sound of a coin, the appearance of a coin) which also serves to confuse the time sense of the spec as to when the magic happened. If this idea is correct--and forgive me if it is a commonplace idea for coin workers and is all over the literature, I'm a relative newcomer to coins--then it explains why a feint is so effective. A guy like Greg Wilson, will feint in the following way: he puts a coin from RH to LH for real. He looks at spec, smiles, opens his LH, shows the coin actually there, looks at the coin, "No, It's still there," then turns back to the spec as he picks up the coin with his RH, and looking at the spec says something like, "No, I'm not that good." Exactly during that line, looking at the spec, he does a false put into the other hand. Again, what I think is happening there is a pattern interrupt of the spec's thought process, and a shift in the time frame of the perceived move. By making the movement out of frame (time out, this doesn't really count, I'll show you I'm not deceiving you) the spec doesn't realize that this is exactly when the deception occurs. The spec is also somewhat startled during the feint that you caught him thinking bad thoughts about you, and that you addressed them without him or her having ot say anything. So that's a little startle right there that throws them off balance. Then combined with the time shift, the misdirection is complete. So here's what I'm theorizing, I hope those with more knowledge can tell me if I'm going down the right path here so I can improve: startle + time shift = effective misdirection.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Is the trick supposed to happen when you put the coin in your hand?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-02 21:56, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Jon, Stop hitting the nail on the head... Remember Kipling "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,..."
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Thanks
(spoken in hushed voice) "and now he's going to finish typing this post, look it over then click on the Submit Reply button" <sound effect of a mouseclick>
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Michael Landes New user 76 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-06-17 17:28, Lawrence O wrote: Laurence, I quite enjoyed this post. Thanks so much I'm responding by way of acknowledging how central, how important what you are saying it. Based on some the the response, (or lack of it) to such a comprehensive,and important post, I have the feeling it could bear some clarification. I'm going to attempt to re-state your essential point quite differently. If in the process it becomes clearer to some, great. If it merely restates what you've already said,neither better nor worse, Still great, it bears repeating. But, please feel free to correct me right on the forum if my statement does not represent you properly. Then it can be considered an independent contribution of mine, for better or worse. But that is not my intent. I just think the point you make is so essential that it would be a shame if it was passed by. It is my contention, as you will see below, that you are not merely explaining the most effective approaches, but the ONLY proper approaches. And that you don't merely cover many cases, but ALL cases. So, Consider: I am going to transfer something from my right hand to my left. Why? There are only two reason, IMHO,that I might need to do this. . 1) Because you want to do something with it with your left hand (place it to the left, place it in your left pocket, hand it to the spectator on your left, etc. or 2) Because you want to do something with your right hand and you need to free your right hand in order to be able to do it (pick up your wand, lift the right hand cup, whatever.) Now, in the first case, (1), you MUST use a take. In the second case, (2), you MUST use a put. Must. Why? Because that is what people do. Always. It's what you do. Not in performing magic, but, in your everyday life. With your left hand you TAKE the change(so that you can),then put it in your left pocket. etc. or With your right hand you PUT the matchbox in your left hand (to free your right hand,so that you can) then pick up your cigar with your right hand. etc. It is simply a physical manifestation of Occam's Razor, which is not simply a scientific rule-of-thumb, but an expression of the way our minds work. It is simply the most efficient way, so it is what we do. Why use two hands, when we can use one hand to do both actions? therefore, automatically, unconsciously, it is what people do. So, to do otherwise, always will look strange, wrong in some way the onlooker may not be able to identify, but wrong nonetheless. So, if we aspire to the naturalness required to deceive, we MUST follow the above axiomatically. So, as a result of the above: Suppose you have a sequence blocked to require a PUT but you would prefer to have a TAKE there. It will be necessary to re-block the sequence so that a TAKE rather than a PUT is appropriate. I have even seen masters diverge from this and whenever they do, I catch them. Not because I'm smart, or well-read, or anything having to do with me. It's because they have momentarily broken the chain of logical, natural actions, with an UNNATURAL ACTION (we're all human). And I get an itch in the back of my head, long before I know why. And, I suspect, so does everyone else. Many classic routines occasionally violate as published, it is true. But the truth is in the mirror. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Re 2 - not so sure. when you are accumulating things in your left hand and there's one more ... that seems about right then IMHO.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
My wife "put" in both scenarios. After I explained what I was looking for, she said, "Oh, I guess I'm weird." So, it could well be that it's just too idiosyncratic to make a generalization about. But I'm going to keep asking people.
One thing I noticed however, is that in every case, whether it's a put or a take, scenario 1 or 2, the hands always both move, meeting mid-body before the transfer. No keeping the supposed receiving hand stationary on the table or the air and the other hand moving to it to put it in.* And conversely, no keeping the supposed holding hand stationary on the table or the air and the other hand moving to it to take it. It seems to me, the hands move together almost simultaneously and it normally would be difficult to tell from an audience perspective whether it's a put or take. *An exception would be when the receiving hand has to make a choice among the objects in the holding hand. Then holding hand come out mid body, stationary, receiving hand takes.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Michael Landes New user 76 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-19 06:10, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Fair enough. But, let's find out. Let's take a look. Give me a specific example to look at, if you will. I will clarifY (either that I am mistaken, or that I am not. ) |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Have ten coins in front of you and to your right. with your left hand reach into your pocket and take out a "magic ring".
Let's say your objective in this case is to add the ten coins to that ring in your left hand one at a time... see what you do. Next experiment: start with the magic ring off to your right and a few coins held in your right hand. This time your objective is to wave the ring over the coins. What do you do. Nothing hypothetical here - it's an exercise in observing what you do.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Michael Landes New user 76 Posts |
[quote]On 2013-07-19 07:14, landmark wrote:
My wife "put" in both scenarios. After I explained what I was looking for, she said, "Oh, I guess I'm weird." So, it could well be that it's just too idiosyncratic to make a generalization about. But I'm going to keep asking people. One thing I noticed however, is that in every case, whether it's a put or a take, scenario 1 or 2, the hands always both move, meeting mid-body before the transfer. No keeping the supposed receiving hand stationary on the table or the air and the other hand moving to it to put it in.* And conversely, no keeping the supposed holding hand stationary on the table or the air and the other hand moving to it to take it. It seems to me, the hands move together almost simultaneously and it normally would be difficult to tell from an audience perspective whether it's a put or take. *An exception would be when the receiving hand has to make a choice among the objects in the holding hand. Then holding hand come out mid body, stationary, receiving hand takes. [/quote Interesting. I'm inclined to doubt your wife is "a little weird". (although, who knows! ) Instead I'm inclined to ask, how did you set up your little experiment? If, for example, you said, "Honey, take a coin in your right hand. Ok, now transfer it to your left hand and then pick up the pencil with your right hand. Thanks, now take the coin in the right hand again. OK? Now, this time transfer the coin to the left hand, and then put it into your left pocket....." The experiment would be meaningless in this case. But no point going into it now. Do you remember what you said to your wife in having her participate? Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm gonna look over what I wrote. |
|||||||||
Michael Landes New user 76 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-07-19 03:35, Michael Landes wrote: I'd like to add, that while it is certainly a matter of using one hand as opposed to two. That is a subsidiary point. It is more central that you will choose to use ONE motion (and think of it that way) rather than use two motions to accomplish the same task. The coin is in the right hand. You want to place it in your left pocket, your change pocket. You don't think of how, you just do it. "It" is the act of getting the darn thing to your pocket. What happens? Your hands come together and your left hand then carries the coin from it present location to the left pocket. Period. You do "it". You carry the coin to the pocket with the left hand. Now it can be broken up into 1. taking it from the right hand and then 2. carrying it to the pocket. But you don't think of it that way. You just carry the coin to the pocket. There is, in your mind, no independant transfer, there is just the left hand taking the coin to its destination. Now a TAKE false transfer can be used to impersonate the beginning of the action and so is |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Suggestion on what to say to an experiment subject:
hold up the coin - about chest height. Oh, okay, please hold the coin in the other hand, about that high. and watch what they do. similarly: great, now add the other coin you hold out a ring or wand toward one hand and say: fine so far, now add in the other coin and then tap your closed hand with the wand (or ring) ie minimize the cues about their specific actions and instead give them direction for what's needed to advance the process.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
David Neighbors V.I.P. 4910 Posts |
Just what I have seen! Watching People In the supermarket Pay for stuff, They reach into there pocket or purse For Money If they don't find it the first time most of the time they will put it into the other hand so they can reach back in to the pocket or purse and look agen!
I am sure That some Would do a take But I have not seen it! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Put or Take (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |