Hello.

Would there be a technique particularly suited for a ring ? In general, with retention vanishings we use large dollar-sized coins for their shine and size.
It's said that this is what enhances the retention.

I would like to use this kind of technique with a ring. However, the size is much smaller. And since it's just a band, the shine is lesser.

Does this make sense with a ring ?

Thank you.

Thimble sleights

Lots of things - you just have to adapt.
Thimble work is very equivalent.
There's also Garrett Thomas' Opus which is coin <-> ring transitions, but there are related things for disappearing the ring.
Same thing for Travis Askew's Ouroboros found on Copeland Coins, Riccardo Negroni's Shape shifter (produced by Shin Lim).
There are many others, but those come to mind quickly.

Your reference to the 'shine' would indicate a limited number of methods employing Persistence of Vision. (misnamed ROV),
while Retention Vanish is any fake transfer where the object is retained in the original hand (take or place).

Most methods are suitable for a finger ring, walnut, pebble, whatever since any flash in not part of the sleight.
In fact, in many cases the flash unwisely draws attention to the fact of the transfer.

I often favor those methods based on the Schneider Basic principle, or a False Transfer in which the object is actually transferred
but finds its way back to the passing hand later.

It is usually prudent to look to the desired end result and then work backwards to the necessary sleight.

For a finger ring there is an advantage of fitting over the fingertip or thumb momentarily for a show of the 'empty hand'.
It can also be handled as a ball so C&B moves can be employed.

My goal is to make a ring disappear in order to find it on a keyring (without pulling or reel) like "Flite / pro-flite" or in a "nest of wallet".

I don't know the "Schneider Basic principle". What is it about ? Do you have references?

Can you tell me more about "False Transfer in which the object is actually transferred but finds its way back to the passing hand later"?

Thank you all for your responses !

First, it sounds like you are a beginner. No one is going to be able to describe retention principles on an open forum
Best to consult the first thread in this section which gives a plethora of beginner resources for coin magic.
Second, this isn't the proper section to discuss magic with rings (unless coins are involved). But you can go on some of the magic sites and search for ring and coin routines that are available as downloads. You can even find coin and ring routines on YouTube. Good luck with your search.

In Karl's defense, I'm also confused by "False Transfer in which the object is actually transferred but finds its way back to the passing hand later" - it sounds like a real transfer followed by a hidden transfer. As opposed to a false one.

But I'll second Dr. Rubinstein's sentiment. There are lots of resources for these kinds of things, if you do a proper search. But I believe either of the two routines you mentioned have instructions on doing a vanish/false transfer with a ring.

Well, Tons, I have been discussing the distinction between fake transfers and false ones on various threads on the Café' for more that a decade,
and various methods are described in a dozen eBooks and several published ones. Don't understand why you would be confused.

As noted, details cannot be discussed here, but the key is always where the observer believes the object to be after a transfer.
If an object starts in the performer's right hand and the observer believes it is now in the closed left hand, the task is done and the transfer is false.
The sub-category of 'fake' relates to whether the transfer actually physically occurred -- not what the observer perceives.

This perception can be enhanced by apparently or actually showing the right hand to be empty before any reveal of the left hand as an acquitment.
It can also be enhanced by the object being apparently seen in the left hand (such as POV/ROV) with the object secretly retained in the right as a synchronous action.

Or, it can actually be seen in the left hand and later get back to the right hand, either synchronous or asynchronous to the observed transfer action.
Pseudo actions are also possible where no actual object is involved but still 'seen' by the observer.

The distinction is important in the naturalness of the actions, the timing of actions, the acquitments involved and the actions of both hands before and after the apparent transfer.
The ideal is where a real and false transfer appear identical to an observer, and where there is a logical reason for the transfer.

Imagine a ring on the table. You desire that an observer believes it is later in the closed left hand. The natural action is to just pick up the ring with the left fingers.
Only a magician picks it up with the right fingers and apparently places it in the left, so suspicion is created by any transfer action.
So, the flow of actions of the entire effect should direct the choice of sneaky method rather than any favorite skill set of the performer.
Fake place? Fake take? A false sequence of sleights? Pseudo actions? False claims? Gimmicks?
What is the timing of the reveal of the open left hand? What is the right hand doing in the mean time?

The point is that just referring Karl to a favorite method may do him a great dis-service. When his audience sees the ring on the keyring at the end,
some will attempt to rewind actions. The desired "must be magic" will come from the inability to do so. "Best method" is where they do not even remember any transfer at all.

One must look at the desired end results and work backwards to select best method from an arsenal of mastered techniques.
One might say this is not 'beginner stuff," but awareness of the issues involved are essential to later success and growth.
Just looking for the "best retention vanish" may derail later learning. Why a 'vanish" at all? Why not a flight or penetration effect?

For a beginner, a handkerchief might be easier such as employed in a 'ring on wand' effect.

Nothing wrong with looking at coin sleights for ideas, but do not limit yourself to those techniques. Never stop learning.

Hi Funsway.
Yes, I have no doubt that you have written of this many times. But I do not memorize or read every post here (I read the ones in the threads I'm reading/posting in, but there are many threads that I have not read), and my memory is imperfect. I similarly have not read most of your books. I typically do not assume new members (with only 26 posts) are familiar with all your prior material, so could easily be uninformed.

I'm not looking for specific methods to be discussed, but the notion of something secret happening. is not a surprise, so we can talk about starting and ending positions easily. I find your lack of specificity somewhat confusing, and I think you're conflating multiple things. Let's enumerate. For simplicity - and because we're not talking about any of the actual actions/methods let's (1) assume all transfers are from the right to left hand (though it could easily be from a table instead), and (2) we're ignoring the mechanical differences between a put and a take (which would otherwise double many - but not all - of these), or whether it uses a ROV on the coin or not. They're just transfers.

If the action is visible to the spectator:
We might have a real item:
That we don't do anything with: the item is just held.
That we actually transfer from R to L: a real transfer
That we pretend to transfer from R to L: a false transfer.

We might have an extra item (not previously discussed):
That we don't do anything with: the item is just held (again).
That we actually transfer from R to L: a real transfer (1 ahead).
That we pretend to transfer from R to L: a Bobo switch.

Or we might have no item at all:
That we pretend to leave in place: still a fake item (1 behind).
That we pretend to transfer from R to L: possibly unnamed. (I might be tempted to call this a false transfer, but I don't think it's what you're talking about here, and don't want to confuse the terms right now.) There's also an almost-Bobo where there's a fake item in R and a real item in L. We'll ignore that for now.
We can't actually transfer it, because there is no item.


Of course, we might also do the action out of sight/hidden from the spectator:
If there's no item, there's no point in doing anything out of sight, there's no change between the perceived or actual state change.
If there's more than one item, there's no difference in spectator perception, so it doesn't matter that there are extras, just the result of any particular coin.
Not actually transferring the coin has no effect, so there's no point in focusing on it - there's no secret move.
But if we transfer a real coin from R to L without the spectator seeing it ... that's typically called a steal.

We could also write out a table of all the before/after states, including whether it looked (to the spectator) like we did anything. And we would get a similar set of results. I can write that out if you'd like.

When you write it out that way, I'm then again confused as to your terminology.


If the object starts in the right and the observer believes it to be in the left ... then the false-ness depends on where the object actually is, because you left that out. If it's actually in the left, then it was a real transfer. If it's not in the left (and is instead in the right), only then is it false.
If it made it over and then secretly comes back at another time, aka "the object is actually transferred but finds its way back to the passing hand later", then I would call that a real transfer followed by a steal.

Or perhaps you're talking about a coin being visibly placed in the hand and then pulled away (via various methods) in which case there is some additional nuance, but I would observe that a move like ROPS is literally called the "Retention Open Palm Steal" with steal being the operative word here.


I couldn't agree more, except I'd also add in the third category - a no-item transfer should also be identical to either of the others transfers, where a real item is actually transferred, or a real item is not transferred.

From there on, we are certainly aligned - focusing on only one technique (or type of effect, or even prop) does a disservice. Though it is sometimes useful as a way to focus as a beginner ... even though continual learning is key for the best long-term growth.
But as you say, motivated actions and working backwards are the real best tools, even if they are sometimes more advanced topics for some.

Good breakdown, Tons - some ideas of use to everyone. Not complete, however; and I feel some terms inappropriate/confusing.

Most problematic is your use of "Steal." You usage is not typical at all. The "steal" of an object commonly is the opposite of "ditch" - to get it into play
where it was not before such as from a dropper, belt, servante, etc. The term is also use to indicate the secret extraction of an object from a container
other that the hand such as an Okito Box or a coin from a sh**l.

Methinks we need a different term here for the secret transfer of an object "in play," or an object in the hands unknown to the audience at that moment.
Yet, any such secret actions are relative to the setting, framing and flow of the routine with terms explained within the context of the routine.
"Steal" might be appropriate in some cases, "toss" in others; with "idle" , "flick," "hang," "mask," "drop" alive as well.
There is not single term to cover such secret actions. Nor does there need to be.

Second: you say "the false-ness depends on where the object actually is," No, it depends on where it is perceived to be by the observer at any moment,
ideally with no hint that anything "other than normal" going on. Where the object actually is not important at all except for what later action with the object will occur.
Because most sleights involve some "other than normal" actions, secondary activities are often wise to reenforce the idea of where the object is believed to be.
For example:
a) the closed 'holding' left hand is shaped and carried as is it holds the object. Size, weight and shape may dictate various forms of acting.
b) the 'passing' right hand is shown to be empty through action, display, subtlety, etc. A complete 'show' of "not here" of the Passing Hand is ideal BEFORE and reveal on the Holding hand.
c) the immediate reveal of 'gone' is rarely a good idea, with the later magic of "vanish," "transportation," "change," multiply" as matter for framing and flow.
d) the actual location of the object during subsequent action by both hands need not be static, but can go though multiple secret handlings.
e) the later claim/reprise of events may be different from what actually occurred with the observer remembering the false narrative.

If it later is controlled back into the Passing right hand is is a False Transfer - only because the observer has observed it first in the right hand, then apparently in the left,
with enforcing actions to offset/deflect suspicion. The length of time of getting the object back to right hand control is not a factor to what the observer perceives.
Thus, when the "moment of magic" occurs, the acquitments, patterns of action, naturalness of movement, 'In Transit Actions', eye focus and misdirection can all be more
important that the sleight chosen to create the illusion of the left hand holding the object in fist. What is important is "the story told after to grandchildren" - never the sleight employed.

So, I felt that the OP was confused over "control the illusion" and trying to morph a "retention vanish" into the illusion of a flight of the ring to a keychain.
The last think he would want is for the observer to think "vanish." For many magical transformation of an object from one place to another, any notion of "vanish" and "appear" must be deflected.
In his suggested effect, the observer must have a belief of where the ring is for a long time while the ring is secretly gotten onto the keychain.
Thus, having the left hand play that role may not be best. Certainly, drawing unnatural attention o the left hand is not wise. I attempted to offer alternative thinking.

.....

We are no drawn into a discussion of various types of False Transfer that may not help the OP at all.
Might be good for other reader, though this thread or forum might not be the appropriate place.

To clarify, for many of my original effect descriptions it is valuable to subdivide False Transfers into "Fake," "Pseudo," "Passes" and other terms for clarity.
The combination of sleights used is less important than manipulating the perception of the observer and later memory of the events.

I have many techniques of Moves, Sleights, Stratagems, Framing and Routine Flow under the label "Sway Methods."
Some of these fall in the general category of False Transfers. The terms used are for internal use only for distinction from other, similar actions.
Sometimes I use a new term for a concept not having a common one, or having a confused multiple usage.
Within an eBook I might use "Idle," "Toss," "Chest," "Kickback," "Womb," "Show/display" is a special way with no suggestion those terms be adopted in general use.
But, I also explain common misconceptions about common moves and sleights that might be confusing to the reader.

So, please consider additional options to your fine list above.

1) an object at the right fingers is seen to be placed on the left palm. The left hand closes with the right hand apparently empty.
2) an object in the right hand is apparently placed is the left hand and the right hand shown to be completely empty.
3) an object believed to be in the right hand is now believed to be in the left hand with the right hand shown completely empty.
4) an observer is told the object was placed in the left hand and/or the right hand to be empty and that becomes the enforced memory.

All are False Transfer in that the object believed to be in the left hand is controlled by the right for some purpose.

Consider an example. Both hands are shown to be completely empty with three coins on the table.
One is picked up by the left fingers and examined with a finger exchange with the right fingers, ending lying on the left palm.
A second coin is picked up by the right fingers, examined and dropped into the left hand, the right hand now shown empty.
A third coin is picked up as before and handed to a spectator.
For an observer there are now two coins in the closed left hand and the right hand is empty. But ...

1) there is actually only one coin in the left hand. A False Transfer must have occurred. Where and when? How will this secret fact be employed to create a sense of magic?
2) there are no coins in the left hand. Two False Transfers must have occurred, singly or simultaneously. When and where?
3) there are three coins in the left hand and none in the spectator's. A False Transfer? - or something else.

The point is that the choice of sleight or method is secondary to the illusion created by the later reveal - not the mechanics of the transfer: real, fake or imagined.
Any transfer must be a step towards a later "moment of magic" or to provide acquitment for an earlier sleight.

Thanks for your input on a theme that has captivated my interest and creativity for 60+ years - and will continue to do so.

I could have written a good Heel Clip steal (without the left thumb sticking out like a fish hook) from the left hand where the lending spectator deposited its ring before the performer commenting favorably on it... bringing it to his fingertips to look at it and, then, justifying to hold it safe in the closed hand. Don't focus at "fooling" the eye with an ROV to appear as a brilliant manipulator, just concentrate at persuading the spectators about what you claim.

However you just received advice by three giants of the magic community (Jonathan Townsend, Funsway and Dr Michael Rubinstein). You should study their answers to your question, not just read them quickly. Your main concerns would be solved by purchasing Dr Rubinstein's DVDs Encyclopedia of Coin Magic. He was among the very first ones to realize that small objects (as Funsway underlines) are handled at the fingertips and not in the fist. You may want to study the real principles of misdirection in the first volume of the Magic of Ascanio, which detail what The Professor, Dai Vernon, used to refer to as "the Management of magic" (according to him the most important structural element of magic.) For Jonathan's idea to find sourcing in thimbles magic, you might want to start with John Ramsay's approach to the required movements.
Magic is not in the sleights, it is in the spectators' imagination and participation. The sleights are just one small, needed but secondary, ingredient in the process.

I did start off by saying it was incomplete. And that not all of the terms were semantically accurate.



It's been a while, but my memory is that while you use a lot of different words, you often don't clearly define the distinctions between them before you do. If you're not suggesting they're to be adopted for general use, but use them here (and in other places) without making sure everyone in the thread is on the same page for their meanings, then it adds more confusion rather than less. It effectively becomes jargon that no one else knows.




And I 100% disagree with you about this. I would preface by saying that magicians (actually most folks) are particularly bad at being consistent in their terminology. They frequently use the same word for multiple concepts that are related but distinct. While I agree that steal is often used in the context of stealing in order to get into play, it is also used incredibly often as I have. Just below you, Lawrence referred to the heel clip steal. The ROPs has it in the name, as I mentioned. Here's a video of Rick referring to several things as "steals" including the Himber Vanish as a specific example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdrMuTmC6mQ And here's a whole page on the conjuring archive as a references of "Stealing Coin out of Hand" https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/category/2198.
While I absolutely agree it would be nice to have distinct terms referring to these things, the fact of the matter is that steal is incredibly frequently used in this manner. Perhaps more so than to get it into play from another location. As you say, "secret extraction of an object from a container"... and the hand is just one such location, even though you would like to explicitly exclude it.
Ours is not to redefine the terminology - as much as we'd like it, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. And our wishing it will not change years of usage, nor any of the older books/videos/dvds.




Again, you mis-quote me. I said it matters on the combination of where the object is and where the spectator thinks it is. I was adding on to your previously established definition and saying it was incomplete. It is not false if the coin is exactly where the spectator believes it to be.
And a later is only the promise of another change, either visible or invisible to the spectator. The other change is what's relevant then, not in the current moment.
If it's "later controlled back" then, that's a different action. It doesn't change the nature of the first one. Time delays are a great tool. But if the second action (and again, it's a separate change), is invisible to the spectator, then the existence or lack of a time delay (or any other convincer) is again less relevant (but not unimportant). All of your examples of additional subtleties are certainly valuable to include. But that's exactly what they are: subtleties for improvement.


I already included most of those in my examples. Since I'm defining it from the perspective of the magician (rather than of the spectator - though both are important), mine had more nuance. In order to achieve some of them, two actions (from my list) may need to happen, but it's not possible to tell without additional knowledge of the location of the item and when it moves.

I disagree that "all are false transfers", since some may be a sequence of multiple things (including a real transfer then a steal/hidden transfer) - and we still haven't defined what it is called if there's a "transfer" of no object at all.



Again, your example here is oversimplified, and I disagree with your conclusions about counts of transfers. Because - again - it could have been a steal (or a ditch or any other kind of action; whatever you want to call it) and not a false transfer.


-----


All that said, I agree with your overall assessment. The OP was asking for a way to secretly transfer the coin in a way that started with the move (as a "retention of vision") rather than with what the overall memory the audience retained. Considering the perception of the spectator is key. Because (to paraphrase Lawrence): magic is already in the mind of the spectator.

But I'm glad you found the ideas valuable. I'm always happy to discuss theory with folks that are excited by the topic.

I guess I am confused over your apparent need to exclude certain methods rather than concern for what the observer perceives.

If the desired perceptual result is to have the observer believe the object to be in the left fist when it is actually elsewhere (such as the right hand),
why does it matter if the secret action is synchronous or asynchronous to the observed actions?

Why is it not superior to to actually show the right hand to be empty before the reveal rather than a partial show such as Malini Subtlety?


If they remember that an object in the right hand is placed/taken to the left hand and believes it resides there, as the right does something else, the memory of a transfer exists.
If the object is suddenly revealed to somewhere else and the left hand found to be empty, a False Transfer must have occurred, with the illusion of 'vanish', 'transport' or 'change' a matter of framing and story.
The method used to accomplish this end, and timing of the reveal, must be directed by the end result desired and not any forced use of a favorite method.
Ideally, a performer may have several methods available in case of repeat observers or presentations.

This desire to have alternative methods available, plus a need to minimize suspicion seeded by unnatural hand/body actions, led to decades of exploring and developing alternative methods.
These can be learned and used by performers desiring to do so. Most will not because of the discipline required for congruency across many effects and practice.
These Moves, Sleights and Stratagems require unique names to differentiate them from traditional methods. Sorry if you find that confusing.

There are not "subtleties for improvement" of existing, popular sleights. They are designed to overcome the perceived flaws in many routines employing False Transfers.
The very name of "vanish" for many sleights is even a problem since and immediate reveal of "gone" would destroy the latter illusion.

However, please explain how my example routine is "oversimplified?" It is an actual routine that I perform and teach. Not 'theory' at all.
It is not only powerful magic, but serves as a prelude to later effects because of the patterns of hand motions established as normal
that support later sleights. It is based on the use of several different False Transfers, none of which are "retention vanishes." (fake transfers)

Which is the point of my offering the ideas above -- so that the OP is not locked into a single path in finding a suitable method to accomplish his desired end result.

Now "making sure everyone in the thread is on the same page" would be real magic!

Me - I just hope every reader can find something of value from my posts. Most will not read these long posts. The few that do will benefit from our exchanges here.

I'm not talking about excluding methods. I'm talking about using specific terminology.
The problem is that you can't have it both ways. You need to be consistent in your descriptions and perspectives.
Are we talking just about what the observer perceives? They see a transfer of an object. There's no such thing as a "false transfer" from the point of view of the spectator. Because if they understood it to be false, it wouldn't be magical. The spectator sees an object in a hand, possibly moved to another hand, and then the object is gone. That's it. It's a disappearance - perhaps a reappearance later, somewhere else. That's it.

There are, of course, many ways to achieve this. But to talk about method, we have to be entirely within the perspective of the magi - in which case the distinction between a false transfer (in which the object does not move) or a real transfer (where it does) followed by a secret transfer (steal, whatever else you want to call it for purposes of this discussion) is real and important.


Again: do not twist my words.
Of course the synchronous or asynchronous nature does not matter to the spectator. They're not aware of either. But it matters to the magician - who's perspective we're describing methods by.
Spectators are not aware of the nuances of subtleties or "partial shows". They're great to use - and add a lot to a routine. But ultimately they are tools to hide the method - which is a concern of the magician's perspective.



Again, it's oversimplified because the description here is of an _effect_ (spectator's view), and we were originally talking about _method_ (magician's view).
As before, there is no such thing as a "false transfer" to a spectator, that is something the magician thinks about.
If the spectator thinks "oh, a false transfer has occurred", then you have failed as a magician.
If we switch to the magician's perspective, to discuss method, then I reject the assumption that there must have been a false transfer. As previously said, there could have been a steal, or a ditch, or a gaff in play. Those are meaningfully different methods.
They're also all legitimate concerns and thoughts for the magician and the method. But to omit those as potential possibilities is a simplification if we're trying to construct a potential routine - as is switching back to the spectator's viewpoint to attempt to simplify the complexity of what the magi is doing.


Perhaps that's clearer.

Nope , since I have never suggested that any observer perceives a false transfer, except perhaps suspicion after the reveal of "gone" in the left hd.
I have, however, noted that creating the impression of "It's a disappearance" is wrong in many cases and even create suspicion.

For any effect, the entire flow of events leading up to and following an observed transfer is important to the illusion of 'disappear', 'Transport', 'change' or other framing.
The establishing of pattern to justify the transfer, the showing of the right hand to be empty before the reveal, natural and congruent actions of both hands and other acquitments
are as important as the chosen method to effect getting the object secretly into the right hand when the observer believes it is in the left.

Note the many pages Al Schneider spends in his famous book on conditioning the left hand to appear natural consistent with the object apparently transferred.
We discussed this application applied to pseudo objects at length along with asynchronous actions to support the Persistence of Vision ploy.

Your attempt to limit the concept of "false transfer" to the momentary sleight of the moment of apparent object contact does not fly with me.
Nothing you have presented above supports that limited view except your own desire and definitions.

I find your comment "it's oversimplified because the description here is of an _effect_ (spectator's view), and we were originally talking about _method_ (magician's view)" quite amusing.

"we" were never talking about that originally or later. The OP asked "Would there be a technique particularly suited for a ring ?"
He seemed biased towards employing a false transfer of the ROV type. I wanted to help by expanding his thinking into the effect rather than the sleight.

I do agree that if the observer has suspicion of "maybe he did not actually put the coin in the left hand earlier" is an indication for improvement. "Failure?"
Every indication of seeding suspicious is an opportunity for learning and search for alternative techniques (of which sleights are just a part).
As indicated as an opinion, a POV/ROV method can create suspicion where an alternative False Transfer technique may not.
I am always concerned over "effect - spectator's view." It is surprising that you are not.

I can but draw upon my many decades and tens of thousands of presentations relying on transfers, real and false, to offer assistance.
I have learned that common terminology is inadequate to explain the nuances of supporting the illusion of "must be magic" over skill demonstrations.
My books and eBooks carefully detail these fine distinctions for internal use only.

Yes, I refer to some terms in general discussion to alert readers to their existence to support expansion of possibilities or as examples.
Some related to False Transfers are: Pattern of Performance (PoP), Continuity Bias, Contrast Bias, Inattention of Vision, Preemptive Doubt and Sway Reverse.
None of those are sleights. Those interested in learning of their importance can explore further, and receive many inquiries off-forum every day.

You apparently don't like that. But you now want to overlay your terms of "Steal, Ditch or Gaff" onto asynchronous components of a False Transfer.

Sorry, none of those apply to what I offer as alternative methods. You can't attack my use of new terms and then attempt to redefine what you don't understand.

If you wish to understand terms like SwayOn, Twitch, Swidle, Womb, Glide, Twitch, CrossToss, Trough, etc. as part of False Transfer Techniques, just write to me m as indicated in my sig-line.
If you do not wish to understand, that is OK too.

They certainly cannot be explained here.

The point is that the OP now understands that his choice of possible techniques to achieve his imagined effect is not limited to Retention Vanishing.
Because of our exchanges many readers many have an expanded view also. It is good.

"What the magi is doing" is manipulating the perceptions and memory of the spectators - their viewpoint. Making it appear simple is part of that.
I am sorry that you apparently feel performance magic is about a choice of sleights selected from some standard list.
I can perform the above described 'simple' effect without your approval or agreement. I can't teach it without using some new terms for Moves, Sleights and Stratagems.
There are no assumptions here. I use several False Transfers to support the illusion of both 'vanish' and "transport', but not limited to those techniques.
Complex, yes. Simple for the observer, yes. Easy to master? That depends on what you bring to the table by way of limitations.

For me "the magician's perspective" has never been about "discussion of method" limited to popular sleights.
I work to create condition under which magic can happen in the mind of the spectator - and guide the story told after.

I read your opinions and those of others on the Café' to possibly expand my view of things - never to limit it.

Thank you for offering your opinions while most here do not.

Since I am up at a silly hour of the morning, I will try another simplification for both performer and observer.

"False" is the opposite of "true." Either the end result of a transfer is true or it is false. Consider a sequence of actions:

A spectator sees a pile of coins on the table to your right and a basket to your left.
He observes you pick up a coin with your right fingers and drop it into your left hand.
You right hand is shown to be empty as the left and drops the coin into the basket. Both hands are now empty.

The spectator believes that the coin is in the basket because of a sequence of actions including a reason for the transfer,
natural motions, seeing the passing hand empty after the transfer and empty hands at the end.

Now, if the coin is in the basket a true transfer has occurred. If there is no coin in the basket a false transfer has occurred. Simple.

Later, the coin is revealed to not be in the basket. Ideally, intervening actions will have the spectator forget that any exchange of hands occurred at all.
The fact of the transfer is minor when compared to the astonishment of the final reveal of transportation, change, whatever. Or should be, in my opinion.

The best sleight is one that never happened - at least in the memory of the observer. That is the skill of the performer, not the physical or psychological method used.


One popular method is to secretly retain the coin in the right hand in a fake transfer to the left hand, combined with a partial show of the right hand using a Subtlety or misdirection.
There are other ways to achieve the desired end result. Choose what works best for that particular effect and audience and setting.

Hi Funsway.

I think herin lies the problem.
You don't like my attempting to clearly specify the shapes and distinctions of terms. I actually _don't care_ what word we use, I'm just using ones with a lot of prior use - and readily admitted they're flawed/overloaded. But if we can set up a clear glossary, I'm willing to call them whoosit and whatsit if you'd like.
On the other hand, you keep falling back to your own terms, without shared definitions here. You say

yet you're trying to redefine new terms as common - when I don't think most in this thread (let alone the forum) are familiar with them. I'm not attacking your words at all, just trying to find _shared_ ones we can agree on.
While you may not like my choice of word, I have at least defined what I mean by them, which I cannot say for your recent lists of terms. It doesn't make for a good discourse.


I do appreciate your example with a basket, however. I'd like to focus on this part in particular


That last line is key.
It's at that moment we've decided it was real or false. Not whether the coin is somehow later secreted out of the basket (trapdoor, hole, magic compartment, internal slot, chop mechanism) - it was a real or false.
Which means a second action - even if hidden - can have an impact on the perception, without changing the nature of the first.


Now skip the middle step (changing hands) and replace the basket with the left hand.
From your words:

Now, if the coin is in the left hand a true transfer has occurred. If there is no coin in the left hand a false transfer has occurred. Simple.

So if there's a transfer from the right hand to the left ... and the coin ends up in the left, then it was a true transfer - which is what I said.
If the coin later comes out of the hand through some mechanism that is irrelevant to define - then that's a second action, but it doesn't nullify the nature of the transfer or make it false.



Again, I agree that the spectator's perspective is paramount. But as I said, that's a discussion of effect, while the false transfer are a topic of method - because as we both agree, spectators don't think about false transfers. So it's meaningless to talk about them from the audience's perspective - only the magician's.

But I suspect there isn't much additional value to be had debating over this, if we can't agree on any shared terms to agree on. Thank you for the discourse so far.

"while the false transfer are a topic of method" - only your opinion. For me it is always about what the observer perceives and remembers.
Of course they never think "false Transfer.' They think "must be magic" when the reveal is made - IF all suspicion has been removed.

You say "That last line is key.
It's at that moment we've decided it was real or false. Not whether the coin is somehow later secreted out of the basket (trapdoor, hole, magic compartment, internal slot, chop mechanism) - it was a real or false."

No - there is no decision at all. The observer believes the coin is in the basket. Any reveal of "not there comes later. The performer knows where it is at that and every moment.
I don't know where that later part comes from as it has nothing to do with any of my methods or techniques. Such actions would not be part of the transfer process.

Then you suggest "skip the middle step (changing hands)." ?? That is what the transfer is and where the sneaky stuff happens.
I fully agree that it would just be better to pick up the coin with the left fingers and drop it into the basket. But then there would be no chance for any sleight such a Retention Vanish.
You offer - "the coin ends up in the left, then it was a true transfer - which is what I said." But it isn't. Where is the false transfer you desire to link with changing of hands?

I have been talking about false transfers from the performer's perspective. The combination of framing, story flow, Moves, Sleights and Stratagems is all about what the performer controls
to create the illusion that the coin "was in the left hand going to the basket", plus destroying any ability of the observer to successfully replay events.

The sneaky stuff occurs during the exchange, which is why it falls under the category of "transfer" and not "basket place." The use of the basket just delays the reveal and allows the left hand to be shown empty as an acquitment. I am manipulating the perceptions of the spectator - my job. The False Transfer s already occurred.

The problem is your desire to discuss this in open forum where actual methods cannot be shared. plus focusing on the Sleight employed that we can't talk about.

Hopefully, we have inspired readers to look further into "object transfers in the hands" beyond just a favorite "vanish" technique.

I have already received several eMail inquiries to discuss this theme.

Hi Funsway,

Sorry for the delay. I had some personal stuff come up this week that kept me away from the computer and the cafe.

I, too received a few messages about this topic. I wonder if it was the same people. In the end it doesn't matter.

I entirely disagree with your final point: I don't need to discuss method here; it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Nor is the specific sleight important. In fact, that's the thing I've been trying to say all along. There's certainly a lot of nuance that _could_ be discussed, but that's not what I was referencing.

I believe our problem is that you're only talking about the overall set of actions/experience - which is of course the only thing relevant to the spectator, but they don't think about falsehood - while I'm talking about individual steps from the magician's perspective. Some of which could be false, some real, and still others in secret. All of that is important to the performer.
If we only talk about the spectator, there's nothing to say. It's magic.
If we only talk about the magician, then it's often more complicated than a single action between the beginning and the reveal.

For example, as you yourself suggest: it's possible to have a fake basket place - and from the spectator's viewpoint there's no difference where the disappearance happens, but from the magician's it's important. Without being able to be precise as to those two flows, we cannot distinguish between them in our conversation. The same applies to whose viewpoint we're talking about when it keeps being a counterargument.

Often, I enjoy semantic debates, but it's ultimately impossible if either party is unwilling to waver or compromise in their believed view.

I wish you and others continued success in your thoughtful analysis of magic theory.

Tons, happy to discuss what you want on an appropriate forum. This is no it.

But, I am not "only talking about" what you describe. I am talking about specific combinations of Moves, Sleights and Stratagems (Methods)
within a framework of creating an illusion in the mind of the spectator. I just will not discuss them in open forum.

Please do not guess or project. I never suggested a "fake basket place" as the place where the sneaky action occurs.
As notes, the use of a basket can be an acquitment to mask the timing of the chosen sleight.
Similarly, the ability to show the passing hand empty before the reveal of 'gone' can be vital to the illusion and memory.

The theme of this thread is about using a common retention type vanish with a finger ring later showing up somewhere else.
I am noting that there are alternative methods that may be better - that "make sense" based on the desired results.
It is not theory. It is an assessment of alternative solutions.

As you say above, "it's often more complicated than a single action between the beginning and the reveal." Good thought.