Agree Jon, same goes for the 10.kroner, it's slightly heavier than other coins which make stage 1 sound really convincing.

-e-

Cheers Jon for the tips... I got mine today but ain't had time to practice with the dite coke or 7up, but I know fanta cans are a problem... as there are problems with the last part.

Why don't we just tell the world about this and how it is done...lol

I think the secret is out to be honest. And it's not much of a secret, but that hardly matters, since it's the effect that counts.

Magicsquared, well done for advancing a logical argument and for punching through the sycophantical inexactitudes. When users try to close a discussion through "pulling rank" it becomes transparent for all to see.

I guess I want to throw in my two cents on this...

1) I totally 100% agree with magic squared and his supporters. Using pliers or destroying the can to remove the coin is not only running when not being chased, but its indirectly pointing to the method by trying to point away. The only reason you popped the top should be to prove that the quarter is inside.

2)Question everything. Especially if it comes from a smart guy.

3)Someone said something about using a chainsaw with his bill in lemon trick, which sparked a funny scenario in my head based on the guy who said something about spectators recreating the trick by saying the magician had to use pliers to remove the coin from the can. This to me is the ultimate proof as to why the pliers don't work logically.

SPECTATOR TO FRIEND: The magician was awesome. I signed a dollar and it disappeared and it went inside a lemon. And the only way the magician could get the dollar out of the lemon was to use a chainsaw.

Chainsaw = entertaining...but not proof of impossibility

I agree that the pliers idea is a little much, and tries to "over-prove" something that does not need proving. In fact using pliers would actually cause more suspicion, and possibly tip the method. The effect is not that the coin 'cannot come out' of the can once opened, but the fact that 'the coin penetrated a sealed can.' What happens after that is not relevant. The audience should still be pondering "How in the heck did that coin get in that unopened can?" Not whether or not it will now come out through the hole. Effects such as coin and cap in bottle were designed especially for this scenario.

One downside to letting the spectator pour out the contents is they are going to eventually wonder why I didn't let them open it as well. If I open the can it's logical that I'd pour it out as well.

Not to mention the fact that they could also go home and put the same coin in the same can, and see for themselves that it can come out without too much of a struggle. Which would raise the question as to why the magician acted as though it couldn't.

I think this is another case of over thinking things.

This is a very strong effect, those who see it are confused and impressed at the coin vanishing and seemingly going into the can. I doubt any layman is thinking about any of the small concerns mentioned here after they see the coin in the can and realize it is in fact the same coin they signed. I simply do not make a big deal of the removal of the coin, blow past that quickly making it very clear that the coin really is in there and really is the same coin and you are golden.

Just my opinion but I agree with BG - The logical reason I open the can is so that I pour out the contents myself. I've had one spec openly ask if he could have opened the can himself. This is not a crazy question - afterall in the specs mind you should be able to hand out a sealed can.

It's not really a huge problem but the performance seems more complete and more reasoned if you perform the whole effect 'yourself'.

Actually I am glad the pliers idea was brought up, as it actually evoked some introspective thinking. Whether or not the idea was a good one or not is irrelevant, and not nearly as important as the fact that the idea was at least pondered, which allowed us to examine all the possiblities. At least from a personal preference viewpoint.

I agree that if you open the can (which of course you have to) then you should pour it as well. What I do is open it, then very cleanly show them the can is indeed real and full of soda, then slowly and very clearly turn it and pour it out until the coin comes into view. This almost seems as if I am doing the spectator a service. As if I am pouring it for them so they can really focus on the can without distraction. In some ways it is actually STRONGER than if they could do it all themselves. I have never had anyone question it in any way.

If I would open it and then hand the can to them to pour it seems fishy, like why could they not do it all themselves.

Great thread here. my 2 cents... I have to agree with magicsquared on this. In my opinion destroying the can for them gives them an "out" that should not be. Think card warp here. When you give them the can with the coin in it as a souvinere (sp?) They can see that there are no slits cuts or openings in the can other than the regular opening (which was obviously closed when the coin got in there) When you destroy the can it could be percieved as hiding the evidence (ala card warp) and if anyone would happen to say "hey the quarter fits tru the hole!!!" you can always say "well NOW it does" and hand them a closed can and ask them to see if it fits while the can is closed. Also since a coin WILL fit through a can opening trying to act like it doesn't is asking for a letdown. They may be all smiles and ooooohs and ahhhhhs right then and there but sooner or later they will figure out the reality. Heck you can even tell them when you give them the can that it looks like the coin will fit through the hole but its a real pain in the arse and they may want to open up the hole a little with some pliers. Now you are aligned with the reality of the situation without ruining their souvin...keepsake. And later if they talk about it to their friends they will say "he got it inside before it was opened and 'I' couldn't get it out without pliers" laying it all on the spectator later

Also I loved the "act like the card is too big to fit in the envelope" argument, how anyone even tried to deny that one is beyond me

But the effect is not about getting the coin OUT, it is about it being IN the can. if people are focusing so much on how the coin won't come out, you need pliers and etc. then the entire focus is inthe wrong place.

You do the coin vanish which is step one and a solid effect right there. the you clearly show the can to be new and sealed, and in fact it is and they just handed you the can so great. You open the can and there is the actual coin they signed inside of it! THAT is the effect... at this point the trick is done, the only purpose of removing the coin is to show it is in fact the same signed coin. If you start makinga big deal out of how you got the coin out all you are doing is putting heat on the method and gaining nothing by doing so.

Remember, the trick is getting the coin IN the can, NOT getting it out!

And in that situation we would, of course... LIE!

But seriously, I agree that the effect is about getting the coin IN the can, not getting it OUT of the can. As stated above, a coin obvoiusly fits through an OPEN can, but it doesn't fit too easily through the top of a sealed one.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of using something such as pliers to pry or pull the quarter out. First, who wants to carry a pair of pliers? I am finding that it is a task just to get the coin to come out now without using anything to assist. I also agree that the effect is the fact that you were able to cause a signed coin to penetrate a sealed soda can. When the audience sees that it takes some effort to get the coin back out it provides a strong enough convincer that the effect was simply impossible.

I've been playing around with this some more. When I pour, if the face of the coin (i.e. heads or tails) rather than the edge lays flat against the opening, it DOESN'T fit through the opening. Having to shake the can or whatever in order to get a grip on the edge of the coin and turn it so it can be pulled through the opening provides a subtle "coin in bottle"-like visual cue that the coin doesn't fit through the opening. I still maintain that the effect is NOT that the coin can't fit through the opening. But subtlely leaving the impression that it doesn't fit (at least not easily) provides misdirection without "over proving."

Those that have the coin just falling out when you pour... this is surprising to me because even if the quarter comes out edge first, it still just barely fits through most of the time for me. I have to turn it slightly to get the right angle to extract it. Again, I think this is a good thing. It's not like shouting "see... the coin doesn't fit through the opening" but it clearly leaves the impression that it would not be easy to get it in there. I'm curious how many of you have the coin freely falling out vs. actually having to use a little bit of effort to get it out (without resorting to acting).

Yep! Luckily I had my wits about me and I told a little fib. In fact, a friend of his was drinking from a can whose top was obviously too small to fit a coin. I said I could had done it with his can too if only it wasn't opened already. That seemed to make them appreciate it a bit more!

Regarding the pliers and the coin just fitting debate, in the UK the coins either don't work at all or they fall out easily. This renders it a moot point for us here. As this is an International board, maybe there are many who don't use quarters?

Once the coin is vanished and is "in" the can your patter should be such that the spectator does not have a chance to ask if they can open the can themselves.

In other words you are in control of the situation and you do not announce "now I will open this can" you simply prove that the coin is gone, it must be in the can and then BAM, you open the can without warning. Even if they were thinking about asking to see the can or open it themselves it is too late at that point.

I totally agree. This is the way I present it too. It's just that in the past I used to hand the can out immediately after opening it. It wasn't until a post performance chat that the guy asked. Based on his comments I immediately changed the way I handled it.

Also, just because they are too polite not to comment it doesn't mean they're not thinking it. It's best that you work out the motivation for every action that you perform.