Hi

Have a shell coin from ahopping halves set. Its not expanded-rather it fits on a half dollar slightly smaller. Could this be used for a coins across or a matrix-effect? If so, do you have a favourite, preferable on video?

Roth's shelled coins across would work apart from the 3rd phase - just change that move slightly and it would be fine.
The only difference with a non-expanded is you can't move the [ to different coins, so just think how you can adapt other routines.

Never quite got why people used these non-X[s with shaved coins? I know they work for what they do, but an X[ seems to be the better way to go. It fits any of the regular coins used with it, and or any other coins that are the same denomination as the [ . Probably one came before the other, but once the other came... I'm just sayin'.

I suppose as long as you can use the coin as an extra and you don't spin it around, you can perform any other effects. My reasoning for using these styles is the slightly smaller size aides in gripping the coin much better. I would find out what company made that set (if possible) and try and obtain duplicate coins to fit inside of the coin. Thank goodness that coins are made out of metal so even if you had this version of a shell, as long as you didn't lose the coins, it should be a one time purchase.

Most material will work, with a couple of modifications, but some routines just don't work with an unexpanded [. This is because in some routines the [ needs to work with different coins in the course of the routine.

The Tango Ultimate Coin has the same problem / feature, so I would say that any coins across routine that works for the TUC should work with an unexpanded [.

The coins across routine I use, for instance, doesn't work with an unexpanded [ and probably couldn't be made to work with one because it relies on a move that leaves the coin in one hand and the [ in the other, with a different coin.

Also, some coins across routines involve giving the audience a pretty good look at the ungaffed coins - most unexpanded [ I've seen (especially those in HH sets) don't have very convincing milling around the edge - it looks clearly different. An example would be "imagination coins" by Garrett Thomas. I know it can be managed, and I know most people won't spot it, but I think it's asking for trouble putting an unconvincing gaff in an audience member's hand. The "imagination coins" routine itself is excellent, but you need a decent shell.

I think the original idea of non-X[s was that there is no distortion in the face created by "expanding" the shell. However, today's master coin-gaff makers seem to have advanced technologically enough to eliminate that distortion.

I think another reason for the non-E-[ is that they are cheaper to make, and can sell for less. At least I almost got a set before I realize that some dealers/manufactures sell them.

Also, one of the ['s in a typical hoping half has to be a non-E-[

The main reason is that in the olden days, circa 1970, the quality of Xed coins was very poor. The edge bulged and was very apparent.
At that time Johnson Products was the prime manufacturer of gimmicked coins. Magicians resorted to fitted shells, which are much more expensive, because they were not so detectable. Some are still in use today although the appearance of Xed shells has improved greatly.

Well also it said In Bobo's "Borrow four Half's" You can't Borrow 4 cut down Half's ! So people started Using Expanded Shells! But Non-Expanded Shells And Cut down Coins Are Find These Days! As you Can't do that!

Some people Don't even know What a Half is!

In his explanation of his [ coins across, Roth says that the non-X[ was how they were originally made. I didn't know this. Then, when X['s started to be made, the edges were not very good, as mentioned above. There was also some distortion of the face involved. X['s have gotten much better, but some gaff makers started reverting to making non-X['s as an alternative because some find the re-milled edges on the non-gaffed coins to be easier to p**m.

James Lewis has an effect in his booklet entitled, "Thinking About Magic" in which an Okito Box is used in conjunction with a non-expanded shell.

Best,

Dorian Rhodell

One advantage of a cut down one is that it will fit in an okito box. I don't have a cut down [, but I'm sure many avenues could be explored with this.

I had forgotten about that, although the Shufton Okito box is designed to take an X[.

David Roth's set does as well.

Well, since I just found my TUC today and reading this post, I was looking at mine and my TUC (with shaved insert inside) appears not quite as deep as a regular 50 cent piece. Then I wondered about putting an expanded [ over the TUC. Seems to work just fine. Of course, in looking at it now I'm thinking a TUC with some sort of magnetic slippery sam would probably make for a pretty darned good three-fly. Maybe such a set already exists?