Jiceh,
There is value in your description of the gaze management. It seems to me that the sequence you describe is lacking something essential from the audience's point of view: why do you have to put the coin in the other hand in the first place? That was what Vernon kept asking and Ascanio's main action is answering just that with the glance and the In Transit action TO BE ABLE to perform the main (misdirecting) action.
Also I'm convinced that a feeling of energy (admittedly not to be confused with speed) is essential to the entertainment and I'm a bit concerned with your timing in the above sequence.

May I propose for rehearsal and until it becomes second nature like driving a car with a gearshift or, to take Al Schneider's example, stopping at a red light.

1 - Begin with a coin at the left fingertip (as in a 3fly effect)
2 - Look at the coin
3 - Look at the spectators
4 - Look at the coin and pronate the left hand for the coin to catch the light (about 2 seconds) and stop
5 - While looking at the spectator, put the coin in the right hand (right fingertip but a little in the hand : the spectator can see only a small portion of the coin)
6 - Look at the coin (only a small portion is visible for the spectator) and pronate the right hand as for looking at the date on the other side of the coin (about 1 seconds).
7 - Glance at your wristwatch and immediatly do a retention pass in the left hand whitout closing it (the left fingers are partly extended as if holding a coin at the fingertip of course) for the right hand TO BE ABLE TO get to the glass of your watch (reference to time for the magic to happen)
8 - The gaze gets bcd from the left wrist to the left fingers at the left hand and immediatly shake the left hand (about 2 seconds) and stop
9 - Look at the coin and pause (the left hand is in "3fly" position whitout a coin at the fingertip of course)
10 - Glance briefly at the spectator raising your right hand and pointing up with the coin in Ramsay subtlety (flashing the palm) for Funsway's Preventive Canceling out
11 - Bring the left hand up again looking at it as the right hand goes down and freeze before CAUSING the magic and marking the magical moment 9waving, blowing, delivering an Al Goshman type of sentence...)
12 - "open" or spread quickly the left fingers. At this point the left arm don't move but the body goes back just a little to underlign the surprise

There you supply a reason for the coin to be passed to the right hand (looking at the date in my variant of your example) and then to be placed in the left hand (refer to the time for the magic to happen)

Then the "main actions" become the motivation for the transfer, the ones that we should believe in during the performance to follow Magicalaurie and Jon. Now, even if I tried to alter your sequence as little as possible (even though I.m not such a fan of the ROV which places too often too much emphasis on the coin during the In Transit action), I'm afraid that your proposed sequence isn't fully satisfying the feint recommended by Al Schneider to actually do the move first for the audience to get used to that move. Admittedly you actually pass the coin to the right hand so the audience gets used to the notion of transfer but does not visually records what happens when the coin actually gets to the left hand.
Another point is thatm if you get detailed on the gaze management, you should be as detailed with the chest (leaning, turning to the right or the left) which "draws" the hands and supplies body language data to the spectators: this is one of the differences between practicing and rehearsing

Mr. Townsend's original fingertip coins across involved gaze management

Etienne, IMHO they are likely to wonder if the watch is the method for the trick. It's bigger than the coin so they have enough to invent their own story about how your watch works.

One may as well hold the coin with one hand, mention the date, as you show it to folks on that side and then do the transfer to display the coin to the folks on your other side. Your free hand can pick up the charm or whatever - then the coin gets placed along the charm as part of your procedure. They can see what you are ostensibly doing so no need to narrate the actions unless you also have some blind people in the audience attending or perhaps listening at home on the radio.

Lawrence O
Thanks for the suggestions. here's some precisions about my sequence :


Why do you have to put the coin in the other hand in the first place?

There are 2 reasons (1 about the method and one about the effect) :
- METHODE : Because, as you suggested, I wanted the audience to be familiar with the notion of transfer. It was a conditionning phase. Maybe the audience « does not visually records what happens when the coin actually gets to the left hand » but that is not as important as it seems because I don’t want the audience to remember the transfer. I just want to avoid suspicion in the spectator mind (the transfer appears « logic » because the simple fact that you did it before) when you transfer the coin.

- EFFECT : The sequence may seems curious but the patter (earthquake) gives a motivation for that. In reality the patter gives (or suggests) the motivation before you do the transfer.



Why a retention vanish ?

Again, there are 2 reasons :
- Because the coin is at the fingertip (and this is a good starting point for a retention vanish).
- Because the flashing of the coin is coherent with the fact that in phase 5, t the spectator can see only a small portion of the coin). Obviously, this aspect is not always see buy the spectator because I do the sleight while looking at the spectator (ans as Ramsay said, if you want them to look at you, look at them).



About body position

The body position I use is the one I use when I don’t do the sleights. To « visualize » it, I do the all sequence but I don’t do any sleight (if I need a false transfer, I do a real tranfer) and I concentrate on the patter and I try to communicate. Then, I try to have the same rythm, position of the body, etc while practicing with the sleight. Obviously, I need to put some modifications but they must be as small as possible.
I have a little theory (a very simple one) about body language. I will describe it in my next post because I haven’t enought time now.



About showing the coin to the left and right side (as suggested by Jon)

Good idea but as I wanted my sequence to work for One person or a small group, I designed it without the possibility to use that motivation.



About using the watch

There are 3 reasons :
- I rarely have one…
- I don’t want the right hand (with the « hiden » coin) to come close to the left hand after the false tranfer
- My patter gives a motivation for the transfer AND the « shake movement ».


About the gaze

The use of the gaze is not perfect in my sequence and I need to analyse it a little more…

The performer fusses with a coin in awkward and contrived manner. Then one hand is opened wide to demonstrate that the coin is not there.

Something about an earthquake.

Not close to a perfect fit IMHO.

It worked for Edgar Bergen!

Jon, perhaps you might want to remind us which issue of Genii it was where you painstakingly outlined your visual coins across. It was a model of magic pedagogy.

Does anybody heard lately from Al Schneider? I bought his book on false transfer theory and I thought the content was very relevant to this discussion, but since end of October I have nit heard back from him.
I will put a review of his book during the weekend on the books' section

Pablo

What do you all think of John Carney's idea that the retention vanish is odd because at the moment you need it the most, the burn, you need to misdirect, thereby nullifying the whole notion. That's not a direct quote, but best as I can remember, that was the gist of what he meant.

How's this for motivation--Holding the coin in the right hand fingertips you say "watch the coin," and you close your hand around it and blow on the hand (whatever) and open it and the coin is still there. So you say, "oh yeah, it's the left hand that's magical," place the coin (retention style) in the left hand while saying that. Then pause a beat or two, looking at the specator or audience with a hopeful smile and blow on the hand and open to show it's gone. Then continue with whatever else your routine cals for.

Does that make sense?

Saying watch the coin as you put it into your other hand is incongruent and awkward for the audience. If you wanted them to attend the coin you'd put it in display position then look at it yourself to lead their attention.

The story about the tailor made suit and the perfect fit ...

September 2005 genii magazine has the write up for my coins across. The other relevant edge grip work was written published by Harry Lorayne in Apocalypse magazine and Kainoa Harbottle in Coins On Edge. Using the eg2eg as a one for two switch was from a private letter. I stand by my recommendation of adding a fingertip or visual transit to Roth's routine as an efficient way to learn how to sell the effect in performance.

Thanks for the compliment ;-)
Of course I agree, it is not perfect (fra from it). But...

In reality, the shaking of the coin must be little (no big move) otherwise it can be ridiculous. The coin must seems to quake (you shake more the fingers that the entire hand).
What is interesting in the sequence is the illusion : you tranfer a shivery coin from one hand to the other until it disappears...
It is as you associate the "shakiness" with the coin even when you haven't the coin (after the false transfer). The apparent continuity of moves creates an illusion that can be really good.

I think Dai Vernon said something similar (a retention vanish puts too much attention on the move; You show how clever you are ...) but he used it in his "Five Coins and A Glass" routine ...

Good point, Jiceh.

Jon, I meant watch the coin in the right hand as that hand closes and re-opens and it's still there, like a feint, nothing happens. Then "putting" it into the other while saying this must be the magical one, saying nothing about it vanishing. Then the hand closes fully and re-opens and it's gone.

Has that worked for you? If you stopped right after showing an empty hand the audience would be okay, looking at you for what comes next? Or just "that" stare as they look at your other hand? Credit of credulity or debit of obvious deception?

I have always seen a one coin vanish as a prologue for a longer routine.

For example : a 3 coins routine
You take 3 coins from your left pant pocket. The right hand takes 1 coin from the left hand then the left hand puts back the other 2 coins in your pocket.
You use the small sequence I described (or a better one). Here ends the prologue.

Then you go on with the rest of the routine (the prologue is the first phase) but cutting out a 3 phases routine in prologue + 2 phases is a confortable situation.

Don't forget the epilogue.

I only have this coin on loan till 4pm.
Nice coin, see it? I Think it's real silver.
Checks watch
Any second now...
I gotta get a new coin.

How's that work for you? And your audiences?

Please don't say a thing is art because it comes in a frame.

I rarely use this kind of patter but it can be a good start.

I haven't understand what you mean with "Please don't say a thing is art because it comes in a frame". Can you explain it?

Sure, if they don't believe you put the coin in your hand - or are not sure what hand the coin is "really" in - then what does it matter the frame of the routine, story, how much they like your tie? Sure, like a nice frame, they enhance how a picture (you have a coin in your hand) looks - but the focus is supposed to be the painting not the frame.
They need to feel certain where the coin "really" is before the magic happens.

“Years ago I believed that technique was everything, and that misdirection was merely insurance against “flashing” or inadequate technique. I now believe just the opposite.” John Carney, Carneycopia

@ Jon
I like your coin on "loan for a few minutes because after that it disappear" idea
I took the glance at the watch as an example because I had already mentioned the sleeve tugging. I might have said as well something like "I know that most people suspect magicians of sending things up their sleeves but not only good magician don't use such an obsolete technique, but I wear cufflinks that would clink" and then pass the coin to the left fingertips to be able to point at the cufflinks. The reference to sleeving as an obsolete technique is just to give a headstart to other magicians that use sleeving (I naturally have nothing against sleeving when properly done).

@Jiceh
For another vanish than the ROV when the coin is at the fingertips, try Al Schneider's Snap Back where the hands don't touch and the coin seems to be tossed from the fingertips to the opposite hand. With the Gestalt Law of Good Continuation spectator (especially during an In Transit action) record haviing "seen" the coin being tossed form one hand to the other.

Since we ventured into quoting the magicians wo won the highest respect in the history of magic, I'd like to reproduce a quote on misdirection by a modest but great magician called Scott Guinn in his Great Scott! It's More Magic! Page 7 (a superb book on coin magic available now from Lybrary.com):

“Magic is the absence of moves.” Dai Vernon

A great debate has raged through the annals of magic on the subject of misdirection. The very word itself has caused arguments. Tommy Wonder calls it a misnomer and feels a more appropriate term would be “direction.” Dariel Fitzkee felt that the mechanics of magic are highly overrated, and that the element of misdirection (or “psychology”) “…is the entire key to all deception.” (Magic by Misdirection)

Darwin Ortiz, in Strong Magic, shares his opinion as to the biggest secret to effective misdirection: “Misdirection is only an aspect of the larger subject of audience control.” He points out that misdirection, when used suddenly to gain or divert attention, will not work if you don’t already have the attention of the audience.

In his seminal work, Magic and Showmanship, Henning Nelms discusses misdirection at some length.
He feels that a spectator can discover the secret to an effect in one of only three ways:
1. Recognizing an effect he already knows,
2. discovering the actual device, or
3. sheer logic.
Nelms said, “We must guard against these dangers by misdirecting the spectator’s mind, his attention, or his eye.”

The debate rages in magic clubs. “If your technique is good enough, you don’t need misdirection!” rants Joe. “If your misdirection is strong enough, you don’t need sleights!” raves Ralph. While I do not deign to put myself in the company of the luminaries whose works I have cited above, I do have some opinions in this area. I would submit to you that both Joe and Ralph are wrong. They have both missed the true path.

Imagine if their argument were about music: “If you are on key, you don’t have to worry about rhythm!”
“If you are on the beat, it doesn’t matter if you’re off-key!” Who among us would enjoy going to a concert where the band had no rhythm or its members were not tuned to each other? Joe’s approach to magic almost always comes from the “move-happy” show-offs, who come across as arrogant jerks to the audience. He challenges the audience to catch him. Subconsciously, he is saying, “I’m smarter than you! This is a contest; me against you. It’s a win or lose proposition.” Joe will, at best, bore and slightly annoy his audience. At worst, he will alienate, anger and even incite them.

Ralph on the other hand, is one of those fellows we all know who fools himself more than his audience. His credo, “I’m an entertainer first, a magician second,” SOUNDS good. But no one is entertained by bad magic. He’s so convinced that he is in total control of his audience that he never bothers to practice, and whether he knows it or not, he is exposing the method of nearly every effect he performs to most of his audience. They just usually won’t tell him. So, in a sense, THEY are fooling HIM—into thinking he is an outstanding magician! When describing Ralph’s act, his audience will say things like, “Well, he seemed like a really nice guy, and I didn’t want to hurt his feelings, but I could see everything he was doing! Maybe I was sitting in the wrong place.” Someone once told me that, word for word, about a

Ralph in my town who performed at a restaurant. I asked if he was performing for her table and she said yes. “Then how could you have been in the wrong place?” I asked. “He was performing for you!”

Ideally, you would have perfect technical skills and perfect audience management skills. Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world, and it is likely that the people who most need to be aware of the problems in the extreme sides of this issue have already stopped reading. But I have noticed that most magicians spend lots of time practicing sleights and moves, without taking into account their angles. So even the “technicians” tend to flash to a portion of their audience. And most of the “entertainers” just assume that they’ve got it all under control and are naturally good enough to perform “off the cuff.” But when the curtain opens they are either dull or stiff and they hem and haw and they didn’t bother to rehearse enough to know where the next prop is, etc. So they do very little “entertaining,” except for thos who find their ineptitude amusing.
I have no delusions of grandeur here—I don’t think I am the guru with the answer to all of magic’s problems. I do, however, have some advice that summarizes my personal philosophy of this matter.

“Your misdirection should be so strong that no one is looking where you don’t want them to look, and your technique should be so flawless that nothing can be seen even if everyone is. But your magic should be so strong and your presentation so compelling that people WANT TO BELIEVE that you are a real magician, even though they know you are not!”

Thanks for the idea
I like it but , in order to apply it, I have to modify the first real transfer to appear similar to the false one (Al Schneider's Snap Back).
I will thing about it.