talkmagic.co.uk

Okay so I hate the linking rings. I like the idea but almost all the routines I've seen are boring and way too long. Recently I purchased a close up set. The DVD that came with them must have gotten in a fight with a magnet because it doesn't work. Yes I can return it and get another. But then I realized I don't want too. I'd like to develope something on my own. Plus it is four rings and I'm looking at just using two. I'm not at a place to video and post anything. But I'll share my idea and perhaps get a suggestion or three from you lot.

I start with one ring and a string and just use a basic ring on string routine. I give the spectator the ring and the string. I pull out the second ring, take back the first and link them do the typical display while linked allowing the spectators to see both rings completely (yeah right) and cleanly linked. Then they slowly melt apart. One ring goes back in my pocket and the string is taken back from the spectator. The ring is clearly threaded onto the string and I close my hand around the ring, (it just fits) When my hand is open the ring is simply gone.

The routine works. I've tried it, it works. But it is not right. For me it is the second ring. I don't feel right just putting it into my pocket. Not sure why.

Nor am I sure about starting out with a ring and string. I may just end with one and the vanish. But I like the idea of starting with it for two reasons.

1. It brings the trick to a full circle.
3. I give the spectator the ring and the thread to hold while getting out the second ring. So without me telling them to examine the ring, they get to hold it anyway.

So any thoughts?



Any ideas floating around out there?

I like what you describe but would suggest that you might want to also consider the Himber ring as part of a similar scenario. . . it's just something that you may want to play with over time.

Craig Browning wrote:I like what you describe but would suggest that you might want to also consider the Himber ring as part of a similar scenario. . . it's just something that you may want to play with over time.

I've though about the himber ring. I've played around with it for years. But its never really done much for me. So I've put it away. But because of your advice, which I respect, I will take it out and play around with it and see if I can work it in because you just never know.

I have a set of linking rings where the k looks like any other ring, you still don't want people to handle them but visually it works

soveda wrote:I have a set of linking rings where the k looks like any other ring, you still don't want people to handle them but visually it works

All the rings are identical looking. So I'm a little confused, unless you are talking about a K that actually closes. I don't like those, just adds a complication that isn't really needed in my opinion.

bmat wrote:

soveda wrote:I have a set of linking rings where the k looks like any other ring, you still don't want people to handle them but visually it works

All the rings are identical looking. So I'm a little confused, unless you are talking about a K that actually closes. I don't like those, just adds a complication that isn't really needed in my opinion.

Depends what you mean by close but you can hold it without needing to cover anything. So it is a "closed" k, makes the displays really clean. To say more would be too exposure-y for my blood

Hi Brian.

To be honest I'm not sure about the routine. While its hard to say without actually seeing you perform the piece, as I picture it in my head there is something not quite right. It may be the introduction of the second ring which seems a bit odd. Now I can see, from a technical standpoint why you might be including this segment, but otherwise I'm unsure of its purpose. Of course the reason could be woven into your presentation, so again its hard to comment without seeing it.

When I first read Craigs suggestion I thought it was a good idea. The more I thought about it though, the more I realised what a great idea it actually is. For some reason the use of finger rings for the routine seems to make more sense. The following popped into my head while pondering the use of a himber ring in your routine - it may spark a few ideas. The draw back is that to do the whole routine, the himber must be worn by you, which might not be appropriate with your particular ring.

The himber is worn by you (as a regular ring). Borrow a ring from someone and have them help with the effect. The ring penetrates the string a couple of times. Your ring is removed and melts onto the spectators, linking them. They slowly melt apart. Spectators ring is returned. Your own ring is clearly threaded onto the string. Spectator holds string and you cup your hands around the threaded ring. Hands suddenly open and the ring has disappeared. After a suitable pause the hand is slowly turned over to show ring back on finger.

An alternative to close-up linking rings is a linking pins routine. The majority of performances I've seen of this tend to have the links/unlinks happen fast (almost a tug) or under cover of misdirection. It is my opinion this effect looks far better and more magical when done slowly. Rather than the pins seemingly clicking together or apart, they should seem to melt together slowly. Slowing the movements down also allows you to take full advantage of the optical illusion that much of the effect relies on - just like the linking rings.

Jim