Impromptu & borrowed object through bill // BANKRUPT by Lloyd Barnes

Discuss products and their reviews in Genii.

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/25/11 02:06 PM

Hey everyone,

Image

I've released a new effect called Bankrupt. It's a straw (or a similar object) through bill. It's been getting some good things said about it over at the cafe and I'd like to share it with you all.

You borrow both the bill and straw and you don't need any gimmicks for it.

The demo and instant download are available here: Bankrupt by Lloyd Barnes

Here's a thread from over at the cafe with some reviews on it: Click Here

Anyways, hope you digg it, drop me a PM if you have any questions.

Cheers,

Lloyd
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Philippe Billot » 06/25/11 02:30 PM

What's the difference with David Harkey's version?
Philippe Billot
 
Posts: 930
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: PARIS - FRANCE

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/25/11 02:32 PM

As with many of these non gaffed variations of Timothy Wenk's "misled", the secret fold isn't nearly (or particularly) effective as the gaff in disguising the fact that the pencil/straw/whatever is always placed behind and never inside the bill proper. Wenk's gaff allow displays that convincingly show the bill punctured. These ungaffed versions lose that and also much of their effect.

Compare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3CFrUGmro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8WKwCaiZt4
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/25/11 02:36 PM

Hey,

For this method there is no secret fold. The method is far from it. If you look at the trailer, you can clearly see that the straw is between the bill. I'll send 1 copy of this to someone so they can confirm.

Cheers,

Lloyd
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/25/11 02:40 PM

No secret fold? Then how about a bit of card used as a flap to make it appear that the straw or card is inside? Or a halfway/partially (from the middle) split straw? All are very common ways of achieving this.

What makes this one worth $10 in comparison to what we already have available?

The upshot is that it looks pretty poor compared to the standard Wenk gaffed version which can be had for a similar price. And in that version, done properly, why would anyone suspect a gaff at all?
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/25/11 02:48 PM

Chris Aguilar wrote:No secret fold? Then how about a bit of card used as a flap to make it appear that the straw or card is inside? Or a slit straw? All are very common ways of achieving this.

What makes this one worth $10 in comparison to what we already have available?

The upshot is that it looks pretty poor compared to the standard Wend gaffed version. And in that version, done properly, why would anyone suspect a gaff at all?

Nope, no secret fold, no card, no slit straw.

Nothing says this is worth $10, nothing say's it's not worth $100 or $1. I have about 5 or 6 pieces to my walk around act. 3 of them are my own creations, the other couple are things that I've picked up. The ones I've purchased and now use and swear by, I paid between 10 - 20 bucks for each. But I would pay $100 them anyday. For something which I would be using every day in my walk around set I'd pay almost any price to the creator that spent time working it out.

What I in my opinion like about this is, it's super easy and the spectator gives you their straw and gives you their bill. The entire time, they can burn your hands and double check the straw and bill to make sure there's nothing extra or suspicious.

Still, each to their own, if you prefer using gaffs then stick to them. I like and stand by this because if I'm totally unprepared and someone asks to see some magic, I just ask for a straw and bill of them and go in to this.

Cheers for you opinions,

Lloyd
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/25/11 03:04 PM

Your method (different as it might be) looks no better than the "secret fold" etc. versions out there which are also impromptu and can be examined. In short, you've changed the method, added nothing (and have actually weakened) the effect.

Wenk's tiny gaff allows displays far more convincing than your variant allows. (i.e. bill really looks like it's in the bill and can even be shown clearly impaling the bill.) Whatever method you're using, the bill never seems truly inside the bill, which is crucial to adding conviction for the final effect.

Instead of selling this, have you considered offering it to RK for magicana? This seems really weak for a standalone item for sale.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/25/11 03:14 PM

Maybe I should shoot you a new video to see the practicality of this. I've used secret fold methods before, they are, again in my opinion, no where near as magical as this. With bankrupt, you can display clearly that the straw is between the bill and with no funny movements, proceed to penetrate the straw.

So it's very very clear and direct, with the ability to be burnt and examined throughout. Something which no other version offers.

Still, seems like your happy with the gimmicked version and I'm sure it achieves everything that you want it to. So stick with it.

Wenks' is roughly $15 and this is $10. It's cheaper, more practical in my opinion and the visuals (of the second penetration) are identical. You can also achieve an identical handling of Misleds 1st penetration with Bankrupt too.

Still, hope no offense has been shown here to anyone, healthy debate is good for our art.

Cheers,

Lloyd
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/25/11 03:54 PM

I disagree that your version shows much conviction in terms of the bill actually holding the pencil. You completely lose the ability to partially unfold the bill and show it clearly punctured on the pencil/straw (easily done with the wenk gimmick) Without that conviction, a great trick becomes a mediocre trick. More a stunt really.

Carefully watch Copperfield perform Wenk's version, then watch your own. Note the puncturing phase, where the pencil is held by itself (hands off the bill) and shown convincingly impaled. Note that in the first phase how he actually lets go of the bill and cleanly rocks it between both sides of the bill. Note he doesn't have to use any wanky "seesaw" motions to melt the pencil through the bill.

If you're going to tell us that there's any parity in terms of effect between yours and Wenk's, then I'm going to suggest you look closer.

Wenk's version (with its tiny, easily ditched gaff) seems quite impromptu to spectators. And it looks 100% better than yours. Is "truly impromptu" worth losing a huge chunk of what makes this trick great?
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Pete McCabe » 06/25/11 05:11 PM

Lloyd,

Here's some feedback for you.

First I think this generally looks pretty good. I do think it seems more like a magazine trick than a $10 download, but this is not a criticism of you for trying to sell it.

Second I do think there is value in an improvised version of a trick for those times when you don't have the gaff around.

Third I think the handling where you wave the bill is weaker than the sawing-type penetration, because as the ends of the bill flap around it looks like one end just flips around the straw, which is very possibly what people will think anyway. Just my opinion.

Finally there is an old trick whose name and inventor I never knew but whose method is essentially the same as yours, with the difference being that the straw penetrates straight down (i.e. perpendicular to the fold, as opposed to yours in which the straw is parallel to the fold). I prefer this older one because the visuals look cleaner/more convincing (to me). I also like it because you can, if you have some balls, hand out the bill for examination, confident that the preparation in the bill is just far enough away from where the effect seems to happen that people will not notice it. I've not done this several times and never been busted yet, and I know some professionals who do it all the time and never get caught. I would be scared that the preparation in your version would be found by a spectator looking at the fold. Have you tried handing the bill out?

This would be the real criticism of your trick, that it represents a small step sideways or even a bit backwards from this earlier trick, without any other advantages. If nothing else you might want to research this other trick, whose name I really wish I knew, for completeness of credits if nothing else. If you don't know what trick I'm talking about PM me and I'll try to track it down.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/26/11 06:15 AM

Chris Aguilar wrote:I disagree that your version shows much conviction in terms of the bill actually holding the pencil. You completely lose the ability to partially unfold the bill and show it clearly punctured on the pencil/straw (easily done with the wenk gimmick) Without that conviction, a great trick becomes a mediocre trick. More a stunt really.

Carefully watch Copperfield perform Wenk's version, then watch your own. Note the puncturing phase, where the pencil is held by itself (hands off the bill) and shown convincingly impaled. Note that in the first phase how he actually lets go of the bill and cleanly rocks it between both sides of the bill. Note he doesn't have to use any wanky "seesaw" motions to melt the pencil through the bill.

If you're going to tell us that there's any parity in terms of effect between yours and Wenk's, then I'm going to suggest you look closer.

Wenk's version (with its tiny, easily ditched gaff) seems quite impromptu to spectators. And it looks 100% better than yours. Is "truly impromptu" worth losing a huge chunk of what makes this trick great?


In regards to unfolding the bill to show the straw between to give a cleaner display, this is absolutly possible to do and the straw can be lifted off the bill to show it not stuck to the bill. If you know what I mean.

I haven't unfolded the bill in this video, well, because I didn't do it. If you'd like, I could do a reshoot for you to show that the ability to unfold the bill to prove the straw is in there.

So that's covered for you. As for the "wanky" seesaw motion, that's just what I believe looks nicer, gives it more of an element of mystery. Again, it's my opinion which is shared by others.

The sole reason I worked on this is because I do not like to carry a gimmick around with me. So this had to be impromptu.

Pete McCabe wrote:Lloyd,

Here's some feedback for you.


First of all, Pete, thank you giving me some proper feed back and constructive criticism.

Pete McCabe wrote:First I think this generally looks pretty good. I do think it seems more like a magazine trick than a $10 download, but this is not a criticism of you for trying to sell it.

Second I do think there is value in an improvised version of a trick for those times when you don't have the gaff around.


This is precisely the reason I got around to working on my version of this effect. I don't often carry gimmicks but I love this trick. So, it suited me to have an impromptu version which had all of the same convincing elements of Wenks Misled.

Pete McCabe wrote:Third I think the handling where you wave the bill is weaker than the sawing-type penetration, because as the ends of the bill flap around it looks like one end just flips around the straw, which is very possibly what people will think anyway. Just my opinion.


I think you may have a point here, Pete. I went with this first handling because I remember watching Russ Niedzwieckis Passin' Through effect, and his first penetration looks like this and I really like it for some reason. It's something that's stuck with me for years. But maybe you're right, they could think its the bill flapping around the straw. The only thing that could convince the spec that it's not is the second phase.

Pete McCabe wrote:Finally there is an old trick whose name and inventor I never knew but whose method is essentially the same as yours, with the difference being that the straw penetrates straight down (i.e. perpendicular to the fold, as opposed to yours in which the straw is parallel to the fold). I prefer this older one because the visuals look cleaner/more convincing (to me). I also like it because you can, if you have some balls, hand out the bill for examination, confident that the preparation in the bill is just far enough away from where the effect seems to happen that people will not notice it. I've not done this several times and never been busted yet, and I know some professionals who do it all the time and never get caught. I would be scared that the preparation in your version would be found by a spectator looking at the fold. Have you tried handing the bill out?

This would be the real criticism of your trick, that it represents a small step sideways or even a bit backwards from this earlier trick, without any other advantages. If nothing else you might want to research this other trick, whose name I really wish I knew, for completeness of credits if nothing else. If you don't know what trick I'm talking about PM me and I'll try to track it down.


Pete, I'm fully aware of this version of the effect. I've seen this a couple years back, and, if I'm not mistaken it's a spanish magician? For the life of me I can't remember his name. I used to do this every now and then. What I didn't like is actually the perpendicular penentration of the straw, because the obvious explanation for the spec is what we both know the method is. So I chose to have the straw parallel to the ground. I feel, in my opinion, that this, in the spectators mind, cancels out the obvious method. Especially the second penetration.

I like to sit back and listen to my audience after doing this, and as they're looking at their bill and straw and the end (and the bill is completely normal at the end), they never guess for what the method is, which is something that makes me really happy about this effect.

Again this is all only my opinion and I just want to say a BIG thank you for taking the time out to deconstruct and give me some proper feedback, constructive critiscm and a bit of history on this effect. I Agree with you about the first penetration and I think I may go back to the drawing board with it. As for the history, I think I can get the name of the other creator and I'll stick this in the credits section of the video to give people the option to go check his out also.

Cheers,

Lloyd
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/26/11 09:05 PM

Hey Lloyd,

I can only go by the video you posted, which is pretty poor compared to even the most stock handlings of "misled".

I'd be interested in seeing you emulate all the phases of misled if you decide to post a new video. If you can use those convincing movements, it seems foolish to leave them off your demo video. Yours (as posted) simply lacks conviction of the gaffed version, turning a strong trick into a so-so one.

Pete McCabe put it well when he mentioned that (at best) you've moved sideways or even backwards here with your variant of this effect.

Once again,"How much is one willing to give up in terms of effect in creating a completely impromptu handling?" In terms of your derivative effect, I think you give up too much.

If your variant was written up in a magazine or perhaps published with a bunch of other decent tricks, I'd probably be a lot kinder here. But I'm just not seeing much value in your offering, especially as there are plenty of other impromptu "pen through bill" type effects out there, many of which look as good or better than yours.

Did you actually compare DC doing "misled" to your impromptu version? Are you still honestly claiming that your take is somehow equal in effect to the gaffed version?
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Frank Yuen » 06/27/11 12:15 AM

I get that you can borrow the bill but from what I'm deducing from your demo, giving them back the bill leaves you wide open for exposure. There is no way that after seeing something penetrate their own bill that the spectator isn't going to examine it minutely. As Pete stated, your work to the bill is right where the penetration occurs and is bound to be found.
Frank Yuen
 
Posts: 545
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Winfield, IL

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/27/11 01:17 AM

I agree with Frank.

If you use a borrowed bill for this sort of thing, of course they'll want to subsequently examine it. With Wenk's "misled" this is easily achievable(bill could even be signed) without any sort of subsequent bill switch. With your variant, that's not the case.

The methodology you seem to be using(small perforation on the lower back side of the crease) means that the convincing "shows" of the Wenk version aren't possible. As I've mentioned, this takes a great trick and turns it into a fairly forgettable one.

As for the "see saw" motion, that you claim to use simply because "it looks better", please. Your methodology forces you to do that so that the straw can be pulled back through the hole. The clean "melt" of the pen through bill seen in "Misled" (where the ends of the bill and the ends of the pencil are clear of each other at all times) simply isn't possible with the methodology you've chosen.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Lloyd Barnes » 06/27/11 03:42 AM

Concerning all of the points mentioned above.

1. I will be going to re-film this, highlighting that all the phases of misled can be emulated.

2. I never claimed that this was better than misled, just an option for a substitute for when you don't have the misled gimmick on you.

3. They keep and check the bill to their hearts content, there is no "perforation" in it.

4. The phases and the visuals get exactly what they are they to do. This always leaves with the spectators left in complete astonishment. Don't forgot 99% of them have never seen Misled so they are not comparing. All they are seeing is a straw melting through a bill with no gimmicks, just their borrowed items.

Chris, as a side note, I think you should stop fishing for the method now, you might end up leading to exposure. Exposure is completely unethical. Most beginners in magic even know this.

Thanks,

Lloyd.
Lloyd Barnes
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 04/29/09 06:57 PM

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/27/11 04:41 AM

I'm intrigued and look forward to your improved video demo Lloyd.

If you can truly emulate all the "misled" phases cleanly while only using one bill and straw throughout (no switches, added gaffus, or mutilated bill or straw), then your product may be much more interesting than your rather poor demo video has led us to believe.

But if your effect can't truly emulate the strengths of Wenk's "misled", then I question why one would find much value in paying nearly the same price for what seems to be a much weaker take on the plot.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Frank Yuen » 06/27/11 09:33 AM

Lloyd Barnes wrote:Concerning all of the points mentioned above.

3. They keep and check the bill to their hearts content, there is no "perforation" in it.



Lloyd Barnes wrote:I like to sit back and listen to my audience after doing this, and as they're looking at their bill and straw and the end (and the bill is completely normal at the end)

italics added by Frank


Lloyd, If you're saying that there isn't a hole or slit in the bill (though by putting perforation in quotes above, I think you're somehow hedging here) then I think I have to give you more props and by all means sell this. However, if you're switching out the bill at the end then I think your ad copy is a bit misleading.
Frank Yuen
 
Posts: 545
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Winfield, IL

Postby Ian Kendall » 06/27/11 09:54 AM

The first phase has been published before, either by Alan Rorrison or Zach Allen (can't remember which, and don't have the time to check) - but it's definitely out there.

Apart from Chris' usual tenacity, there is one major thing to consider. Lloyd is using UK notes, so I think it's safe to assume that he is British. One of the reasons that Misled did not really take off over here is that yellow pencils are not at all common, and the likelihood of having a match for the gimmick is low.

I'm more partial to Now-U-Z-It and the Pyramid of Immortality, neither of which need a gimmick, and can be done with borrowed items (although the latter does need some origami skills).

Finally, and purely from a magician's point of view, the methods for the two phases seem to be a tad transparent. (and Frank - there are no slits...)

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/27/11 11:28 AM

Good point about the UK notes Ian. Though there were (are?) some knockoffs that used a gaff that worked well for a black "bic" type pens that I sort of preferred to Wenk's gaff (not as fragile).

Methodology aside, my main point is of value here. As Ian notes, there isn't a shortage of similar (and perhaps better) takes on this plot. The only thing added seems to be the awful "flash penetration".

I think you might be right about the first phase being published before. While I don't have the notes in question, there is one item called "poke!" in Zach Allen's Ignis Fatuus notes which sounds quite similar. And over at the green joint, Sean Field mentions independently creating the same thing.

Hm, you're right about Rorrison also.

http://www.alanrorrison.com/indesmm34.html
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/27/11 12:36 PM

Yet another one. Cameron Francis this time.

Danny Garcia also has a "straw through bill" ] but I'm not personally familiar with it. It's part of a larger project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWKjTtfsRu4

Looks quite decent. Especially the "in the hands phase.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Ian Kendall » 06/27/11 02:37 PM

I looked up Ignis Fatuus (which I have) and Poke is essentially the same as Lloyd's routine (or at least it looks gosh darn similar).

Without knowing _exactly_ Lloyd's method it's impossible to say either way, but it does look an awful lot like Zach's routine. Turns out I've also got the demo video Zach did, which has a bit of Poke in it. Very similar.

Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Harry Lorayne » 06/27/11 03:20 PM

I don't know if the following two items fit here, but for those who are interested, you might want to check out Yoshio Hirosi's The Invisible Hole in the March 1985 issue of APOCALYPSE and Michael DeMarco's Only George Knows, in the April 1986 issue - both are in Vol. 2 of the bound volumes. HL.
Harry Lorayne
 
Posts: 953
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: NY

Postby Chris Aguilar » 06/27/11 03:32 PM

Yet another one, this time by Kevin Parker. (Puncture)

Perhaps it's not the same methodology but it looks *really* close to what Lloyd is selling here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9XQw4NJ7a4
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby jason156 » 06/27/11 06:23 PM

"Still, each to their own, if you prefer using gaffs then stick to them. I like and stand by this because if I'm totally unprepared and someone asks to see some magic, I just ask for a straw and bill of them and go in to this."


It's nice that you like and stand by it, but I thought the point of posting this in the first place was to convince others to like it and want to purchase it. So far I remain, unconvinced.
jason156
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 08/06/08 05:38 PM
Location: Daytona Beach

Postby Pete McCabe » 06/27/11 10:59 PM

Forgot to mention: still my favorite impromptu, fully examinable pen through bill which is Jay Sankey's Dough! Based on work by David Harkey and Eric Anderson, Jay's addition of the post-it note makes this the cleanest and most visually compelling version of this plot because you can show the moment of penetration slowly from all sides. Borrow a bill, a pen, and a post-it noteno setupand when you're done there is nothing to find.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Ian Kendall » 06/28/11 02:51 AM

Pete - Harlan's Now-u-z-it is essentially the same, but without the need for a post it note. Just one more level of readiness :)
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Pete McCabe » 06/28/11 03:22 AM

Well, the Harkey-Anderson version is literally the same without the post-it note. I think the post-it makes the trick, but reasonable men like you and I can disagree. Now I just need to track down the pyramid of immortality.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Ian Kendall » 06/28/11 04:07 AM

Bob Neale - Folding Money Fooling.

In the Harlan version a fold of the bill comes forward in a Z-fold (hence the name) which provides the same cover as the post it in Dough.
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby erdnasephile » 06/28/11 05:12 PM

My favorite "prepared" version of this effect is Vanni Bossi's
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... FORM=LKVR7

In terms of ratcheting down the level of readiness, Lonnie Chevrie's bill penetration looks amazingly good and is very deceptive.
User avatar
erdnasephile
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 06/29/11 07:56 AM

How's the MSDS on the Vanni Bossi version? Will it set off folks with asthma or skin allergies?
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6637
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY


Return to Light From the Lamp