My One Coin Routine

Mar 27, 2010
136
0
Really nice routine and entertaining patter :D i would suggest doing the muscle pass slower, and instead of putting it in your hand, drop it and then do the muscle pass, just my two chilean pesos.
 
Mar 29, 2008
889
2
Interesting MK, I would suggest moving your right hand a little less for your muscle pass, it will look to the audience like you tossed it up, versus the magical moment of it "floating" to the other hand. Really frame that hand, so their is no movement and that moment will get gasps.

Also, if you pull the coin from a location, have it marked (or not) and it ends up there, then the ending will have more punch then just a vanish. After all - like in the movie "The Prestige" you can't just vanish something, it must come back for the effect to be complete.

Good work though, you present very articul...artic...well.
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
Also, if you pull the coin from a location, have it marked (or not) and it ends up there, then the ending will have more punch then just a vanish. After all - like in the movie "The Prestige" you can't just vanish something, it must come back for the effect to be complete.


Not always true... If his patter is "time rewinds before the coin was even there", then the coin should not reappear. Sometimes it's good to have the audience think "where the hell did the coin go?!"
 
Oct 29, 2009
971
0
Just around
Not bad! Better than me at coin magic:D (although I'm working on it). As for the muscle pass, that's something I've worked on for months and months, so I can provide some help with that.

Try not to have so much movement of the right hand. Keep it stationary. Having a tossing motion is a no no. Just keep working on it and you'll get it down.

Also, if you can, try to catch the coin with the fingertips. Much much better looking that way. That's still something I'm working on.

Loved the sleeving at the end! Totally did not see it. Cool.


Cheers
 
Mar 29, 2008
889
2
“Not always true” – can you give me an example where you just vanish something and walk away in any other routine?
How do you answer, as an adult talking to another intelligent adult, “Where the hell did it go” – please don’t say, “it vanished”, because an intelligent adult knows that you can’t really make things vanish. When they ask a question, it is better to give them an INCREDIBLE answer, rather than leave it in the air. No resolution is equal to no ending; do you want your magic to have no ending?
Moreover, if you are using the plot as a point of validity, then so will I.
In “hypothetical” time travel...that coin would have been a slug, a sheet of metal, a bar of metal, liquid perhaps ...LONG before it was supposedly “nothing”.
So what is more plausible to the audiences mind – you made a coin travel back to the point where you pulled it out of an impossible location, satisfying the question, “Where did it go” – or trying to convince the audience that it isn’t hidden. I think trying to convince people that it “traveled back to the moment where it wasn’t there” will be far more difficult a stretch then showing it ended up back in a coin purse, or another impossible location of where it started at the beginning of the routine. Far more commercial and full circle of a routine, plus with the other phases it makes more sense.
If MK was turning it into a slug, then beads of metal, then vanish the beads...the argument could be made that it travels back in time in big leaps – but the first two phases are time travel of a few moments, then I am to jump to believe that it travelled back years, perhaps decades before it existed. I know that may sound like over thinking it – but try it the other way and see for yourself. I am sure MK will.
It is odd we talk so much magic and card theory on these sites, but so little is discussed about coin theory, and when it is, it seems like opinion based. Anyhow, good luck with the routine MK, in the end, you are the one that decides – and apparently that is why we consider it an art.
 
Jul 8, 2008
444
1
Pretty nice as a simple routine :D I can suggest poilishing a bit of everything. No offense. Your classic palm is decent but you need to do a few pinky pull-ups, if you know what I mean :p THat and your retention pass and sleeving (sorry if that's exposure, I felt the pain of a snapping wrist). I must seem like a douche right now haha. But seriously, it was nice. Just keep going. PM me if you'd like, I have lots of work on the plot
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
No resolution is in fact NOT the same as no ending. Whether it be in music or film, and magic relates to both.

To your other points, I do believe Eric Jones does some coin routines where all of the coins vanish, and are not reproduced (ie. 'Oxy Clean'). What about Miser's Dream? Another huge magic effect where all the coins you've produced vanish? Would you just pull out your pockets and have however many coins you produced fall out?

Now, I am in now way a proficient coin magician, but I think the plot works well for laymen. You do this routine for someone with the same patter, there is no way the person will say "Um, if it really went back in time please show me a sheet of uncut metal." Logically, if you're performing magical acts, you should be able to vanish a piece of currency. If your conviction is strong enough, then the spectator shouldn't even wonder where the coin went.

I will wait for your retort.
 

Luis Vega

Elite Member
Mar 19, 2008
1,799
200
35
Leon, Guanajuato Mexico
luisvega.com.mx
I think it was pretty good...

but as usual I am not so fond with the kind of patter you use...I am more like brutally honest in my patter...to say this coin can travel back to time wouldn`t be right with me...

but that`s just me....

btw..you muscle pass is good...aside of what people are saying that looks like you are trowing the coin up..I disagre...it looked nice!!
 
Sep 1, 2007
341
133
36
Calgary
A few points:

1. With the muscle pass, the whole illusion is created because the minimum of movement creates an unexpected amount of propulsion. So the less hand movement, the better.

2. Also, you do not have to bring vanished objects back. That's just dumb. How stupid would you look reproducing the deck of cards at the end of David Stone's GHOST card trick? The climax of the effect is the deck vanishing. Any event can create resolution for the effect, so long as it fits the script and is a strong climax. Be it vanish, production, change, or any other magical effect.

3. Normally, I hate hearing the words "right hand" and "left hand" used in patter... as it's almost patronizing. WE CAN SEE WHICH HAND THE COIN IS IN. But, in this instance, it's not so bad, because you're demonstrating a phenomena between the two hands. Still, I'd like to see you come up with better patter for that first phase.

4. Are you filming this in the bathroom? Copy cat. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EugnzIGNE

5. Don't speak during the actual muscle pass. Pause- it's a strong effect, and you want their entire focus on the coin. Your words lessen the effect if I have to listen as well as watch.

6. Come up with a closing remark, other than going "tsk" accompanied by a nod.

More ideas...

Have you thought about incorporating a watch into this effect, as a production item?

Is there a way to SHOW time going backwards? Perhaps you could rewind all of your movements as well. Or even say some words backwards as you rewind.

That way, time is effected entirely, not just solely on the coin.

Anywho, that should be enough talk for now.

Scott.
 
Mar 29, 2008
889
2
No resolution is in fact NOT the same as no ending. Whether it be in music or film, and magic relates to both.

Actually, by definition, I think no resoulution is the same as no ending - moreover, having no ending in music or film usually results in poor music or film. Furthermore, even though you think both relate, they are very different, so let's not use those as points to ponder, as neither has the same theory behind it as magic, bits perhaps, but not enough to create a strong argument.

To your other points, I do believe Eric Jones does some coin routines where all of the coins vanish, and are not reproduced (ie. 'Oxy Clean'). What about Miser's Dream? Another huge magic effect where all the coins you've produced vanish? Would you just pull out your pockets and have however many coins you produced fall out?

Sure, but with both the routines you named, you start off with nothing, and end with nothing - full circle logical thinking. Starting with something, then ending with nothing...seems incomplete, and poor construction of the routine. So, even though I didn't state that earlier, I can accept ending with nothing, just not in this routine. It doesn't flow like it would the others.

Now, I am in now way a proficient coin magician, but I think the plot works well for laymen. You do this routine for someone with the same patter, there is no way the person will say "Um, if it really went back in time please show me a sheet of uncut metal." Logically, if you're performing magical acts, you should be able to vanish a piece of currency. If your conviction is strong enough, then the spectator shouldn't even wonder where the coin went.

Here you start with a very interesting line - "I am in now way a proficient coin magician" - which should be followed with, "but I will spout my half baked untested uneducated thoughts on the concept anyways" - but you were right about something...no audience member will ask about the sheet of metal...but they will realize that your plot is childish and disconnected unless it is theatrically sound and makes enough sense to give reason for what is happening. Actually, you say so many things wrong in your last paragraph, that I don't know where to start. Tell me more of this strong conviction that makes people stop asking where the coin is, Mr. I am not proficient? What is logical about being able to vanish something? However, the audience won't think logically about where the coin is?

Coin theory 101 - People will never believe the coin is full gone, they realize it is sleight of hand - build your coin work around this premise and it will be easier to understand how to fool them.

Tell you what - let's let MK figure it out - Kras, come up with an ending where the coin starts in your shoe...as that is where I kept my change when I didn't have pockets and was young...then do the routine, and have it end up back in your shoe. See if that gets a better reaction then purely vanishing it at the end. I am willing to bet it plays better.

Afterall, making it vanish and go into the other hand, jump from hand to hand, then vanish completely...I mean, doesn't the last phase seem like a half step of the first phase? Where is the build? I think RL, you are falling in love with the sequence of methods, and not the plot and impact to the audience...but what more can I expect from a non-proficient coin worker, ha.

Happy I "retorted"?
 

Luis Vega

Elite Member
Mar 19, 2008
1,799
200
35
Leon, Guanajuato Mexico
luisvega.com.mx
Sure, but with both the routines you named, you start off with nothing, and end with nothing - full circle logical thinking. Starting with something, then ending with nothing...seems incomplete, and poor construction of the routine. So, even though I didn't state that earlier, I can accept ending with nothing, just not in this routine. It doesn't flow like it would the others.
?

I think Silver Dream by Justin Miller starts with 3 coins and end with nothing and I don´t think it looks incomplete...I think patter can justify the vanishing of the coins...and also a full vanish of the coins..not just palm them
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
Actually, by definition, I think no resoulution is the same as no ending - moreover, having no ending in music or film usually results in poor music or film.

Obviously, you listen to only what you hear on the radio. If you listen to music that has anything more than 'Chorus Verse Chorus Verse Bridge Chorus' then you might understand to what I'm referring to.

Here you start your phrase correctly with "I think". You must not know what Resolve and Conclude mean.

Furthermore, even though you think both relate, they are very different, so let's not use those as points to ponder, as neither has the same theory behind it as magic, bits perhaps, but not enough to create a strong argument.

Music and Film don't relate to magic? Hmm... Timing, Rhythm, Storytelling, Acting... you're right.. there are NO similarities there!

Sure, but with both the routines you named, you start off with nothing, and end with nothing - full circle logical thinking. Starting with something, then ending with nothing...seems incomplete, and poor construction of the routine.

You asked me to name some effects where something vanished and didn't come back, so I did. I don't think it feels incomplete at all. I'm sure people that use pulls don't reproduce what they vanish.

Here you start with a very interesting line - "I am in now way a proficient coin magician" - which should be followed with, "but I will spout my half baked untested uneducated thoughts on the concept anyways" - but you were right about something...no audience member will ask about the sheet of metal...but they will realize that your plot is childish and disconnected unless it is theatrically sound and makes enough sense to give reason for what is happening. Actually, you say so many things wrong in your last paragraph, that I don't know where to start. Tell me more of this strong conviction that makes people stop asking where the coin is, Mr. I am not proficient? What is logical about being able to vanish something? However, the audience won't think logically about where the coin is?

Spouting half baked thoughts? Looking at half of what you wrote looks like half baked thoughts to me.

Conviction? Have you heard of it? This goes back to the 'Fooling' vs. 'Entertaining' debate. If you're performing miracles, then you proceed to make a coin vanish, the audience shouldn't wonder where the coin goes. The reason being, you've shown yourself doing the unexplainable.

Me saying I'm not proficient in coin magic has nothing to do with the points I'm making. I'm not trying to help on palms, or routines.

But please, go on with your theory and reasoning. You sure are educating me with your 'knowledge'. I would love to see some examples that go along with your 'logic'.

I think Silver Dream by Justin Miller starts with 3 coins and end with nothing and I don´t think it looks incomplete...I think patter can justify the vanishing of the coins...and also a full vanish of the coins..not just palm them

2. Also, you do not have to bring vanished objects back. That's just dumb. How stupid would you look reproducing the deck of cards at the end of David Stone's GHOST card trick? The climax of the effect is the deck vanishing. Any event can create resolution for the effect, so long as it fits the script and is a strong climax. Be it vanish, production, change, or any other magical effect.
 
Mar 29, 2008
889
2
Hmm, not sure what any of your last post has to do with Kras' routine, as it read like you trying to stamp into me your incoherent points.

Perhaps you aren't aware that resolution...or denouement is the same as "the end". In literary terms, and building plots, these terms are used. Perhaps if you read a book, you would know...oh, but you are too busy listening to unpopular music?!

Well, so I can spell it out for you - the difference between music/film and close up magic is many - the audience is usually not willingly suspending their disbelief...that you are using more than just once sense...to name a few. So although their is overlap, magic overlaps with many things...and I just didn't want to get into that analogy discussion, and just focus on magic.

The full circle concept existed in the effects you named, and I gave you credit, however, it doesn't in the routine we are supposed to be discussing...umm, there is a routine we were discussing here right?

Your last paragraph was you trying to take a stab...you just come across like a big douchebag. Look, I obviously understand conviction, but what does that have to do with how people think about coin magic. They may truly believe a coin is in your hand, but when it is gone, they don't believe it went to the heavens...they believe it is hidden somewhere.

Which leads me to Scott's concept - Ghost is just an unfinished version of deck to pocket. Now, I worked for years doing David Williamson's deck to pocket. When I would pull the cards out of my pocket, they would say, "How did they get into your pocket"? The answer...I jammed them in there. However, with some reconstruction, I realized that it was about timing. Where did the cards go...which is asked in Ghost - some random guy doing it poorly below to prove the point...and the question..."but where did the cards go"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpCwioDg0Y

I learnt when I resolved that question in a magical way, it had a more satisfying ending for the audience. If they reappear in a box that was empty, or even out of your pocket at that point if it fits the plot (it doesn't in Stone's effect).

The question...where did it go...will always be asked in their head, or out loud, which is fine. I guess you don't feel the need to answer it, but showing it went somewhere amazing, I feel gives the effect more meaning.

I find it odd that you don't see the value in the reproduction of the coin in an impossible spot - in both a plot growth and building concept.

So to iterate:

Coin vanishes...is reproducted in other hand
Coin is dropped...rewinds to float to other hand
Coin is vanished...and THE END?

I don't see this as a satisfying ending, but that is me, especially because the phases build to that point, but I don't see how half the first phase is more amazing then the previous two? Can you explain that to me?

This is what we are talking about, right?
 
Jan 5, 2010
658
2
Alabama
I will try to make this post a little clearer, and less of a 'stab' at you.

Actually I have read many books. One that stands out is "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz. Which is where I've pulled most of my argument by the way.

Also, since we're speaking literary terms here, another book stands out. It's called "The Mangler" by Stephen King which also has no resolution. Yet does this mean the plot is bad, and needs to be reworked?

I can see where you are coming from, reproducing a coin is certainly one way to go. Although you make it seem like it is the ONLY way an effect can be done. I feel there is a reason Micheal decided to vanish the coin completely rather than drop his arm and pull the coin out of his shoe.

I believe having an object vanish is one of the most powerful things a magician can do. We're getting out of the realm of 'coin magic' and into the realm of 'magic'.

I know that Micheal wanted opinions from the members 'here', but he also needs to know what laymen would think. So I believe he should do what you ask. To go out and perform this for laymen, doing each method and deciding on which he likes the best.

I'm not looking to 'fool' my spectator, I'm looking to 'astonish' them. Leaving them with no questions, and a vanish (done correctly) will get that reaction.

I'll look at your last point this way:

Card is chosen and returned to the deck, then is found reversed.
The chosen card is taken out and replaced, then it jumps to the top of the deck.
The performer takes the card puts it between his hands, and the card vanishes.

I find this builds to a climax, and leaves no loose ends. You're the magician, you have the 'power'.

Again, I want to take this moment to reiterate.. this is my OPINION, this is what works for ME. Scott and Luis have this same opinion from what I can tell. I stand by every point I have made.

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" - Willy Wonka
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results