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
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.