|
|
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
While trying out a simple coin effect for my wife (who was sitting across the room, some distance away), she focused her eagle eyes upon the half dollars upon my closeup pad and asked me, "How come one of them looks thicker than the others?"
Not wider in diameter, but "thicker" -- as in, slightly (but evidently noticeably) taller than the others. Now granted, she might be more eagle-eyed in watching me than most spectators, but nevertheless this is not the sort of question I ever want to hear. So my own question is, are all shells created equal in this aspect? Are some shells "deeper" than others, so as to sit lower (rather than higher) when covering a coin? Mine is not an expensive custom-made half dollar shell, but nor is it a cheapie. It's a Johnson expanded Kennedy half. It's an older one (the date on the coin is 1972), and it came out before they subsequently released their "new" model which featured a narrower rim around the circumference. But the problem here is of depth, not circumference. I understand that there must be a limit as to how deeply a shell can be hollowed out, but still, are some shells better than mine in this regard? Would a more expensive, custom-made shell fit over a coin in such a way as to be virtually undetectable, even to an experienced eye? Or do even the best shells sit slightly (visually detectably) higher when covering a coin than just a coin alone sits? When my old Johnson shell covers a coin, you can tell if you look at it on edge; a tiny sliver of the real coin is visible below the lower edge of the shell. I guess I'm asking if this is unavoidable no matter the manufacturer, or are there shells out there which do a more deceptive job when covering a coin?
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
I think it's how you handle it, in all honesty. It's quite possible to do excellent displays without showing the discrepant depth.
|
afinemesh Inner circle Senseless gibberish that amounts to 2621 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-15 22:25, tomsk192 wrote: I have to agree. (I know it sounds obvious), but perhaps you don't want your spectator looking from that particular angle. My Lassen Walking Liberty shell doesn't completely nest, but it's close!
"I've always been mental, I'm sure of it" Boris Pocus
"Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny". . .Bruce Springsteen |
Magician Shaun Special user Huntington BCH, CA 924 Posts |
Doing work with shells, whether it is coins, balls, or ingots, you need to not show the edge. It is about display angle, mostly. Try to make sure most views of the nested coins take place with the face perpendicular to the floor or if the spectator is in close parallel to it, but don't ever give them a long, clear, view of the edge.
With my Lassen Morgans it is noticeable if two coins are side by side. Here is a picture anyway you be the judge One of the two coins in the front has the shell. That is a pretty close up picture, I think the angle is good though. |
bowers Inner circle Oakboro N.C. 7024 Posts |
Nice set of coins..
|
wandmgc8 Regular user Tennessee 140 Posts |
I suppose one of the coins being covered could be altered to the thickness of the inside of the [ to fit perfectly, but then you would have to deal with the visibility of a thinner coin among the group when presented un-covered. However, the routine may,or may not, be friendly to this solution.
Michael |
Chessmann Inner circle 4242 Posts |
Hello, Karnak!
Do you still fear only the wrath of Amon-Ra...and not the little angers of an infidel?
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
|
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-16 01:16, wandmgc8 wrote: That would be problemsome, Michael. First, a shell with true full coverage would not allow the shell to be removed as easily; you would have to be sure to raise it straight up, particularly difficult when unnesting with one hand. Also, consider the view from the other side. Full covereage would make the edges of the shell more visible when viewing from the insert side of the nested gaff. Most exp. shells seem to cover roughly two thirds to three quarters of the edge of the insert. I have several shells, from Tango, Johnson, Bob Swadling, Schoolcraft, and one Lassen Barber half dollar shell. Best of the lot by far is the Lassen shell. I can hardly tell which coin it is sitting on when I look at a stack of Barbers! Next is probably the Schoolcraft, followed by the Swadlings, Johnson, and finally, the Tango shells. My Tangos are all from ~three years or more ago and all have a very flat relief; they don’t look very real at all IMO. Of my Swadlings, a couple are excellent and one is not so great - mainly because of the coin they selected for the shell; it was apparently very worn to start with, much more so than the fitted coins it came with. For the money, the Swadling and Johnson shells have the best cost-to-quality ratio, if you stay within the realm of generally affordable. The Lassen shell is a dream, but I can't afford to get any more for a while. Forget about the edge coverage concerns you are having, unless it is defective. Proper handling will not allow spectators to see what you are seeing. Your concerns are generally considered to be what is called Magician's Guilt. Jim |
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-16 01:18, Chessmann wrote: I will admit to some trepidation at the little angers of an infidel. I am more okay with the angers of a little infidel. (Now switching off obscure Mummy movie reference mode.)
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies thus far.
To further clarify at least one aspect of the issue that's still bothering me, it's not that my wife can see the bottom edge of the shell-covered coin from across the room; she's not looking at the coins that edge-on. Rather, she can just tell (and regardless of viewing distance or angle, unless perhaps a 90-degree bird's-eye-view) which coin looks "thicker" than the others. I tested this repeatedly with her, by mixing up the layout of the coins over and over, and she was always able to unfailingly point out the "thicker" (shell-covered) coin in every four-coin lineup. I guess the shell-covered coin just always stands out to her like a literally swollen sore thumb. You might not think that such a tiny incremental increase in height (maybe less than a millimeter?) would make such a difference, but evidently it does. She picked it out of the lineup every time, over and over, so it must be fairly obvious -- at least to those who are looking for it. Granted, most spectators will not be looking for it because they don't know what to look for, so maybe it's not really such a big deal. But the ease with which she could always spot the gaff, no matter its position, did give me pause. So, I take it that Lassen or Schoolcraft or Kueppers or other high-end shells are not necessarily any more deceptive, in this respect? I understand that it's ultimately a matter of angles and of directing audience attention or focus, but I'm still just wondering about the relative quality of the tool itself from different toolmakers. And it sounds like they're actually all pretty close, at least with regard to this particular depth/coverage aspect.
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
ask how
set the shell next to some coins (not nested) and see if she can tell and again ask how, specifically ask for what makes one of the coins in the row appear as different. valuable feedback IMHO
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-16 11:33, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Good idea. Will do. Thanks!
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
inigmntoya Inner circle DC area native, now in Atlanta 2350 Posts |
Quote:
She picked it out of the lineup every time, over and over, so it must be fairly obvious I'm sure most people can pick it out of a lineup. It's not something that's supposed to withstand being burned (though some high end stuff can). I think part of the initial problem was the across the room angle. It will be lower so more likely to see/notice height differences. After that your wife had something specific to look for so all bets are off. How close to each other were the coins placed? Farther spacing will help, as will not leaving them sitting out on display for too long. If you must leave them on the mat for a while, consider modifying your routine to hold out the shell during that time. Try doing that and ask if one looks thicker. |
Magician Shaun Special user Huntington BCH, CA 924 Posts |
I will say that knowing what to look for makes a huge, huge, huge, difference. Case in point:I ask my wife to tell me how this topit vanish looks. She says, "It looks like you threw it into your coat." A day or two later I do the same move again but instead I just say, "Hey, tell me how this looks." Now she replies, "Oooh, how did that happen."
Do you understand? |
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-16 20:04, Gr8gorilla wrote: I do. Sometimes they think you *must* have done it a different way. Let them so think. ;-)
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
videoman Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Karnak,
When your wife mixes up the coins for you, can you pick out the shell? I'm sure you can because you know what to look for. Is there anyone else you can use as a guinea pig? Here are a couple suggestions to help hide the extra thickness if you feel you must. 1. Keep the coins, especially the shelled coin, in your hands as much as possible. 2. While on the table, lay out the coins overlapped whenever possible. 3. Bring the coins out wrapped in something such as a handkerchief, you can even use it to polish the coins as you deliver your intro to the effect. Then lay the handkerchief on the table and place the coins on top of the handkerchief. You can even fold the handkerchief and lay the coins on top of the folded hanky for more cover if desired. This also creates a small "stage" to spotlight them. 4. Develop appropriate misdirection so that when the coins are on the table, the spectators attention is focused much higher up near your chest and face. 5. If other props are used in your routine, use them to disguise the shell. For instance, if your routine uses a glass, place the coins inside the glass rather than on the table, or place the coins under the mouth down glass. Finally, I have used Johnson shells for years and have never had an experience such as you described. However, I rarely have a table so only use routines I can do in my hands, and of course our hands can control angles much better than laying the coins flat on a table. |
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Great advice. Thanks!
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
BanzaiMagic Inner circle 1339 Posts |
One easy explanation for the differences in thickness (at least with older coins) is the natural variances in minting and wear. For example, coin collectors know that 1921 Morgan dollars are very noticeably thicker than other dates of Morgan dollars, which is why that date is often used for Ex shells. I have personally never had anyone notice a difference in thickness of a coin, but if I did, my approach would be to mention that it is funny how older coins vary so much in the way they were made.
Remember, be confident - and don't run if you are not being chased. Alan |
Mb217 Inner circle 9520 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-11-17 21:36, BanzaiMagic wrote: I have to so simply agree here. I guess if coins were let to just sit there to be gazed upon (as the pic from Mr. Gorilla above), probably a lot of eyes would see the difference eventually. Only they are not presented that way or seen that way by specs…In other words, it's not an issue that is even thought about, as mostly there is no reason to think it. I mean, how would you ever cross The Golden Gate Bridge if you didn't know of California to begin with…or something like that.
*Check out my latest: Gifts From The Old Country: A Mini-Magic Book, MBs Mini-Lecture on Coin Magic, The MB Tanspo PLUS, MB's Morgan, Copper Silver INC, Double Trouble, FlySki, Crimp Change - REDUX!, and other fine magic at gumroad.com/mb217magic
"Believe in YOU, and you will see the greatest magic that ever was." -Mb |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Trick coin trickery » » Shell depth/coverage? (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |