The Genii Forum

In general people use logic when they observe magic.
However, that is not dependable.
We use logic when building a magic trick.
But the audience does not necessarily observe with logic.
Here is an extreme example.
If the audience does not like the magician, the audience will never see magic.
That is a blatant fact.
A point here is that he real magic occurs when the spectator is not tracking LOGICALLY what you are doing.
For example, false transfers are to be seen but not registered as part of the performance of magic.
It is here where the use of logic falls apart.
If you demand the audience use logic to see the coin was placed over there, you are lost.

Leonard Hevia wrote:the Spider Vanish succeeds cuz it's based on the observation that the dirty hand will be suspected after a false transfer.

Forgive me, but I think this is not correct. The Spider Vanishes that I have seen succeed because they direct the spectators to suspect the dirty hand.

The observation that the dirty hand will be suspected after a false transfer is not universal in my experience. It seems to have a lot to do with the specific false transfer and the context of the move in performance.

Paul Harris had a wonderful bluff vanish. The great thing with Paul is you can spend years re-reading his stuff, and eventually you discover another wonderful idea that you had somehow missed all these years. This is because his books are packed with great ideas.

I will keep the name of the trick secret to encourage you all to re-read your Paul Harris books.

So in the trick I read - Paul makes a card disappear and then reappear in his pocket.

The card vanishes from one hand and the heat is drawn to the other hand. This hand is heading towards the pocket to apparently reproduce the "vanished" card. This is one of those odd moments where you want to be caught. Since the idea here is to place the card in your pocket and pull out another one that is already hidden there.

So you allow the spectator to "catch" you with the vanish which doesn't fool them in order to carry out a subtle switch which does fool them.

Very sneaky. It is a lovely double bluff.

Paul is the best!

Pete McCabe wrote:

Leonard Hevia wrote:the Spider Vanish succeeds cuz it's based on the observation that the dirty hand will be suspected after a false transfer.

Forgive me, but I think this is not correct. The Spider Vanishes that I have seen succeed because they direct the spectators to suspect the dirty hand.

Forgive me, but I think this is not correct. The spectators already suspect the supposed dirty hand, the Spider Vanish comes out of left field. The dirty hand in this context is the empty one.

Perform a stand alone French Drop vanish for your students. All of them will scream at your other hand. Although young, they did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Leonard Hevia
Did you perform the French Drop effectively?

Al Schneider wrote:Leonard Hevia
Did you perform the French Drop effectively?

It's as good as yours, if not better, and I learned from experience that the deception is a thin one.

Why would someone assume that their inability to perform a deceptive French drop would indicate that the French drop must be non deceptive?

I’ve got a bit I do with a wedding ring. I talk about the magical properties of a piece of metal worth a few hundred dollars that becomes priceless when a few words are spoken over it. I then ask if I can trust them to hold it for me.
Between the time misdirection and their mind only being able to hold one thought at a time the French drop is very effective.
When the ring reappears on my ring finger on my original hand they suspect nothing.

Much more effective than the bit with a coin I did when I was much younger.

Leonard Hevia
A-Ha
Your statement suggests you are performing a French Drop.
You are not performing a vanishing coin.
You probably say, "Watch, I'll make this coin disappear." Then you do the French Drop.
The point is that you are performing a move and focusing the attention of your students exactly where it should not be focused.
This has nothing to do with how well the move is executed.

Leonard Hevia wrote:Perform a stand alone French Drop vanish for your students. All of them will scream at your other hand. Although young, they did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

My go-to trick when a student asks me to do something is a standalone French Drop vanish. So far, in 14 years, no student has ever mentioned my other hand.

I've been busted on other things—a kid busted me on the Tommy Wonder two-pocket deck switch last year—but never on the French Drop. So far!

I have been involved with magic for 59 years.
I am amused when I see a magician do some kind of false transfer and the spectator reacts to the false transfer.
Then they applaud when the performer shows the other hand MT.
Well, sometimes.
Methinks there is something very deep going on here.
Why does the audience applaud when they see a possible solution?

Who knows why audiences react or respond the way they do.

I'm always wary of magicians who offer guarantees of reaction.

Tell the funniest joke in the world to five people...
Number One will laugh his socks off.
Number Two will laugh openly.
Number Three will chuckle audibly.
Number Four will smile.
Number Five will remain stone-faced.

Why?

Well, I have received the Bob White video and I'm as excited as a little kid on Christmas day! Won't have time to sink my teeth into it until next week sometime...Meanwhile, since the inception of this thread, i have experimented quite a bit, learned a lot and added some innovation to my 3-cup routine. Regardless of what there is to be said for using coffee cups, or Dixie cups, or whatever, there is still something about the lure of the metal cups - especially since I sprang for the Sherwoods. This is a classic routine, steeped in tradition, and I just feel really good with the nice, solid, heavy feel of the metal cups, the sound they make when they make contact and the use of the wand, which is not only the icon of the magician, but, of course, a phenomenal tool for misdirection.

I think that certain something, that intangible richness, texture and tradition that go with the use of the classic cups, and well, yes, the magicality, can somehow be felt by the spectators. For me, using a sharpie or table knife or a pencil as a "Wand" just isn't cutting it. And the Vernon/Mora wand spin vanish is an integral part of the routine, at least for me - I daresay indispensable - even though I still need to improve my execution of it. Now the chop cup/one-cup routine, that is a different story. I never used a wand or quasi-wand for that routine anyway, and I think the impromptu off-hand nature of using a coffee mug or cup and grapes, cherries or queen size olives - especially if there is a cup on the table - works well. Yes, there is no m _ g _ _ _, but really with a decent finger_ _ _ _, and some subtlety, not much is sacrificed, and there is a lot to be gained by the everyday nature and innocence of the mug and the grape, cherry or olive.

Leo Garet wrote:Who knows why audiences react or respond the way they do.

I'm always wary of magicians who offer guarantees of reaction.

Tell the funniest joke in the world to five people...
Number One will laugh his socks off.
Number Two will laugh openly.
Number Three will chuckle audibly.
Number Four will smile.
Number Five will remain stone-faced.

Why?

Because the magician doesn’t do his job complete. the first goal of the magician isn’t to do his or her magic well for the audience. The first goal of the magician is to get the audience into a condition in which the magician can now do their magic well for the audience.

The audience is as relevant, if not more, in a magical performance as any trick or move. They must be taken into account first and foremost. One should never expect that ‘action a’ should always result in ‘result a’ when so many other variables are at stake.

Bloody heck, I actually agree with Brad

In other news, it's a bit chilly in Hades tonight...

Well said.
I said "Methinks there is something very deep going on here.
Why does the audience applaud when they see a possible solution?"
because I think there is more to be understood about the audience than
most magicians are aware of. I am curious about that.

I have always said the performer bows to the audience at the end of an act
for the audience is the judge of the act. They are the ones that count.

I would like to go back to the initial post for this thread and address the question of natural props or magic props. My point of view is the result of my recent performing venues.

Most of my performing recently has been in coffee shops. My habit is to set up a table away from the center of the shop area. Then customers come back to see some magic. I have trouble approaching customers while talking and sipping their coffee. In this environment people come and go. Generally, I must move quickly from one thing to another. And, I will often have people stand to the side and watch the show again and again. As a result of this, I do not use a kit to hold my props and I do not want to spend time carrying props in my pockets. Most everything is lying on the table: it kind of looks like a junk yard. Three cups will lie there along with come coins, a pencil, finger ring, three ropes, a deck of cards and so on.

My main point is this, using normal props such as coffee cups, grapes, and lemons are awkward. I may do the cups 10 times in a short period of time. Grapes and lemons do not hold up that well. Also, the odd sizes and new shapes do not allow a consistent handling. I prefer durable cups and props to enable me to use the exact same moves from performance to performance. In general the stuff I work on is for hard core troupers that perform their stuff over and over again. The logistics of prop placement, introduction, and retirement are important factors. This is all aimed at a smooth performance for the audience.

While natural props may enhance the overall effect, I think that just good magic carries the day.

Anyway, that is another two cents worth of information.

Bloody heck, I actually agree with Brad

In other news, it's a bit chilly in Hades tonight...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Good points again by the folks here. Brad and Al make a good observation that there are elements that go way beyond a good execution of the effect. The audience has to like you , or at least consider the performer affable before the magic begins. Garet's observation that a lot going on here is so unpredictable is spot on. Jokes and magic tricks don't always get consistent reactions.

The Spider Vanish was invented (by Marlo?) cuz it was believed that the French Drop had its weaknesses. Curtis Kam pointed out in his Palms of Steel video that the one hand Latta vanish at the last phase of the 3 Fly routine was a thin deception and to keeps things moving. The prevailing wisdom here is to shuttle pass two of the coins in the right hand back into the left hand holding out one coin and display those three to raise the level of conviction that only three coins are in play.

Joe gets a good response with his wedding ring effect for the same reason. When it reappears on his finger, the audience is given something new to focus on rather than where the wedding band went when it vanished. This is in keeping with Roth's admonition in his lecture that when vanishing an object, it is best to make it reappear somewhere else and keep the ball rolling. Roth also advised to perform the Spider Vanish in a subtle manner and not as an in your face maneuver. Spectators that know about the French Drop and suspect it will get a surprise. Those that don't will see a somewhat clean vanish.

Glad you got your Bob White DVD Alfred! You will treasure it!

Leonard Wrote: "Good points again by the folks here. Brad and Al make a good observation that there are elements that go way beyond a good execution of the effect. The audience has to like you , or at least consider the performer affable before the magic begins."

Paul LePaul succinctly and beautifully summarized the desirability (arguably necessity) for both good execution and likability:
"If people like you, they will like your magic. If you are an artist at what you do, they will sing your praises and applaud your artistry."

Leonard Hevia wrote: Glad you got your Bob White DVD Alfred! You will treasure it!

Thanks Leo! I'm sure I will.

David Roth's Chop Cup routine is my favorite. As far as 3-cup routines, most routines go on too long ! Another thing is that you can skip the wand by reaching for a ball or a cup to keep a hand occupied (using a small ball or a cup AS A WAND...instead of the wand) . Also, most guys don't do the wand spin vanish well enough and should skip it, so if you've skipped using the wand already, you won't feel bad about not being able to use the Silent Mora Folded Fan Spin Vanish. (which is where it began).

Whenever I see a cups and balls routine without the wand, it looks incomplete, like something is missing. The wand is part of the aesthetic of this effect, and rounds out the rule of three: the cups, the balls, and the wand. Not only does it provide shade for the hand holding out, you can use the wand to vanish or produce the balls in a variety of ways.

The Mora vanish (or equivalent) really balances that first ball sequence. You tip the ball off the bottom of the inverted cup into your hand and with a spin of the wand that ball vanishes. Repeat for each cup. Elegant. The earlier bits using cups let the audience see there's nothing in the cups before you set the balls up top of the cups.

One thing I always disliked avout Vernon's routine is the part where he exposed the pinkie curlpalm as a way to get into the ending phase. If you can avoid that, good on you ! Thing is, it is hard to make that transition, but work on it.

webbmaster wrote:One thing I always disliked avout Vernon's routine is the part where he exposed the pinkie curlpalm as a way to get into the ending phase.

That moment when they are considering a clumsy method is when you use a more subtle method. You've got their attention and they don't know how you got the balls under the cups before - so when you start talking their guard goes down.

It makes sense--and is not exposure -- if the specs re-evaluate that explanation afterwards. "Crap! He was just kidding me. It was done some other way. I should have known a magician would never reveal the real secret. " Now how you get the spec to that point without him or her feeling beat up is the subtle thing. Like the bent corner Monte gag.

I think there should be other ways to get into the ending phase. Oh, there is ! See my routine in Genii way back when...1999 ? My routine was inspired by a Max Maven statement that I agreed with that too many routines followed the Vernon.

Jack Shalom wrote:...- if the specs re-evaluate that explanation afterwards. "Crap! He was just kidding me. It was done some other way. I should have known a magician would never reveal the real secret. " ....

Rather than narrate what you'd like to have in their heads - leave them some room to tell you what's on their mind. You can load one more large ball under the cup and wait - take a moment to let them react.

It's embarrassing when the audience applauds skill while the performer is trying to present magic.

Brad Henderson wrote:Why would someone assume that their inability to perform a deceptive French drop would indicate that the French drop must be non deceptive?

Sleights, or actions, are not deceptive. They may seem distracting, awkward, congruent, abrupt... but they are as read by the audience. Deception comes about when there's some distance between what they believe is true and what they perceive as true.

IMHO too many magicians just adopt Vernon's routine, as is, because -- well -- it's Vernon. The consensus is, of course that it's very good. And it is structurally sound (except for the false explanation, which many magicians nonetheless routinely adopt). Therefore, as a starting point, it is quite useful. But I have seen a number of wonderful creative routines that bear little, if any, resemblance to Vernon's, including Aldo Columbini, David Williamson, David Regal, Carl Andrews, Bill Malone, Paul Gertner, Ricky Jay, Paul Daniels, Johnny Ace Palmer, and others (you know who you are). The problem with doing someone else's routine is that you can only be a second rate version of them, rather than a first-rate version of yourself.

I feel the biggest unchartered territory left to be explored is the Two Cups field. Of course, there are also at least two great versions out there, by Tommy Wonder and David Williamson, but still... Years ago, I dabbled with two identical chop cups. To have a magnetic ball cling to the bottom of the cup, on its outside, allows for some interesting stealing and loading procedures.

Two cups also tie in nicely with the history of the cups and balls as presented in 15th and 16th century art: Accurate or not, a lot of old drawings and paintings depict the juggler with only two cups (but likely no chop cups...).

Two cups has a history. Gary Ouellet had a two goblet routine. An engraving in an older magic book comes to mind where there are two cups and a third larger item on the table. Also in that book was mention of a cup designed to pick up cork balls from the table. Today's technology offers other ways to do that - ask Kent Gunn.

Agreed that it can be done as if working two chop cups. Nice way not to repeat a trick, using a second cup. Pete and Repeat (Pete Biro liked that line)

Not sure what accurate history would mean to an audience. Pebbles and a tea cup? Rumor has it lumps of bread were used where stone would make too much noise.

Houdini made a comment about the cups trick. I wonder what sort of routine he did?

Carl Anderson's Table Hopping Cups and Balls routine is, IMO, outstanding. It is a 2-cup routine. His final loads are sponge balls, which he then uses to go seamlessly into a fabulous follow-up sponge ball routine, very nicely motivated by the preceding C & B. Some years back, he put out a wonderful performance/teaching DVD on these routines ("The Table-Hopping Cups and Balls.") from which I have learned a lot. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I still use 3 cups, however in my own (continually evolving) routine. Two cups is an even number, but nevertheless, it always struck me as somehow asymmetrical in the context of the cups and balls.

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Carl Anderson's Table Hopping Cups and Balls routine is, IMO, outstanding. It is a 2-cup routine. His final loads are sponge balls, which he then uses to go seamlessly into a fabulous follow-up sponge ball routine, very nicely motivated by the preceding C & B.

The item is still available - https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/magic ... and-balls/

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Two cups is an even number, but nevertheless, it always struck me as somehow asymmetrical in the context of the cups and balls.

I'm not going to argue against that kind of personal logic, Alfred!

However, I feel that sometimes two cups are just enough, and it's easier to follow the ball(s) than in many rather confusing three cups segments. The clear dichotomy of either "here" or "there" may help in creating the belief in "true" transpositions of the ball.

But as I think about it: It could also be an interesting move to start with just one cup and one ball, then add a second and finally a third set towards the grand finale!

Zig Zagger wrote:...It could also be an interesting move to start with just one cup and one ball, then add a second and finally a third set towards the grand finale!

This merits experiment. Is anyone performing (or have a citation) for such a routine today?

I worked on something like that a while back. Abandoned it.

When I was bartending I'd do a single cup routine with whatever coffee cups they used. If the kitchen had chowder cups sometimes I'd do a three cup routine. I would ball up three cocktail napkins in front of the patrons and had a few fourth balls and a lime load or two stashed strategically behind the bar. I can't remember where I had seen the single cup routine before. Scotty York maybe?

A ll the recent posters make good and interesting points - definitely food for thought. Much of it may come down to personal preference and/or the venue/logistics. Like a 3 cup routine is pretty cumbersome in table hopping, except for maybe when there's a special event or guest, or for a table when they have finished eating, it's not busy, and the spectators are not in a hurry.

@ Zig Zagger, Carl Andrews agrees with you completely; he says after many years he has found one cup is not enough, 3 is too many and 2 is perfect. @Pressure Fan, I have been leaning the way you have described for the last couple years. I often use a coffee mug or cup, maybe queen size olives, cherries or grapes as balls, and end with a 2-3 lemon final load. The impromptu off-the-cuff nature of it makes an impact. Balled up cocktail napkins are fine, and so are balled up borrowed bills - especially in the context of John Carney's fantastic "Fruit Cup" routine from Carneycopia.