Recently in the magic industry there has been a controversy that has caused more than a few ripples through our ranks. You may be aware of it, then again you may not. Either way, let me set the scene for you before I really dig into this article.

American pick pocket Apollo Robbins does a trick where he places a coin on the spectator’s shoulder, only to point out that it is there seconds after it has been so placed. Mr. Robbins considers this his “signature routine.”

British magician James Brown does a trick where he places a coin on the spectator’s shoulder, only to point out that it is there seconds after it has been so placed. Mr. Brown does not consider this to be his “signature routine.”

They have both been doing this trick for a long, long time. Both Robbins and Brown teach this trick in their lectures.

About two years ago, Brown released a DVD titled, “Still Fancy a Pot of Jam?” where he was going to include the coin on shoulder trick. Robbins contacted Brown and requested that he not include it, because to Robbins’s way of thinking, he owns that particular trick. Brown complied and left it off of the DVD.

Now, Brown is on the verge of publishing a new DVD and was going to include this trick. This time, though, Robbins didn’t waste his time dealing with Brown, he simply contacted a group of magicians to get their personal take on the situation. Amongst those who he contacted were Max Maven, Teller, Johnny Thompson and Jason England. This particular group of judges have come to the conclusion that this is Robbins’s trick and that Brown would be a thief to include it in his DVD.

Once again, Brown has backed off and decided to leave this coin to shoulder trick out of his DVD.

Who is right and wrong in this controversy is a very difficult decision to make. What intrigues me, though, is the amount of questions that this whole thing raises - questions that need to be asked, but nobody seems to see the insidious issues that are rife in this dispute.

1) Who decides? In the case above, it would seem that Maven, Teller, Thompson et al are the final arbiters. I, for one, don’t remember casting my vote making them the judges in all things magic.

I’m not intending to cast aspersions on these important men of our industry. My point is that if we are going to set them up to be our judges, then I think that we need some kind of symposium on this issue before it is set in stone.

2) Can a single trick be owned? Both Robbins and Brown are calling this trick a “routine.” But, the fact of the matter is, it is not a routine, it is a single trick. You put a coin on someone’s shoulder and then say, “Look at your shoulder.” That’s not really a routine, is it?

I am fully in agreement that a magician has no right to teach another magician’s routine without permission of the creator. The question here is whether or not putting a coin on someone’s shoulder and telling them to look at their shoulder is honestly intellectual property.

Even as such, this is only a short trick within an overall routine. Brown is not teaching any routine that Robbins created, he is using the exact same trick of putting a coin on someone’s shoulder, a trick that was published long before either of them were born.

3) At what point can you claim that you’ve revolutionized a previously published trick? The fact of the matter is, putting a coin on the spectator’s shoulder was already published in Bobo’s “Modern Coin Magic,” so, it isn’t new. Apollo’s claim is that since he uses the coin on shoulder as a reveal and since Bobo only presents it as a ditch, then he has invented a new trick.

Well, that’s pretty revolutionary. Adding the line, “Look at your shoulder,” to a trick revolutionizes and changes it completely. Really? I’m sorry, I vehemently disagree with this point of view. Seems to me that we are now starting to take ourselves so seriously in this industry that we are actually looking quite silly as a result.

Then again, this isn’t anything new, is it? We already know that Ellusionist simply finds old tricks hidden away in obscure books, repackages them and then sells them to the rabid masses as the latest and the greatest. I guess it isn’t a surprise that Robbins feels that he has invented a trick when it is simply a repackaging of something found in Bobo.

4) Are we really this petty? Robbins is making a massive fuss over all of this, but it is even going deeper than just a simple fuss. There has been a request made to The Magic Circle of England to have Brown removed as a member. This is, beyond all doubt, the most loathsome of actions that I’ve seen any magician sink to in our industry.

Are we really this petty? And, the next logical question: should anyone in our industry hold such sway and power over us that they can have us cast out of magic societies for using the same trick from a book that was published over half a century ago? A book that is in the public domain, no less?

5) If we teach our material to magicians, do we still own that material ourselves? Robbins has been teaching this trick for many years now on the lecture circuit. He has sold it to the masses of magicians who’ve watched his lecture or purchased his material. Does he have the right to stop another magician from using it in his material and teaching it in his lectures?

This is a deep question, because there are so many variables that are important to note in answering this question. It isn’t simply a yes/no question. There is, however, some historical evidence that is important to consider with this question before we begin to arrive at any conclusions.

Remember when Francis Tabary won FISM with his rope act? Of course, he sold that onto the magic community and now everyone is doing it. Not only that, they are selling their own material based on a little tweak here or there on Tabary’s work. Why isn’t Tabary causing the same stir as Robbins, especially when most of what you see came from Tabary to begin with.

Or did it?

Actually, Tabary’s work is based on George Sands’ work. Where is the outrage from Maven, Thompson and Teller regarding this issue, which is a lot bigger than a coin on a shoulder? Why is it that Robbins is getting the attention that he’s getting over a simple, little trick that he didn’t invent, when there are major routines that are being taught without getting permission from George Sands’ son?

Every time that you see a rope routine taught on a DVD that uses two pieces of rope as if it were one, please say a little thank you to George Sands because nobody is asking his son permission to use it. Teller, Maven and others have bigger fish to fry, like going after magicians who put coins on their spectator’s shoulders.

“When I lectured at Fort Worth, Texas, every act that did a rope tick at the PCAM Convention included the finger cut. I doubt they know whence it came. I feel regrets. It’s no longer mine -- yet I feel proud.” George Sands, 1975

So even the idea of cutting a rope using your fingers as scissors comes directly from George Sands. Why are we not outraged over all the magicians who teach this, because it isn’t theirs to teach? Of course, it appears that Mr. Sands would understand exactly where I’m coming from since he seems to have held no grudge over the younger magicians using his material after he sold it onto them via lectures and booklets.

The old masters understood what the greats of today apparently don’t comprehend.

And there are more questions that arise from this controversy. So many, in fact, that I could get a small novel out of it all. I haven’t even scratched the surface in answering the questions above, yet they are only the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, this whole issue has become a polarizing event for American versus British magicians and I can only sit back and watch the magic industry continue to decline.

Take care and thank you for reading.

Mike