I've been thinking a lot about Spellbound lately, in part because of some recent topics here. The effect, I think, has two problems:

1. The method is pretty easy to backtrack, even if you perform it exceedingly well. There are either two coins or a copper/silver in play. Sure, they might never actually see anything suspicious, but I think that most people are thinking, "Wow, look how good that magician is at hiding the other coin."

2. The classic trick doesn't really have an ending. The coin just changes from copper to silver a number of times and then ends.

What examples of routines can you think of that solve these problems in some way?

David Roth's Spellbound from "Expert Coin Magic Made Easy" uses two coins. Having learned and performed this version of Spellbound more than any other, this is the routine I'm most familiar with. On a number of occasions I've performed it, folks have accused me of using a copper/silver at the same point in the routine (they don't call it a c/s, but that's what they think I'm using). Roth's next phase is to specifically have you flip the coin over and show both sides. It's brilliant construction, both because it immediately shows the spectator that you're not using what they think, and also simultaneously allows you to change palms.

Ponta the Smith's Spellbound routine from "Sick" ends with the coin disappearing, but you're left with both hands dirty at the end. It's also pretty hard to do.

Curtis Kam's triple spellbound routine, Xspell, ends with the production of 6(!) silver dollars that are completely different from the three coins you've been seeing up to the ending (and those coins vanished at that point too!). As far as endings to Spellbound goes, it's pretty good. Like Ponta the Smith's routine, it's quite challenging.

Kainoa Harbottle teaches a triple spellbound in his Coins 101 series. If I recall correctly, he briefly discusses how much more deceptive Spellbound becomes if you use a copper/silver as well as a Chinese coin. People can conceive of you hiding a second coin or a copper/silver, but when you use all three it seems to negate both possibilities. For some reason, they don't think of both at once.

What Kam's and Harbottle's above triple spellbound routines do, however, is make the coin change back and forth between all three coins. I wanted to be able to do a spellbound that had the feel of David Roth's, but had something more of an ending. Here is what I came up with.



I still have some practice to do on it, but I'm certain that I'm not the only person to come up with this particular plot with these particular props. Can you help me find other Spellbound routines where the coin changes from copper to silver and back and then ends Chinese?

What other routines are you aware of that deal with the "Spellbound Problem?"


Dave

Not what you will want to hear, especially form a close neighbor, bu the best way to avoid the problem is not to use Spellbound.

I have never cared for it as the hand positions are not those used in natural life. (as in lay persons)

This might not be a problem is those positions were used in other magic effects - teaching the audience what is normal.
Thus, all Spellbound moves tell the observer something unusual is afoot. A sleight should be of the "never happened" variety. This draws attention ot he hands.

That bias aside, the question is how to best achieve the desired end result. If Spellbound accomplishes this, go for it.

Just suggesting the answer to you quest is in another room, not in more effective Spellbound.

I can think of several routines that have C/S transpos and a final of another coin - all without Spellbound.
I can't help you find "other Spellbound routines" I can help with C/S Chinese effects.

Learn to sleeve - and Spellbound can become a miracle.

I have always said that most spellbound routines are not complete. Spellbound, like any routine, should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The changes are just the middle. There are two serious flaws in most spellbounds. The lack of completeness as just described, as well as a propensity to show off by performing one flashy move after another. It might be impressive for magicians, who like flashy moves, but bores real people. People have to believe that tbe coin has magjcally changed into another coin, not that you are just a clever manipulator. After a few changes, you have already proved you can change the coin. More than that does nothing to enhance the illusion.
Next, in addition to being too flashy, the changes happen too fast. There is no time to appreciate the magic. If it happens too fast, who has time to appreciate a very magical change?
Ok. Now that I have explained what I think is wrong with the general trend in spellbound routines, let me give you an example. Look at my routine Ultimate Silver Lint, found in my first Penguin Live lecture. There is a beginning....a production. Then there are about 4 changes...the middle, followed by a small extension (remove and return), and lastly, the finish (a vanish). A complete routine.
I have another in my second Penguin Live lecture. The routine is called Imagine A Coin. Here an invisible coin becomes real, changes a few times, and as a climax becomes a third coin. And to complete the routine, the coin changes back to its original form, then becomes invisible and the hands are empty.
To me, spellbound should be simple, magical, and entertaining. There are many other excellent spellbound routines that use these simple concepts. Look to the older magicians, not the flashy guys. They already know these simple rules.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with the flashy moves that many of the younger guys use. They are great. But its not the moves, its how you use them. Check out the many spellbound moves in the encyclopedia of coin sleights. They stand the test of time, and don't include juggling.

Honestly, if I were to try and solve the problem as you posed it, your way (change to a third coin you haven't seen before) would be a great way to do it. Your patter only works for magicians, though, since only they really know about the problem you're parodying. For a lay audience you could do something like "a lot of people think I'm using two coins stuck together, but that doesn't explain where the Chinese coin came from" or some such, but I (personally) always feel like saying that is too close to revealing a secret.

But I also agree with a lot of Funsway's comments: maybe the solution is to use a different routine. Not all plots are for everyone, and if you don't like it, why not just do something different? Wild coins (3 copper -> 3 silver, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQb_3Emszkc) or some equivalent, might be more up your alley.

I feel like I once saw a routine by Craig Petty, though I can't recall where I saw it. He had patter where he learned how to pull coins from the air in the US (pull coin from air), and in the UK he learned how to change it into an UK coin (spellbound change), but it wasn't until he traveled to ... other country(?) that he learned how to make the coin disappear (coin disappears). He then talks about not being able to make the US coin disappear straightaway - he never learned that. He has to change it and only then will it disappear, all the while doing it again. Or at least that was the rough idea.

I bet you could take a similar concept and use that as patter. Talk about traveling and learning, and eventually your most recent lesson (China) you learned how to change it into a Chinese coin. But now you're stuck, because you can't change it back, or make it disappear. <finish, examine>

Here's what I do as an opener...

Coin production - chinese coin
Quick spellbound - chinese into dollar, and back again
Quick flurry sequence, ending in jumbo coin production.

Has a beginning, middle and definite end with the jumbo production.

If you are looking for a unique and visual ending.....try turning your coin into paper money. I end my closeup spellbound by turning a US $1 coin into a $1 bill.

I'm not sure where the write up of this is (there's a couple methods, with a TT and tipless) but it's a great kicker ending and you can now proceed to a paper money effect.

I like the use of a shorter approach to Spellbound, and or to use it as part of or within a little larger presentation.

I agree, to go back & forth with one coin is cute but a bit monotonous and can lead to helping the specs figure out what you must be doing, though they might not be able to explain it just so. Using the "3rd Option" of a Chinese coin is a good way to end *(Hey, Tone, smooth out that Changeover Palm and you'll have something there). I actually did something like that many years back now on my Short Pockets download, "Copper/Silver SURPRISE!" It used a couple of elements mentioned by Wilktone but was heightened by my use of the Crimp Change which took away the expected need to bring together both hands to make a change. That usage broke-up the spec's possible thinking of any such trickery going on hand to hand. Most of all, it was not a long, drawn out, back & forth to things, but just a nice bit of unexplainable magic they could easily follow, enjoy and always remember. I always thought of that as a "gem" piece in the download, because it supplied a unique tool & usage toward a classic work that gave you another jumping off point as to the effect. In fact, I came to do many other things behind the concepts I described there. And y'know, I still think that "Short Pockets" download was one of the very best things I ever did and shared with the craft...All of the rest of me from there, comes from it in one way or another.

I've also played with Spellbound using other moves, like in my "SPE'L" offering in my more recent Double Trouble download, that really keeps front and center the use of just one coin as to the changes. I think short & sweet seems to work better as to Spellbound than when you sorta "yo-yo" specs back in forth with it over & over again. Of course, creative outs like the finale of a Chinese coin, sle**in*, a final change to a dollar bill, etc., create hard right turns that usually throws them off the beaten path of it all. And y'know, I like the notion about keeping it "simple," it really fits my thinking nowadays as magic that "Less is More."

I think part of the problem is solved if we really focus on the effect, which is a Transformation.

I often think about what could be logical and acheivable with transforming a coin. For example, why not change the physical state of the coin? I know you may have seen this but I'll post it again to explain my point:


When one coin appears to change to another, you're right, people just think you're good at switching coins. But to alter the coin can lead to better conviction that a transformation has happened.

Rick, I like this approach, but the ball is almost too small to be seen. Have you tried it with something larger?

yeah, I just need to order one online I guess.

Here's something I was experimenting with quite a few years ago. Not really logical, but cool nonetheless.

Rick, I'd forgotten about that one. I agree it's not as logical, but still fun.
I realize it's an oldie, but here are a couple of ideas I just had that might help with that:

- Make it a red coin, instead, to match the ball (http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S8242), or use a black sponge ball.
Bonus points if you can figure out how to use the two-colored coins (https://www.murphysmagic.com/Product.aspx?id=49861), and two colors of ball (or https://tricksupply.com/product/color-changing-sponge-ball-redgreen-bizarro/, he also has a red/black on his website but I couldn't figure out how to link to it).

- Stick a hole in the sponge ball (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JznvI1FZiUs) to make it more similar to the coin, which has a hole. Draw attention to that.

- Awesomely clean hands by using a sanada gimmick.

Man, now I want to try out some of these ideas; maybe I should have just kept them to myself?
But I have none of the props!

I like David Roth's Wild Coin. It ends with a brief Spellbound sequence before the all the coins change back to silver. I end the Spellbound sequence with Ammar's Fingertip Spellbound, which is a change-up.

Or maybe instead of a hole in the sponge ball, perhaps more of a "slot-like" cut into the back of the ball (not all the way through) to insert and or remove the coin from or to hide it until you need it or want to hide it....Hmmmm? Squeezing the ball could release the coin into the hand for a quick change out of seemingly nowhere of the ball to a coin. And I guess with the right moves, you could go vice versa.

*And hey Rick, nice one-handed change of the coin to a steel ball, and then the sponge ball to a coin...Good job!

Or you could Do my Five way spellbound From my 1 st. Hardbound! I have found that after the 3 th. coin layman mostly gave up! And by the 5 th. coin There Gone!!!

Rick - I too have played around with the coin and ball idea, I still do from time to time. I use a half dollar and a one inch red sponge ball - I feel a ball of similar size looks better than a larger, more dramatic change. I also start with the coin instead of the ball.

Funsway - did you mean the COIN is difficult to see ? The ball is huge compared to the coin, and I wouldn't think anyone would have any trouble seeing it. If it is the coin you are referring to, I'd say that was pretty easy to see as well, as are the changes.

Wilktone - Im not sure that backtracking is the problem. It is up to us as magicians to make our tricks deceptive. ANY effect that has poor construction will be easily backtracked.
The lack of any real ending is something I agree with though, and has been a long standing problem for folk with this piece. Many have their own solutions, usually involving a final change to a completely different, or jumbo coin.
The jumbo coin is something I'm not overly keen on. Usually (but not always) it is simply thrown in, in an attempt to give the routine some sort of ending. But rarely does it have anything to do with the rest of the trick, or make any real sense. It would be like doing ten erdnase changes in a row, then BAM, the deck is now a jumbo. It might get a surprise, but it makes absolutely no sense.
In the case of starting with a borrowed coin, the final change will usually have to be back to the original coin.

In the other thread I mentioned a couple of what, in my opinion, are problems with the trick.
I think some sort of context is needed. Half the time it is done in complete silence - someone simply standing there showing you all the coin changes they've learned. This is a manipulation act, a skill display, NOT a magic trick.
Without some sort of reason or context, it is simply showing off.

Too many changes can harm the routine rather than enhance it in my opinion. There is no need to do it ten or fifteen times, its ridiculous. After the first few changes it is obvious you can change one coin into another. If you could change the back of a playing card from red to blue and back again, you wouldn't stand there and keep doing it ten or fifteen times would you ?
Don't make the common mistake of thinking that your ten changes are different because each uses a different method for the change - to the spectators it is the same effect over and over again.

Another problem I see with the effect is the need in many routines, to move the concealed coin from one grip to another. Most of the time it is blatantly obvious that SOMETHING funny is going on, and that supposedly empty hand clearly contains something.
It would be far better to work out your routine so that the coins are in the correct position for the next change, without any adjustments.


Jim

Funsway's talking about the first video - changing it into a ball-bearing, which is rather small compared to the coin, even if accurate volume-wise.

By "other thread" you mean the one on Goshman's work? (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=654453&start=0)

I also feel similarly about jumbo coins, about the only one I really like it in is something like Dishonest Abe, or the one where you punch a mini-penny out of the regular one.

I agree about many of the tendencies, but I do think it's possible to do one that doesn't suffer from change overload, and I think that's more what the OP was trying to get to solutions for, not merely the coin juggling.

One advantage to the sponge ball routine that there is some logic to holding the ball that way, i.e. between the thumb and finger.
This position can transfer to the coin to some degree. There is a difference between how we naturally hold 2D objects and 3D ones -
at least to show to another person. (for me any way).

Another thought is the dwell time between changes. Methinks many of the demos do not allow enough time for the change to register or be appreciated,
making them more of a skill demonstration than a magical event. What is more "entertaining?" That is the rub ...

I have been practicing Spellbound the traditional way, exchanging the two coins. I practice in front of a mirror. When I try it using a c/s, I get the same effect. Honestly, it's much cleaner with the gimmick. I then do a Bobo switch to a JFK. Is it bad form to do this? It's definitely much easier being a beginner.

3. What could make the routine interesting to an audience is not part of the instructions. It's still up to the the performer to establish interest, focus and some relationship between what the audience can see for themselves and what you want them to believe you did. For example, remember that horse of a different color in the Wizard of Oz?