Yeah, so, I don’t like 3 Fly. Most versions of it, anyway. I get a kick out of reading the discussions on it, because a lot of the things they seem to think are good are problematic to me, and at least one thing that is problematic to them I think is fine.

One of the big problems with visual magic is the fact that you’ve got to do a move at a time of high scrutiny. With 3 Fly, though, the problem gets expanded to include putting too much heat on the general strategy, not just any one move.

Obviously, you have to cheat somewhere, but compare the following two situations, dealing with the second phase.

a) Coins Across: The magician’s hands are closed into a fist, and the audience believes that there’s two coins in the left hand, and the right hand has one. Tiki tiki happens, and when the hands are opened, one coin spills out of the left hand, and the right hand is opened to show two.

b) 3 Fly: The magician’s hands are held up, palms towards himself. One hands holds the two coins in a fan in the left hand, and the other hand holds one. Tiki tiki happens, and now there’s one coin in left hand, and two coins in the other.

If you look at the Coins Across situation, the effect is essentially over when the state is revealed. For 3 Fly, though, the revelation happens and then the effect is supposed to be seen as over. I’m not entirely sure that’s the case, as it seems to me there’s something left unaddressed.

Let’s broaden it for a second. The effect in the two is the same, a coin travels mysteriously from one hand to the other. With Coins Across, the final display is meant to serve as proof that this happened, and ultimately that proof is pretty solid. The vulnerable point has already been surpassed, and if they missed it, they really missed it.

With 3 Fly, though, you’re still kind of vulnerable. The effect could be seen as a coin going across, but it could also be seen as two coins becoming one, and one coin becoming two, and that’s a dangerous perception most of the time. That’s not me trying to expose any methodologies out there, it’s what it actually looks like. Whereas in Coins Across the questions point back to what might have been missed earlier, in 3 Fly there’s still a feeling (in my mind, anyway) of questions remaining of what the state of affairs truly is. And, of course, that’s a question that must go unanswered most of the time.

It’s important to point out that I’m not saying Coins Across is better simply because it’s sleight-based. That brings problems on its own (more on that in a second). The issue here is how much the execution puts heat on its own strategy. The better (as in more visual and more deceptive) Coins Across routines that I’ve seen have been either gimmicked outright, or have used a one-ahead strategy of some sort. To me, the issue is mostly about having acceptably clean moments.

Essentially, this brings up an idea of Whit Haydn’s which is the idea of getting agreement on certain things. If you’re ungimmicked, it’s easy to get agreement on not having tricky props, because you don’t have any. If you’re sleightless, it’s easy to get agreement on not having sneaky moves, because again, you’re not doing any. However, since cheating has to happen somewhere, at some point you’re going to have to get agreement on something that’s false.

Here’s where the manner of displays of state come in. If the audience can sense an enclosed space, that’s somewhere where something can be hiding. Hands out palm-up with objects lying away from the fingertips is a fair-looking state, and of course, with Coins Across we can get even more fair than that, letting the coins spill out on a table, or into the spectator’s hand. Delaying the revelation of the magic also offers opportunities for clean-up, and so assuming you’re able to steal early when the scrutiny is low, you can get initial agreement on a certain feature, head into a routine that takes advantage of whatever secret something you’ve rung in, and then clean up that secret something at the final reveal. A while ago I dumped on David Roth for a couple of routine constructions that I wasn’t too fond of, but for some things, like his approach to Winged Silver or Chink-a-chink, his routining strikes me as totally solid, and worthy of study specifically for how he sets himself up to be clean at the right moments, and therefore able to get agreement that the state of affairs is fair.

Contrast all this with something like 3 Fly, where the usual displays feature the back of the hand and enclosed spaces, which suggests shielding of some sort. If they are even a little bit suspicious that an extra coin is involved somehow, then your display subtleties might not be enough to convince them otherwise. What’s more, it’s an elevated display, and that’s awkward to do when they’re close-up, and while if you’re far away it can look better, you’re also still far away, and that too makes it difficult to get proper agreement that the state is fair.

Conversely, one thing that people seem to have a problem with is how to handle the “last” coin. A common gag is something along the lines of “Do you want to see the last coin go across?”, and when they say yes, you slowly and openly put the coin in the other hand. The gag usually offers you an opportunity to do something else, and honestly, it’s fine. It’s shtick, sure, but it’s fine. I think a lot of the coin guys want to have all three travels totally clean, but you’ve got to cheat somewhere, and the humour (as well as the actions that are motivated by it) gives you that opportunity to at least cheat in a way that leaves you very close to clean at the end. If you’re paranoid that you’re still in a dirty state at that point, well, it’s your own damned fault for leaning towards a strategy/effect combination that puts you there in the first place.

Sometimes there are other issues. If you are standing in a parlour situation, then you might need to project things outward to a larger group, in which case more highly-visible effects (both in terms of the magic as well as the displays) make more sense than something that plays small, or only to a small subset of the group at the expense of the rest. It’s also very presumptuous to get up close and in somebody’s personal space before you’ve shown to have gotten their permission somehow (even if only through body language or non-verbal cues), in which case a bit of distance makes sense in terms of straight social graces. These things are less easy to argue against when it comes to the qualities of Coins Across vs. 3 Fly.

Also making things weird for me personally is that, like I said, it’s not just a sleight vs gimmick debate, and in fact, I’m not exactly the biggest fan of Coins Across either. I’d been hacking away at an ungimmicked version for a while, and in the end it served its purpose as a lead-in to Copper/Silver, but all it seemed to do was put me at risk for getting caught in a sleight three times, for an effect that didn’t excite me much, and that would end up getting forgotten in the long run anyway when compared to Copper/Silver. I’ve toyed with the idea of ditching the Coins Across portion altogether, but that strikes me as problematic as well, in much the same way that eliminating the opening sequences in a Cups and Balls routine can have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the final loads.

Of course, since the last thing I need right now is rationalizations that enable my card guy tendencies, I probably need to sack up and find a solution, especially since Copper/Silver is just too good to stop doing, even in favour of a two-card transposition.

Back to the drawing board…