Although it might fit well here, there is a separate web page talking about Bob Kohler's Three Fly routine.
By: BrickAlley
I was wondering if I could get a review on this trick. Any input will
be appreciated since I have not seen a review any where. Thanks!
By: John H. Zander
I just picked one up from Daryl. It is great. Very magical. Three
coins travel from hand to hand at your finger tips. The manuscript has
alternate moves for some of the handlings. It will take some practice,
but it will be worth the effort. You also must have "soft" coins. You
could use regular dollars or halves, but you really need the quiet
coins. Daryl sells some "Practice coins" that you can use for $5.00.
By: Gregory Lee
Does he sell this effect with a manuscript only? or does it invlove a
gimmick?
By: John H. Zander
Sorry, I should have mentioned that. No gimmicks and you are clean at
the end.
By: Sebastian
Daryl's version is all right, but far, FAR inferior to Chris Kenner's
"Three Fly" (available in "Out Of Control" and in his video), among
the many other versions that use the same props. The "practice coins"
Daryl is selling are actually casino chips. In a nutshell...Daryl's is
good version...if you can't find any other.
With all due respect to Daryl, of course.
By: Steve V
What Daryl did was take the Kenner effect and re-work it so it's
with-in the reach of your average hobbiest magician, meaning I can do
it. It's a nice version of the '3-fly' effect.
By: Dan Eppard
Ive been working on Daryls method for about 2 months and I think it is
ok but I was disappointed with the vanish of the last coin, the vanish
through the pocket seems a bit obvious to me. I havent seen any other
versions yet but plan on researching some hoping to find a better
ending. For now I just changed what I do to end clean with a gag about
the last coin travelling behind my back.
By: Sebastian
Of course the vanish of the last coin is always the biggest problem
here. Bob Kohler found an excellent answer for this last coin but as
you all know, it was a rather expensive answer. There are also various
gimmicks to make that last coin vanish, some of them being very
effective, but they don't make the routine impromptu any more.
As for ungaffed versions, I still think that Kenner's is king, at least in Chris Kenner's hands or Homer Liwag's, who both perform "3 Fly" to absolute perfection, where the last coin visibly vanishes and such. Not very easy to perform properly, though, but it looks so magical. His version is available in "Out of Control" and the "Out Of Control" video.
Paul Wilson re-worked the handling and came up with a very good handling, maybe less flashy, but very efficient and magical too. It is available in his video and lecture notes.
Many other performers came up with their own variations, most of them being based on Jonathan Townsend's "Fingertips coins accross" and Chris's and Gary Kurtz's handlings.
What I don't like in Daryl's is the vanish of the second coin (even Stevie Wonder would find it obvious), and I didn't like the "bluff" on the final coin. Don't get me wrong, bluff can be an excellent weapon, but NOT with the final coin of a "3 Fly" effect where EVERYONE is burning this coin and your hands. The overall choregraphy of the routine isn't consistent, too movey, with hands going up and down, left to right too many times. The strength of Three Fly is precisely the absence of moves and/or suspicious transfers.
Daryl's "Three Fly III" booklet isn't expensive, well produced and I would even advise you to buy it for documentary purposes and to check by yourself how inferior this handling is. I remember I attended Daryl's "lecture" just for this effect, and I was so disappointed.
It raises the old "improvement" debate again (raised, among many others, by Mike Close in "Marketplace"): if you start to market and/or relase your version of an already existing effect, it should be superior (or at least equal) to the previously existing versions, and not so obviously inferior. Of course that would mean that 75% of newly realeased stuff shouldn't be released, but that's another story.
By: Kevin
Definetly check out Jay Sankey's "Short & Sweet" video. He's got one
of the cleanest coins across I've ever seen, and it only uses 3 coins,
starts and ends remarkably clean. It's called (aptly named) Mr. Clean
Coins Across.
Watch it, I was fooled the first (and second) time I saw it!
By: Daren Rotherham
I currently perform a 3 coins across using a shell, the first two
coins go across pretty magically the problem I have is making the last
coin go just as magically, the situation is as follows:
I have 2 coins in my right hand and the remaining coin with shell in my left hand, how can I make this last coin go across which leaves me with just 3 ordinary coins, so i can hand them straight out for examination?
By: Dan Watkins
Is this coins across completely in your hands? Or do you have to put a
coin down on a table or a spectator's hand after the coin flights?
Left in your situation, I would put the two coins that went to your right hand down on a table or temporarily on someone's outstreatched palm.
I would then pick up the coin and shell set from the left hand and show my left hand clean, and show my right hand only holding the one coin. Then retention vanish the coin into the left hand (really retaining in the right). When you do this, make sure the shell face is facing away from the audience so that when the set is in finger tip rest, the shell face is up. When you reach to pickup the other two coins, classic palm the shell set. Pick up the two coins and hold them in finger tip rest, make a loose fist, relax your hand enough so that the coin falls out of the shell set onto the 2 coins in finger tip rest. Reveal your left hand empty and then place the 3 coins from the right onto the table or the spec's hand. Retain the shell in classic palm and ditch it when you get the chance.
By: Steve V
What are your thoughts on the notion of allowing them to notice you're
clean rather than 'showing' you are clean?
By: MarvinL.
If you don't use a shell you can end clean by doing the HPC move. I
really don't know why you use a shell. With a 3 coin routine you can
use the standard palm steal for the first, a click pass for the second
and the HPC for the third.
By: Kevin Mepham
Check out Roger Klause's 3-coins-across-with-shell routine "Triple
Play" from the book Roger Klause in Concert. It's the routine I
use. He makes the final coin travel to the spec's closed fist for a
mind-blowing finish. Here's an outline: Place the first two coins
(which have already travelled) onto the spec's open palm. Ask her if
she wants to see the last coin travel visibly or invisibly. Whatever
she says, do the visible travel - simply place the third coin (with
shell) on top of the first two on her palm. Then, lift the shell off
with your RH (holding your RH so it blocks her view of the other
coins) as you close her hand with your left. She'll think she's only
holding two coins, while she's actually holding three. Apparently
place the shell into your left fist, but retain it in RH classic
palm. Make the magic happen, then hold her wrist with your RH, have
her open her hand to find all 3 coins, and open your LH to show
empty. Have her dump her coins into your LH, then pick them up
one-by-one with your right, nesting the shell in the process to end
with a clean open-handed display of 3 coins.
The book adds a lot of subtleties as well as great ways to get ahead on the first two coins. Also the best writeup around on the $100 Bill Change, and many other great routines. Highly highly highly recommended.
By: Frank Yuen
Usually shell coins across routines end in the spectator's hand. Place
the two coins into their hand and then explain that the third coin
instead of going to your hand will fly to their's to coin the other
two. As way of illustrating place the last coin (covered by the shell)
onto their palm. Lift the shell and direct them to close their hand
and turn it palm down. Vanish the shell and you have a miracle.
By: Dan Watkins
I think part of being clean is performing clean. If you never raise
any suspicion that a gaff is being used, you don't have to "prove"
your not using one. Plus, it's a good assumption that most laymen have
no clue a shell even exists.
Coin magic is a type of magic that can be done very up close and personal. This includes handling of props at various times by spectators. I have a few coins across routines I personally like to perform depending on the working conditions. Very up close I like to use Paul Cummins' Underhanded Coins Across, and a varation of a David Stone (inspired by Gary Kurtz) handling of a 4 coins across from your hand to a spectator's hand. The beauty of these two routines are they can be more magical then gaff versions, and they are very clean as you really are only using 4 coins. Its pure sleight of hand.
But for a larger crowd, I prefer to use David Roth's 4 coins across with a shell (modified to the ending I talked about in my original reply).
When I start, I usually palm off the shell and toss the coins cleanly onto a table, or cleanly hand them to a spectator. They have no idea what will happen next, all they know is they have 4 silver coins. When I take the coins back, I palm a coin up into the shell and release the set, couting the coins (one now shelled) into my left hand. I pretty much perform the handling exactly as Roth does, and since you are using a shell you are always cleanly showing 4 coins and only 4 coins.
The ending I use differs from Roth's in that the last hop takes place in my own hands. When I hand the 4 coins back to a spectator all the heat is off your hand with the palmed shell. Everyone saw me hand out 4 coins before the routine, saw only 4 coins during the routine, and a specator is holding 4 coins at the end of the routine. The attention is usually on those 4 coins giving me the opportunity to casually ditch the shell in the pocket (nobody is even looking). Sometimes I just take the coins back and just palm up a coin to re-add the shell then release it back to the stack of coins. I again cleanly have 4 coins in my hand that were just inspected by a spectator.
So to me, if you perform an effect, and the method and or gaff is never realized, you just performed a clean effect. You started, performed, and ended clean.
If by chance everything fails and you are stuck with a coin or a shell in palm, and you are called to show your hands (this means you failed in your performance somehow or you happened to get "one of those guys" (you know what I mean) in the audience). I used to be stuck here. I personally use two outs. One is showing both sides of your hands clean using Ammar's Wiped Clean. This thus far has never failed me to demonstrate my empty hands when they really are not empty. The other out is Paul Cummins backclipping work similar to "The Invisible Hand" You can show both hands both sides very clean this way, but it is limited to a very very close up audience.
So I guess to summarize this long windedness, perform clean and you will not have to show it. The goal is to remove the idea that you are even dirty. If this fails, have a backup that works to show your clean, even if you are not In both instances, all you need to get is the perception from the audience you are clean. Whether you have to prove it or not, its the perception that is the reality for the spectator.
By: SteveV
I'm with you. I figure that spectators realize a magician will only
ask for an inspection IF there is nothing to find. I will allow a coin
to be looked at if asked, I just don't volunteer it. That way the
suspicion turns to mystery in the mind of the spectator.
By: Frank Yuen
I find it odd that you would switch from ending in the spectator's
hand to ending in your own hand. The description that you wrote
doesn't make the third coin's flight any different than the first
two. Seems like much better theater to have the third coin travel to
the spectator's hand.
By: Dan Watkins
You know, I was trying to think why I do it like that..... and really
the only reason I did that was that I used to also use the coins thru
the table routine with a shell that used the "put the coins in the
spectator's hand, steal back the shell" ending to make the final coin
go thru the table. I did not want to have the same ending(with my
coins across). I really don't do the coins thru the table with the
shell much any more since I like to be able to peform it standing, I
use a sleight of hand method now.
The other reason is, I typically don't use the shell method unless I have a crowd. In a crowded situation its a little safer to keep the coins in my hands for the magic. I have had the spectator that had the coins try to losen his palm and count the coins in his hand, or prematurely open his hand to take a peak at the coins, or after I place them in he will want to start to inspect them, while the shell is on the coin in his hand, etc. I do other routines that involve coins in the specators hand where I have a bit more control over what he does with his hands. The ending to this one, I have just become comfortable doing. I like the continuity of the coins start hopping from my one hand to another, for it to finish that way. On the other end of the spectrum I have a routine where the coins jump one at a time from my hand to the spectator's hand.
I don't know if this is really much of an answer other than "its just the way I have done it".
By: Frank Yuen
"I don't know if this is really much of an answer other than "its
just the way I have done it"."
Hey, that's alright, just wondering. Though if you aren't still using the coins through table, I'd switch back as I do feel the ending in the spectator's hand is stronger and an actual climax rather than just the same flight of a coin from one hand to the other. If you don't switch back, here's a suggestion, if you're not going to use the shell for the third pass, why not ditch the shell early and actually end clean. Perhaps put the shell/coin down, stealing the shell and go to your pocket for a coin purse or whatever.
By: Dan Watkins
I went to a few of my co-workers in the office today that have seen
most my coin routines, and I did the final coin across, both in my
hand, then in their hand to see what they liked better.
They all liked it better in their hand.
I think I'll switch back over
By: Olde Rabbit
Any time you can get away with it, you want to force the audience to
make assumptions about what is going on, rather than show or tell
them. This is important to cover after a performance, when the
audience is trying to think backwards and figure out what you did. It
has been proven people will always accept their own assumptions as
absolute, often even if proven wrong. So if you force their
assumption, you know when they are thinking backwards they'll start at
the point of their incorrect assumption. And try to go from there.
Remember the olde "Here I have an empty hat" bit? Then a rabbit, silk, or whatever comes out of the empty hat. If you can do a body load after showing them the empty hat, great. But sometimes you have to start with a hat which only appears empty.
So you SHOW them the empty hat, while talking about anything other than the hat being empty. They assume the hat's empty, based on their own assumptions. Then you produce the rabbit, and they fall over. Later on, their friend says "the rabbit was in there all the time", and they loudly protest, insisting they KNOW the hat was empty. Because you forced that assumption on them. If you had said "Here I have an empty hat", even if it was empty, at least half the audience would have thought "Yeah, right." And there's nothing you could possibly have done to convince them otherwise.
By: SteveV
You are absolutely correct! An example for what I do is during Oil and
Water I want the spectators to see a black card in my hand without
showing them the black card. What I do, and this is rehersal and
everything, is I push my glasses up on my nose and when doing so the
spectators peek the card.
By: Roger Lefebvre
I am looking for advice / suggestions / creative inspiration for my
coins across routine. I use the routine that David Roth uses w/ a
shell. I use 1941 Silver Walking Liberty half dollars. My dilemma is I
am having a hard time creating a good patter for my routine. I'm not
trying to reinvent the wheel but I just need some ideas to inspire
me. Any suggestions to where to look or any personal suggetions would
be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your suggestions.
By: Chris S
Hi Roger, this is a line that I first saw used by Curtis Kam, though
it may be that he found it elsewhere. He used it for a visible coins
across and stated "that these coins are very old. They have changed
hands so many times, that now they do it automatically".
A simple sort of plot, but one which is cute enough. Dean Dill also uses the idea that the lady on one side oft he coin is walking, and you have your motivation why the coin should jump from one hand to another.
As you would well be aware, there are virtually limitless ways to justify a coins across. Choose one and make it your own!
By: justice
Hint:
You may want to script your routine so that the audience can tell what
you're supposedly doing.
Without giving you my solution, I'll suggest you NOT attribute the coins invisible travel to "an unseen pulley", "molecular transmission", or to any other psuedoscience that you claim to be privy to.
Be magic.
Don't suggest any other solution but real magic. Let their questions fester. They'll thank you for it.
By: Jim Maloney
I'm thinking about starting to work on a Three Fly routine, and I'd
like to know which of the many versions out there you'd
recommend. Being a hobbiest, Bob Kohler's version is, unfortunately,
out of my price range. So that leaves me with the versions from
Kenner, Daryl, Wilson, and others. From what I understand, Kenner's
unpublished version is the best ungimmicked routine out there. How is
the published one, though? And what about the others? Are there any
versions that I haven't mentioned that are worth looking at? I'd
appreciate any suggestions.
By: Chris S
I want to put this Kenner routine to bed (please pardon my slang!). I
have heard off and on, through many bulletin boards of the
effectiveness of Kenners unpublished three-fly routine. Would someone
care to elicidate on precisely how it is different? (no modus, just
effect). For example, is it essentially a clean way to make the final
vanish? Is it a middle phase that is different? Please let us know.
By the way Jim, I love Kenner's published routine. Great timing, beats and a smooth flow.
By: Jim Maloney
From what I've heard, it's the vanish of the final coin that really
sets it apart.
By: Steve V
There is an aspect of Kenners un-published work that Kenner doesn't
think magicians will do. So he put an easier, less visual yet still
effective, move in it's place.
By: Frank Yuen
Other routines out there include:
Gary Kurtz's in "Unexplainable Acts"
Curtis Kam's in "The Professional Magic of Curtis Kam"
Troy Hoosier in "DesTroyers"
Mark Mason in "Real World Magic" video. Sorry Jim, can't remember if it's volume I or II.
By: Jim Maloney
Thanks, for the references Frank. I do have Troy Hooser's book, but
not the others.
How do you think these routines stack up against each other?
By: Frank Yuen
For the most part, they all LOOK basically the same. The main
difference is usually in the method of causing the vanishing of the
coins. Another difference seems to be the vanish of the last coin.
I have seen performances of the Kurtz, Wilson, Mason, Hoosier, and Kam routines. They all looked magical. If I had to pick one it would be difficult. If forced, I would probably pick the Kurtz routine as it is a little cleaner due to the fact that a gimmick is used.
By: Aaron Isaacs
After looking at Three Fly for a long time, I finally decided to learn
Paul Wilson's Crowded Coins. It is available on on of his
videos. Clean, Looks great.
By: David L.
Isn't it the case that all 3-Fly routines are based on displaying the
coins in a fan at the fingertips? At the risk of saying something
sacrilege - I think that a coin 'fan' looks inherently suspicious. No
layperson ever fans coins for any reason.
On the other hand (no pun intended) the Jay Sankey/Greg Wilson coins across in the hands looks great. Why learn a 3-Fly when you can learn a good coins across?
By: Steve V
They may if you said to them "Hey, hold these three coins up so I can
see them as clearly as possible".
By: Jim Maloney
Isn't it the case that all 3-Fly routines are based on displaying the
coins in a fan at the fingertips? At the risk of saying something
sacrilege - I think that a coin 'fan' looks inherently suspicious. No
layperson ever fans coins for any reason.
No layperson makes coins travel from one hand to the other, either. Doesn't stop me from wanting to do it. Frankly, I don't care what a layperson would do, for the simple reason that I'm not a layperson. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked a person to hold three coins at their fingertips so that you can see them, they'd fan 'em. Trust me, while they may not fan coins in their normal, everyday life, there is nothing suspicious about the way you are holding the coins. The whole purpose of doing it at the fingertips is to "prove" the fairness of the procedure. I don't think that any layman would think "It was a cool trick, I guess...but he was holding those coins kinda weird." It's just not something that will enter into their mind.
On the other hand (no pun intended) the Jay Sankey/Greg Wilson coins across in the hands looks great. Why learn a 3-Fly when you can learn a good coins across?
The reason I want to do Three Fly is because of the inherent fairness of doing it at the fingertips. Done right, a Three Fly routine should look as if the coin simply winked out of existance in one place and popped back in at another. Certainly, there's advantages and disavantages to both approaches -- doing an in-the-hands routine allows you to build up suspense in a way that you can't with a three fly routine. On the other hand, as I've already mentioned, a good three fly will look much cleaner and will be more visual than an in-the-hands version could be. Also, Three Fly can be done for a larger audience than a coins across routine can. More people can see the coins -- especially how many coins are in which hand. That's not something that can easily be done witha coins across.
Anyway...that's just the way I feel about it.
By: Bob Kohler
Chris Kenner is truly a brilliant sleight of hand man. We go way back,
in fact all the way back to when Jonathan Townsend did his incredible
open coins across for me and Chris. (We all miss you Jonathan!).
This inspired Chris to take the open aspect of Jonathan's routine and "bring it up" to eye level. A masterful stoke.
The routine is Chris' hands is perfect...the illusion is breathtaking. The timing and handling require perfect handling for the illusion to be overwhelming to the audience. But there is no doubt that the routine was taken to another much higher level.
The solution to the last coin is simple...it's too good to share. That's why Chris has kept it to himself. If you had it, you too would keep it to yourself. So take a deep breathe and just forget it exists. It's not available and may very well never be released.
As far as the next best version...consider this. Learn all of the available work on the subject and take all of the parts that fit your performance style. Now mold your knowledge into what works for you. Perhaps write patter of jokes to cover weakness in moments or method. I'll bet you that Daryl, Kurtz, Hooser and Wilson all have done exactly that...it's not a fair bet, they are all very good friends of mine. But each of these top performers have adapted the work to fit their personality and style. To the paying, lay audience each of these routines kills. There are no right or wrong solutions if the audience freaks. Work on your routine until your audiences freak and you're done. Keep in mind when you do 3 Fly right the audience is totally silent...but their mouths are wide open.
By: rawdawg
Daryl also has an alternate ending to his 3 fly that is visually
breathtaking to the laity and extremely disconcerting to
magicians. The methodology is quite out of the way and I don't believe
it has been published.
By: Richard Parker
>>I agree with Erdnase 100% when he said that no one should suspect, let alone detect any secret action. This is why I feel that Three Fly is so good. The coins are at the fingertips and in view the whole time, so there is little opportunity to do anything "secret." When it's done right, it should look like there is no movement in your hands.>>
That quote by Erdnase to which you referred is perhaps my favorite quote in magic. And it's why I don't like any 3-Fly routine I've ever seen (and I've seen a bunch of 'em, including all of the ones mentioned in this thread) as much as I like David Roth's shelled coins across routine and other "regular" coins across routines. And I think the problem is that holding the coins up and far apart in your hands is just too stilted; as David pointed out, it looks unnatural. Or maybe "uncasual" is a better way to put it. I mean, talk about an UNcasual way of handling coins -- it really highlights the fact that, now and then, you have to bring the hands together and count or display or do SOMETHING to give yourself some cover for transferring a coin or two. And that's where the Erdnase quote comes in, because that's the point at which your spectators are going to think, "Hmm. He was being so careful to keep his hands held up and so far apart, and now he keeps bringing them together. Why would he keep doing that? Could it be that he's doing something when the hands come together?" Of course, spectators might think the same thing in a "regular" coins across routine, but the handling of 3-Fly-type routines, in my opinion, makes this kind of spectator reaction more likely because instead of handling the coins the way anybody else would, you're holding your hands up and handling them in a way that supposedly emphasizes fairness -- but you can't maintain that "fair" position. And some spectators realize that. I prefer to allay suspicion rather than create it, and that's why I prefer "regular" coins across routines to the 3-Fly type. But, you know, whatever floats your boat. That's just my opinion.
By: Jim Maloney
Bringing the hands together to secretly transfer the coins is most
certainly one of the weak points in a Three Fly routine. In the
routine I'm working on, that's one of the things I'm working to
solve. I've already been able to cover the transfer after the first
coin travels (setting up for the second coin) with a very natural,
motivated, and (I think) clean looking movement.
Any other problems with the routine? I'd appreciate any input into what you guys feel are the weaknesses of Three Fly routines. It gives me more to think about when working on mine!
By: Charles Morrit
3 Fly works exactly like the spectator's think it does, "he made me
look here when it happened there".
A closed handed coins across, where the coins are heard to arrive via a coin dropping from classic palm onto coin(s) already in same hand, provides more fun and mystery for an audience. Espically if the magician "acts" a bit by following the flight of the "invisible" coin.
By it's very nature 3 fly is a frustrating trick because you are always beating the spectator. The moment the magic is happening is never defined.
But it's a great trick for the magic hobbiest who is tired of what he already knows.
By: Jim Maloney
By it's very nature 3 fly is a frustrating trick because you are
always beating the spectator.
Not necessarily -- Josh Jay makes the excellent point in Troy Hooser's book that there should be a delay in between the vanish of the coin in one hand and the appearance in the other. Not a long delay -- just long enough to let them register the vanish and look over to your other hand. Acting also comes in here. You should be looking at your hand (where the vanish occurs) when the vanish happens, then look over to the other hand when the appearance happens. Of course, your technique should be good enough that the vanish and appearances are deceptive. Not an easy thing to do.
The moment the magic is happening is never defined.
Again, not necessarily true. In my version, I'm blowing on the coins to make them travel. Anyone watching would know exactly when the magic happens.
By: Dan Watkins
You haven't seen the right one....
You can incorporate Ramsay subtlety or edge grip techniques to 3 fly which enable you to show both sides of the coins.
Better yet - if you get the chance to see Bob Kohler's version, it eliminates the possibility of the extra coin behind the fan because of:
1. 3 coins are cleanly shown at the beginning and are handed out for inspection.
2. When the 3 coins are taken back and fanned - you can cleanly show both sides and an empty opposite hand.
3. During the routine, you actually turn your hands down to show the audience your point of view.
4. You toss the coins into the air - one in one hand, two in the other - can't get much fairer than that.
5. At the end, the right hand holds the fan of coins - the empty left is shown, and one by one the coins are dropped into the left hand while counted - 3 fall, and the right hand is shown empty.
6. The coins can be handed back out if you wanted.
If you can imagine all of those "proving" items in a 3 fly routine, you can imagine a very convincing 3 fly. That is what Bob's routine is.
I know that I would argue - you don't need to prove your magic that much. True - but it's sure fun to do so when you can
I have actually used this routine right after a coins across routine - yea that sounds rediculous, 2 similar plot effects right in a row. I peformed Roth's shell coins across with Morgan dollars for two business clients. At the end of it, one of the gentlemen told me that he purposely watched my "other" hand, and though he could not see a coin there, he said he thinks he could follow what I was doing - up until the final coin went to his friend's hand. So I turned to him and said, I'll tell ya what. I will do this again - however, this time I will hold the coins in my fingertips so you can actually see the coins, and go ahead and watch whatever hand you want, as close as you want.... and went into U3F. It freaking killed them. And the fella that was burning my hand on the Roth routine, said, "Man you just keep pulling out better and better stuff as you go on, I have no freaking clue how you do that stuff."
I have not performed a coins across followed by a 3 fly since, because of its simularities - but in this instance it worked extremely well, and for me its worth being able to do both traditional coins across routines as well as at the fingertips.
The discussions on these web pages were extracted from MagicTalk and are therefore Copyright 1998-2003 by Bryan Dean and used with his permission. While this website may be freely read, it may not be freely copied. If you want to copy any of the information from this web site you need to contact Bryan Dean at bryan@magictalk.com to obtain permission.