talkmagic.co.uk

Mandrake wrote:Have look for 'Jiggernaut' - cups and balls done with olives and a jigger. Great for bars and pubs and different from the usual C&B routine. Review from yonks ago at http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic1522.php

It's definitely original and I imagine the small size is a big plus as Dat8962 mentioned. Thanks for the link.

Craig.

i think the link is lionpoint.com? doug higley hand makes mini shrunken heads that fit into chop cups if you are interested...

all hand made, so they take a little time...

i have two! they're very nice...

doc shiels had a bizarre presentation for the cups and balls..cant remember which book thats in though...

im very fond of the chop cup - i have the buddha double chop cup myself, and a lovely one from dat's favourite shop - five of hearts...it has the loose change gimmick with that one..

IAIN wrote:i think the link is lionpoint.com? doug higley hand makes mini shrunken heads that fit into chop cups if you are interested...

.

That is one seriously twisted website hmm...wonder if I could work them into a routine for children....I think they would be traumatised for life

The more I think about the original points I made, the more I think that what I really meant is a lack of originality in the patter. Everyone wheels out the same stock phrases.

I think perhaps the problem is that the cups and balls is hard to relate to, as it were.

In a card trick, there is a logic behind the old select a card, lose it in the deck, find the card plot (OK, it's hardly the most gripping trick ever, but it's a good enough example). The audience is basically expecting most card based tricks to follow that pattern.

With the cups and balls, they don't have any expectations about what is going to happen, and there's no real logical reason behind putting a ball under a cup just to have it disappear (or vice versa), so a lot of routines use patter relating to gamblers, or tell it like a piece of history, as this in essence gives them an excuse to explain what's going on - "So, you put the ball under the cup...". With that in mind, I guess you can view Penn and Teller's routine as a kind of distilled version - they basically describe exactly what they're doing as they go along, which in itself is very impressive.

There's a very nice chop cup matrix routine on allmagic this week....

I like Carl Andrews' version. His is a two cup routine specially designed for table hopping. For final loads he uses sponge balls and hops right into a sponge routine afterwards. It's nice and quick, and it's very practical if you are a table worker (Lemons take up alot of pocket space), not to mention you only need to carry two cups with you.

He teaches it on the appropriatly named 'Table hopping cups and balls' DVD. It's much quicker and to the point than alot of three cup routines I have seen, and of course it has the advantage that it's nature leads it directly into another routine.

Houdini said that a man could not be considered a magician unless he could do a decent cups and balls routine.

But, then, Houdini spewed out a whole lot of crapola!

The cups and balls suffer from what many so-called magic classics suffer from: The routine doesn't end, so much as stop.

The cups and balls may be great to impress other magicians but, for the public, the moves are telegraphed and, in general, the thing ends in a great big yawn.

Peter Marucci wrote:
The cups and balls may be great to impress other magicians but, for the public, the moves are telegraphed and, in general, the thing ends in a great big yawn.

That seems a bit harsh! I must admit that my own experience with the vernon routine is that it seems overly long and people lose interest but I'm quite prepared to accept this could a problem with my presentation. Everything prior to the final loads doesn't seem to ellicit a big response but the final loads always get a good reaction. Surely there is still life in the old cup and balls? (so to speak).

Cragglecat,
It was meant to be a bit -- or a whole lot -- harsh!

Is it really necessary to repeat the penetrations so often? After all, your audience isn't made up of morons, who don't get it the first TWENTY TIMES!!!!
The cups and balls are like the linking rings. You don't have to link all the rings to prove ----- what? Or the egg bag: we GET the idea that the egg has disappeared; it isn't necessary to vanish it half a dozen times!

The late Eddie Joseph had a one-cup routine (essentially the same as Jiggernaut and, since Joseph did his routine in the 1920s to '40s, Jiggernaut is HARDLY new!) which got around that problem. Most Chop Cup routines are a variation on that, by VERY lazy magicians.

Peter Marucci wrote:Cragglecat,
It was meant to be a bit -- or a whole lot -- harsh!

Is it really necessary to repeat the penetrations so often? After all, your audience isn't made up of morons, who don't get it the first TWENTY TIMES!!!!
The cups and balls are like the linking rings. You don't have to link all the rings to prove ----- what? Or the egg bag: we GET the idea that the egg has disappeared; it isn't necessary to vanish it half a dozen times!

The late Eddie Joseph had a one-cup routine (essentially the same as Jiggernaut and, since Joseph did his routine in the 1920s to '40s, Jiggernaut is HARDLY new!) which got around that problem. Most Chop Cup routines are a variation on that, by VERY lazy magicians.

Peter, you should take a look at Carl Andrews' version. It is no where near as repetitive, has a point, and leads nicely to something else.

oeb writes in part: ". . .Carl Andrews' version. . . is no where near as repetitive, has a point, and leads nicely to something else. . ."

I must admit that I have not seen Carl Andrews' version BUT (and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) magic should not, of course, be repetitive, and it should, naturally, have a point, and -- if it leads to something else -- why not do that 'something else' right off and skip the dull stuff?

Peter Marucci wrote:magic should not, of course, be repetitive, and it should, naturally, have a point, and -- if it leads to something else -- why not do that 'something else' right off and skip the dull stuff?

I agree but wouldn't a good routine be one that was interesting, non repetitive but that built towards the final loads? I would have thought that this would get a better response than jumping straight into the suprise final loads for example (which seems to be the direction your comments above would lead unless I'm misunderstanding?). I must stress that I'm talking way outside my own level of experience, currently being someone that is just parroting someone elses routines! I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with building up to the final loads from the regular balls vanishes/transpositions etc as long as it doesn't go on an on until the spectators are slipping into a coma

Craig.

Peter Marucci wrote:oeb writes in part: ". . .Carl Andrews' version. . . is no where near as repetitive, has a point, and leads nicely to something else. . ."

I must admit that I have not seen Carl Andrews' version BUT (and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) magic should not, of course, be repetitive, and it should, naturally, have a point, and -- if it leads to something else -- why not do that 'something else' right off and skip the dull stuff?

Here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OxFkxIUYs

I liked that a lot oeb.

Craig.

Thanks, oeb.