Tricks – MagicShow.Tips

Chattering Teeth by Doug Malloy and Terry Seabrooke

Last year, I picked up a Chattering Teeth by Doug Malloy (routine by Terry Seabrooke). This is Terry’s routine that I first saw in the mid 1990s on a VHS tape of his called The Vidiot and the basic routine is also in his lecture notes that are still available from Magic Inc for about $6.

I thought the fan in my unit was broken, it had two AA batteries in it, and I changed it to a 9v battery, and it started whirring…but was super loud! I changed out the fan and here’s a before and after video:

I thought the unit I had was unusually loud when I got it, but after posting that video, I have the impression that all of them were pretty loud! This isn’t a knock at the maker, it was made with 1990s technology, and it appears Doug fabricated the fan from scratch!

When I changed the fan, I also added a remote control to it. The remote is two channels, so my remote control chattering teeth and the fan can run off a single remote contol!

Here’s what it looks like:

I’m glad I finally got around to updating the Chattering Teeth prop! Working on this set is actually a stepping stone for a version of the trick that I want to build for myself.

-Louie

Vintage Magic Tricks for Sale

There is now a Vintage Magic Tricks for sale page on this website! These are tricks and books from my collection. Sometimes I gotta let things go to make space for new things!

check out what’s currently available at:
https://www.magicshow.tips/product-category/shop/vintage-magic/

-Louie

National Magic Vanishing Birdcage!

This vanishing birdcage that I just added to my collection is pretty cool!

metal vanishing birdcage in it's original box

This is my first older cage that has come with the box! However, what makes it more interesting is the pull connector and the corner hinges. Here’s a close up of them:

metal hinge of a magicians vanishing birdcage

Let’s start with the pull connector, it’s teardrop shaped instead of the normal rectangle. This shape, in theory, will have fewer snag points than the rectangle. However, what I find really fascinating is the corner hinges. They go all the way around and aren’t “U” shaped. This should make a stronger hinge, as they are frequently broken on older cages, but this has to be a big pain to make!

I’m very curious about whether this cage was an early cage where they were made to last, but then they stopped doing them because they were easier to manufacture if they did things like make the corners “U” shapes. Or maybe this cage was a custom job to make it more reliable and durable?

I’m glad to have this added to the collection!

-Louie

Make Money Magic Work Onstage!

The Juggling Monte routine that I’m working on has taken another step closer to reality. One of the challenges that I identified early on was how to make a two dollar bill visibly different from a one dollar bill onstage. The solution was to write “lucky” on the back of it. Originally I thought writing it in pink, sparkly ink would be good, however I just made one with white ink with a black border and I think it looks great!

There’s not much to making this prop. I took a white paint pen and wrote lucky on the bill. Once it dried, I used a black Sharpie to do the outline. Finally, I took some matte clear spray paint and gave it a light coat to seal it. Hopefully the sealant will protect it from dinging or chipping.

I still need to write some jokes and figure out the routine, but it’s off to a good start. We’ll see how it actually plays for an audience.

-Louie

How To End a Card Trick…

The ending to a card trick is one of the most important things. Does the ending have punctuation, or is it just “meh”? A card trick routine that I’m working on ends with a prediction of the selected card. I’m not going to get into the routine in this post, but just the ending. Here are the three options:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Louie Foxx | Comedy Magician (@louiefoxx)

Option 1: direct and clean

Option 2: has a little bit of suspense

Option 3: has a gag, then a trick

I think each has merit, but ultimately I’ll have to go out there and try all three to see which plays best.

-Louie

ProMystic Inception Repair!

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about a magic prop that broke. That prop was ProMystic‘s Inception, so not a prop that can be easily fixed. I’ve had this prop for probably close to a decade, and this is the second time I’ve sent it to them; the first time, I cracked the screen. That’s a long life for a prop that performs as much as I do!

I just got my unit repaired until back from ProMystic and it works great!

They do a great job servicing their items, and the fix plus shipping was super cheap…and fast! It’s always great to have people who make products that can provide service for them after the initial sale. Many magic manufacturers will just tell you to buy a new one, which I understand; sometimes it’s cheaper/easier to replace than repair. It’s always a bonus when when I can just have the existing one fixed!

-Louie

How to Make it Play Onstage

The last couple of days, I’ve written about my idea for a three shell game style routine to be done onstage. The basic premise is that the prize is put into a tennis ball that has a slit cut into it and it’s juggled with two other balls and the audience has to follow the one with the prize.

You can read about the idea here and how I solved one of the problems here.

A challenge that I didn’t think about with using a two dollar bill and a couple of one dollar bills is that they are visually similar when viewed from a distance. The different formatting of a five and higher value bill looks different, however a $1 and $2 have the same layout.

How Can They Look Different From a Distance?

This is the challenge, making the trick play to the back row. Here’s an idea for the solution to that: What if on the back of the two dollar bill in bright, sparkly ink/paint I wrote “LUCKY”? I could introduce the two dollar bill and say it’s my lucky one, then turn it around to show the word on the back. That visual difference would make it play further back in an audience.

When I create routines, I always try to think about the back row!

-Louie

Remove the Loss In a Shell Game Routine

Yesterday I wrote a post about the idea of doing a three shell game type routine onstage using tennis balls, and you can read it here. The tennis balls have slits cut in them that I put money into, and the audience has to follow the one with the money.

One of the problems with this style of routine is that the spectator loses. I’m trying to take the sting out of that. My idea isn’t that they win; they still lose, but ultimately, as losers of the game, they still win.

How Do They Lose, But Still Win?

I’m not sure how this will play with an audience, but here’s the idea:

I show a two dollar bill and put it into one of the tennis balls. I tell the audience that it’s “My lucky two dollar bill” and you won’t win it. I’ve played this game hundreds of times; each time I lose two dollars, but I have never lost this two dollar bill!”

The bill is put into a tennis ball, and they’re juggled. Someone from the audience selects one of the balls, and it’s tossed to them. They open it, and it has one dollar in it. You give them a second chance, and they pick another one, and when they open it, that one has a one dollar bill in it as well. That leaves you with the two dollar bill!

Ok, so they lost in their objective; however, they still walked away with the same amount of money that they would have won if they found the two dollar bill.

I think this idea takes the sting out of the spectator losing at the end.

-Louie

The Shell Game Onstage

The idea of doing a three shell game style routine onstage has been in my head for a little while. Onstage, a shell game type routine typically manifests itself as a Bank Nite type routine, where money is mixed with worthless prizes. The spectator picks all but one envelope, leaving the magician with one, which has the money.

There are two challenges with a Bank Nite style of routine:
1: The spectator loses (usually)
2: The final reveal is anti-climatic, the audience knows what’s in the last envelope, so opening it isn’t really a moment.

A good example of ending the routine with a bit of a moment is telling the audience that money is in one of the envelopes, but not showing them. A good example of this is John Archer’s Blank Nite routine:

What’s the Solution to Doing The Shell Game Onstage?

This doesn’t really solve the problem, but here’s the idea I came up with: You have three tennis balls with slits cut in them. You put the $100 into one of them, and the audience has to follow that one while you juggle it.

This is nice and visual, and it has the mixing element of the three shell game. The audience is involved in trying to follow it.

This doesn’t solve the two main problems: the spectator loses, and the final reveal is anticlimactic.

I like the visual…but now to try to figure out how to solve the two issues.

-Louie

Why Not Make it More Deceptive?

Before I start, I want to mention that this is not a knock at the performer in the picture below. OK, so now that that’s out of the way, look at the picture below:

This is an image that’s heavily edited (before I blurred out the faces), which is fine; it’s a show poster. The Zig Zag Lady illusion uses an optical principle (black art) to make it more deceptive. It’s not really black art in the sense of a black art act, but it’s used to make something less prominent.

My thinking is, as long as we’re altering the picture, why not remove the black art part? I’m sure this poster was made from an actual picture of the illusion, and the marketing person for the event didn’t notice…but why would they?

Is it Ethical to Alter the Picture of Illusions?

Is doing little things like removing something that the audience doesn’t realize they see from a promo picture OK to do? I think so. In promo pictures for shows, typically you aren’t doing a live show, so it’s already an unrealistic situation. You can retake the picture dozens of times. I think as long as the illusion is presented accurately, it’s OK. If you Photoshop out the chairs in a chair suspension, that’s not ethical, as you’ve substantially changed the illusion.

That’s my opinion on that!

-Louie