The Forum at Handcuffs.Org

Houdini's Mirror Cuffs Challenge

63 visible archived posts · 63 preserved total · topic ID 1990

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

Hi all.....now that some of you have received your 2007 Handcuff Annual, I'd be interested in your comments or thoughts on my theory about the possibility that Thomas Froggatt made the Mirror handcuffs (and perhaps a few other of his "specials)

I'd just like to know if you think I could be on the right track. Still a long way to go to prove it, but any help along the way would be appreciated.

Thanks

Ian McColl 20 Apr 2007

Hi Mick, I still haven't recieved my copy but you know my thoughts have always been that Houdini had the Mirror, Russian manacle, Bell lock french cuff with letter lock and seance cuff made for him.

Your theory that Froggart made them would stand to reason as all cuffs resemble English products of the time.Froggart was well versed in handcuff making, it would have been easy for him.

Ian

Joseph Lauher 20 Apr 2007

Mick

I think you have made a very good case. You clearly have established the connection between Houdini and Froggatt and you also have proven that Froggatt made at least one custom cuff, the minature Darby he made for his daughter.

I wonder if you have any thoughts about the Hiatt Plug 8 legiron that Chris Gower wrote about in the Handcuff Annual 2006. Chris made the suggestion that they might also have a Houdini/Froggatt connection. To me they seem to be an old early 19th century cuff, but that someone later reworked the lock to make it much more secure.

Joe

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

In the old now burned down Houdini museum in Niagara Falls, Canada there was a newspaper article about one of Froggatt's decendants paying a visit to the museum in the 1980's.

In the article she recounts how Froggatt and Houdini were friends and how she was told, and indeed the entire family knew, that Froggatt had made "special" cuffs and irons for Houdini to use in his act.

The article further makes mention that Froggatt "caught" Houdini in one of his designs which was a pair of special leg irons (The plug 8 ones) and that Houdini had put them on in private and then said "O.K., you've got me, take them off" to Froggatt.

There is no question in my mind that Froggatt was reponsible for making many of Houdini's custom cuffs and I have held this belief for over 25 years now.

Obviously, so do others.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

I have also long held the belief that the so called "Russian Manacle" was in fact a cavity cuff that held pics and/or keys.

Just take a good look at the placement of this cuff on Houdini's wrists in many of his photos.

It is usually the one closest to his hands.

This would indicate that if was the first to come off and then open to provide access to the tools that would open up the others on his arms and legs.

The placement of this cuff gives us some pretty good clues as to it's actual purpose.

While the Russian Manacle may be in a museum collection in California, I would not be the least bit suprised to find out that there were a few models made of this restraint and that the cavity model may not be the one in this museum collection.

I would surmise that only one special version was the cavity cuff and there was also a substitute that was not "rigged" in this way.

Henceforth, it could be switched out if need be and also used to test other so called "Handcuff Kings".

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

And of historical value, is if we could create a "timeline" of sorts that chronicles the appearance of each "custom" manacle in Houdini's photos.

Where in the world Houdini was doing most of his work when each appeared, if in fact any of the manacles said to have come from a particular country originated PRIOR to Houdini having actually visited such areas, etc.

This would give insight and support to the Froggatt made many if not all of them theory.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

Thanks Steve and everyone else for your thoughts. The descendant of Thomas Froggat that Steve mentioned paying a visit to the museum at Niagara, was in fact his grand daughter Zeena, who gave me all the Froggatt family info that you see in the Annual.

She is very helpful and pleased that we are all interested in Thomas, and will do all that she can to further any research.

If anyone is prepared to start a timeline of when and where certain shackles and cuffs were used, I am sure that the gaps would be filled in eventually. I would be pleased to help, but am committed to other projects just now, so can't spare the time to set it up. Any offers?

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

Zeena to see that "big box of handcuffs and leg irons" the family has that were made by her Grandfather.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

Steve..."That Big Box of Handcuffs" has not been seen by the family for years. I heard from Zeena's ex-husband, and he told me that a big box of handcuffs and drawings was pssed down from Thomas to his son, who had no real interest in cuffs or the business. He was a military man.

This guy actually saw the box and the contents and told me that it would have answered all my questions.

However the son ended up in a nursing home and nobody knew where that box went. I even asked at the nursing home, but he died so long ago, none of the original staff or managers were still there. So this box could be "The Holy Grail" for the Houdini/Froggatt story!

Regarding your other comments;

----------------------------------------------------------
The article further makes mention that Froggatt "caught" Houdini in one of his designs which was a pair of special leg irons (The plug 8 ones) and that Houdini had put them on in private and then said "O.K., you've got me, take them off" to Froggatt.

----------------------------------------------------------

I think the ones referred to are the Plug 8 Leg-Irons in Chris Gower's collection. Apparently Houdini couldn't reach the keyhole and had to be released. This happened in Froggatt's workshop.

I wonder if you think the same as me......Did Froggatt make the seance cuffs first, and Houdini then said, these are great, but I need something bigger and flashier, so they will show up well on the stage? YThey are so similar, it could just be what happened,

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

#10

Hi Mick,

Yes, I know about the Plug leg irons.

I heard the same story myself about 20 years ago.

In regards to the Seance cuffs;...

I tend to agree with you.

Also, I think that the reason Houdini wanted something bigger and better is that for all intents and purposes the Seance cuffs look just like a slightly modified Irish 8.

The Mirror cuffs on the other hand are bigger, even more restrictive, and make more of a show.

Any other escapist could have modified an Irish 8 but the Mirrors were a singular design.

I also think that the so called "nested" Bramah cylinders is something of a red herring.

If one takes a good look at the key they will see lever cuts at the very tip, as common in all Bramah keys, and then there is this "thimble like" shoulder higher up with additional cuts.

I think the cuffs worked like this:

The cuts on the shoulder thimble were in fact meshed with a Bramah cylinder mounted near the keyway of the cuffs but this cylinder in and of itself did nothing to affect the locking or unlocking of the cuff.

This cylinder was pure deception and only would hamper the turning of an identical shaped key (and, as we all know, such blanks did not exists in Bramah locks but were exclusive to the Mirror cuffs alone).

The only way it impeded the turning of the key is if one had a key with correct tip cuts but incorrect shoulder cutts the key would not turn the back cylinder that actually unscrewed the bolt mount.

BUT...

That being said, any key with the correct tip cuts (and no odd thimble like shoulder or collar) could pass through the middle of and completely bypass the first Bramah cylinder.

I.E. The keypost was removed on the first and larger radial cylinder leaving only a hole in it's middle through which the longer and thinner shaft of the key with the tips cuts would pass.

So, Houdini had an original key and perhaps one minus the decieving "shoulder cuts" that would work directly on the back cylinder which was the only one locking the cuffs at all.

The second cylinder was only added so that the cuffs could be passed around to locksmiths of the day who would realize that at least with the existing keys, both sets of cuts for both cylinders would have to be correct for the key to turn and would thus sing high praises for the design.

As a locksmith and an escapist I have given this "nested Bramah lock" thing literally years of thought and it would HAVE to work this way for the key to be able to have any action on the back, or rear, cylinder.

Also, there is no probable way the cylinders could be mounted in a tubular lock housing like the body of the cuff where the key would work on both of them and both cylinders would have an independant security function in the locking of the bolt.

One cylinder locks the cuff, the other is window dressing that only provides the illusion of extra security where the unique shape of the Mirror cuff key is concerned.

I hope you get my drift here and I have not been too technical or jumbled.

Cheers, Steve Santini

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

#11

Steve.....Thanks for such a comprehensive answer! I totally agree with you that for both (seperate) mechanisms to work would be very difficult or even impossible. This has been discussed with Ian and Bill Liles, and I am pretty sure they said the same.One Bramah lock is bad enough, but two/ That certainly would make anybody sit up and take notice.

Also of course, to be able to show such a big key, in the audience's eyes, that would be impossible to conceal, but if it was just the regular 6.5mm diameter (inner)lock in use, then a much smaller key could be concealed.

If Froggatt made the cuffs to Houdini's specifications, he would have made a perfect key for Harry to use.

When the cuffs were examined by Bill Kalush at Copperfield's museum, they didn't test the sliders in the outer lock to see if there was any spring tension on them. This is because they were not technically minded. That's why they visited me, and got Bill Liles involved. Now if myself, Bill Liles, Steve Santini and Ian McColl got a hands-on with the cuffs, we's have all the answers in a few minutes!

Also, I may not have mentioned it in my article, but Houdini couldn't have been searched. If he was, they would have found the penknife in his pocket that he cut his jacket off with. Therefore a small version of the key could easily have been hidden.

It's great being able to discuss this like never before. Thanks!

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

#12

Mick,

It would not make any difference if there was tension in the sliders of the outer lock or not.

In fact, the outer lock sliders could have been in perfect working order as the depression of them by the thimble section of the key would have had 100% no effect at all on the actual unlocking of the handcuffs.

I am certain both locks do work and have slider tension in them.

And, like I said, one lock is the only one that screws the bolt in and out.

Perhaps another reason for the outer lock and the unusual nature and appearance of the key was to give the appearance that it would have been near high impossible for anyone to simply push the tip of the key with it's notches into a piece of clay to get the depths of the slider cuts.

Having a secondary thimble or shoulder higher up with slider cuts would have made such quick and basic impressioning impossible.

It may well be that in creating such an unusal key Houdini/Froggatt were not only out for eye candy for the media and general public but were also protecting Harry from any other escapist being able to get an impression of the key should Harry ever challenge anyone with it (as we know he did because he offered a reward for anyone that could duplicate his escape from the Mirror cuffs).

Steve Santini

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

#13

Yes, I get your point Steve. The whole set of sliders could all be sprung to seem like they were a working set, but just not connected to the real active set. Yes. That would work.

Also, I understand your thinking about the possibility of someone getting an impression of the key. I hadn't really thought of that scenario!

I am one of the few who have had a good look at the keyhole (from the photos that were shown to me by Bill Kalush)It seemed that some of the visible sliders in the top outer lock were of different thickness, although the slots on the key seemed all the same width.

This made me think that there wasn't so much care taken with this lock, as it wasn't meant to be a working unit anyway. It could have been built with any pieces of metal that were nearby.

As for the "main" Bramah mechanism, this could have been any Bramah mechanism taken from any Bramah lock he may have had handy. He could even have converted the original Bramah key into the key we now recognise, as Bramah keys are particularly difficult to reproduce, especially if it is the 7 slider variety.

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

#14

Perhaps.

Time will hopefully tell.

I am not so sure about Bramah keys being hard to reproduce.

I have done so myself on numerous occassions using an old barrel key, a hacksaw blade, and a small hand file and only decoding the original key by eye without benefit of micrometre.

Obviously, the tollerances depend somewhat upon wear and age.

I remember once picking open a Bramah lock on an antique document box using a pair of pliers, and 2 stiff wire rings that hold the sets of keys together when you buy a Schlage brand door lock.

With the pliers I made a small L shaped turning tool to apply tension to the lower part of the keyway where the bit of the key would go in and with the other wire section I depressed the sliders one by one until the cylinder began to turn over.

Of course I had to do this a few times until the revolution was complete but it was fun.

Cheers, Steve Santini

Mick Hanzlik 20 Apr 2007

#15

When I said difficult to reproduce, I meant that with a 7 slider version, you can't go across the center line with a sawblade, as there is no cut directly opposite. On a 6 slider it's much easier.

In the Bramah workshop, they use a really old, maybe antique machine that "nibbles" away the cut from the edge of the key towards the hole in the center. They haven't found a modern machine that does a better job!

Picking Bramah locks is something to do if you have lots of time and patience. As you say, it's OK to get one section revolving, but then you have to do it again and again to get the bolt to retract. Good fun though!

Cheers for now....good to talk

Mick

Ian McColl 20 Apr 2007

#16

As stated I agree that the nested Bramah is somewhat of a red herring, made as Steve and Mick have stated above.

Mechanically, the outer set of sliders would have to be sprung for them to return to the neutral position, like in a regular cylinder. However, the return coil spring would be sitting over the inner set of sliders. It would be interesting to have probed the sliders as Mick said. However the mirror cuff was only available to look at and no-one was allowed to proke anything into the keyhole. Understandable but I am sure that in the right technicians hands, this could be done without any fear of harm to the cuffs.

On picking the Bramah ( and I have this week 4 Bramah book locks) to open. As they were hand worked in the early day, all the sliders do not line up with all slots when turned. Only when in the locked position will all the sliders align. Most of the 3/16 dia small key locks on furniture etc have 5 sliders, unevenly spaced. So once the lock is picked, when it turns only a few of the sliders will relock, not all like in a tumblers ACE lock, ( and even then not all do)

By using only the inner set of sliders, the lock could have just been a standard and any key/tool to open the cuff would have been a lot smaller. (even hidden in the knife)

Ian

Steve Santini 20 Apr 2007

#17

If he was not searched, as he was not, the need to conceal a small tool or a tool of any size is a mute point.

And, if he had the entire challenge cooked up, as he did, he certainly had a duplicate key.

Steve Santini

Anonymous 22 Apr 2007

#18

Hi Mick

Just wanted to say that I read your article in the annual and I have to agree with you on your conclusion.

Best Wishes

Stuart

joe tanner 22 Apr 2007

#19

HI !! all :: not trying to be a HOT-HEAD !! great thread you got going here.... informative ?? yes - the truthfullness is questionable as no one really knows... this is how fiction becomes fact or is it fact becomes fiction... i believe the word -- MAY -- or -- COULD HAVE -- should be used ALL the time when WE do not know for sure & SANTINI - WE DON'T !!! or were you there at the time... write a book today about things - someone who is not here any longer & 50 years from now, whatever is said... well you know the rest..... keep writing about the subject as it is worthwhile.... joe

Anonymous 22 Apr 2007

#20

Joe, could you please speak English?

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#21

Tanner,

No, I was not there.

Nor would it ever have done any good to have interviewed anyone who sat in Houdini's audience that day or in fact the committee onstage.

They saw what he wanted them to see and believed what they were told.

And how do we know this?

Because the escape was a success.

It does not take someone to be there to use logic, common sense, and research to determine how things likely happened.

Accident reconstruction experts, detectives, historians, and authors do it all the time.

So do I and so has Mick and so have many other people both on here and elsewhere.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Anonymousini 22 Apr 2007

#22

Seems that Canadian and British logic is different from American, California logic.

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#23

We must also remember that at this time in Houdini's career there were literal armies of copy cat "handcuff kings" beginning to pop up on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

So what did Harry do?

He created a "challenge" that featured a cuff design that was so very unique and singular that he knew for certain that no one would ever be able to duplicate it because,

1) There was only one such pair of handcuffs in the world and he owned them, and,

2) That the cuff was made so purposely secure that anyone else who even wanted to have Harry lock them up in it and try to escape was bound to fail.

We do know that many legit challengers with handcuffs usually took stock or regulation handcuffs like Towers and Darbies and made minor modifications to them to create a design to test Harry with.

i.e. spreader bars in between, other rigid combos, etc.

BUT, the problem with even these dsigns was that most of them still took standard keys that any Handcuff King could get a hold of.

Not the Mirror cuffs.

In creating this unique cuff with an individually keyed cylinder Houdini could sleep at night knowing that NO ONE could ever duplicate this ultimate handcuff release.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

joe tanner 22 Apr 2007

#24

STEVE: i was just trying to make a point & all you did in your answer was TRY to defend yourself... my point flew right over your head i guess... i respect your thoughts & everyone elses on the subject, but again - be REALISTIC !!! YOU STATED:::::::::::

If he was not searched, as he was not, the need to conceal a small tool or a tool of any size is a mute point.::::::::::::::

how do you know that he was not searched ????????

YOU STATED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And, if he had the entire challenge cooked up, as he did, he certainly had a duplicate key. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

how do you know that he had the challenge cooked up ???????????

maybe just maybe - all was completly reverse !!! or MAYBE it was done completely different as maybe HE had to do NOTHING as all was done for him.... inside job ??? but you are right of course as you know ALL.... joe

Anonymous 22 Apr 2007

#25

"my point flew right over your head" H/HJT

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#26

I was not defending myself.

Merely stating logic.

Here is some more Tanner:

- There is no way to pick a Bramah cylinder while locked into such a rigid and restrictive cuff, let alone 2 Bramah cylinders and one that is located way down the end of a drak metal tube.

- The original key with it's double sets of cuts would have been very hard if not impossible to impression say in a lump of clay, etc.

- The original "inventor", a man claimed to be named "Nathanial Hart" never ONCE showed his face or gave a single media interview. On all of Houdini's other legit handcuff challenges the challenger was on hand to secure Houdini in the device.

- Houdini had already incorporated the Bramah lock into an earlier type of difficult handcuff of his own creation (The Seance Cuff).

There is of course more, but I will leave you to ponder the above.

Oh, and by the way, what I have listed above are not my personal theories or fantasies.

Just known and proven facts open to any researcher.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Mick Hanzlik 22 Apr 2007

#27

As I started this thread I think it's fair that I should have a say. I don't know Steve Santini or Joe Tanner, but I do know there is an issue between them. I don't want a serious discussion turning into a personal slanging match. The topic deserves better than that. All was going well until the post from Joe. Joe I have no problems with you, but I have to ask you a question...

Have you read my article in the Handcuff Annual?

If so, you will know that the Mirror Challenge was DEFINITELY set up.

Also you asked how we know that Houdini wasn't searched. Well EVERY report of the challenge states quite clearly that "he took out a knife from his pocket and cut his coat to shreds"

If he was searched, the knife would have been discovered, and this part of the story wouldn't have happened.

I am looking at the Mirror Challenge as a Master Locksmith, and from a purely technical angle. I respect Joe, and would love to hear if he can add any technical details to this thread. All I am trying to do is to dig deeper into this mystery, and am dependent on all the experts out there.

So let's do this together and not fight. We are better than that.

joe tanner 22 Apr 2007

#28

STEVE: again, my meaning ESCAPED right past you as usual....... ya you are always right & know everything, so i will leave it at that... most other people will know my meaning.... MAY - COULD - MAY HAVE -- COULD HAVE are just words that you cannot comprehand... joe

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#29

I agree with you and was only stating the obvious and known facts that contribute, or likely contributed, to your article and what I have personally long believed about the Mirror challenge.

Certainly my feelings regarding Joe Tanner as a person, a human being, and a business man are well known, (for good reason), and I did not restate same here or make this in any way a personal attack.

I have absolutely NO interest in Joe Tanner nor any of his thoughts or posts and see no need to engage him here or anywhere else.

However, I do have a keen interest in the Mirror challenge and have for many years past.

Should any additional thoughts I may have on the Mirror challenge come to mind I will be happy to post same here as I have already done.

Cheers to you Mick, Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#30

This is an odd titdbit about the construction of the Mirror cuffs that has always raised my curiosity.

It really is not that big a deal but I found it a little detail I have wondered about.

On either end of the tubular body or the cuffs are end caps that have knurled decorative endges.

Just like coins do.

I have often half wondered if these end caps were originally made from British coins of the period that had thier faces ground off.

I mention this because I have seen a few Victorian and Edwardian British hand made padlocks where the maker had used coins to make the front and back plates of the lock body.

Of course we will never know but I did find the knurled edges of the end caps on the Mirror cuffs somewhat unusual.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

joe tanner 22 Apr 2007

#31

MICK: no i have not read your article... i am sure that it is a good one... if you go back to what i 1st wrote in this thread & read it what am i talking about ????
YOU WROTE:::: Also you asked how we know that Houdini wasn't searched. Well EVERY report of the challenge states quite clearly that "he took out a knife from his pocket and cut his coat to shreds"---------------------------------------------
WHAT IF the 1st report was bogus ??? inflamed, heightened, exaggerated, by the writer ??????? then the 2nd report was also exaggerated, & so on........ what then ????
what i am talking about has NOTHING so to speak with the inner workings of the MIRROR handcuff, but yet good ol SANTINI goes on about FROGGATT IS the maker of ALL of Houdini's stuff & other UNPROVEN things.... i guess Houdin's crew never made anything in their workshop.... etc etc etc i guess SANTINI wants to change everyones thinking to HIS thinking so he will go down in UNPROVEN history with his eventually written HOUDINI book.....
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!
one more thing -- as to IF & WHY Houdini actually cut off his clothes.... as we DO NOT know what actually took place -- MANY MANY different WAYS COULD HAVE taken place.... i see that SANTINI is playing nice to you MICK as he knows he is WRONG... again, what did i start my ORIGINAL writing in this thread with ??? again, it has nothing to do with the workings of the MIRROR cuff...... take care... joe

barker 22 Apr 2007

#32

hotheadjoetanner stfu!

Mick Hanzlik 22 Apr 2007

#33

Thanks Joe for your input. As you have not read my article, I'll just fill in a few details... In the article I have got a pretty good case that Thomas Froggatt made special cuffs for Houdini. You may not be aware of this. I have proved that Froggatt and Houdini were friends for 20 years. He had access to a complete handcuff factory for all his working life. You mentioned Houdini's workshop. That was not a dedicated handcuff workshop, but used in the construction and repair of a complete range of Houdini's magical and escape props.

Just as a matter or interest, it was myself who first went public with the notion that Froggatt had an involvement. Only then did Steve agree with me, so he's not there shouting from the rooftops, he just has the same opinion as me.

So it it reasonable to assume (yes assume...nothing wrong with that) that Houdini would have used his friend to build some "special" items.

You mentioned that the "first" report about the cutting off the jacket could have been bogus, and other reports could have just copied it. Yes, I agree that is possible, but the challenge was reported in many newspapers the next day, so I think the opportunity to copy the report would have been unlikely.

This is nothing personal Joe, as I said, I don't know you or Steve Santini, but when it does get personal between you, it takes away the spirit and good feelings here on the forum, and that is not really acceptable.

Nevertheless, I do thank you for your input, and it has certainly stirred up the subject!

Anyone else like to join in?

Anonymous 22 Apr 2007

#34

This is a weird one.

http://headpointer.blogspot.com/2005/05 ... eader.html

Mark Lyons 22 Apr 2007

#35

Hi,
So as this mystery is starting to unravel, I am assuming that even if Houdini was searched for keys or tools the knife was allowed to be in his possession solely to make the pre-planned sensational jacket cutting segment possible. If this is the case, then the cuffs are not at all difficult to get out of and it was all for show.
I now wonder if the lock might have actually been a screw (like a Plug 8 lock) with the Brahma locks located at one end. If one were to use the key, it would take a 360 degree revolution or several of them to release the cuffs.
My thinking now goes to a pick or tool that would disengage the Brahma locks from the spindle and attach itself to that spindle to rotate it to the proper opening position.
Just an idea and one that I would try to develop if I wanted to make a super sensational handcuff escape.

mark
O--O

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#36

Hi Mark,

I am of the thinking that attatched to the back of the rear Bramah lock, the only one that likely worked the cuffs at all, there was a treaded tailpiece.

This connected with a spanner nut or sleeve that moved and threaded in and out with every revolution of the key.

Not much unlike the Mirror repros that Chris Gower made many years back.

According to period newspaper accounts, the journalist fastening them on Houdini turned the key several times to secure the bolt.

Sounds like a cam screwing shut to me.

Think of the ACE cylinders fitted to soda machines.

The tail has a bolt that screws in with key revolutions.

This type of mechanism would eliminate rapping like on an ordinary Darby as has been previously published as one possible way for the cuffs to be gimmicked.

And, if the entire challenge was cooked up from the get go, there would be no need to gimmick the cuffs at all.

A duplicate key with only the tip set of slider cuts was all that was needed.

If Houdini wanted to "start clean and end clean" he would have used a cuff that was not gimmicked for this important challenge.

After all, with such a highly publicized test he could not risk being found to have used a gimmicked cuff.

He would have been ruined.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Mick Hanzlik 22 Apr 2007

#37

I think the books all say that the key needed to be turned 7 times to unlock them, and yes, the key needed to be turned to lock them. They were not "snap shut" cuffs. I think Henry Mueller confirmed that to me when I called him some years ago, and he should know, as he was the previous owner.

I also therefore think that a screw thread was involved.

Here's another possibly silly thought. Maybe a very small Bramah key was incorporated in the famous penknife! It would only need to be a stem less than one inch long, and if it was part of the penknife, it would be easy to turn.

It's really a forgone conclusion that the cuffs were opened with a key, so this is onother possible solution.

Even if this was not the case, I think the large key was a red herring to make the lock look impenetrable,when really only a tiny part of that key would have been all that was needed.

Just another thought.....

Steve Santini 22 Apr 2007

#38

As I previously posted.

One functional Bramah lock = only one smaller more slender key.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

jbushey 23 Apr 2007

#39

HI all,
Very interesting thread. I see and understand all points.
Joe, I think, is just stating that none of us was there, and as so many Houdini stories grew from town to town (without mass media like today), none of us knows for sure what really transpired. I agree with Mick's theory, and Frogatt certainly could have been the one who made the cuff. But as of yet, it is just that - theory.
What about other CUFFS unique to Houdini:
French Letter cuff - now in Jon Oliver collection and exact
reproductions made by Ian McColl??
Bell Cuff - Supposedly given by Houdini family member to a plumber??
Russian Manacle: Now in SAM museum in California???
Seance Cuff: Sid Radner's collection???

When did all these cuffs put in a first appearance?????
Most are pictured in some of Houdini's earlier pitchbooks (1904-1908), his magazine Conjurer's Monthly (1906-1907), and of course Handcuff Secrets (1910).
Most appear about 1906 in the magazine and pitchbooks, but
the Mirror challenge cuff appears in earlier pitchbooks (1904). As I stated in last year's annual, the French letter cuff was made from two letterlocks by simply altering the shackle to a handcuff bow, and attaching two of these together by a chain. The original letterlocks were of French origin, hence the name Houdini gave it?? I also belive the Russian Manacle to have been an altered padlock. But the Bell(??), the Seance (an altered Figure 8?).

Mick, any thought on these other cuffs? What about a timeline of when they were built? In what order? All at once or separately over a few years? Each of these cuffs played an important story, or role, in Houdini's career, or
at least in his story as we know it know. What about
the Radner auction Handcuff #61??? Was that another custom piece that was never used?? Too many question, too little answers, but with research continuing by Mick and others, perhaps at least a few of these questions can be answered.
Best Wishes, John
Keep the pertinent information coming!

Ian McColl 23 Apr 2007

#40

I am going to hate myself for this, but I agree with nearly every point Santini has made.
For JT and his statement "you weren't there so you don't know" Same applies to all Jesus fans ( but we won't go there)

My theory on the mechanism is as follows. The Mirror cuff is just a strange looking darby handcuff. As stated, it took anywhere from 7 to 9 turns to secure the bolt. So does a darby or the ER cuff which doesn't snap closed.

If you think of the Bramah cylinder as the threaded tube of the darby key and the key for the bramah cylinder as the darby key's Handle. Then the whole mechanism can be a spring loaded affair.

It may have taken 7 turns to secure the bolt but rapping the end of the tube may have opened the cuff. My latest replica Mirror handcuff with nested cylinder does exaclty this. If I don't want it to be opened by rapping it, I turn the key a few extra times and it drives the bolt in the bow further.

Another idea of mine has been that the knurled ends may be used to screw the end caps, this could have been done on the floor as the knurl would give grip.

Ian

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#41

Ian,

That is an interesting idea you have for a gimmicked type of Mirror cuffs and it would be cool to have a set like that.

While obviously it works, I still think that the cuffs were not gimmicked and that Houdini had a smaller less complex looking version of the originl key to open them.

Your post above just gave me an additional reason I have for thinking this way.

We do know that it was a journalist from the Mirror that secured the cuffs on Houdini's wrists.

I find it highly unlikely that Houdini would have trusted any one person to turn the key an exact number of times and that it had to be just right or the gimmick would not work and he would be trapped.

Meaning, one too many turns and the gimmick (the rap one of yours) would not work and he is screwed (pardon the pun here).

If there is one basic constant regarding Houdini and his work it is that it seems he always went that extra mile to ensure his success.

Putting his success or failure in the hands of another is something he rarely did, unless it was with someone very much in "the know", like Collins (re: submerged punishment suit escape in the Hippodrome pool).

Add to all this the fact that as a performing escape artist I have had ordinary non performers from my audience muff up onstage instructions of how to lock or secure something, as many people doing escapes have also experienced, and there is yet another reason that I think Houdini would not have trusted such an "iffy" method of release.

I have, as you no doubt have, also watched numerous times how ordinary folk can fumble with the locking or unlocking of thier own door locks, padlocks, and auto locks.

One extra key turn, or two, and Houdini would have been finished.

I think you have come up with a neat and inspired gimmicked Mirror repro but I don't think Houdini may have used this same method.

Just my opinion.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#42

Another interesting clue regarding how the escape was likely made is one no one has yet noticed or at least mentioned until now.

Many have been so interested in how the cuffs functioned that this important "tip" seems to have been overlooked.

Namely, the placement and position of the handcuffs on Houdini's wrists.

If you look at the photo of Houdini onstage wearing the cuffs you will notice the way his arms are positioned and you can logically surmise that they keyhole for the cuffs must have been pointing up towards his face.

This makes sense as the journalist fastening them would not have wanted to kneel down in front of Houdini and insert the key into the keyhole if it were facing towards the floor.

Doing this would have been not only awkward but also undignified.

The keyhole was pointing up towards the ceiling.

This does away with the gimmicked mechanism that opens by rapping.

For the thing to rap open like a Darby, the keyhole would have to be pointing towards the floor.

Also, owing to the position of Houdini's arms, i.e. fingers pointing to opposite elbows, and the eliptical shape of the wrist holes, we know he could have not placed the cuffs into a keyhole down position.

BUT...

The cuffs are in a perfect position to use a key held in the mouth to open them.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#43

It is in fact possible for Houdini to have twisted his arms in such a way that the keyhole of the cuffs would have been pointing down towards the ground but owing to the rigid construction of the cuffs and the natural movement of his arms and wrists it would have been very difficult to muster up enough striking inertia in an attempt to rap them.

The ideal position for this would have been cuffs applied with the keyhole facing the floor.

I think it is very unlikely they were applied this way.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Ian McColl 23 Apr 2007

#44

Hi Steve, I demonstrated this with the Mirror cuff which was not gimmicked, ( just taking advantage of the design flaw as I made it)

Your other thoughts on keyhole position can work in either direction the cuff is put on. I have seen untrained spectators, like the jounalist in the Mirror Challenge be taught and not fumble. Though I don't actualy think Houdini would have taken the risk, he might have.

Ian

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#45

I seem to remember an account of the period saying at one point Houdini emerged from his Ghost House cabinet because he wanted to get a better look at the cuffs under better light.

Here again is something that points to a keyhole upwards position.

Afterall, are we to assume Houdini wanted a better look at the closed end cap or one of the hinges?

Nope. He probably wanted to peer into the keyhole or make it look as if he did this to his audience.

Try wearing cuffs like the Mirrors manacled as he was and getting a look into the keyway when the cuffs are positioned with the keyholes facing the floor!

It can be done but it is awkward.

It is much easier and makes more sense with the keyhole facing upwards.

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#46

Hi Ian,

Yes, people can be trained, but they can and often do fumble with something unfamiliar (and eventimes something familiar!)and especially when under pressure.

I do not think Houdini would have taken the chance.

Besides, there is no good reason to have a gaffed cuff if you hold an original key to it!

And what if he had been caught out using a gaffed cuff in such a situation?

It would have ruined his name and career.

I know a cuff that is ungimmicked and the use of an original key is an unglamorous solution to one of the greatest escapology stunts ever created but it makes perfect sense.

Nothing to chance and he knew it would work 100%

Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Ian McColl 23 Apr 2007

#47

Darby handcuffs which can be rapped open aren't nessecarily gaffed cuffs, some will some won't but then no-one is going to examine these cuffs as Houdini is in control.

Patrick Culliton did a brillant lecture at the 2005 convention and I will have to dig up his photos and check out the keyhole position, from memory it is facing his body, which would have made it awkward for the guy locking them.

As the ghost house is so small, I can see any excuse to get out into the light and stand up. As I believ the whole thing was a set up, there wold be no other reason to set outside the ghost house other than to gauge the audience and save his back.

Ian

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#48

Ian,

Please see The Original Houdini Scrapbook by Gibson page 127.

The entire lock tube of the Mirror cuffs is very clearly facing towards the audience top to bottom.

Thus, Houdini could not have had the keyhole facing towards his body.

The wrist shape of the bracelets prevents this as a natural position anyway.

Also, in this pic we see the journalist holding the key near the top of the lock cylinder indicating the keyhole was facing up and towards the ceiling.

Cheers, Steve Santini www.thedarkmaster.com

Ian McColl 23 Apr 2007

#49

All my books are still packed up.
can you email me a photo.

Ian

Steve Santini 23 Apr 2007

#50

Ian,

Check your e mail.

Thanks, Steve Santini

www.thedarkmaster.com

Mark Lyons 23 Apr 2007

#51

Hi,

I figure that he could have removed the cuffs at any time he wanted and crawled out of the cabinet to make an appearance to stir up the audience's attention. He probably could do the escape in total darkness and did not need the theatre lights, which were probably pretty dim in the first place.
It has been reported that when Houdini performed the milk can escape he would exit the can quickly and spent some time reading a newspaper until the audience's fervor reached the desired level. I believe he did this in the Mirror Cuffs escape similarly.
Since I do not perform escapes, it seems that all of you who do would want to make this highly publicised escape to be as quick, easy and foolproof as possible.
Make no sense to me that he would waste any time trying to pick the lock.
My 2 cents worth...

mark
O--O

Chris Gower 26 Apr 2007

#52

Excellent article Mick, well done on all your research. Many years ago I went to Somerset house and spent ages trying to locate a Nathaniel Hart - came to the conclusion he never existed. With the internet and census's available life is a little easier to research names etc. and as you point out the 1901 census DID NOT have any Nathaniel Hart listed. The fact of the Christmas cards etc clearly shows that Houdini and Froggatt were close friends and I agree that Froggatt almost certainly made the Mirror cuffs in 1902 or 1903. Probably 1902 (Houdini actually mentions the 'Latest' Russian Manacle 1902). Why does he date it? Again think we all agree it was his design.
Going back to the Seance cuffs, I did examine these in quite good detail when we met Sidney Radner at The Magic Circle. They do NOT have a genuine Bramah lock on them and use a 5 slider copy lock ?possibly French -the sort of cheaper 'Bramah' locks found on small boxes.
Houdini was clearly aware of Bramah, in his book Handcuff Secrets he mentions on page 76/77 a key marked 'X' which is a kind of master key for the spurious Bramah lock. Clearly absolute rubbish as are many of the other picks he shows and methods of opening Chubb padlocks etc.
Perhaps one day we will be able to examine the Mirror cuffs as Locksmiths and gain more details.
Chris Gower

Mick Hanzlik 26 Apr 2007

#53

Thanks Chris for the kind words. I think the only way to solve this mystery is to get a hands-on with the actual cuufs, but I think that it would be impossible unless David Copperfield was interested enough in the story to allow us access to them.

Maybe someone reading this has a way of getting to him and showing him my article. He just might want some answers himself.Who knows?

Ian McColl 27 Apr 2007

#54

I have seen an article on Radner and the seance handcuff and how in three photo he shakes the handcuffs off. Either they weren't locked or they were gimmicked.

I said in an early post that I was going to be opening four Bramah book locks. I am pleased to say I picked all four books in less than 1 /12 hours.

Ian

Mick Hanzlik 27 Apr 2007

#55

Well done with the Bramah locks Ian....you still have it in you!

Regarding Sid Radner and the Seance Cuffs, can you let me have a look at the article some time, don't know that one.

Is there any way that the four adjusting screws on the seance cuffs could have been gimmicked? If there was a way or unscrewing them so that it would give more clearance inside the shackle, then they would just fall off.

Still having trouble getting my emails to you Ian, but not with anyone else. Strange......

Mickj Hanzlik 27 Apr 2007

#56

Hi all....just though you's like to know that this thread has had the greatest number of replies since May 2006. Just need another 14 or so and we beat the last highest!

It won't mean much to the rest of the world, but sure means a lot to me! Thanks.

Ian McColl 27 Apr 2007

#57

Hi Mick, the article is three pages long, it I have a copy on my computer i will try to email it to you. i have had trouble emailing other as well and then most of the time everything is great. No idea what is going on.

The cuff fall open at the locking end, not slipped.

The photo's will show what I mean.
I will try to email photos of the books too.

Ian

Ian McColl 27 Apr 2007

#58

Hi Mick, tried to email photos but got this.
>... Deferred: Name server: onetel.net.: host name lookup failure<

Ian

Mick Hanzlik 27 Apr 2007

#59

Ian..still having probs I see. PM on the Cafe waiting for you with a possible answer.

Stuart Burrell 28 Apr 2007

#60

Following on from Mick requesting a few more posts to help reach the top of the "Most talked about subject" list, I thought I would add another two cents...

...I think it is easy to overlook the importance of talking about the Mirror Cuff, it remains an enigma and articles like the one Mick wrote this year and the one from Ian last year help those of us who are just starting out realise just what a big topic Handcuff Collection and mechanics are.

We have had a lot of Houdini books that look in detail at the hype around the event but none have really looked into the cuff, until late last year with the book that Mick and many others on this forum helped to contribute to.

My own thoughts are that he would have covered every angle possible and had several methods of escape lined up just in case one failed.

Anyhow, keep the debate going as it is very interesting.

Ivankovacevic 12 Nov 2016

#61

Hi, my name is Ivan kovacevic, Zeena Froggatt is my mother, I'm currently looking into the background of my family on my mothers side, having a great time reading all people's comments and discovering the widespread appreciation for the handcuffs and irons that were made by my great grandad and his father before him and so on.
I would love to get hold of a copy of the handcuff anuals that feature the Froggatt name, any info on where would I locate this would be much appreciated

Kind regards
Ivan

lauher 12 Nov 2016

#62

Nice to hear from you Ivan. Send me an email at: lauher@handcuffs.org and I can help you.

Mark Lyons O--O Cuffs 16 Jan 2024

#63

A few years later and we still talk about this!

www.travelchannel.com/videos/keys-to-ho ... ts-0171684