talkmagic.co.uk

Hey lads.

I'm on the fence about Chris Smith's key through bill AKA Ignition which looks super clean.I've always been a fan of pen through bill as its so effective.My concern is that in principal the two tricks have similar methods.What's worrying is the large number of people I've encountered who know the pen through bill trick from magic sets etc.This is why I've stopped doing pen through bill which was one of my favourite organic pieces of magic.

My question is if you do this with a key do you think the spectators would be able to put 1 and 1 together.You should check the routine out.You hand them the key straight after ripping it out of the bill.Looks sooo good.

Thanks

I think you just answered your own question with the last sentence! There are many magic sets that include a TT but I never go anywhere without one.

I've been using Ignition for a couple of months; I carry it in my wallet for safekeeping and transfer it to my keyring in advance of a performance. But my wallet's not far away, so if I feel the need to perform Ignition in the pub, that's fine too.

The key looks genuine and would easily pass inspection: in fact - as you've seen from the video - the real selling point of Ignition is that you CAN hand the key out right after you've torn it through your participant's bank note. A friend of mine - and I'm sure we've all got a friend like this - immediately got onto Google to try to work out how it was done, and she found countless "reveal" videos of various gimmicked pens... and honestly: it was amazing to watch her holding the key while she watched a "pen-through-X" video, still none the wiser.

So yeah: Ignition's a great "Y-through-X" effect, far better-constructed than any "pen-through-X" effect I've ever seen, trivially easy to perform and with a great wow factor. If you haven't made your mind up yet, I hope that helps.

I have been using the Pen Through Note effect for years and have NEVER been called on it. The real secret to making this work (as I mentioned in our last conversation about this effect some time ago) is the penetration and pull-out technique. Don't use the standard penetrations and don't do the rip effect - where the penetratated note is folded and the pen is "ripped" through sideways.

Many seem to be happy doing the standard handleings of this, but if you could REALLY do this effect (by real magic I mean) it probably wouldn't look like this at all. I did a fair bit of thinking on this effect in the past and came up with a handling that was as close as possible to how I thought this would really look - it is this handling I use.

The first thing I thought about was the penetration. If you were to ask someone to stick a pen through a note they would simply hold the note flat and push it through - the note would NOT be folded and they wouldn't place it flat on their palm and "stab" the note with their fingers underneath.

Then we come to the removal of the pen. The rip effect I mentioned above is the absolute WORST technique you could use. To anyone who knows or suspects the true method this is a dead tip-off. In fact, to any spectator who is thinking about method, the true method is certainly going to be an option. Why then is the rip effect so bad ? Because that's EXACTLY how a spectator would expect you to remove it if their suspicions on method were correct.
The visual "instant restoration" pull-out is not the best idea to use either in my opinion and actually subtly changes the effect. Remember, the pen hasn't melted through the note like a cigarette through a coin. Its meant to have actually penetrated the note - there is a difference.

In this respect I feel adding Ken Krenzels Rip Gaff to the pen really helps sell the "fact" that the pen is through the note.

Also remember that the effect is a restoration of the note - the penetration is simply something you must do first to then show the restoration, so attitude is very important here. I have seen many performances of this where the penetration is put across (wrongly) as a magic effect. The penetration is also one of the most important parts in the effect and, to a large degree will be the deciding factor in whether the effect is convincing or not. The more the spectators believe the pen has really penetrated the note - the more impressive the restoration will be.

So just like thread work where we must do/demonstrate things that make the use of thread seem impossible - we must also do the same with the note effect - make the use of the true method seem unlikely or impossible.

The solution I came up with has the note penetrated with no folds and the note held full face towards the audience. They clearly see the pen being pushed through from behind and the tip coming out towards them. To get the pen back out I do the "visual pull-out" - but without the visual element. The "hole" is then massaged to effect the restoration.

I also like to use the effect as part of a routine, but will also use it on its own.

As for the key version - its a nice effect but I have to disagree with Dans comment that the selling point of the prop is that you can hand the key out straight after its removal from the note. If you perform a pen through note, the spectators are interested in the note afterwards, not the pen. After a cigarette through coin effect the spectators want to see the coin, not the cigarette (which has always made me wonder if a gimmicked cigarette may be better than a gimmicked coin). In the Matchbox Penetration they are interested in that little block of brass, not the toothpick. All this tells us that it is the object being penetrated that is of importance to the spectator, NOT the object doing the penetrating. The fact that the KEY can be handed straight out is moot.

The real selling point of the Key (and any similar prop) is its apparent ordinaryness - it doesn't look like a magicians prop.


Jim