We tend to think that what we discover is recent when what is recent is just OUR becoming aware of a topic.
In 1946 Victor Farelli, referring to the credibility of a false transfer wrote in Convincing Coin Magic:
Some experts maintain that it is practically impossible to deceive an enlightened audience by means of the "transfer," namely, by pretending to place an article in one hand but really palming it in the other. For instance, the late Mr. Nevil Maskelyne wrote: — "It would be interesting to know if any spectator is ever misled by this particular manoeuvre. Not very often one would imagine." (Our Magic, page 191.)
It can be argued that as soon as one hand has been shown empty, the onlooker will come to the conclusion that the "vanished" object is concealed in the other, and this no matter how perfectly the sleight may have been accomplished.
There is probably a good deal of truth in the above contention, and I am inclined to believe that it is more convincing to produce a duplicate of the object in question from some place where neither the right nor the left hand could possibly have placed it.
When at college in Spain—more years ago than I care to remember —I often entertained my comrades with little feats of pure sleight of hand. One day, when I had caused a "silk" to disappear from my left hand, a fellow student called out:—"Muestre la otra mano!" (Show the other hand.) I took no notice of the interruption, but I pulled, very quickly, a duplicate handkerchief from my collar. The "heckler" frankly admitted that he had not the faintest idea of how the trick was done: the possible existence of a duplicate did not occur to him.
I never forgot that lesson.

Farelli had discovered without theoretizing them three principles that make a false transfer totally deceptive:
1) a perfect simulation is necessary but not sufficient to supply a deception

2) He had intuitively sensed the misdirection principle that would be deeply analyzed and described by Arturo Ascanio with In Transit Actions and Crossing The Gaze. In Transit actions make a false transfer credible because the alledged transfer is done TO BE ABLE TO do something else: hence the transfer is not done "to vanish the coin (or object) but to free the hand that the coin is in for that hand to do something else that appears to be the main action.
Thus the In Transit Action is made of three elements (each being essential). Let's take two examples at focusing on the time it takes for a coin to "become invisible" or to "dematerialize" or magically "travel" (three different effects all implying a vanish of the coin) and of another example of "tugging the sleeve" before " magically sending the coin somewhere (as in cylinder and coins for example).
First a very brief glance in the direction where the main action (tugging the sleeve or pointing at the wrist watch): this glancing is essential as it announces the action and is what will make it the main action. Before doing the main action it implicitely expresses why the In Transit Action is necessary.
Second the false transfer or In Transit Action is done for the hand holding the coin TO BE ABLE TO effect the main action (tugging the sleeve or pointing at the left wrist watch)
Third make the main action announced by the glance: tug the left sleeve or point at the watch (with the left fingers seemingly holding the coin)

3) An "Obliteration parenthesis": As analyzed by all the masters at deceiving and ignored by the newbies, the actual cause must be separated from its effect by an action. Anybody, as in the original Farelli quote, relates an effect to the the movement that immediately preceded it. Thus if the movement immediately preceding the revelation of the vanish was the transfer of the coin from one hand to the one where it disappeared, then it appears obvious to the spectator NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE SIMULATION was, that the coin remained in the hand initially holding it (this being reinforced by the fact that most of us have only two hands).
To use a proper misdirection against this natural deduction, the actual cause (false transfer) must be separated from its effect by an action: tugging the sleeve, pointing at teh watch or, in Farelli's example pulling a dupplicate silk from the collar (which is basically what the wand achieves with balls in the C&Bs instead of silks). The (allegedly "main") action(s) placed between the actual cause and the revelation of the effect are "Obliteration parenthesis". When the spectator "rewinds" in his memory (as Al Schneider coined it) the effect to what preceded it, he gets to the action immediately preceding it. This is why masters like Michael Ammar underline the necessity of "marking the magical moment". This process is best described briefly in The Magic Of Ascanio Vol 1 and in much more details in Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles.

So how does this relates to a "perfect" ROV which puts the focus on the false transfer itself... making it the "main action" instead of the In Transit one. Were John Nevil Maskelyne, David Devant, Victor Farelli, John Ramsay, Arturo ascanio, Michael Ammar, Darwin Ortiz.... wrong in their analysis of what makes a vanish deceptive? The perfect simulation of a transfer or the misdirection around a false transfer ?

My only current use of the ROV is for a 2 coin transposition using just 2 coins. Here the focus is shared between putting the coin in the hand (as that is a fundamental condition for the effect), and then leaving that hand free to pick up the other coin, so I feel it is more necessary.

Btw, I hope you don't mind me sending a copy of what you just wrote to many of my friends in magic who aren't on this forum (credited of course). This is a brilliant short summary of many essential points that applies everywhere in magic.

Thank you Lawrence for such a detailed and delight to read article.

I myself have always question the nessesary of a perfect false transfer technique, having seen many great performers who have pulled miracle using only a classic false transfer move. Names came to mind are Gazzo and Jay Sankey. The transfer that was done, is as you said, purely for allowing the hand to to something else.

I myself think that it is the digital trends that are generating a new wave of young magicians who are more focusing in performing for a camera, not live audience. Thus the need for a variety of palming technique would naturely evolve to compensate for the lack of audience interaction/misdirection.

I love your analysis on the Obiteration Parenthesis, in my market, I believe that I am the only performer who is still using a magic wand to disappear an object - I always have used the wand, so much that people are always ask to borrow the 'stick' after the show (which I allow them to), no one cared about my hand afterward.

More simply, one can likely do better at performing a trick that includes a vanish effect if;
one provides some visible process as specious "method" for the magic in a way the audience can accept as plausible for the character of a magician.
One treats the use of wand, gestures, woofle dust etc as expected means a character might use so don't disappoint the audience.
one provides the audience with some continuity of process toward the magician's purpose after a thing has vanished
one motivates visible actions in a way the audience can anticipate
one stops being surprised if the audiences does not look in the other hand or nearest plausible place the vanished item might have been left.

no fancy language, parentheses, special presuppositions or supplications to elder gods required

Before trying to answer to your question, I'd like to quote darwin Ortiz in Designing Miracles He wrote somethink like :
The spectator knows that the magic move (snaping the fingers, makes a pass with the shadow of the hand ...)is useless but they can't think that the magic doesn't occur at this moment.

Brilliant thinking

Something that is very powerful when you use a false transfert :
1 - You have the coin in the RH. First, You really put the coin in the LH and take the wand with the RH. You say something that arouses the curiousity about the coin (you ask a question about it, for example)
2 - The LH puts the wand back on the table. You show the coin again and say something amazing about the coin (you must have a reason to show it again)
3 - While people relax a little, you make the false tranfert (the LH is not totaly closed) and take back the wand with the RH.
4 - Then, while people look at you again (it needs a good timing), you squeeze the left fingers and finish to close the LH.
5 - You make a pass with the wand.
6 - You freeze the moment and then shows that the coin has vanished.
7 - You go on with the suite of the routine...

If you respect this scenario, it's very hard for laypeople to understand the method. They really think that they saw the coin in the LH. They associate the 2 phases (realy puuting the coin in the LH / false transfert) and mix them into one only moment.

The perfect simulation of a transfer doesn't seem to be sufficient to make a vanish deceptive.
For example, the illusion of the retention vanish is very good and very strong (you have really the ipression of seeing the coin in the hand AFTER the(false) transfert.
If you stop here and show the left hand empty, what occurs in the spectator's mind next?

You have to break the link between the RH and the LH after the false transfert (even after a retention pass). The use of a wand is a very good and common way of doing it.

An other way : If you can put a thought in their minds (and so don't give time to them to think about the RH), it can be effective also. For example producing a duplicate coin from a box ...

I have just understand that ROV means Retion vanish

A burn does not help if they just admire the illusion and know it's in the other hand. Its like juggling a fourth ball after doing three... The audience appreciates the addional skill but that does not convince them you are making anything magic happen.

For me, once you got all the teorical and technical knowledge what makes it deceptive is CRAZY PRACTICE till your musscles learn the exact micro movements of the sleight, until you can do it withut thinking its only THEN when you can start to work on the FEELING of the inexistent coin.

as for techniques I like to do the ROV at fingertips at chest level rather than puting it on mi fists.
After I "take" te coin with the fingertips I pretnedo to work it on a closed fist implying the weight and solidity of the "coin".

Thanks, Etienne, for a(nother) thought-provoking thread.

As Ortiz, Ascanio, and others have highlighted, the context of the transfer is an important aspect in the decpetiveness of the transfer; it is, possibly, the most important aspect.

When I do a Coins Across routine, for example, I use a false transfer (from my right hand to my left hand) for the final coin (which appears on the spectator's hand). The context is that a) from the outset I told the audience that the coins would disappear from my left hand (so that's where they expect the coin to start), and b) I need to free up my right hand to gesture toward the spectator. I don't need a retention vanish - I don't need a burn of the coin in my left hand - because within that context the audience doesn't think, "He put the coin in his left hand"; they think, "The coin started in his left hand." The transfer is invisible (and forgotten) because it is unimportant, incidental.

I was fortunate enough to have developed this routine well before Ortiz' Designing Miracles was published; reading that book brought to the front of my mind what had been in the back of my mind all along.

It's about direction more than theory IMHO.
What are they supposed to be watching?
What are they supposed to be expecting you to do?
What are they supposed to believe you are trying to accomplish?

Answers to be found in the audience view of a performance rather than the performer's view or from backstage. That's what a director can offer.

Turning back to Our Magic: see chapter ten and the Tolstoy quote.

home I bring the briiiiide?

Practice is necessary but the construction of the trick (design as say D Ortiz) is at the center of the problem.

Sure I'm totaly agree with that I explain better this point in the post called HOW YOU PRODUCECOINS FROM THIN AIR. but here we are talking about a particular sleght

Sure I'm totaly agree with that I explain better this point in the post called HOW YOU PRODUCECOINS FROM THIN AIR. but here we are talking about a particular sleght

Great thread! Thanks Mr O for such a wonderful description of this critical component of coin handling.

I have mentioned the concept of "Preemptive Doubt" previously but it didn't seem to generate much interest. It cannot be used very often but fits it with the other subtleties described above. The key is to casually show the "off hand" to be empty BEFORE the vanish is revealed. Thus, spectator attention will not jump back to the placing hand now holding a wand or performing some other action. It is a matter of timing that also requires that something is done with the actual coin. Being too blatant in the display of the empty hand is also not wise -- just a way of reenforcing that the coin is in the holding hand prior to the vanish.

There's nothing subtle about giving an audience no reason not to take your actions at face value.

There's even less subtle about giving an audience reason to treat your actions as suspect - especially after showing them the coin is really not in your hand.

Lawrence O, can I just say from my short time here that I have truly come to value your comments? They get right to the heart of what separates good magic from the average tinkerer.

If you ever write a book on magic theory, please let me know!