(Close Window)
Topic: Great coin productions?
Message: Posted by: ljh21 (Jul 14, 2013 06:38PM)
Just curious now that we have looked at why so many productions look so bad as per gr8gorilla's topic. Any opinions or favorites as to what is the best "most magical looking" production single or multple coins. For me the single coin production I think looks most magical is John Carney's the production he uses in Halves in the Mist.
For a multiple production Curtis Kams IIsa'a Appearence is magical.
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Jul 14, 2013 07:07PM)
Funny you bring it up, I just instant downloaded "Four Coins For Jimmy" by Nathen Kranzo off Penguin and I have had Splinter by Michael Eaton for some time, also an instant download from Penguin. I like them both for different reasons.
Message: Posted by: fonda57 (Jul 14, 2013 08:40PM)
Carney's Production in Silver and Glass, Kurtz' production in Trio/Misty, R. Paul Wilson's in A New Wave.
Message: Posted by: jcrabtree2007 (Jul 14, 2013 09:39PM)
Im a simple man. I enjoy Eric Jone's production of 3 coins from Mirage et Trois. Its what I use when I produce 3 coins...
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Jul 15, 2013 09:35AM)
There is a nice description of a four coin production by Mike Gallo reprinted from Magic magazine on our website. Go to http://www.newyorkcoinmagic.net , find the Magic magazine article ( I'm not home but I think its in the current events section), and look in the back. There are several routines written up for you. Enjoy!
Message: Posted by: fonda57 (Jul 15, 2013 12:11PM)
It's in there if you click NYCMS DVD

Say, are the Mike Gallo lecture notes still available?
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Jul 15, 2013 12:34PM)
I did this a while back now, but I like to do something that goes a little like this... ;)


Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Jul 15, 2013 12:35PM)
Mike is a member, so you can pm him regarding his notes.
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Jul 15, 2013 12:40PM)
On 2013-07-15 13:34, Mb217 wrote:
I did this a while back now, but I like to do something that goes a little like this... ;)



I also like to do something like this before going into my Ike & Mike's Revenge, a two coin trick. :)

Message: Posted by: ljh21 (Jul 15, 2013 05:21PM)
Poof Daddy I"m on my way to Penguin I haven't seen either of these. Carney and Kurtz are excellent coinworkers and masters of misdirection curiously enough. I have to think that the misdirection is a major part of what makes a great production or let's say more magical. I have seen Mike's production in Magic Magazine and that was a great article I enjoyed all of your interviews. MB looks good as always. Eric Jone's production looks good too. I have an old copy of the Close up Insider 1996 that is dedicated to Mike Gallo it has some great effects in it and well worth a read. I am always in search of as I assume many of you guys are to Thanks.
Message: Posted by: J-Mac (Jul 15, 2013 09:00PM)
I don’t see the article on the site anywhere. Anyone have a direct link?


Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Jul 15, 2013 10:13PM)
Sorry, it was under the photo section. Here is a link to the article with the tricks:
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Jul 15, 2013 10:26PM)
Another great production, although not easy at all - much practice required... Alex Geiser's The Prodigy http://thebluecrown.com/magic-tricks/the-prodigy.html
Eye candy for sure. I have a heck of a time with it and have had it for some time. ( although I don't practice as much as I should )
Message: Posted by: Ramin (Jul 16, 2013 06:26PM)
Poof-Daddy I agree the Prodigy is very Magical.
Message: Posted by: vampiro (Jul 16, 2013 08:25PM)
If any of you are thinking of getting the Prodigy, I would suggest you look at Wizard Product Review #85 first:

Link to show - Click Here! (this may not work) but just google for a Wizard Product review of the Prodigy. Frankly, my respect for Craig shot way up when he added how horribly angly this effect is, with the inventor suggesting that you do a display between your legs (how, pray tell, could you do that and look dignified?). Instead, he said, go out and buy Justin Miller's Silver Dream.

I agree--it looks magical on the video, but the left hand isn't turned over, come on! So in my opinion and that of Craig, this is a one-shot video wonder, without any use in a performing magician's repertoire. It is so angly it is useless. We can respectfully disagree with each other. But if we are to be magicians helping magicians, we also need to start calling these one-hit video miracles (which will be detected in real life) what they are: video deceptions. Instead, why don't we, like Craig Petty, suggest some useful effects, which are magical in the real world, and not just on a highly edited video deception.
Message: Posted by: RicoGood (Jul 17, 2013 01:00AM)
I use a similar version of Reed McClintock 4 Co-Pro. It's angle proof and magical (with the first subtle move I fool magician)
The simplest, magical and best coin production I know is by J. Chanin.
Message: Posted by: J-Mac (Jul 17, 2013 02:46PM)
Thanks Dr. Mike!

Message: Posted by: Ramin (Jul 17, 2013 09:50PM)
On 2013-07-16 21:25, vampiro wrote:
... with the inventor suggesting that you do a display between your legs (how, pray tell, could you do that and look dignified?). ...

Actually that is a very good way to do it. Lets say your sitting at a table with someone sitting in the chair to your right. You could spin to the side (still seated and perform this) It would cover all the Bad angles and look quite natural (look at picture 9 on pg. 157 of The Stars Of Magic, It shows Dai Vernon in a similar position. Doing Malini's Favorite).

I realize this is probably a very hard routine, but that is part of the fun. I have routines that I've worked on for years, to get down, keeps me challenged.

I agree its not for a group of people, but I have routines I do just one on one and they have really gone over well. If I perform for a group I use other stuff.

Wow, I sound like I'm selling this, Ignore me, I just think it looks cool, I guess now I need to buy it : )
Message: Posted by: ljh21 (Jul 17, 2013 09:50PM)
Being a Philadelphian I have done a little reading on Jack Chanin's coin work and magic and was one of the greats. Prodidgy is a very good routine I believe Alex calls the first production of 4 coins the broom production it is very good and achievable with some practice. I agree with vampiro if you can't preform it for poeple live what good is it.
Message: Posted by: vampiro (Jul 19, 2013 12:54AM)
Great coin productions? Gary Kurtz and Kainoa Harbottle.
Message: Posted by: ljh21 (Jul 21, 2013 08:50PM)
I want to mention a couple of the greatest productions I have seen where by the Dr. Sawa. IMO He is truly one of the most inventive minds in coin magic. His routines are exceptional some his productions are magical.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Jul 21, 2013 11:04PM)
Productions from the NYCMS dvd series:
vol 1 - Chanin Coin Production (Roth)
- Trick With Three Coins (Latta)
vol 5 - Bologna Debut (Rubinstein)
- Four Coin Production (Gallo)
vol 7 - Coin and Corners (Bertini)
vol 10 - Stealth Showcase (Rubinstein)
vol 11 - The Wishing Well (Rubinstein)
vol 15 - Six Coin Production (Franzis)
vol 16 - The Reflection (Roth)
- Money Makes the world Go Round (Fitch)
Message: Posted by: fonda57 (Jul 24, 2013 07:25PM)
Great coin production, and vanish--David Wiliamson Money Talks, from Williamson's Wonders
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 7, 2021 08:50AM)
The most magical coin production I ever saw was Gary Ouellet's Silverdust.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Feb 7, 2021 09:05AM)
Productions in Rubinstein Coin Magic:
Chinese Explosion
Impossible Four Coin Trick I
Triple Play
Magical Money Rap
The Wishing Well
Vegas Math
Fuzzy Math
Stealth Showcase
Bologna Debut
Time For Change
3-D Printing
I Got It Covered
Three-ality Routine
Purse-onal Coin Production
Chinese Explosion II
Baseball Miser's Dream
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Feb 7, 2021 10:51AM)
In all this time, I still like this one... ;)

Message: Posted by: Lawrens Godon (Feb 7, 2021 02:18PM)
Here's one I devised a while ago :

It's very direct and if combined with some DPTP just before the actual production, you get a coin coming from nowhere :)
(at 0:35 in the video)
Message: Posted by: Zauberman (Feb 7, 2021 03:42PM)
Beautiful Productions Marion & Lawrens!!!!! Visual eye candy I can watch over & over.
Message: Posted by: feher (Feb 8, 2021 08:18PM)
Pulled another video from the past.
How about a good old Downs Palm production.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Feb 9, 2021 03:08AM)
[quote]On Feb 8, 2021, feher wrote:
Pulled another video from the past.
How about a good old Downs Palm production.
https://youtu.be/ovSDvosTcfE [/quote]

welcome back
Message: Posted by: funsway (Feb 9, 2021 07:53PM)
I developed a little flair to any "form thin air" production that has proved very effective. It is called Pluck
Rather then just reveal the coin at the fingertips, hold the coin in a palming position that allows an easy release (not sticky hang-up)
I prefer a clip between the first two fingers or Crimp.

Just before you each the desired "spot in the air," release the coin so that momentum lets it fly forward a bit.
As it reached the fingertips, draw the tips back to grab the lower part of the coin only and turn the hand for flash of the coin.
In reality, the coin is just hanging there instead of moving so this is easy.

From the spectator's view the coin just materialized in the air and you grabbed it.

I prefer to use just the tips of thumb and middle finger with index held high and palm forward for the catch.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Feb 26, 2021 11:20PM)
Thanks for all for these great ideas and references. This thread has a real point to it.
People would like to see money appear magically, and coins as well, if it really looks like magic,
not just something "pulled from a f. palm" *hehe you get my drift. Very important topic thanks again to all.

something I Just thought of: loading a tt w dimes and showing a bill on both sides cleanly, as well as your hands, then producing a lot of dimes etc......
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 27, 2021 07:44AM)
"something I Just thought of: loading a tt w dimes and showing a bill on both sides cleanly, as well as your hands, then producing a lot of dimes etc."

-see Roger Klause in Concert by Lance Pierce
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Feb 27, 2021 08:23AM)
I agree, there's some good stuff mentioned here alright. But for me, this remains one of the most amazing coin productions I've ever seen. It even inspired me to create a simple to use version for my own coin magic, which kicked it all up a notch and gave me incredible powers to even greater magical demonstrations... :)

Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 27, 2021 04:27PM)
Countrymaven wrote:
"not just something "pulled from a f. palm"

This technique can indeed look like real magic when executed well.
See Money Talks by David Williamson
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Mar 1, 2021 08:27PM)
Magicfish, my concern is not magicians being in awe of their techniques or quoting a name. This is a real problem in coin magic; truly magical coin productions. On the other hand,
it is: do the spectators think they saw real magic? doubtful.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 2, 2021 04:24AM)
Agreed county. I tried many 'recommended' methods over the years, then "went simple" and developed something new.

Since the hands are suspect I show both hands free an open by extending each hand wiggling my fingers, the reaching up and producing a coin from the air.

No mention of "empty" just something like, "I will need both hands and my fingers (wiggle one at a time, and a coin" (Sway Reverse Production)

If I need more coins, I drop that one into my left hand, then produce another. Then another added with clink, and so on.
No moves to the body and the producing hand shown completely empty (because it is) before the next grab from the air. (Naked Stack)

I later added a little flair move called "Pluck" that has the produced coin seem to appear floating in the air
and seized by the tips of the thumb and forefinger with the other spread wide.

No, I will not post a video; but will happily teach these methods live to anyone coming to Dandridge, Tennessee, USA
There is always painting to do and wood to chop. I am a good cook, too. ;) You have to love our Service Dogs though. ;)

BUT - one key is not to just produce coins for the sake of "from thin air" or a skill demonstration. It is a means to an end.

The effect done with the coins is the primary focus of the magic -- the production just a way of getting the needed coins.

It has always seemed silly to me to say you are a magician and them pull out of your pocket, do an effect, then put them aways, pull out a purse for more coins, etc.

You are a conjuror! If you need a coin, produce one. If you need more, grab a couple for somewhere, even a kid's ear.
If you have four and now only need three - vanish the extra one. Need a smaller coin? Shrink it.

You never mention doing anything special - just do it!
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Mar 2, 2021 08:37AM)
Thanks so much Funsway. First of all, if you do finger palm productions and they go over well, I am happy for you. But I recently thought of a test. Try this. Vanish a coin and hold it in finger palm for a group of kids. See how long it takes them to suspect something. Not long, usually. So the reverse is probably true. We should assume people to suspect something produced from finger palm that would easily fit there-- a coin.

Of course switching palms helps to make productions more deceptive. I have found the Mutobe palm to be very deceptive. People just believe your hand is empty.

If anyone sells a secret coin dropper that goes under your toupee or hair, let me know. hehe.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 2, 2021 08:49AM)
I would submit that finger palm is a natural hand position. Mutobe palm is not. Regardless, any hand position where the hand doesn't move and the coin remains in the same place is posing, and would indeed invite unwarranted attention.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 2, 2021 11:27AM)
[quote]On Mar 1, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
Magicfish, my concern is not magicians being in awe of their techniques or quoting a name. This is a real problem in coin magic; truly magical coin productions. On the other hand,
it is: do the spectators think they saw real magic? doubtful. [/quote]
Yes. Your point was clear. I have seen it done poorly as well, but it isn't because of the method- it is in the execution. The reason I dropped a name is because when David Williamson, (and others) do(es) it, it looks like real magic.
Watch a master execute it before you dismiss it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 2, 2021 11:46AM)
Same goes for John Carney. You won't see this master doing any handwashing or overproving. No widespread fingers or obvious attempts at flattening the hand during a palm. Naturalness is key. Attitude, motivation, attention direction.
As a student of Vernon, David Roth understood this as well as anyone.
If a fingerpalm production isn't looking like real magic, it is an inferior method.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 2, 2021 01:50PM)
*it isn't an inferior method.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 2, 2021 04:34PM)
[quote]On Mar 2, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
Vanish a coin and hold it in finger palm for a group of kids. See how long it takes them to suspect something.

I think you support my later point. A vanish isn't very strong magic by itself. But in combination with a larger effect
it can be an essential step. In a coins-across you do not want anyone to think vanish and reappear - just "transposition" or "secret flight."

That is one reason I don't get excited about "coin flash" in an effect "POV/ROV Vanish" as they draw attention to the coin being in the receiving hand.

I usually don't want the observer to even remember that I changed hands. The putting of a coin in the other hand draws attention enough without shouting about it.
Of course, I have a favorite POV or two when appropriate, but usually do something else guided by the overall effect.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Mar 2, 2021 08:06PM)
I agree with you all, on one level. OF course the finger palm is useful and deceptive. But from my experience, I cannot hold a coin in a finger palm long without kids suspecting it after or vanish. Or before a production. Kids tell the truth. Adults often hide what they suspect or even know. Also, your experience and magic can vary from mine.

As for the Mutobe palm, I have found it highly deceptive. Thanks for pointing out having fingers spread is not a natural position to hold for long. But of course I get it in a different palm. Whether edge grip, thumb palm, back thumb palm, finger, classic or back to mutobe or edge grip, it all depends on what effect I am doing. So of course I do not hold it there for long nor do I splay my fingers wide as some performers do. Yet still, for me, this just results in miraculous effects. Spectators really just KNOW it is not there. Even though it is. I am just trying to pass this on, if perhaps someone else can use it.. I had to practice using it, getting it in there and into different palms very naturally.

But I think we must admit on some level that holding coins in finger palm for extended periods, and really thinking that nobody suspects this, is fooling yourself. I could be wrong, but what you could get by with in the 80s to 90s does not always cut it any more with the finger palm when it is overused. Just try it on kids to see what people who say what they think will reveal.

I think the topic of masterful palm transfers (from one position to other specific palms, in order to deceive) needs to be addressed more, particularly for magical coin productions. I have found that even a French drop, with some palm transfers and patter can blow spectator's minds.

Magic is highly individual and creative. I highly respect anyone if what you do works for you and creates magic and fun for others. I am just trying to share from my experience, hoping that this will help some of the audience out there, and also am thankful for the many good points and suggestions you all have made. Cheers.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 3, 2021 05:15AM)
Why limit handling to "finger palm?" It is possible to go about one's daily activities with a coin concealed in one's hands and no one the wiser.
Driving a car, chatting with friends, paying for items at a store, fixing a meal - everything.

No one sees the coin because they do not even suspect its existence, and you have the practiced ability to change hands and idle the coin
using natural hand and body movements.

So, the problems with kids and adults "suspecting" or "looking for it" is because you create the suspicion and give them a reason to search for a hidden coin.

If instead, if you create an expectation of the coin to "be gone", create the anticipation that it will seems impossible and they will like that,
and then eliminate every explanation except "must be magic" then there is no suspicion or search. If you are just doing a skill demonstration then you deserve the suspicion.

The real key is to orchestrate the desire to experience magic so badly that even you (the performer) can't mess it up.

As one example for your vanish challenge. In a traditional vanish sequence a a coin in the right fingers is placed in the left hand that closes. Later the that hand opens and the coin is gone. Naturally, the first inclination for the observer is to glance back at your right hand. This doesn't have to mean they are suspicious of the magic. Perhaps they doubt their memory of you
placing it in the left hand. So, one solution is to show your right hand to be empty BEFORE you open you left to reveal the "gone." Not "sorta display" with a clever palming technique - no, nothing there to hide because that hand is empty. You learn to do a False Transfer rather than a Fake Transfer - or mix of both.

The key is that you can preempt any suspicion and even provide later acquitments to affirm the memory of "just gone, can't explain it - don't have to - just wallowed in the astonishment."

But, as I indicated earlier, I would never so this sequence. The vanish would be part of a larger effect with other actions between the placement and reveal. There would have to be a reason to place the coin in the left hand. Only magicians pick up a coin from a table with right fingers and transfer the coin to the left hand. Any kid would just pick up that coin with the left fingers!

So, you are correct. You can't fool a kid for long after creating so much suspicion. Learn to deflect the suspicion before it occurs, not after.
Message: Posted by: scotchrocket (Mar 3, 2021 09:18AM)
[quote]On Mar 2, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
As for the Mutobe palm, I have found it highly deceptive. Thanks for pointing out having fingers spread is not a natural position to hold for long. But of course I get it in a different palm. Whether edge grip, thumb palm, back thumb palm, finger, classic or back to mutobe or edge grip, it all depends on what effect I am doing. So of course I do not hold it there for long nor do I splay my fingers wide as some performers do. Yet still, for me, this just results in miraculous effects. Spectators really just KNOW it is not there. Even though it is. I am just trying to pass this on, if perhaps someone else can use it.. I had to practice using it, getting it in there and into different palms very naturally.[/quote]

I haven't seen much work using Mutobe palm but I [i]will[/i] say that when I saw Eric Jones perform it on the Metal series I couldn't believe what I was seeing. That moment alone was worth the price of the DVD, if not the entire series.

[quote]On Mar 2, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
I think the topic of masterful palm transfers (from one position to other specific palms, in order to deceive) needs to be addressed more, particularly for magical coin productions.[/quote]

Totally agree. Beyond [i]"what comes before & after the move is just as important,"[/i] we (as a community) don't discuss the bigger picture/timeline nearly as much as we should. It exists in books on magic theory, but not much is taught practically on DVD's, etc.

[quote]On Mar 2, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
Magic is highly individual and creative. I highly respect anyone if what you do works for you and creates magic and fun for others. I am just trying to share from my experience, hoping that this will help some of the audience out there, and also am thankful for the many good points and suggestions you all have made. Cheers. [/quote]

Love this, and I agree here, too.

It's a very individual journey which can feel counter-intuitive, since we are learning by emulating movements, sleights, and routines... but the good stuff really comes from hunkering down and taking ownership of it.
Message: Posted by: Mb217 (Mar 3, 2021 09:39AM)
Speaking of "finger palms"...

[quote]On Mar 2, 2021, countrymaven wrote:
I agree with you all, on one level. OF course the finger palm is useful and deceptive. But from my experience, I cannot hold a coin in a finger palm long without kids suspecting it after or vanish. Or before a production. Kids tell the truth. Adults often hide what they suspect or even know. Also, your experience and magic can vary from mine...

...But I think we must admit on some level that holding coins in finger palm for extended periods, and really thinking that nobody suspects this, is fooling yourself. I could be wrong, but what you could get by with in the 80s to 90s does not always cut it any more with the finger palm when it is overused. Just try it on kids to see what people who say what they think will reveal... [/quote]

[quote]On Jul 3, 2020, countrymaven wrote:
WE all owe a big debt to you. Even those who have not discovered your coin magic yet but who will.
Your "MB Active Finger Palm" is one of the greatest coin sleights and hideouts ever. Why? Angle proof, Totally convincing, while they see your "empty hand." Besides all the other great magic you have given us. [/quote]

[quote]On Jul 4, 2020, countrymaven wrote:
Hint hint. It is all through his work. This is a rare case where someone has not gotten credit for an innovation that is huge. I would suggest getting his "Short Pockets" download. Look at the video of his Crimp Change. Is it possible he is hiding something in his hand?

This is an innovation which puts the Ramsay subtlety on steroids. Yes is is a small innovation . But small innovations have been the reason for great leaps in magic and technology. Since MB has not gotten credit for it, I choose to name it the "MB Active Finger Palm." Because when you hold it there and move your fingers (this movement is why it is the "Active" FP), which are at an angle, it SEEMS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A COIN COULD BE THERE. IF YOU MANAGE IT PROPERLY, WHICH IS EASY TO DO, IT IS ANGLE FREE. Thanks Marion, you deserve the credit. [/quote]

Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Mar 4, 2021 01:10PM)
Thanks MB. I was referring to the simple finger palm in the posts above.
Look at some tapes from coin magic from the eighties to nineties. Most of the magicians thought you
could hold out in a SIMPLE finger palm a good percentage of the time, and have spectators suspect nothing.
That is why I suggested that magicians should often do coin magic for kids because they let their suspicions
and what they see to be known hehe.

I still agree what you quoted me on. That your use of the "MB High and Active" fp is one of the most
deceptive palms in magic. Because it shows your hand empty when it is not, just like the Mutobe palm. So like the Mutobe palm, what I call the MB Finger Palm is one of the most deceptive palms around. why? In the spectator's mind, a coin cannot be there even if it is. thanks everyone for your tips and suggestions. Again, if what you do works for you, you are doing it right!!!

I just think that sometimes as coin magicians we have to consider whether something is truly deceptive and miraculous, or if is just "tricks" those watching it. I am trying to apply this to my own coin magic. So I am giving myself a hard time first hehe.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 5, 2021 09:48AM)
Countrymaven, I agree that Marion uses that finger palm position to great advantage, and his hand has a very empty appearance when he displays a coin in that hand while hiding a second one. However, a bit of history. While I am not the move police as some have alluded to, I think proper crediting is important. There was a long topic on this very position, and I researched it extensively for my book to get proper context of credit history (including talking to Marion). Marion credited Homer Liwag, and named it the Liwag subtlety because it didn't have a name. I then talked to Homer, who was honored that someone gave him credit for the position when I talked to him about it. However, the first reference in the literature was by Mike Gallo in his 1989 Siamese Coins manuscript (illustrated but not addressed), and seen in the 1996 Siamese Coins video, used with his Spider vanish in the routine Hanging on a Purse String (and it's use can quite clearly be seen in the video). Since there was no name associated with the position by Gallo, in my book I called it Gallo Modified Finger Palm, just to give it a name and proper ownership (as Gallo had the first published reference). I know that Marion was unaware of Gallo's use predating Homer. Bob Kohler also claimed credit for it's use at about the same time, although did not publish anything that used the position (and we talked about that as well). Years later in 2011 (2017 English version), Luis Pedrahita published the position as an original technique in his book Coins and other Fables and called it Huddle palm.
Making up a new name when others exist not only is confusing, but it takes away credit from the true originators. Sometimes it occurs from being unaware of earlier citations and being an honest mistake, like Bobo calling a position the Goshman pinch when it was really the Tenkai pinch, and the Kaps subtlety named by someone (not Kaps) because he used it a lot, when it was shown to Kaps by Vernon who said it was actually used by Malini).
I post this so that others will not miscall the position after reading your posts, and hope this does not step on anyone's toes or offend anyone, as the purpose is just to get it right.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 5, 2021 03:43PM)
Great post Michael. Thankyou.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Mar 29, 2021 11:19PM)
Mr. Rubinstein said this "Making up a new name when others exist not only is confusing, but it takes away credit from the true originators. Sometimes it occurs from being unaware of earlier citations and being an honest mistake, like Bobo calling a position the Goshman pinch when it was really the Tenkai pinch, and the Kaps subtlety named by someone (not Kaps) because he used it a lot, when it was shown to Kaps by Vernon who said it was actually used by Malini)."

First of all, we are talking about a move used forever in coin magic, the finger palm. So it is a bit obvious that others did discover the high finger palm before Gallo did is reasonable. IT is only a slight variation of the normal finger palm. Since the finger palm is used quite a bit in coin magic, it is reasonable to assume that many discovered the high finger palm before Gallo did. I was certainly using the high finger palm well before Gallo published it, as were many, many others.

In card magic, it is common to allow people the freedom to refer to their favorite regular palm or one handed palm or bottom palm by the name of the creator of that variation. It is a way of referring to a preference in the way that creator developed it.

I believe in magic that although there is certainly a way of referencing the first of any move, when it was first published, that is not the only way to think of a move. Someone who comes along later may innovate in in very slight ways which, to some magicians, has made a world of difference in that particular move. So in this case, the first or others who published later did not make much difference to some until they started using the subtle variations of that move developed much later.

Such is the case with me and others who have witnessed Marion Boykin's "High and Active Finger Palm." I am not trying to lay claim to naming it, but to me and many others, it fools people completely where other prior versions of the high finger palm did not. The point is completely fooling; it is a palm that is not even suspected. If you have other thoughts, I respect them. Magic is a creative art and we must accept that for some, some things work miracles.

So it is sometimes useful to talk in the historical context, of the first to publish, it may not mean a lot to some of us, for some sleights. In a universally used sleight as the finger palm, it is not just that the high finger palm is used but that it is used in a way that subtleties are added that make the sleight into gold, in the minds of some magicians.

So I might suggest that we need to have freedom of speech in magic. What works most for me may not be what works for you. Also, in an almost universal move like the finger palm, it is reasonable that for some, the subtleties added, for instance, by MB, made this the sleight that is not suspected. Or a miracle maker. I have done it surrounded and had nobody even suspect a sleight. But from experience, I believe it is because of the subtleties added by MB that made it work, not because someone previously published what I had already been doing before they published it.

Again, if in card magic we can prefer a certain bottom palm and its subtleties, for instance, we do not need to always refer back to the first who published. They may not have had the subtleties that make it a miracle in my hands, for instance. But these small subtleties added by MB, IMHO, made it a miracle worker.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 30, 2021 07:46AM)
I respectfully and forcefully disagree. The term High Finger Palm first of all, has been used to demonstrate a position where a coin is held by the upper phalanges of the second and third fingers as opposed to the lower phalanges. What Gallo, Liwag, and Pedrahita have done is create a workable variation where the coin is held in a more illusive way, by extending the second finger and withrawing the third finger, giving a greater illusion of an empty hand. It is indeed just a finger palm variation, but needs an accurate name to define the difference between that and a standard finger palm (or even a third finger finger palm, which is yet another finger palm variation and one used all the time). This position is more like a cross between finger palm and nowhere palm. The fact that many people might have played with it in the past means nothing if they never published the position. Publishing is the only way to prove use in the historical context of crediting, although people have alluded to use of certain routines or moves by magicians of the past when publishing was simply not really done (like Downs doing Three Fly, because of a poster showing coins at the fingertips). Gallo was the first to demonstrate this finger palm variation position in print and on video, unless someone can point to an earlier reference. I researched, and didn't find one. That does not mean that Liwag and Pedrahita who published (only Pedrahita thought the position was important enough to give it a name) did not do the move well. They each independently created the move, and demonstrated its use. Marion did not independently create the position. He learned it from Homer Liwag, and was impressed enough that he began to use it and coined a name, the Liwag Subtlety (he did not know of the earlier Gallo reference or even the Pedrahita reference when he coined the name). Homer never gave it a name and was flattered that Marion thought enough of it to call it by that name. And Marion does it as well or better than anyone, but again, did not create the position (and I am sorry to drag his name into this discussion,since he did not use his own name to define this position). So to conclude, only one person, Luis Pedrahita, thought the position was important enough to give it a name. Gallo and Liwag did not think it was important enought to give it a name, but they used it in print. Gallo did it first. Kohler claimed to have also used it in the 80s but never put it into print, which makes it only an undocumented claim (and by the way, we spent a lot of time talking about it. I have no doubt that Kohler used it, but I went by the published record). Marion did not develop the move, but does it well. That does not give anyone the right to confuse the magic literature by changing the origins of a move by falsely giving it a new name. Are you going to use my Stealth Palm and then call it the Counteymaven palm because you do it well?? Are you going to call the classic palm the Roth center palm because he did it well? No. You can't just make up names because you learned it from someone who impresses you. It is wrong. You CAN say that so and so does it better than anyone else you've seen, which is in itself a flattering statement, and you can say that so and so developed a move independently, and published at a later date, as long as you state when the original move was published, to give credit to the originator.
We stand on the shoulders of those who have paved the way before us. Originators who have generously published their work for you and me, should be honored, not bismirched by eliminating their names from things they developed, and carelessly giving credit to others. That is why we try to correct the written record when we can. Goshman Pinch is Tenkai Pinch. Kaps Subtlety is Malini Subtlety. Because they are the RIGHTFUL originators. Stephen Minch has researched a lot of old literature, and has been able to correct the historical context of origins of moves and tricks, and for that we are grateful. It's about getting it right, not ego. But please, let's not confuse and alter the magic history by randomly assigning names only because we have an opinion.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 30, 2021 09:30AM)
Here is another example of mis crediting. John Born published his work on the Balance palm. He did not know that I had published a routine using that position (which I didn't name) in my old lecture notes, probably published before John was, err, born (unintentional pun). When I researched the position for my book, I discovered that Eddie Joseph published the same position in his book from the 40's, which took my name out of the equation as well as that of John's, as this would appear to be the first time that particular position was used in the literature. One could say that the position is used with great success by John Born and Brendan Wolf, or even cite new applications of that move used by Born and Wolf, but give credit to Eddie Joseph who first published the position. With that much earlier reference, no need to even interject my own name into the picture. If Born KNEW of the Joseph reference, it would be falsely taking credit. But at the time he published, he did not know of this reference or even my own reference. And now that this citation has been discovered and is in my book, hopefully coin magicians will begin to get it right.
Another example is Rick Holcombe's use of Sly Palm. When he put out his download, he did not know I had already taught it as Side Grip years earlier on volume 4 of the NYCMS dvd series. Someone had pointed that out to him, and he contacted me. Hopefully he has now added my credit as the originator to his download, even though he has done a lot of work with creating additional applications. Doing that work does not take away the fact that I first published the position and called it Side Grip, which should be the proper name. And I have no doubt that others may have played with that position before me, as it is a natural extention of JW Grip, which first came out in a Horace Bennet book, and popularized when Gallo found it and used it in a routine published in Apocalypse (with proper crediting). However, since no one had published the use of Side Grip prior to me, that should be the proper name and I should be listed as the originator. Rick should get credit for original applications of this move, but not for originating the position. Should someone find a reference that predates me, I am happy to step aside and give that person proper credit. But to date I have not found any other reference.
To close, it happens a lot that miscrediting occurs due to ignorance of work already published. But to KNOWINGLY CHANGE the name of a move because you want to, is just WRONG.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 30, 2021 01:45PM)
The technique referred to above by Michael Rubinstein and countrymaven is a modified Ramsey Subtlety developed by Marion Boykin (Mb), which he calls the "Liwag Subtlety." It uses an altered finger palm, but like the Ramsey Subtlety, its purpose is to show an empty palm, giving the impression that the entire hand is empty.

Credit can be given to Gallo for first using a similar technique, but to attempt to rename it after Gallo is a slap in the face to Marion. When Gallo used the technique--once, as far as I know--in his Siamese Coins DVD, he did not recognize it as anything special. He did not name it, and if my memory is correct, Rubinstein himself at one time didn't consider the technique worthy of a name.

I saw Gallo's DVD. Wherever he used the technique, it made no impression on me whatsoever. Gallo's use of the technique is an outlier, a precursor at best.

The attempt to name the technique the "Gallo whatever" creates a false narrative. It suggests that Gallo invented a technique that Mb, in Rubinstein's words, "uses to great advantage." This is simply not true. Gallo had nothing to do with the deveopment of the Liwag Subtlety.

There are many cases in the history of the world where an idea is first formulated by someone, but subsequently named after someone else. So, for instance, we don't refer to the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system as the Aristarchian model of the solar system, but rather the Copernican model, because even though Aristarchus was the first, he didn't develop the idea. That was done, using mathematics and observations, by Copernicus many years later. In history books and websites, Aristarchus is credited with being the first, but the name of the model goes to Copernicus.

There are many, many examples of this throughout the history of science and technology, art and sports, architecture, etc.

Over 14 years ago, Boykin saw in the technique something worth developing. And develop it he did. He made it his own. It is a thing of beauty.

I remember the first couple of videos of Mb I saw. I couldn't figure out where the extra c*** was going. It drove me crazy. I watched the videos over and over and said to myself, "He can't be doing what I think is the only possible explanation, can he? His hand looks so empty." I contacted him, and he (graciously) explained to me the Liwag Subtlety.

Even today, though I know what he's doing, I'm still not quite sure I [i]do[/i] know because it looks so good.

You can be sure that laypeople would have no clue.

I don't do a lot of coin work, but I've added a couple of Liwags to the few coin tricks I perform, enhancing my coin magic that much more. As we know, it's those little enhancements that elevate our magic to a higher level.

I think countrymaven is calling the Liwag Subtlety "MB's High and Active Finger Palm" because he recognizes the power of the technique--he "gets it"--and also wants to give proper credit to Mb. It's basically a descriptive name, and as a result, I don't particularly care for it because it "gives away the game," so to speak. Nevertheless, he has the right to call it that if he so chooses. To give Marion the proper credit, I at one time suggested it be called the RLB (Ramsey-Liwag-Boykin) Subtlety, but that name didn't take off either. This can be gotten around by simply calling it Mb's Liwag Subtlety.

It's been called the Liwag Subtlety for [i]14 years[/i]. Marion didn't name the technique after himself. He humbly named it after the magician who inspired him, Homer Liwag, and in so doing, he gives him proper credit. Marion Boykin is the magician who recognized the value of the technique and developed it, made it his own, made it a central part of his magic. As a result, he has the right to name it whatever he wants, no matter what pronouncements come from on high.

Mb's Liwag Subtlety is here to stay.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 31, 2021 06:11AM)
Ray, we can agree to disagree (and as you know I strongly disagree). Both you and countrymaven do not even mention how it is used by Liwag and Pedrahita, but you both feel that because someone does something well, they deserve credit. As I mentioned, not only Gallo, but Liwag himself did not name the position. Perhaps they felt that a modified finger palm needs no name. No matter if they didn't call it that. They used it. And just because you have seen only one reference about Gallo, doesn't mean he never uses it for anything else, same with Liwag. And as I said, Pedrahita gave it a name and a section in his book, yet you guys fail to even note that. JW Grip was buried until Gallo found it and published it in a mainstream publication. Because you never saw Jimmy Wilson, does that mean you should call it the Gallo grip? No, even though he does it as well as anyone and has a bunch of applications, many that you haven't see because he doesn't put a lot into print anymore. Some stuff he did on the seminar dvds. But it isn't his. Malini NEVER called the method of hiding a coin in cp while showing a hand empty the Malini subtlety, but he used it and taught others. Kaps never called it the Kaps subtlety, but others saw him do it and do it well, and INCORRECTLY gave him the credit because they were unfamiliar with Malini and saw that Kaps did it so well. It took years to correct that in the literature. Just because you aren't aware of how someone used something, once you know they did it first should be enough to claim proper credit. Holcombe made a whole download on Sly palm, as he didn't know I put it on my dvd yrs earlier and called it Side Grip. Rick does it very well, and has thought of additional applications. But it isn't his, it is MINE. And I gave it a name. If I didn't give it a name it would still be mine, because I came up with it and published before anyone else. I don't give a rat's butt if anyone else does it well. Good for them. But I am the originator. Gallo published the use of modified finger palm before anyone else, even if 16 other people were doing it. He is the originator, and deserves rightful credit. Liwag used it and Pedrahita used it and you have no idea with what else they do with it because you are not familiar with all of their work. But they published independently and each should be credited with independent invention, although they both published later (as I mention clearly in my book). Marion learned it from Liwag. No doubt. He didn't make it up. He did not know about Gallo OR Pedrahita. It is a bad to assume he would not have learned and used it as he does now had he seen it from Gallo first. Same with Pedrahita. Doing something well is not a way to establish credit other than saying that he does it well. And Marion himself doesn't take credit. He credited Liwag because he learned it from him and was unaware of other sources. Just because Marion has made it a staple of hi coin magic and uses it in every video does not mean he should be credited, especially by giving it a name. Same with his sleeving and use of other sleights. That is the best way to mess up magic publishing, as somone who is ignorant of history might read the misname and publish something else calling it that. Then a misname will begin to circulate and others will need to correct it. Come on, this is common sense.
Ya know (this is sarcastic), Mickey Silver hides coins in a way that Ramsay would have been jealous of. He must be using the Silver Subtlety. Gallo uses the thumb palm all the time. I see it in every dvd. No one is as illusive as Gallo. Let's call it the Gallo thumb grip. I could go on, this is exactly the same thing.
So if you want to talk about this position, you can call it the Gallo modified finger palm, and mention that it is also known as the Liwag Subtlety and Huddle palm (or if you publish, do as I did and explain the history in your crediting).. But don't start making up stuff because you like the way someone does something, and you are not familiar with the work of others. :gunfighter:
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 31, 2021 08:25AM)
In many post above there appears to be confusion between "creativity" and "first published." Also between "concept" and "application."

Some comments seem more concerned with "who gets paid" than originality. Yes, it is nice to know the history behind a sleight or method in order
to understand the theory and motivation, i.e. what end result was the person trying to improve on. But argument over label does no help at all.

If a person creates a new sleight or handling in a 'non-derivative' manner, to later learn that someone else did it also does not remove the thrill of discovery.
Credit is only necessary if one wishes to publish (sell) the idea.

If one takes a known or learned sleight and modifies it as to application, then 'credit' can help other understand the distinction. Clarity?

Thus, I am just as interested in why Mb felt the need to modify a sleight he knew than who he learned the original from.

A student of coin effects would have a difficult time figuring out the differences between Kaps, Malini, Ramsey and Liwag because many authors/performers confuse them.
Why don't we try for clarity of concept and application rather than worrying about publish date?

Remember Ian Garrison? We had many discussions about derivative and non-derivative creativity. He had many ideas stolen and published by others.
He was amazed that the magic community did not attack such blatant false claims and sales, even when the original was less expensive that the rip-off.

So, why the approbation now? This thread is supposed to be about "great coin productions," not whose name belongs on a palming method.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 31, 2021 10:09AM)
The concept you hit on is originality. The first person to develop a new concept is original. Gallo published it first. Regardless of whether he felt the position warranted a new name, he made a conscious decision to hold his hand in this manner over a traditional finger palm, in order to make his hand look more empty. That is the same idea with Liwag, who also didn't name it. Not giving the position a name doesn't mean that the intent to make the hand look better wasn't there. As I said, I am sure Liwag and Pedrahita were not aware of Gallo's use, and as such didn't credit him or each other. Luis thought it was so important, that he gave it a section in his book. It is obvious by that, that he uses the position a great deal. I have seen on Youtube the way Liwag used it for his vanish. Marion says he learned it from that. Aside from doing it well, what can Marion claim he does that is original (and again, don't mean to drag Marion into it, as he is an innocent bystander and although this thread is about a position he uses, it really is about the broader topic of crediting, which was not brought up by Marion, but by countrymaven)? Holding a coin in your hand or not holding a coin in your hand is pretty much the same thing, if the finger position of hiding the coin is the same. And Gallo displays his hand with the thumb touching the first finger, he could just as easily be holding a coin there, no difference. We are talking about a finger position, not a move. The finger position is accomplished by extending one finger and pulling back the other. It is not a move. There is nothing more creative about it. Ramsay subtlety is the same whether you hold a coin and display it or just display an empty hand. So please, tell me what is different about the display that is used by Gallo, Liwag, Pedrahita, and Boykin. Answer - there is no difference. Why you guys want to remove Gallo's name, the guy who first published, and add someone else's name who admits to having learned it from someone else, is beyond logic.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 31, 2021 10:55AM)
[quote]On Mar 31, 2021, Michael Rubinstein wrote:
Why you guys want to remove Gallo's name, the guy who first published, and add someone else's name who admits to having learned it from someone else, is beyond logic. [/quote]

???? I wasn't referring to any person in particular, or offering an opinion as to whose name should be on it, so why are you beating the same drum? That is beyond logic.

and you start off talking about originality and creativity, then end with "the guy who first published." Also "beyond logic."

"First published" is not proof of creativity or originality. Evidence, perhaps, and obviously important to you. Not to everyone, however.

As noted, I am more interested in WHY a person decided to explore a different way of doing something. What end result drove the need for innovation or creativity (or search).

How about posting something new about "great coin productions?" If I like it, then I will worry about "best method" or whose name to use.

the issue here is not "crediting." It is about the best way to produce a coin.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 31, 2021 12:03PM)
Funsway, the issue became a crediting issue when credits were not given properly on this thread. You talked about originality, I explained that the creator of something is doing something original, and whether you like it or not, the guy who actually published something gets to take the credit for its development, not the guy who years later decides to use it. You answered my post with one of your own that was directly related, so I answered. You specifically state that "Thus, I am just as interested in why Mb felt the need to modify a sleight he knew than who he learned the original from", and I pointed out that he didn't modify anything.That he gave credit to Liwag is proof, and the fact that he didn't give credit to Gallo only means he was likely unaware of his use, because I am sure that if he knew of Gallo, or read Pedrahita 's book before seeing Liwag's Melt away vanish, he might have given credit to them. But if you want to know why a person decided to do something different, like Gallo, Liwag, or Pedrahita, just ask them. They are all findable and you can contact each. When I researched this I talked to Marion, Homer, and Mike, as well as Bob Kohler who stated in 2006 that he was using it as well as Homer and Mike in the mid 80s. I regret not mentioning Bob in my book because although I know he didn't publish, he did lay claim. I answered that the reason people chose that hand position was to give the hand a more open look. Asked and answered.I have made my point, and feel there is no need to continually harp on a subject I thought was long settled.

Now if you want to talk about coin productions (and the hand position in question really has nothing to do with the topic, on that we agree), here are a few:



Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 31, 2021 12:14PM)
Here are a couple more productions:


Finally, a wonderful coin production by Jay Wang that he contributed to Rubinstein Coin Magic:
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 31, 2021 02:55PM)
Michael is right here. Thank goodness for magicians like him. It is very important to keep the record straight.
Keep up the great work Michael.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Mar 31, 2021 04:08PM)
Thanks for the contributions, doc. They expand my concept of what "great production" means.

All seem to be entertaining and would probably be astonishing to most lay observers, but none
meet my standard of being "great" on either the technical "can't be done" or psychological "must be magic" side. Just me - no complaint about the performances.

These make me realize how much I err by striving for a meaningless level of perfection to make an effect "great" rather than just "magical" or a puzzle.

Some of this comes from my early training/mentoring back in the late 50's. If I was working on an effect and another magician had and idea of how to improve it,
they would show me some sleight or technique. No mention of "who created it" or "who published it". Just a different or possibly better way of achieving a desired end result.

Now I have dozens of new sleights and handling that I will probably never publish because they would not be of "popular interest."

Out of your half dozen offerings I may get an idea for some other innovation or presentation. I will not seek to find out how you did it. I will figure out my own way,
seeking an improvement over any slip or fumbling I noticed. Just for me. I promise never to publish them and risk approbation. ;)

The point is that for me "great" is taking something and making it closer to "must be magic" as the only possible conclusion. Not very marketable, though.
Creativity is its own reward. If someone else wants to put their name on one of my sleights I do not care - just perform it correctly. Make it great!
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Mar 31, 2021 04:51PM)
Glad you enjoyed them. As for looking like magic, we all strive to make them look as magical as possible. We improve magic by finding a flaw in a routine and looking for a better method (although I probably didn't put up the best performance for some, as I just filmed to give an idea of the routine and didn'thave the time to get a "perfect" performance filmed). As for not caring who came up with what, it would only be important should you decide to put into print something that uses a move or technique developed by someone else. Many books have incorrect credits because the author failed to do the work to figure out who came up with what. Or that author used an incorrect credit from another source that had it wrong. As I said, it is a big problem in magic. And I and many others who publish so you can learn a great new technique will continue to strive to get it right, even if someone as a reader ultimately doesn't care.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Mar 31, 2021 05:06PM)
[quote]On Mar 31, 2021, magicfish wrote:
Michael is right here. Thank goodness for magicians like him. It is very important to keep the record straight.
Keep up the great work Michael. [/quote]

We don't need to be divided into "right" or "wrong". We can be inclusive.

Let me emphasize, I agree it's important to keep the record straight. That's part of the "discovery" for new magicians. And if there is to be a record at all, certainly Mike Gallo's part of it is as important as anyone else's.- Despite claims to the contrary, I do feel some here have been trying to "one-up" him, and that's entirely unnecessary and beside the point of the work we do, in my opinion. It's exhausting, frankly.

I suggest: Put the info on the record and let the reader go from there. More of that would be helpful, I think.

Just a "coingirl" 's view.
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Apr 1, 2021 11:40PM)
The problem is that if in keeping the record "straight" we hold tightly to what was first and far from best.
Magicians deceive themselves more than even their own spectators sometimes. First just because something is published, if it is not named by the "originator" is this just by chance that it was exposed and not published. "Published" should refer to that specific sleight being published.

In the end, the true originators and creators are those who take something and make a miracle out of it. Especially in magic. Going down the historical rabbit hole is a nice game to play. But MB's creation of the active and high finger palm is what made it great. IT is not a name, not a historical trail. IT is as master Ray Haining said. When you see the performer doing it you can't even imagine that they are hiding it. It is more important than the first person to put butter on bread. When was this published? You can hide in technical discussions. For instance, so and so did a chapter on this. Sorry.... this has to be done on video to truly understand it and appreciate it.

In other words, let the ones who created a miracle be able to have it named after them. Nobody does it like MB. But this is where the obvious comes into play. If I prefer a certain bottom palm in card magic, NOBODY NOBODY HAS a problem with me naming it with the creator. Others might prefer another person's bottom palm. The issue here should not be is it named after the first person who rushed it to print. The issue is, to most magicians, what is the best one? It is often minor subtleties, developed over years, as MB did, that make something into an unprecedented miracle.

They don't curse at me or its equivalent through a historical rabbit hole. As I said, tons of people were doing it before Gallo put it on video without naming it. I developed a trick that made it to Tannen's first, with coins. Others waited, and copied it blatantly without crediting me.

The historical rabbit hole is useful. But sometimes certain subtleties often propel something good into the miracle category. That is precisely what Marion Boykin has done with his high and active finger palm. You can call it what you want. But it just shows that you haven't used it, if you don't appreciate it. Because if you perform for magicians they will oooooo and aaahhhh continuously over a regular finger palm. Because they have been trained to. But spectators see that it is impossible for a magician to be hiding a coin in an MB Palm, when it is being hidden.

I am merely asking for common sense. If we can refer to something generally recognized as great and appearing miraculous, even when you know how it is done, in card magic, it is high time we were able to do so in coin magic. Because becoming insecure and trying to control your own historical black hole has more to do with black art than what is truly making magic great. IMHO. It might be more about insecurity and control issues than with being ABLE to give proper credit to something that is a slight twist but a miraculous variant of what preceded it. Kudos to you MB.

IN the recent past, I did the karate coin. But hid the xtra in MB's high and active FP. I was surrounded and had people swear there was no other coin. IN a sense, the miracle happened to them, and to me. the first time I could use the FP and have people KNOW SOMETHING COULD NOT BE THERE AT ALL. Thanks MB.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 2, 2021 06:44AM)
Thanks for that, county, especially as it cast a new light on comment of doc's above: "incorrect credits because the author failed to do the work to figure out who came up with what."

Certainly, a person publishing should be carful about claiming something as their own without SOME research as to other things published - but that can never point to "who came up with" the idea or innovation. It is often suggested that one should ask experienced folks, but that opens another can of worms. The "perspective" of a sleight's effectiveness can bias an opinion of copy vs innovation.
For example (in keeping with 'great production theme') I have technique I call "Naked" because the hands never close and the coin(s) are visible on the open fingers. In one sequence a copper and a silver coin are lying on the right fingers. The copper coin is taken away leaving the silver just sitting there alone. The copper is in the left finger tips with the other fingers spread. The left hand suddenly goes flat and open and the coin is gone. Everyone glances at the open right hand and both coins are there side by side. I consider this "great" because the right hand never closes or moves. There is no "palming" involved in either hand (some later sequences do).

Now, I sent this effect description to several notable coin workers for comments, seeking mostly ideas of how this technique might fit in with popular coin effects. One said he did not try it as it was obviously impossible and I wasn't providing the full description of methods used. Another said that I was required to credit the palming methods used. ???? There are none, but apparently the idea of "credit" and "acknowledge source of inspiration" is so strong in coin magic that some cannot deal with anything new. Are they afraid to perform anything not published by a famous person?

In truth, I developed this from exploring the limitations and weird finger positions of many popular palming methods. As I rejected all of the sleights that I knew, I was left with the notion that the ideal method would have the hand flat and open with fingers spread throughout. Naked is a "no palming" solution. So, must I credit every palming method rejected? This is not to say this is a perfect sleight -- it can only work under what I call "proximal setting." My point is that this whole "must do the work to find the history, etc." might be stifling the creation of new sleights, and certainly the publishing of same. I have dozens of sleights and unique handlings that I will never publish BECAUSE I have better things to do than research every book ever written and then still be attacked by someone who sees some similarity. I also do not have the money to buy all those books, biased perhaps by a suspicion that "publishing credit" has more to do with "who gets paid" than originality.

I do no think I am alone in this. Over past decades I have known several magicians with unique methods who will never publish with a "why bother" attitude. Then there is the collateral problem of "ain't you got no video?" that kills the release of many innovative sleights. Oh, well.

It is GREAT that many on this thread have posted ideas that might seed inspiration. Develop your own special ways of doing things without fear of having to know the right name or checking publishing dates. Just do it. The problem only comes in if you want to sell the idea. Then someone's ox is always going to get gored. Sad.

By the way, my appreciation of Mb and Tim Feher is not from any sleight or effect they did or did not create. They both encouraged me to stick with coin magic after my hand disabilities made it impossible to do most of what I "usta could" - sleights with the names of famous people on them. I can, however, manage that palming method using only my partially curled ring finger, and don't care what it is called. I thank Mb for showing it to me. I now have several techniques that use that "somebody else maybe did it first" sleight. I am happy to credit Mb for the help. What else really matters?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 2, 2021 07:14AM)
Countrymaven wrote:

"In the end, the true originators and creators are those who take something and make a miracle out of it..."
"...In other words, let the ones who created a miracle be able to have it named after them"

This is wrong, careless, reckless, and disrespectful. And is all the more reason we need the efforts of ethical magicians to combat this type of neglect and irresponsibility in the art.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 2, 2021 08:09AM)
Just when I thought I was out, you pulled me back in. Funsway, I tried to steer the topic back to productions as you complained about, but alas, we are back. Countrymaven, I am sorry, but you are simply WRONG. Just because you like something, you can not assign it an arbitrary name. If you tried to publish your name as a position in a routine saying this belongs to Marion because I like the way he does it, you would be roasted by the profession, which tries hard to keep the history accurate. Have you EVER seen Liwag, Gallo, or Pedrahita use the position? HAVE YOU?? You said, and I quote, "As I said, tons of people were doing it before Gallo put it on video without naming it." Really, and you know this HOW?? WHO?? Go ahead, tell me who they all were. You, know? I did it in 1965. Magicalaurie used it in 1964. Ed Marlo used it in 1955. Dai Vernon used it in 1941. Downs used it in 1901. NOT!!!Here's the plain truth. THERE WOULD BE NO PROOF, ONLY HERESAY, UNLESS THEY PUBLISHED OR DEMONSTRATED IT. It doesn't matter if the first person (Gallo) or anyone else didn't assign it a name. If they put it into print before anyone, it is theirs. And you have no idea what else Gallo uses it for, or Liwag, or Pedrahita, because you don't know all of their magic. And that's a fact, Jack!! Hey, here is a picture from Pedrahita 's book at the end of this post. A photo from a book in 2011, that probably took years to write, and longer to develop the material in the book, as this is his first major pubblication with his favorite material.
Bottom line is that you are entitled to an OPINION, but you can't change the facts or history, and you are beating a dead horse. Marion has contributed nothing to the position other than performing it. I bet that You can't even explain this statement that you made: " It is often minor subtleties, developed over years, as MB did, that make something into an unprecedented miracle." Really, tell us all what subtleties has Marion contributed??? The position is a finger palm with one finger extended, and the other finger pulled back, to make the hand look more open. THAT IS THE SUBTLETY that makes it a VARIATION of finger palm. THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. This is what all the other guys I mentioned do. But because you are unaware of their magic and like Marion's video's, you want to tell the magic world to call it the Marion such and such?? NO NO NO NO NO. Did you ever see Latta do the pass? You can't because it was invisible. But he wasn't claiming credit because he did it well.
This whole topic is ridiculous and frustrating. Here is a photo from Pedrahita's book. I would take a screen shot of Gallo from his dvd off the TV if I wanted to waste more time on this. But I don't. I am done here.
Apparently I can't post a picture that is too big, so here is an instagram link to the photo:
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 2, 2021 08:57AM)
Frustrating, yes - ridiculous is a matter of opinion. Doc, you keep repeating your "opinions" over and over while never addressing some key issues.

One is equating "first published" with "create." For you "proof" seems to be important, and that means "for you" seeing it in a published book or DVD.

For me, if I saw and sleight performed a decade before someone published it, that is "proof" for me that the person later claiming originality is "wrong, careless, reckless, and disrespectful - unethical."

If I created (for me) a sleight in 1985, the fact that somebody publishes that sleight in a book in 2000 is not proof that I did not create it. Neither does it prove they stole it.
They probably did not know of my creation and came up with it independently, or stole it from someone else. Publication only proves they published it first. Not the same thing at all.

In fairness, many who publish a sleight/move under their name do not claim originality, or as you have noted, make any claim at all - they just do it.

So, I respect your "opinion" that first published is an important proof "for you." For me, not so much. That does not make me "wrong."

I am NOT championing Mb's use of this sleight or the claims of others about its naming.
My ability to use it does not depend on knowing who did it first or why they did.

In my writings I do say, " a palming subtlety I learned from Mb." That is true. Am I supposed to lie just to satisfy you or 'fish'?

Am I prevented from using it unless I purchase your book? Not!

Am I prevented from creating new magic effects using this palming method because I don't use your approved name? Never!

I salute ALL who have done things that inspire my creativity and appreciation of good magic. I don't have to "take sides."

but, my views are ridiculous. So be it.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 2, 2021 10:31AM)
Sigh. Ok Funsway. You want facts. Here are facts. You can argue opinion, but you can't dispute the facts.
1. Gallo was the first to document his use by showing a video of that modified finger palm position (1996).It's use is clear and beyond dispute. His manuscript was released in 1989, but there was only an unclear illustration of the same position.
2. Kohler in a 2006 Magic Café post states that he, Liwag, and Gallo independently used that modification in the mid 80s. I have no reason to doubt Bob, and talked to him about it. Gallo remembers that his use predates both Liwag and Kohler. So there is only verbal he said he said.
3. Liwag made a video of his Melt Away vanish demonstrating the modified finger palm in Coin One in 2006. His use clearly demonstrates that even with no name, as Gallo, he found it to be a more deceptive position than regular finger palm, which is why he used it. His earlier publication of Three Coins and a Philipino, on which Coin One is based, had no mention of this modification (so it's use can not be verified by his publication at that time.
4. Luis Pedrahita also published this modification, giving it a name and uses, in 2011 in his beautiful book Coins and other Fables.You can see a photo I took from his book on my instagram (link was provided).
The position in question, is ONLY a finger modification.
5. Marion learned it from seeing Liwag. He gave it a name (The Liwag Subtlety) since Liwag did not. He uses it a lot. Many have learned it from Marion. But he did not invent it, or create additional subtleties.
That is the record. Those are the facts. You can not dispute the facts.

Ok, now MY OPINION. Gallo, Liwag, and Pedrahita most likely independently created that modification. There may have been others, but it would only be their word with no documentation. People say all the time that they developed this or that, but talk is cheap, and unfortunately, even if it's true, it is just an allegation because there is no proof (and yes Funsway, if you care about self credit you need to put something into print. If not, there is no record, and if someone else publishes that before you, you are screwed. Your only option then is to complain (if you care about it enough), and it will only create unnecessary controversy and time needed to correct (such as Latta's French Pop which was published without permission and without credit to Latta by Chris Kenner (Latta taught it to Kenner), and it took years to correct the record. Or the prior mentioned examples of Tenkai Pinch and Malini Subtlety).
We have taken up way too much time discussing a small modification of a standard coin magic position. And yes, I am guilty as charged because I see people making inaccurate comments and choose to make sure the record is correct. I would argue that a third finger finger palm is probably a more important modification of finger palm (and I don't think we will ever find the first time someone used it). Most magicians today use that (third finger finger palm) over the standard low and high finger palm demonstrated and taught in Bobo, and in older literature. Marion uses the Gallo modification, that he learned from watching Homer Liwag, and named it the Liwag Subtlety because as far as he knew, it was a novel modification.
Others likely use it as well, whether they learned it from somewhere or just do it on their own. But Marion did no other subtle modifications that make it different than the three guys who I already mentioned had displayed their use of this modification in print or on video. In fact, he did nothing other than perhaps make it more accessible to people like you who had (perhaps) not seen it previously, or saw it used and were fooled by it so they weren't aware of it's use, or who knew about it and did not appreciate it enough at the time to get excited over it.
There is nothing more for me to say. If you disagree, go ahead. It is only your opinion, and not fact. The facts that I mentioned can not be disputed. And I think this has already been opinioned to death. Mic drop.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 2, 2021 01:26PM)
I didn't ask for any "facts" about this case or sleight. I asked about the "fact" of creativity as it relates to publishing. You have continuously intermixed "first published" with "create" -
it is that idea that I disagree with. You finally might be understanding my opinion with -- " yes Funsway, if you care about self credit you need to put something into print."

I don't. I feel many others do care not also. I am interested in seeing my creations performed correctly, and seeing the general quality of performance magic improve.
Seeing my name in print is NOT a motivation for anything. I have given tens of thousands of presentations of magic effects and never charged a dime.
I give away hundreds of eBooks every year at no-charge. I have 'funsway' on most as it is not a name.

I am now releasing some effects/routines for publication with proceeds going to my new wildlife sanctuary.
I give credit for creativity if I know of it. I give credit for publication even if I know that person did not create it as a source for the reader to pursue.
I have even written to performers asking permission to use their idea because I want to know the thinking behind the creation.
But, I have no obligation to spend years or dollars chasing down every possible alternative reference to an idea.

You may feel this weird. Probably, but it does not make me wrong either. I know when I created something in a non-derivative fashion, and you cannot take that away.
Publishing does not increase or decrease the creativity. If you want your name one of my sleights, just ask. I'll put "Rubinstein Pass" in my next eBook.

I have never disagreed with your statements about the many who have published or used this sleight before Mb. Yet you keep posting the same things.
I do feel that you ignore the popularity Mb brought to the use of this sleight. That is deserving of recognition aside from any claim of ownership.

We now see many posts about "great coin productions." Some use the subtlety under discussion. How many of those using it give thanks to Mb vs
how many give thanks to Gallo or Pedrahita? Yes, credit may be important. Why don't you give some? You sorta do above - great.

So, I am glad you will not post any more repetitions of that same stuff. No one is disagreeing with your history lesson, except that you don't mention Mb's publications
in 2007 and 2010. If you want a true history, why aren't those listed? Don' t you know of these? Didn't you do the research?

I also hope you stop claiming that publication means "created." and that you recognize that inspiring folks to use a sleight is just as important as the name on the box.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 2, 2021 02:06PM)
Really? "So, I am glad you will not post any more repetitions of that same stuff. No one is disagreeing with your history lesson, except that you don't mention Mb's publications in 2007 and 2010. If you want a true history, why aren't those listed? Don't you know of these? Didn't you do the research?"

Actually, as stated AD NAUSEUM, I am the ONLY one who has done the research. Yeesh.
Those aren't listed because Marion did not CREATE the finger position. He learned it from Liwag, as I stated, and as HE has stated.
Feel free to publish with no credits.That seems to be your beef. Many people do that already. If you don't care, you don't care. I don't really care what you do either (I just think it's unprofessional, and many people who read that work will think that as well). But, as you may surmise, many other people also won't care. This is a society where people just want the latest stuff, and don't care about anything other then learning the next new thing, and don't give a rat's butt about who did what when.
Just don't use incorrect credits like countrymaven is trying to do (which is what brought me to this table, and from which I would really like to get up from and walk away).
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 2, 2021 02:35PM)
"Those aren't listed because Marion did not CREATE the finger position." No proof those others guys created it either.

"That seems to be your beef" NO - my beef is you confusing publication with creativity (as do many others).

You offer that it is your opinion "that most likely independently created that modification."
I do not see where any of them claimed to create it or where they got the inspiration to try something different.

maybe they did create it with no inspiration from another source. Maybe they saw someone else do it and tried it out. Maybe it was an accident that worked.
All we know is that they published something mentioning the subtlety, but that none seemed to think it very important.

I had already used it many times before I learned it from Mb as an actually treatment. I did it out of convenience or because of the shape of the object palmed.

Anyone who uses a finger palm a lot will have used only one finger. What is important for ALL of them is realizing what the audience sees that is different.
For me, the important part is that the perception of the audience changes when the other fingers seem free. Why isn't that as important as the name of the subtlety?

Oh, hum ...

I clearly stated that I do give credits - just not seeking credit for myself. Please do not misquote or misstate what I say. That is part of research too.

Actually, you should thank me for giving you so many opportunities to advertize your book ;)
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Apr 2, 2021 02:49PM)
Michael, you know I have great respect for you and your work. We've always had a friendly relationship. I concur with you that as civilized, enlightened gentlemen, we can agree to disagree on this one topic. I too am passionate about my position, because I perceive an injustice here, an attempt to eradicate somebody from the historical record.

And forgive me if I pull no punches.

There are two issues here: crediting and naming. Crediting is for the purpose of history; naming is for the purpose of [i]identification[/i]. Sometimes the two overlap, but sometimes not.

So set "the record straight" in your writings; trace the history of a move, a trick, an idea, trace it all the way back to whom you believe was the first person to use that move, trick, or idea, giving credit where you consider proper credit is due. That's all well and good. I'm a history buff myself. (Right now, I'm studying the early American Republic.) And yes, Michael, you have done a fantastic job of tracing the origins and history of a multitude of tricks and moves, and you are to be commended for that.

Naming things, however, is something different. Sometimes crediting and naming coincide (such as Einstein's theory of relativity). Sometimes the name of the first person to come up with an idea does [i]not[/i] coincide with the naming of that idea. The world of science and technology is replete with such examples. (I gave you above the example of Aristarchus versus Copernicus.)

So, for instance, Michael, if you were a biologist and you insisted, vehemently, that Darwin's theory of evolution be called Wallace's theory of evolution because Alfred Russel Wallace was the first to formulate the idea, you'd be the laughingstock of the scientific community. (Some of your scientific colleagues might even try to have you committed.)

I admit the name "Liwag subtlety" is somewhat of a misnomer. If Marion had known about and been inspired by Gallo's work, he probably would have named the technique the "Gallo subtlety." But he didn't know of Gallo's work (who did?). He could have named it the "Boykin subtlety," but he is too modest a fellow to have done that.

Instead, he named it after the magician, Homer Liwag, who [i]inspired[/i] him, not necessarily to give Liwag [i]credit[/i] for being the first to use the technique, just to give the technique a [i]name[/i], something to [i]identify[/i] it with, which, before Marion, [i]nobody else had thought to do[/i], because [i]nobody else recognized the power and utility of this technique[/i], not Gallo, not Kohler, not you yourself, Michael.

And if some people mistakenly think that because it's named after Liwag he was the first to use this technique--well, that's the way it goes. You know the saying: stuff (smelly stuff) happens. Better that than Marion Boykin be erased from the historical record.

Marion Boykin has been calling this technique the "Liwag subtlety" for 14 years. Put "liwag subtlety" into the Café search engine along with Marion's username Mb217. You'll come up with 58 entries going back to 2007 where he discusses and promotes the technique. From there, you can go to links of Marion performing and observe him using the technique. You can study it. You can learn from it. He does not just do it well. He's taken it to a whole other level, which you don't seem to get.

You can't turn around after 14 years and proclaim, "I, Michael Rubinstein, Master of the Realm, Lord of the Coin, do hereby proclaim--forthwith!--that from this time forward, Marion Boykin's Liwag subtlety will be called the 'Gallo whatever' because I have determined that Gallo was the first magician to use a similar technique." You can't do that. You don't have the authority to do that.

The hubris here is staggering. You're attempting to wipe out 14 years of history.

Try writing to Luis Piedrahita and tell him he must change his "Huddle palm" to the "Gallo whatever." How do you think he will reply?

You do something similar with the Tenkai pinch and Malini subtlety as well. The one should be called the "Tenkai/Goshman pinch" (I've seen it referred to this way many times), not just the "Tenkai pinch." [i]Your[/i] approach obliterates [i]decades[/i] of magical literature where the move was called the "Goshman pinch." People should know the two names refer to the same move. They may want to research the move.

You may object that that gives "equal billing" to Tenkai and Goshman. However, putting Tenkai's name first in "Tenkai/Goshman" should satisfy your criterion for crediting. The same goes for the Malini/Kaps subtlety.

Information and knowledge--isn't that what we strive for, to impart information and knowledge?

And so, Michael, give Gallo credit for being the first to use this technique. I'm all for that. (Although, as countrymaven points out above, can we know who was really the first to use this particular technique?) But the time to [i]name[/i] it the "Gallo anything" has long since passed. The technique has a name. It's called the Liwag subtlety--named, developed, and used (to great effect, as you say) by Marion Boykin as documented here on the Magic Café.

Sometimes you just have to accept things the way they are and move on.

And yes, as Magicalaurie points out above, this is exhausting. I'm done with this.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 2, 2021 03:53PM)
Well Ray, I thought I was done until your post. Since you have my book, you know that I present the history of the position and give credit for independent invention, using the names Liwag Subtlety and Huddle palm as well. You also know that I didn't invent a crazy name, just accurately described it. Gallo Modified finger palm says that it is a modified finger palm first used by Gallo, and I gave dates. What people do with that information is up to them. Just because Gallo didn't name it means squat. And I have just as much right to give a name as did Marion, given that I knew the history that Marion didn't (and I talked to Gallo first, unlike Marion who didn't contact Homer as I did as well). It is important when writing an important book to make sure the historical record is accurate.
And as a person who knows history, you should understand more than others that Bobo gave the Goshman pinch that name because Goshman didn't tell him that it was Tenkai's. When you write an important book and make a mistake like that, you create many problems, which has taken years to solve and give Tenkai the credit he deserves. So what if Goshman USED it. It wasn't his, it wasn't even a case of independent creation. Bobo could easily have tried to find out more about the clipped position, it was already in print. But he neglected his duty, assigned to him when he chose to recap the coin magic of his era. Same with Kaps using a subtlety that was taught to him by Vernon. He was well aware of whose it was. Someone else wrote that it should be called the Kaps subtlety, but Kaps never corrected that. So it is also on him. Luckily people who care about history were able to find proper references and set the record straight. I am sure Tenkai and Malini would have been happy that their work was finally recognized.
If you guys are fine with those mistakes,and want to continue to misname stuff, well that's on you. We should always try to get it right. By now everyone pretty much knows that Goshman did not come up with that position, so why do you continue to use his name? Nostalgia? I don't know, maybe you do.
So, what you have basically said is that Marion liked it, learned it, and ran with it giving Liwag credit. Fine. I have no problem with what Marion did, or how he uses that position. Good for him that he used it and talked about it for 58 entries. He still didn't develop it. It is not a move with applications. It is a POSITION, a variation of finger palm.
I had TWO problems, which is the ONLY REASON I have spent so much time here.
1. That countrymaven wants to rename a position because he likes Marion's work (he could easily have called it the Liwag subtlety and said Marion does it great and I wouldn't have said a word, because that is fine by me).
2. That Marion himself created a post on this thread with a recap of finger palm information where countrymaven touts the new name.
Sorry, that's where I stepped in.
This is a strange small group, this Café crowd. We all know each other by the way we post. So you guys should know me as a stand up guy. I took a year to write a book and tried to get the credits as accurate as possible, because when you write a book you need to be as accurate as you can, and hope that when people read it they will continue to be accurate. If I made any mistakes in the credits I used, it was not for lack of research as I used many books and many auxilliary sources. Bobo should have done that as well, and whether by intentional mistake or by ignorance he did not (which is interesting because I believe Tenkai is also mentioned in Bobo). I am only responsible for what I can do. You all can do what you want, of that no one has control but yourselves. As I said, you can argue opinions, but you can't argue facts. Can I leave now?
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 6, 2021 03:19PM)
I came in somewhat late, I admit...but I'll say this about magic. You should only wait long enough for someone to even think "it is in the other hand" before you make a duplicate re-appear somewhere. The tempo is pretty fast for today. And I mean whatever grip you use. Don't wait long. And the next big thing I notice, a lot of guys don't simulate that they hold something in their hand when nothing is there...and the audience doesn't believe the coin is "there" because the magician in question isn't acting out the idea of holding something well enough.
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 6, 2021 03:22PM)
P.s. I just noticed the actual topic. How about Pop Outs. This production was popular briefly then went out of favor pretty quickly. Why not bring it back ?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 6, 2021 09:18PM)
Impressive feat. Even more impressive when you know the mechanics. Catching a fly in mid-air - or in this case catching it under your finger.

A simple FP production seems to register more when they get a sense of where you are looking before you pluck a coin into visibility. The clank from the bucket in your other hand helps immensely after the first production; so the effect can build.

A different approach is to [i]find[/i] coins. The Vernon "Free and Unlimited Coinage of Silver" has coins [i]found[/i] under things you pick up and then one inside a dinner roll. The audience knows you are doing it but they are more about where the next coin will be than how you got it there. :)
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 7, 2021 01:14PM)
True, but why did Pop-outs go out of favor so fast. I saw Geof Latta do it. He was the only one. I'm going to work on it.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 7, 2021 02:12PM)
The only problem with Pop Outs, is that if you don't hit it, it doesn't look good. If you do hit it, however, it looks very magical. I wonder if anyone did it onto an open palm?
Message: Posted by: countrymaven (Apr 8, 2021 11:01PM)
You can try to control your own subjective historical argument of how a sleight was developed. I have all those resources and more, by the way. I was aware of those. But it is different to propose that the subtleties, even small ones, made MB's High and Active FP into a miracle. I don't care about someone's subjective historical arguments. I had some big names steal one of my tricks, which was published, with no credits. So the historical pretexts about a universal move used since Adam fell off his dinosaur, do not apply so well.
I have, as others do, the freedom to speak of what is best, what has worked as miraculous. And sorry to say, MB's finger palm, high and active is what did it. In card magic, we can speak of a type of palm that we consider miraculous. Who cares what subjective pseudo historical accounts you have aligned. For a universal move used since the beginning of coin magic, it is a bit naive to think that you can apply these subjective arguments here. Again I have these resources. But I am most concerned with the most valuable thing in magic: a move that is transformed into a miracle. And for me, in my experience, MB's subtleties are unsurpassed; if you can't see them or perceive them, then fine. You probably are doing coin puzzles and not miracles. However, I can attest to seeing MB's moves, after seeing all the other resources, and being blown away. Then performing it and seeing a miracle occur. And any other style of FP would NOT HAVE accomplished this surrounded. So go ahead, and make your own historical argument. But I am not talking about that, I am just giving credit to MB for raising the bar on this. Others are free to express this in other fields of magic. It would be somewhat asinine to think that we could not express these opinions, based on much experience, in coin magic as well.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 9, 2021 07:00AM)
1. The history of the use of that finger position as I outlined it is fact, not subjective.
2. The position in question is a finger palm variation, and NOT a MOVE.
3.You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. And all you have done is state opinions.
4. There is nothing new to say. Do we STILL need to talk about this?
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 9, 2021 08:21AM)
For me, the 'history' of a move, sleight or even subtlety should look to the use of that "method" as much as the claimed or assumed origin or source.

Publish date can be important for claims of payment in a legal sense, but says nothing about creation or source of inspiration.
Knowledge of a creator of a Method can be useful if one want to explore the thinking behind the innovation or wish to learn of other creations.

So, we can look to the useful concealment of a coin behind the lower joint of two fingers (ring and middle) as a source of inspiration.

Jean Hugard's book 'Coin Magic' in the 30's makes references to this Palming Method several times (pps. 20, 45, 52, 55, 81, etc.)
Yet he does not describe it in detail as he does other Methods. One might 'assume' that it is such a common handling that it is not worth calling by name.
There is no distinction between which finger is actually holding the coin, but reference to the empty palm being shown as a great deception. Maybe he used only one finger for the hold.

Regardless, to my knowledge, none of those later publishing their version of the Method give credit for the inspiration. (Ramsey, Malini, Kapps and more)
Now we are enchanted by some fine variations of a "finger palm" that wasn't even worth naming back when.

What are called 'variations' or "subtleties" might be considered as innovations, but not "created by." Publishing date does not help there except o show that they DID NOT give credit.

So, Doc - we STILL NEED TO TALK about the concept of history, creativity and first published since your statement above:

"The history of the use of that finger position as I outlined it is fact, not subjective." is incomplete and incorrect.

It is VERY subjective to your particular view of the importance of publishing. It is not FACT. To me they are just your opinions too. (Valued, but still just an opinion)

If we look at the HISTORY of the latest variations and uses that prompted this discussion, then both Hugard and Mb must be mentioned.
The first as the possible source of inspiration, and the second for making the USE of these variations popular.
In between, others might be mentioned too for contribution to the practical uses of the concealing a coin (small object) with your lower fingers.

Of interest to me, what was the first time the term "finger palm" was used/published to describe the most common method of concealing a coin?
Does that published guy mention Hugard or other earlier source?

As I posted above, I feel that any person fiddling with a coin and attempting to conceal it will "innovate" a lower finger palm.
They do not have to read of it, copy it or see a video of it. I feel that is why Hugard did not even name it. It is a natural handling.

For example, my guitar playing wife always holds a guitar pick in finger palm when not needed. No one taught her, she does it --
so well that I did not even catch what she was doing for years. She just had a pick when she need one and "gone" when she did not.
Does she use one finger or two? How does she get the pick from "Gallo Variation" to fingertips and back? I don't know. She is not magician.
She just does what is necessary to achieve an objective - to have a pick instantly available in hand when she needs one.
She did not even realize that the pick was concealed as he played the guitar with fingers free. It is a natural handling.

I am not saying, Doc, that you have to include her name in any updated history of "finger palm variations."
But, it is FACT that she does this and proves the effectiveness of the palming method/position and freeness of fingers.

Now, within the context of this thread, is the use of finger palm or one of many variations useful in achieving a "great coin production?"
Yes and no. It is great for 'concealing' a coin and therefor in engendering a sense of "impossible." It is nor great for an easy release of the coin for a production,
or for many of the fake or false place to take moves that accompany a "great productions' - and the acquitments.

It that not as important as any history of the move/position/sleight/variation?

Certainly more that "credit" or "providence" - or even "history."
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 9, 2021 10:46AM)
ARRRGGGHH. For someone who lamented that this thread has gone off topic, you keep going there. So, yes. Finger palm has been referenced in the magical literature since Discoverie of Witchcraft in the 1500s. If you care to go to conjuringarchive.com, and type in "finger palm", there are a plethora of references to that way of hiding a coin, from the 1900s, 1800s, and prior. Hugard did not publish the first book that describes finger palm, so why even make mention? It is irrelevant. It is established that finger palm has been used for hundreds of years, with variations like high finger palm, low finger palm, and third finger finger palm. It would be very difficult to trace the origins of those variations through the magical literature. But this one? Well, we have documentation.
Further, you state after quoting me,
"The history of the use of that finger position as I outlined it is fact, not subjective." is incomplete and incorrect."
No. My statement is true. You can make ASSUMPTIONS, but you can't change fact. By your statement you are asserting that PERHAPS many others played around with that position. MAYBE Hugard did it. MAYBE Downs did it. MAYBE 1000 other magicians did it as they played with finger palm. Yes, MAYBE. But when you ASSUME, you make an A.. out of U AND ME (Great line by Tony Randall on The Odd Couple). You can make a million assertions or assumptions, or use whatever logic, but until you can establish that as FACT, it means nothing other than a point of view.
The funny thing is that JUST BECAUSE you guys were introduced to that position by Marion, who named that position after the person he learned it from (FACT), you seem to feel that he should get credit for more than giving it a name. He should get credit for using it (although you have also made claim in this thread of Marion's innovations, yet fail to document one innovation). But let me ask, have you seen the other people use it? Homer told me he uses it all the time. Gallo tells me he uses it as well. Pedrahita published his own routines with its use. FACT that they demonstrated it's use MEANS that they felt it was a more open hand position. It is IRRELEVANT that YOU have haven't seen how they use it for real people, or WHEN they decide to use it over a "standard" finger palm. Most people who have watched them perform won't even know that they used it. They probably wouldn't even know that they used ANY kind of finger palm. You keep talking about how Marion has popularized this, and want him to get credit for making it so popular. Again, subjective. Popular on the Magic Café, sure. You, Countrymaven, and Ray Haining all learned it from Marion. Others as well. Marion makes a bunch of videos and downloads. I am sure he has been successful at marketing them here on the Magic Café, and why not. He is a nice guy, very personable, and a good magician to boot.
I honored Marion's contribution by putting the name he coined, "The Liwag Subtlety" into my book, citing independent invention by Liwag. Marion himself on another thread stated that he was happy that the name he coined had been used by others, and was happy to show others this position. He said," I certainly did not make it, no more than men make diamonds, but glad to have in some way shined a more intentional light upon it in this rough as to its greater usage & value. 🎩"
Danny Goldsmith puts out a bunch of downloads and videos. He doesn't do it on the Magic Café, but he is quite prominent on social media and places like Ellusionist, and more. He uses Downs palm in a lot of his work. He does it very well. He does very nice retention work where a coin gets transferred into that position. He uses that position for coin changes and productions. Magician A may not have been aware of Downs palm until they saw Danny's download. It might have been a revelation for him. He might have gone on coin magic forums to argue that because Danny does it so well, his hand absolutely looks empty when he uses it, no one else does it as good as Danny (from someone who has not seen anyone use Downs palm before) and has made all these great innovations (not true, because Downs palm is Downs palm no matter what you do with it), that it should be called the Goldsmith Subtlety. Others who never used Downs palm before might even agree, and go on the Magic Café and talk about this great "move", the Goldsmith Subtlety.
You guys going on here and stating that because Marion does it well, he should have the position named after him, is like Magician A going on Facebook and making a similar assertion.

Oh, one more thing about credits that no one seems to care about. I brought this up in the past. Dingle put out a book, where he revealed the Dingle Pickup move. It would have been attributed forever to Dingle, until people in the know started to whisper that it was Al Schneider's. Someone (I think Kaufman) called it the Dingle- Schneider pick up move, thinking independent invention because Dingle claimed invention. However, it turned out that Al Schneider taught it to Dingle. Yep, and Dingle (probably purposely, although he was an alcoholic and may not have remembered) claimed it as his own. It took years for Al Schneider to establish that he came up with it first (and yes, he was able to prove it. If you want to know how, the story is out there, do the work and find it). Luckily this didn't happen on the Café, because maybe then Al would never get his proper credit and you guys would argue that history means nothing and Dingle popularized the move, so why even mention Al?
How long are you guys going to argue in circles? I am leaving this thread now, because I realize that by answering I am enabling you.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 9, 2021 11:24AM)
Yes, you do round and round. You are the one that now introduced "history" rather than credits or creativity.

You statement is NOT historically correct. FACT!

What is this "you guys" stuff? There is no conspiracy here, Doc, just some seeking clarity and accuracy.

You say, "You guys going on here and stating that because Marion does it well, he should have the position named after him."

Nope - never said that, never though that. My statements are very clear. No reason to misquote and create a 'straw man."

And no, I did not learn this from Marion. Another wrong statement. He just put a name on something I had done for decades.

I don't know about those others. I did not "learn it" anywhere.
It just developed naturally from coin and small object handling decades before the Café, reading Bobo, Mb and you.
I did learn about finger palming without a name for Hugard back about 1960. That is part of my history. Those "other guys" are not.

But, I don't want credit or recognition, but do wish to be accurate in my writing of magic effects.

Your shuffling and waffling of terms and false statements does not help me be more accurate.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD25 (Apr 9, 2021 02:40PM)
Getting back to productions, Bertini's four coin production from edge grip is a thing of beauty.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 9, 2021 03:32PM)
A side note for those who like to pluck coins from the air. With the coin is some variation of finger palm, turn the hand over
so that the coin rests on the tip of the thumb. Open the entire hand with fingers spread as you "search" for coin in the air by moving the hand about.
Since the coin is edge on to the audience and your hand is moving the coin is not seen. (and eye contact is with a point in the air)

At the perfect moment you just rotate your hand a bit and pull back to pluck the coin with thumb and fingertip with flash too.

This also creates great expectations with a hand wide and ready of gobble something.

I call this technique "Thumbgrab" and have done it for about 50 years.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD25 (Apr 9, 2021 05:53PM)
Will Houston has some good tips on the finger palm production on his Modern Magic DVD set.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Apr 9, 2021 05:59PM)
[quote]On Apr 9, 2021, NicholasD25 wrote:
Getting back to productions, Bertini's four coin production from edge grip is a thing of beauty. [/quote]

Indeed! :spinningcoin: :spinningcoin: :spinningcoin: :spinningcoin:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 9, 2021 06:06PM)
+1 for Bertini producing coins. Also recently Clement Di Natale shows some impressive coin productions on his "new old ideas" video.

The July 2000 issue of Genii Magazine includes a discussion of a coin production used by l'Homme Masque.

Back on topic, how about that Teller routine using the fishtank? :D
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Apr 10, 2021 01:02AM)
Paul Harris has a production of four coins as the first trick in his "Monster Coin Routine." I don't know whether the OP was interested only in bare-hand productions of coins, but if you don't mind mixing cards with coins, this is a good one.

I searched the Internet for a video of Paul Harris performing this trick, which is called "Silver Slide," as performed on the Stars of Magic DVDs, disk 1. I wasn't able to find it. I found a video where it is performed by Cassan Wallace. In the Paul Harris performance, he first slides out four cards, two in each hand, as in the Wallace video (but in the Wallace video his left hand goes out of camera). He states he is going to do a version of the three-shell game with four cards. On the Wallace video, there is no talking (and the music is, to my ear, annoying).

Harris takes out a coin from his pocket (in the Wallace video, it is already on the table) and states that the idea is to locate the coin under the proper card. All the moves from here on in are the same in both videos, but in the Harris performance the actions are motivated by the patter.


I also found in a little booklet, [i]The Magic of Paul Harris[/i], by Jerry Mentzer, a trick titled "Silver and Aces," the effect of which is the spectator cuts a deck into four piles. [i]Miraculously[/i], on top of each pile is an ace. The aces are slid off the piles onto the table. Then the aces are slid aside and there is a coin under each ace.

In looking around the Internet, I came across the following, which in the beginning has a nice production of four coins. (The rest of the routine is beautiful, if you want to keep watching.) I think Michael Ammar does something similar on one of his videos--where I'm not sure. I could be wrong about this. I believe, however, I've seen it somewhere else.


Incidentally, in my search I came across a performance of Paul Harris at the Magic Palace in Canada. I had forgotten how hilariously funny could be!
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Apr 10, 2021 01:12AM)
... funny [i]he[/i] could be!
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 10, 2021 06:13AM)
Dan Fleshmen has a nice rollover production of 4 coins from a card in his book Coin Miraxles, and on his Restaurant Magic col. 3 DVD. Both Aurelio Paviato of Italy (used in his FISM winning act in 1982) and Jean Pierre Vallerino of France have published productions where a half dollar appears under each of 4 cards. Paviato does it as the opening effect here:
Here is Jean Pierre Vallerino producing 4 coins from one card (similar to Fleshman):
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 10, 2021 01:29PM)
I'm working on Pop-Outs now. Hey, also Roth's production from the purse frame.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD25 (Apr 10, 2021 01:57PM)
Just an aside. While working on pop outs from finger palm, I hit upon the idea of doing it with a playing card. I usually top palm the card, then just let it drop out of palm and quickly catch it with first finger and thumb. If done smartly, it looks pretty good.
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 10, 2021 08:58PM)
I was doing something like that out of backpalm with a card. First I'd let go with pinkie so the card was like backclipped between 1st and 2nd, and then I'd drop my hand as I released the card and catch it as it fell. Hard to explain but the concept sounds similar but from front palm. Back to the coin and Pop-outs, someone was doing it into between the fingers of the left hand. Cardini had a move like that with a billiard ball in his early days when he did more billiard ball stuff.
Message: Posted by: Nev Blenk (Apr 11, 2021 04:15AM)
I love popouts. I often use it during an 'out with 5' routine.
On the subject of Vallerino, I think Kaufman is currently writing a book on his magic.
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 11, 2021 06:20AM)
I'm glad to hear this.
Message: Posted by: Michael Rubinstein (Apr 11, 2021 01:11PM)
Jean Pierre is a wonderful magician, and a great guy to boot. I stayed with him years ago when I did a lecture in Nice. Glad to hear that his stuff is coming out in a book.
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 18, 2021 09:13PM)
Was thinking of "The Flurry".
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 19, 2021 06:01AM)
Discussions on this thread have taken me back to many techniques and methods I have developed and used over the last 60+ years as a performer.
Some of these are for coins or can be adapted to coins and might be worth publishing to help others.

Specifically are those I call "Full-On" for the posture of the producing hand. I hesitate to say 'ultimate" though others have.

The hand is held as a lay person would if grabbing a suddenly appearing coin for the air: palm open and fully exposed to the audience,
fingers spread wide except for the thumb and forefinger ready to claim the prize. Ideally, both hands are shown empty before and after each
production except for the known coin(s), and with no motion to the body between productions.

I gradually developed several methods for achieving this objective through fiddling, performance (success and failure) and imagination.
Techniques are for "in hands only," using a table, and spectator hands, but each uses the same basic Performance Modules.

I naturally would wish to give credit or acknowledgement to any others who have created similar techniques, sleights and moves,
if only to attach better names that those I have used. If anyone knows of published (or not) techniques that are Full-On,
please write to me ken@eversway.com

The objective is to get four coins into play with maximum astonishment as a prelude to a Coins Across, Matrix, etc. -
but also to set Patterns of what is normal for these later routines.

I know that there are many muti-productions of individual coins that are impressive and practical - and a favorite for some reason.
I am only interested in those (even single coin productions) that meet the Full-On standard, plus no gaffs, gimmicks, attachments or containers.

Naturally, that standard is for what the audience perceives or recalls happening, not what actually happened. This means psychological ploys are involved, so I don't expect to see videos.

I have never seen or read of any four-coin production series from thin air that meets this standard, so, I am asking ...

I am too crippled to perform much anymore and can no longer do some of my own sleights. Perhaps it is time to pass on the baton.

I am not suggesting that these techniques are "perfect" or that they can be applied to all settings and audiences -
those being framing considerations for effects that preceded and will follow the coin production.
Message: Posted by: gregg webb (Apr 22, 2021 12:10PM)
Let's say you are going to get 4 coins for a Matrix effect. I often remember Geoff Latta would want to produce all 4, but I decided it was better to start with 1 already in view and 3 palmed and then multiply the 1 to 4. To try to make your hand look like it is not palming 4 is pretty hard. It isn't a cop-out. It is called living in the real world where you don't have ideal conditions. Call it trading "the real work" for the "real world".
Message: Posted by: funsway (Apr 22, 2021 01:39PM)
Well, Gregg, you will certainly want to review my eBook when published. ;)
Message: Posted by: Mitchael (Apr 23, 2021 11:02AM)
How about Kainoa Harbottles Chalice routine which has the production of what? 20 coins, produced via coin roll. I would like to show you something with 4 coins, produce 4, but say that you have to clear the ether of all those coins you vanished earlier. :)
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Apr 23, 2021 01:10PM)
Kainoa's coinroll production is very pretty, indeed- another one of my favourites.
Along with this one, which just took me four or five or more tries to accomplish: :spinningcoin:
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Apr 23, 2021 03:43PM)
Another of my favourites, previously mentioned, Chanin Coin Production (I learned it from David Roth- NYCMS Volume One, Disc One)