Being Sunk by a (False) Transfer

[Ian Kendall]

put the coin in your left hand, and close it (not one finger at a time or any nonsense like that--just close your hand around the coin).

So good to read that - it's what I've said all along :)

Ian

[Jonathan Townsend]

put the coin in your left hand, and close it (not one finger at a time or any nonsense like that--just close your hand around the coin).

So good to read that - it's what I've said all along :)

Ian

Interesting - as then you'd have an isolated left hand closing over a coin long after the right hand has gone its way.

[Dustin Stinett]

Jonathan, I really must say that I find what youre saying clear as mud.

As far as this statement goes: Interesting - as then you'd have an isolated left hand closing over a coin long after the right hand has gone its waythats not what I said, its not what Ian said, and I think you know that.

We all get the fact that we dont want to do anything magiciany: that should be a given, and is the whole point here.

But a put is not a studied transfer and therefore not a tell. It seems like you are saying that the transfer of a coin from one hand to another should go virtually unnoticed by the observer. If thats the case, how does one get the observer to be invested in the fact that the coin is in the hand if they dont see you putting it there in the first place?

One cannot just show a closed fist, open it, and claim a coin that was there disappeared. Mustnt there be evidence that the coin was there in the first place?

And this isnt just relevant to coin magic. The Cups and Balls immediately come to mind. Just last night I watched Suzannes wonderful routine. Ive watched this routine, its presentation, and her technique progress over the years. Her mechanics are sound and elegant. There is no doubt at all that the balls go into her left hand. (After all, how could she pick up a cup with a ball in her hand too?) She receives audible reactionsgasps if you willfrom the lay audience when she shows that the ball is gone.

Does she throw a spotlight on the put (her transfer)? No, but neither does she downplay it since its an integral part of the story shes telling.

False transfers need motivation whether through presentation, as with Suzannes story, or logistics (put this here to get that there). And the technique must be solid. But for there to be an effect of a disappearance, the viewer needs to be aware that something went into that hand andmost importantly (which is where motivation and technique come into play)be invested in the notion that the coin is where, to borrow an Al Schneider phrase, the magician intends it to be.

Dustin

[Jonathan Townsend]

And when you did the exercise outlined in the post you learned... what?

Even our beginner readers are expected to understand that the exercise using a coin applies as well to a ball and the wand in context of the cups trick.

For reference, I posted quite some time ago that the put/close action has some natural context when one already has items in the recieving hand and a concern that they not spill out. Still, that's a distraction from the exercise where you get to observe reality in context and learn. So much better to find such things on your own IMHO.

What did you learn from doing the exercise?

[Dustin Stinett]

Well, since your description of the exercise makes zero sense, I didn't do it.

The second object is a foot away from the coin. To the left? Right? Forward? Backward?

Do I pick up the second object with the left hand? (In which case, I would have learned that I can pick up two objects simultaneouslysomething I was pretty confident that I could do.) Perhaps I could toss in a little of Tamarizs Crossing the Gaze in there and get something from it.

Now, if the lessonwhich I suspected you were getting atis to have two objects within close proximity of the right hand. The first is picked up then transferred to the left hand so the right can pick up the second object (hence my allusion to logistic motivation). But now the receiving hand has something in it?

Like I said: clear as mud.

Dustin

[Ian Kendall]

At the risk of delving deeper into JTLand (even if the last deliberately misinterpreted message begs it) I'll offer another, equally enlightening experiment. I call it the Small Child Test.

First, place a small child into your left hand - no, wait, come back!

Find a small child - around five to eight years is best. Give them a small coin and tell them to place it into the other hand, and close the fingers over it. Watch closely, because you'll learn a heck of a lot more than doing it yourself in the mirror.

If we are bringing the cups into the equation, perhaps we should all read chapter two of the Vernon Book of Magic again. In fact, we should all do that anyway, but now you have a reason.

Take care, Ian

[Jonathan Townsend]

Dustin, folks,

How about putting a coin at the edge of the table to your right and another coin or sugar cube at the edge of the table but further to your right, say about a foot?

Pick up the first coin. Now pick up the second coin to wave over the first as if to make some magic happen. Notice what you do - not the "make some magic happen" but the actions of picking up the items. Somewhere in there will be a transfer. That's the action without tells we need to learn.

Second exercise, a pile of coins on the right. Put them one by one into the other hand. Notice when your receiving hand starts to close each time you put a coin in. Again, that's the action we need to notice and recall.

Sure it's clear as mud in text. It's a kinesthetic thing. A doing. No "gaze", "theory" or even a specific action to describe except what is. Audiences know this stuff and notice it without need of special language. What worked well for some of us at one time might not be well suited for others or at all times. :)

[Dustin Stinett]

You didnt make that clear before, Jonathan. Go back and reread your original description of the exercise. A statement that can mean anything means nothing (Michael Crichton, I do believe).

Now, yes, a transfer happens. Yes, its natural and thats where we want to be. But the put is not the tell. A contrived action is the telland (I believe) this goes all the way back to Ians original statement that, in his estimation, the RoV Vanish is contrived and therefore blows.

My comment was that The Professors RoV Vanish, in his hands, did not appear at all contrived. He just put the coin in his hand.

And then he made it disappear. (As I must now do.)

Dustin

[Bill Mullins]

Sure it's clear as mud in text.

It's clear as mud -- not because the actions you are describing inherently confusing, but because you don't use written English as a tool to convey ideas with accuracy and precision.

Try Hemingway sometime, Jonathan. Short, declarative sentences. Subject and predicates. No classical allusions, no outdated acronyms ("BBS" fell off the map years ago), no suggestions that Klingon will be informative. He gets to the point by a direct path, says what he wants to say AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID, without any padding. Give it a try.

[Ian Kendall]

My comment was that The Professors RoV Vanish, in his hands, did not appear at all contrived. He just put the coin in his hand.

It sounds like my approach and that of the Professor are similar, except that I would not describe what he espouses as a 'Retention of Vision' vanish, simply because there is none.

For me, and the purpose of my arguement, a RoV involves either the inane curling of the fingers around a coin, or the studied twisting or turning of the coin as it is placed into the hand (usually to 'catch the light' and 'burn the image of the coin into the retina' and other crap). Or, in fact, drawing undue attention to the simple action of placing an object into a hand.

Ian

[Richard Hatch]

My comment was that The Professors RoV Vanish, in his hands, did not appear at all contrived. He just put the coin in his hand.

It sounds like my approach and that of the Professor are similar, except that I would not describe what he espouses as a 'Retention of Vision' vanish, simply because there is none.

For me, and the purpose of my arguement, a RoV involves either the inane curling of the fingers around a coin, or the studied twisting or turning of the coin as it is placed into the hand (usually to 'catch the light' and 'burn the image of the coin into the retina' and other crap). Or, in fact, drawing undue attention to the simple action of placing an object into a hand.

Ian

Unless I'm misunderstanding something (I probably am!), Vernon's vanish being discussed was clearly a Retention of Vision vanish. He was inspired by the Crawford vanish in ART OF MAGIC. In describing the move on the Revelation tapes (as one phase of his coins and glass routine), he emphasized that it helps if the coin is shiny. It is not a simple transfer done on the offbeat, but an overt move that he wants the spectators to watch closely (he bet his young sons they couldn't tell which hand held the coin in order to test the retention). He describes the five coin vanish sequence as "a display of dexterity" rather than "magic" due, probably, to the unnatural nature of the RoV transfer.

[Dustin Stinett]

I'm back (visible again, for the moment), and yes, Dai Vernon's false transfer was absolutely a RoV vanish.

[Richard Kaufman]

You can find the Vernon sleight in Greater Magic, along with its parent by T.J. Crawford. Both are clearly retention of vision vanishes.

[Leonard Hevia]

Thanks for clearing up a small mystery Mr. Hatch. Your post on the Revelations video does indeed confirm that Vernon discusses the RoV Vanish in his explication of "Coins to Glass."

The reflection of the coin as you (put it in your hand?) should be incidental. If you pause and wave it to increase the reflection, it may raise suspicion a bit too much. Perhaps that is the tell: the small pause, the frameup right before the put that telegraphs you are about to do something that isn't kosher. That small pause and frameup can also ruin a good Pass.

Perhaps there is a fine line that the Rov balances on. You want your audience to notice/watch you place the coin in your left hand, as opposed to the incidental Ramsay style false transfer that should not be overtly noticed. Yet you also want to avoid making a suspicious "move" out of it.

[Richard Hatch]

Thanks for clearing up a small mystery Mr. Hatch. Your post on the Revelations video does indeed confirm that Vernon discusses the RoV Vanish in his explication of "Coins to Glass."

Hi Leonard, it is at the end of volume 4 (combined with volume 3 in the L&L DVD compilation). He discusses the theory of the vanish at some length. The details of Vernon's handling are given at length with good illustrations in volume one of the Vernon Chronicles by Stephen Minch, pp. 185-190 under the title "The Persistence-of-Vision Coin Vanish."

[Jonathan Townsend]

One can get a "burn" on about any false transfer. Not sure why folks are conflating the retention of vision aspect of a false transfer with the flow of action used in making that transfer, which may or may not strike the audience as awkward, contrived or suspicious.

[Jonathan Townsend]

At the risk of delving deeper into JTLand (even if the last deliberately misinterpreted message begs it) I'll offer another, equally enlightening experiment. I call it the Small Child Test.

First, place a small child into your left hand - no, wait, come back!

Find a small child - around five to eight years is best. Give them a small coin and tell them to place it into the other hand, and close the fingers over it. Watch closely, because you'll learn a heck of a lot more than doing it yourself in the mirror.

If we are bringing the cups into the equation, perhaps we should all read chapter two of the Vernon Book of Magic again. In fact, we should all do that anyway, but now you have a reason.

Take care, Ian

I'm all for experiments and small children as observers/detectors.

I'd go with having several items in ones right hand jacket pocket and a small bag to ones left on the table.
Tell them you'd like to know if they are good at counting.
Taking out one item at a time, place one on the table to your right and then the next into the bag (using your false transfer). Then after two or three repeats apparently put one more into the bag. Now comes the test:

Ask them - are there more in the bag or more on the table?

Preloading the bag with something you can give a child (with their guardian's permission) sets up a suitable outcome for the experiment and magic.

[Ian Kendall]

Or we could break with tradition and not make it more complicated than needed...

[Dustin Stinett]

You mean like, "Just put it in your hand"? :)

[Jonathan Townsend]

Maybe, you'll know when you reliably get "there are more in the bag" type answers.

Expect to get plenty of "deer in the headlights" awkward responses as you start this experiment and learning experience.

[Ian Kendall]

I have done this experiment, several times over the years. And you know what? There were no 'deer in headlights' moments. The kids just put the coin into their other hand.

Maybe Scottish kids are less susceptible to headlights...

[Jonathan Townsend]

The experiment I outlined is for your false transfer and to get a measure of just how much conviction they have about what's where.

A more refined question would be something like "would you like as many are there are on the table or as many as there are in the bag" - to implicitly test their inner model of what they saw.

BTW you're still missing the tell - the specific motivation for "why are you putting a coin in your hand?" when we all know that coin is inert and will stay wherever it is unless something in addition acts upon it.

[Ian Kendall]

Jebers, I'm close to giving up here...

The 'experiment' I proposed was to see how a child transfers an item from hand to hand, which will be completely devoid of the studied mannerisms of many RoV moves that are out there. Not as a benchmark for the efficacy of my own technique. I've written quite extensively elsewhere on how to tell if your transfer has been deceptive (and that one doesn't involve kids).

[Jonathan Townsend]

For that experiment try this: Show them a coin and hold it in front of them with your left hand and ask them to hold it (they take it from you with their right hand). After they have the coin ask them to hold the coin up for folks to see but indicate that action with your right hand. They will first hold up the coin in the hand it's in - then after you cue them again will do that natural transfer action and proceed to mirror you.

:)

[Ian Kendall]

Mirroring you will destroy the experiment! You are trying to see how someone uncluttered by adult thinking would do something. _You_ should be mirroring them!

Seriously, why do you want to make things more complicated than they are? Just get a kid, give them a coin and ask them to hold it in their other fist. Job done - observe and report.

[Jonathan Townsend]

"hold it in your other hand" - i can go with that :)

[Michael Close]

I published this idea quite a while ago; I don't remember where. Here's how I think the experiment should be set up. (And this works for adults or kids.)

1. Set up a video camera to record the subject. (The reason for this is that you don't have to look at them when they do the transfer.)

2. Put two small balls, one black and one white, in front of the spectator, who sits opposite you.

3. Have an index card with instructions written on it. You read from this card. The spectator follows the instructions.

4. Read the first instruction: "Please hold the white ball in your right hand."

5.As soon as the spectator picks up the ball, look down at the index card (and don't take your eyes off of it) and say, "I'm sorry. That's wrong. The white should be in your left hand; hold the black ball in your right hand.

By keeping your attention on the card, you will put no undue emphasis on the transfer, making the spectator less self-conscious about it. The video camera records what you need to know.

Close

[Leonard Hevia]

That's a great idea Mr. Close. It reads like a psychological experiment. It proves that magicians who care about elevating the quality of their magic can go to great lengths, sometimes deviously, to refine their performances.

Thanks again Mr. Hatch for the information on the Revelations DVD. That will be a high priority to obtain. I believe that the description of the RoV Vanish in the first volume of the Vernon Chronicles is the best description in print right now. A close second that I would recommend is the two-page write-up of David Roth's suggestions that was published on page 260 of Kaufman's Coinmagic. There is great advice there, from a great book on coin magic.

The appeal (for me, anyway) of the RoV Vanish is the aspect of conviction. Tommy Wonder wrote that if you can increase the conviction in your magic, you can wring out stronger effects. What if you could really place the coin in your left hand and let the audience see it before your fingers close over it? That would be the ideal vanish. The RoV Vanish gets us as close to that as possible--without gimmicks. When the RoV Vanish is correctly executed, it doesn't seem possible from the perpective of the audience to sneak the coin back out at the last possible moment.

[Pete McCabe]

At Magic-Con 2011 the highlight of Friday night was an almost-never-before-seen film of Vernon giving a lecture (at the age of 79).

He showed and taught the retention vanish, which he used five times in a row in the coins and glass routine. (Well, four times, with a feint on the fifth.) He did not specifically call it a "retention" vanish but used "persistence of vision" which I believe was the more common term of the day.

[Richard Kaufman]

The tape of the Vernon lecture was stunning.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thanks, is there a clip on YouTube or what?

There's an interesting moment on the Vernon Revelation tapes volume 2 where he's got a coin in hand and starts to talk about Ramsay and takes versus puts. This comes right after half doing a pivot type vanish in his third demonstration of the "reach for the pack of cards" example for motivating a transfer.

IMHO put cues the audience to look for the "to do what" while take cues the audience to follow the coin to where it's being taken.