From my perspective, if a magician "explains" how a trick is done, and does it anyway using a different method that creates magic to the audience (fools them), then the effect is still logically and rationally unexplainable by the spectators. I think that reinforces and amplifies Close's statement 100%.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Going to back to my original inquiry about an alternative Hopping Half routine, I recently discovered Jennest's Short Hops. It's terrific. While it requires a gaff, it doesn't use turtles, which was the cause of my mild dissatisfaction with in-the-hand Hopping Half routines that employ those gaffs.

A challenge for the discussion:
How do folks feel about the "silk to egg" effect (or similar ones) where you seemingly explain how the egg has a hole to stuff the silk in ... and you later demonstrate that it was a real egg after all. Does this violate the principle of support it? I would say it's a similar situation to "palming" here.

On the other hand, I think certain kinds of impossible objects are bad to end up with. I've seen a coin version of the anniversary waltz that ends up with a C/S coin in the spectator's hand, and that's definitely not something I like planting existence of in their mind.

It's certainly a spectrum either way.

Does that really make it more magical? Make the viewer think it's a hollow egg and then show the opposite. Otherwise it's more of a clever switch.
Also, about palming: of course everyone knows that things can be cleverly hidden, but just mentioning a "technical term" for it makes it seem less magical in my eyes. Instead of enchanting the viewer, it's more like fooling them. The less people talk about methods, the better. Let them guess and show them that they are wrong is the better solution, just my opinion.

Nobody likes to be told they're wrong. This often applies to coin magic when the magician opens a hand to reveal something unexpected. In many coin routines this happens repeatedly (coins across, hopping halves, copper-silver-brass, etc.). So, how to make these effects non-confrontational? The hackneyed presentation of an "observation test" feeds right into that problem. But solutions exist that can be adapted to most, if not all of these situations. 1) "Have you ever seen a trick where...?" We ask the spectator if they have seen it before, rather than what they expect in the moment. This takes the edge off. 2) "Once I saw a magician who..." In this presentation we reminisce about our own reactions to seeing the routine performed. We are the one who is, or was wrong every time - not the spectator. 3) "Nine out of ten people expect..." In this presentation we talk about expectations in general, not just those of the present spectators, which makes the "observation errors" less personal. 4) "I don't know why, but now ..." In this format we talk about how confused we feel about what is happening. Again, this takes the edge off and avoids confronting the spectator. 5) Be funny about it. Another way to take the edge off is to crack jokes. One of my favorites, applicable to almost any performance, comes from the late, and truly great, Aldo Colombini. "You might be wondering how I do this. The REAL question is, WHY do I do it?"

Surely one or more of these concepts will appeal to you and inspire another delightfully entertaining version of "Hopping Halves." Good luck and have fun with it!

I want to apologize to Mr. Jenest and correct my earlier misspelling of Mark Jenest's name and the name of his routine, Short Hop.

Terrific effect.

Whilst not using the traditional set as I much prefer the Jennest handling here's my presentation.

https://youtu.be/I6yH47hrtes?si=nQdar-tWLLGlI2GM

I sometimes use a routine explaining that John Kennedy and Queen Elizabeth had a thing going and they were always together. But sometimes they had to be apart and eventually they get back together.
That’s just a summary but you can improvise.
I usually write my scripts on my iPad and add to it when I can.

I add a Chinese coin to the mix and do not use the entire hopping half set to perform a 3 coin transformation. it is a different plot. Note: click on the speaker to hear the audio.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0noZ4YO9F_/


If you want to see more coin magic videos, check my IG profile for more: #Calvinloutong
https://www.instagram.com/calvinloutong/reels/

I am happy to share my routine for the H/H trick. I like to involve the spectator and make my presentation non challenging. I am assuming you already know the set phases so will just describe how I get from one to the next and then the end where all the coins vanish. So, here goes. I remove the first coin and place it into the pocket. Then say, - if I draw an imaginary circle on the back of my hand- using your right index finger to match your words, make the circle gesture- something strange happens- Open hand to reveal coin in the hand. And say, -the coin jumps back into the hand!- Say, -watch again- Repeat this phase with coin number 2. You should have both coins back together on the left palm. Now say -People think I have extra coins-Cleanly show just the two coins. -But you can see we only have two coins in the hand-Now repeat Phase with coin number 3. But DO NOT make the circle gesture. Instead say - you think it is already there- open hand to show just ONE coin (the re-nested gimmick). And say nothing happens until I make the gesture. Do this and open. hand to reveal two coins back inside the hand. (Actually it is the un-nested gimmick). Close the hand and re-nest the gimmick, as you say, with a smile- the record for this trick repeating itself is 36 times, it takes 20 minutes- I will tell you what. Name one coin?Whichever they say Remove the nested gimmick. Place it into the pocket. Extend your now empty back of the hand towards the spectator. Say..-You make the gesture- When they do. Say -you know what happens when you do it?-All the coins vanish and we can go home - Show both hands clean with a smile. Try out my handling with coins in hand. I do think that to have a spectator on your side especially if you are performing for a group is much more satisfying to them and you. I have never enjoyed the I am going to make you squirm presentation of H/H. Cheers everyone.

Sorry folks. Where it says ( re-nested gimmick) It should be (nested gimmick)

I side with Dr Rick Ross. I make the routine non-challenging. The multiple phases make the repetition insulting if the spectator does not have an ally in the story. More often than not I have spectators have the response they were baffled too.

My routine which I posted earlier does away with the challenge aspect completely with the added bonus of not using a s**l