WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
KEN I AM HONORED

VINNY

I am ashamed to admit I had never seen Mickey's work until coming across this thread yesterday. Holy bananas, that coin goes IN his hand. I am convinced of it. What happens next must actually be magic. I was completely fooled. Beautiful stuff!

Agreed!

Ken

I have seen many perform the Retention Vanish and perform it well, however, Toni Polli from Milan Italy has turned this move into a piece of art. It is a must to see live, however, unless you live near Milan Italy or attend the 4F convention, you will have to see it on video. Below are two videos of Toni performing the Retention Vanish. I hope that you enjoy them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuN5gXrm5MA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPS7OScY4Q

And he has gotten better since the above two videos.

I don't know what to say…But have Toni watch what Mickey Silver does with this move, way beyond the basics. Seriously, it's the difference between a few steps and entire spiral staircase. I'm just sayin'.

Im Italian ands I respect all italian amgicians his van ish is no where near mMckeys SUV vanish/
I suggest you take a look at mickeys vanish. tgoins fingers move mickey's fingers don't
just sayin

Toni's vanish is very very good. However, there are a lot of magicians out there that can do that. I am also not a big fan of all the stylin attached to a simple vanish, but that's just my own opinion.

Mickey puts a better vanish in the context of some larger spectacular miracles....iand its done in a very relaxed and natural manner. Very different and nothing like it!

A great burn on Toni's vanish...thanks for posting, Antony.

chuck

I smile when I see the comparisons between all the retention vanishes out there, and the opinions on who has the best one. Any vanish, of any type , has to be convincing to be effective. If the coin looks as if it was placed in the hand, and the audience believes it, then it's an effective vanish. As for technique, I agree that Mickey's technique is flawless, and the way he has figured out how to use it is very special. He has been able to create a career by just using different applications of this move. But Mickey has a personna that is very individualized, as is his mannerisms. If one tried to duplicate Mickey, they would look awkward. If one tried to be Slydini, it would look awkward. The use of the move and the mannerisms such as Mickey using finger Palm would not look the same in another's hands. This retention vanish is fine. David Roth's retention technique is great. ROPS technique looks great. As is the moves and styles of anyone who can do a pass effectively. Look at clips from Dennis Behr and Larry Baronowski. Al Schneider (his snap back technique was the basis for my own techniques), and so many others. So that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

I agree 99 % and yes, I like M Silver a lot

Posted: Feb 21, 2015 04:10 am
I like Vinny's technique too. One of my favorites. Great use of sleight of hand

Very well put, Doctor.

My own education performing this move was from studying those you mentioned, in particular Larry Barnowsky's, Al Schneider's, and your own R.O.P.S..

(I should be fortunate enough to have such teachers in all I have studied!)

Thank you.

Jim

I agree with the good Doctor - lots of different styles and methods to accomplish the same thing and the true test is whether it convinces the spectator. But since there are so many different techniques to accomplish it, (thanks in part to all those who have so willingly shared their methods with the magic community thru publication), its only natural to compare. Its what we do as coin magicians, and its fun to look at various and unusual examples of excellence when they come along. And occasionally a paragon comes along and inspires us all.

And we all know, in the context of a larger routine, a good vanish doesn't even have to be of the "retention" variety to be convincing. I look at Gregory Wilson do his thing with his audience, but I wouldn't consider him a stickler on technique or his vanish of a coin(s) a " beautiful thing." But he is totally convincing and his magic is strong.

We compare because occasionally we come across exceptional examples and its fun to do this, even though we all know such levels of perfection are not necessary to execute good magic.

A more edifying conversation might be WHY a particular technique or execution is stronger than another - comparisons, when analyzed with detail, can inform.

Brady or Manning?

chuck

Mmmm... PSI of ball?





Jim

AgainMickey Silver has set the standard for the traditional retention vanish, and the burn he gets is second to none.
The doctor mentioned most of the coin greats , however theyall have finger tells. , but with Mickeys SUV there is no tell......Also the burn he gets with his SUV no one matches this.
Why do you think magicians all over ther world want to learn his technique,because his SUV is the best .
this is MHO and most other magicians as well.
vinny
lay people won't compare but magicians will

Vinny,

I don’t list Mickey's as a Retention Vanish I've studied because - I can't!!! It isn't taught to anyone - except you of course!

Jim

Jim not sure if he will ever reveal his technique, but if he did his dvd would sell out in minutes.
but for now this is why he is so sought after
vinny
. I hope one day he does reveal his suv and many of his great effects......

Finger motion in the putting hand after the action can tell on the sleight as it's visible to audience peripheral vision and can be plainly caught on camera.

easily offset by alternating a Retention Pass with an actual Put/Take and Kick-Back move.

The best way to show the Putting hand empty is to have it empty. This also has drawbacks, but it is the ability to "rewind" that is confused.

of curiosity -- why is being "caught on camera" of any concern at all?

?? Perihperal vision is darn good at catching flinches and finger motion during adjustments. The camera is even less forgiving. See video for example(s)

On a seperate matter - Vinny's pass from Crimp Position looks good in his video.

Yea, but you didn't answer my question. Why is what a camera sees relevant to what a spectator sees?