(Close Window)
Topic: Cups and balls; final loads, are they really necessary?
Message: Posted by: cajuninms (Apr 9, 2004 10:34PM)
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands (can't even palm a card) and I need to know; Are the final loads really necessary, and if so what small loads could I use?
Message: Posted by: Close.Up.Dave (Apr 9, 2004 10:42PM)
Final loads don't necessarilly mean have big final loads. They aren't necessary, but it makes the trick look a lot better. You could end with something that you can squeeze so it gets smaller. Or you could end with a small toy of some sort under the cups.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 9, 2004 10:48PM)
If you can do the trick well enough, a solid routine would not require 'stuff' under the cups afterward.

There are also routines with smaller cups that take golf ball sized final loads.

And there is at least one cups routine that uses smaller balls and does not end with huge final loads.

You might enjoy learning some of the Tommy Wonder, Ramsay and Vernon routines.
Message: Posted by: MJ Marrs (Apr 9, 2004 10:51PM)
A cups and balls routine without the final loads is like having

Ah, forget I said anything...
Message: Posted by: PaulGreen (Apr 9, 2004 11:16PM)
Ken Brooke stated that the final load, in the form of a change, was a great way to end the Cups and Balls.

Ken performed his version of the Vernon C & B routine one evening and used walnuts and small limes as the final loads. Needless to say the reaction was fantastic.

Final loads, of whatever size, signal a finale to the routine.

Respectfully,

Paul Green
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 9, 2004 11:51PM)
[quote]are the final loads really nessesary?? [/quote]
Yes.
Message: Posted by: Chris Berry (Apr 10, 2004 12:00AM)
Robert Bloor, care to elaborate a bit more?


Personally I use final loads. Although my cups and balls routine isn't like anything I've ever seen before (and I won't expose it here because I know how magians are ;))

My final loads are awesome because 1) NO ONE is doing them, and 2) they have NOTHING in common with what I am originally using which makes them a complete surprise to the spectatoes.

Sometimes I use 2 final loads depending on my mood.

Chris
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Apr 10, 2004 12:30AM)
I once used Final Unloads.

For magicians, I did a basic routine and flashed loading jumbo balls under the cups.

Then, when I lifted the cups there was NOTHING THERE.
Message: Posted by: KirkG (Apr 10, 2004 01:36AM)
I wish I could have seen that Pete. It sounds like a riot. Just my cup of tea. Kirk
Message: Posted by: Mario Morris (Apr 10, 2004 07:15AM)
My mate Alf is small but he plays big on his cups and balls. If you are doing it right it don't matter how small your hands are. Have you got any decent books on cups and balls?
Mario
Message: Posted by: drwilson (Apr 10, 2004 07:24AM)
Part of the fun of the final loads, if you are using larger cups, is that they are objects far too large to be concealed in the hand. When they appear, the idea that you could have put them there with everyone watching seems to be an impossible explanation. Therefore, they appeared magically.

There are many good books on the cups and balls, there will certainly be something that fits your budget. Feel free to PM me.

Yours,

Paul
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 10, 2004 08:14AM)
This has been debated before, but you could also use sponge balls as the final load. Not as nice as something solid, but Carl Andrews does a nice two cup version with sponge balls leading into a sponge ball routine on his Table Hopping Cups and Balls DVD. I don't like the sponge balls as well, especially since I am working on Vernon's Classic routine, but they do solve the problem of pocket management (and hand size) if you are not wearing a jacket. No problem using them in a three cup routine.
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 10, 2004 09:30AM)
Some day, somebody's going to compile everything Pete Biro has contributed to cup and balls thinking (in the form of his posts) and make it into a separate book on the subject.
Message: Posted by: Chris Berry (Apr 10, 2004 12:50PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 10:30, Ron Giesecke wrote:
Some day, somebody's going to compile everything Pete Biro has contributed to cup and balls thinking (in the form of his posts) and make it into a separate book on the subject.
[/quote]

Ron, I think someday someone will just come through the Café and take ALL of Pete's posts and make a book :)

Chris
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 10, 2004 01:24PM)
[quote]Chris Berry: Robert Bloor, care to elaborate a bit more? [/quote]

Chris,

Final loads in Cups and Balls are about completion of the routine.

Pete mentioned his 'non' final load method of tricking magicians - that in itself, becoming a final load.

Final loads are critical to your routine. Psychologically they provide the completion people need for an effect to end.

Imagine if you will these examples...

David Copperfield does the Death Saw...and right after the guy yells, "Move your feet", he moves them, and then the lights fade to black.

Lance Burton doing the Phantom - without the switch.

Final loads signal the end of your routine. They're SUPER easy to do because they're done at a point where the spectators are "sure" they've got you figured out (then BLAMO!)

That said - final loads DO NOT have to be "big pieces of fruit" or other large objects.

What if you manipulated the balls the entire time only to turn the cups over and show they've all got a solid bottom?

Final load? You bet it is.

Or what if, as mentioned on another thread, you used the "muliplying" cups and the reason for "the ball going place to place" was because you had "all these extra cups"

Final load? Of course.

The point to a "final load" is really more of a kicker ending. It's about catching your audience completely off guard.

Perhaps part of the reason for the enormous success of Gazzo's hat load.

That said, I say yes, final loads are critical.

Without a final load as a stopping point, Cups and Balls just becomes, "pick a card" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 10, 2004 03:16PM)
That line of reasoning above can lead one to conclude that one should not do the trick since it leads to no climax of its own and instead becomes a 'surprise cornucopia'.

If the trick had merit, it would stand on its own. Most people do not have to make a deck of cards become a jumbo deck to complete a card trick. Nor to they have to finish a coin assembly by finding additional coins under the covers. One does not need to produce a pool cue to complete the multiplying billiards. So, what gives the the cup loads?
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Apr 10, 2004 04:19PM)
One could just have the balls change color. Same size just another color.

You could also load something that scares folks, like a small windup thing from a novelty shop. I once had a small round thing with legs that rotated. When you lifted the cup it would run across the table as the legs revolved. Wasn't big, but was a surprise.

Actually, I have had success with Riser's Mini Cups and using golf balls for the climax.

In my Hindu cup routine I uses 2-inch sponge balls. This lets you do the "in the lady's hand" bit too.

You could also just do the chop cup and load at the rear of the table ala Don Alan.

Oh, you could get the Stevens vid on the cups and balls and see how Mike Rogers loaded HUGE baseballs without having to palm them. (Shelf on back of table).

You can buy one of the tables someone made to load my Galli Galli cups thru three trap doors with elevators hidden in the table.

You can also do David Regal's great routine where the final loads are in the cups all of the time.

FOOLED ME SOOOO BAD.... :kermit:

Think outside the CUPS....
Message: Posted by: saturnin (Apr 10, 2004 04:20PM)
Hi,

A suggestion;

Maybe you could load same size balls but of a different colour for the final loads!!!

My 2 cents.

Ronnie Lemieux
Montreal
Canada
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 10, 2004 05:10PM)
[quote]That line of reasoning above can lead one to conclude that one should not do the trick since it leads to no climax of its own and instead becomes a 'surprise cornucopia'.

If the trick had merit, it would stand on its own. Most people do not have to make a deck of cards become a jumbo deck to complete a card trick. Nor to they have to finish a coin assembly by finding additional coins under the covers. One does not need to produce a pool cue to complete the multiplying billiards. So, what gives the the cup loads? [/quote]
JT,

I think my explanation was pretty complete. Read it again.
[quote]Pete Biro: (Re: All the mentioned ideas)[/quote]
See, Pete's a smart guy. "Final loads" as I said don't mean you have to manipulate mini baseballs and make them real size baseballs.

The final load again is a kicker ending to END the trick.

BTW Pete...I like the idea of some sort of windup gizmo that'll "run" across the table. It wouldn't even have to look like something, just a little ball with spiny legs that "dances" across the table would be killer!

Without the final loads, all you're doing is finger flicking with balls. Whoopdiedoo.

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: Randy Sager (Apr 10, 2004 05:15PM)
This is just an idea but you could do the Benson bowl routine. The original as done by Benson did not use any final loads at all.

just incase you are not aware of what the Benson bowl routine is. It is basicaly a one cup routine done with a bowl and some sponge balls.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 10, 2004 05:18PM)
Re: "The final load again is a kicker ending to END the trick."

If you had a good routine, you would not need the non-sequitor to let folks know you are done. Instead you would have something that leads to a conclusion the audience understands and appreciates.

Sorry to read that some folk's cups and balls routines are just finger flinging followed by dumping loads on the table.

Does anybody feel the need to produce extra decks from their card case to signal the end of a card trick?

PS This is not a rant against producing stuff from the cups. There is a funny Dr Seuss story about a magic hat that kept appearing on a kid's head. Such might make a great plot for a chop-chop routine or cups routine. I'm suggesting that the routine is the thing, and the production of loads would connect to the routine if it were MOTIVATED within the routine and not just in the theatrical desires of the performer.
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 10, 2004 05:28PM)
JT:

It sounds to me like you're just arguing for the point of arguing.

You're examples are a stretch at best.
[quote]JT: If you had a good routine, you would not need the non-sequitor to let folks know you are done. Instead you would have something that leads to a conclusion the audience understands and appreciates. [/quote]
And could you be helpful to this discussion and provide an example of something that would "lead to a conclusion the audience would understand an appreciate?"

I'll admit, perhaps I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from.

That perhaps being the case, would you enlighten the rest of us as to how you handle a fun and exciting Cups and Balls routine without a final load?

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 10, 2004 05:30PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 18:18, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Re: "The final load again is a kicker ending to END the trick."

If you had a good routine, you would not need the non-sequitor to let folks know you are done. Instead you would have something that leads to a conclusion the audience understands and appreciates.

Sorry to read that some folk's cups and balls routines are just finger flinging followed by dumping loads on the table.

Does anybody feel the need to produce extra decks from their card case to signal the end of a card trick?

PS This is not a rant against producing stuff from the cups. There is a funny Dr Seuss story about a magic hat that kept appearing on a kid's head. Such might make a great plot for a chop-chop routine or cups routine. I'm suggesting that the routine is the thing, and the production of loads would connect to the routine if it were MOTIVATED within the routine and not just in the theatrical desires of the performer.
[/quote]
Ah, so what is a beginner to all of this to think? I appreciate the admonishment to think outside the cups and to question why we do things in magic, but since the majority of Cups and Balls workers worldwide and historically have used final loads isn't it the job of the skeptic to expain their reasoning? I am not sure saying that If I have a good routine than I don't need final loads helps. I am working on the Vernon routine and maybe I will branch off into uncharted territory, but right now I am feeling blue because I am worried that I am using the final loads as a crutch. :(

Right now, I guess I am doing more finger flicking and dumping than I should, but I am working at it.
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 10, 2004 05:37PM)
Chris,

Fantastic buddy! You're in excellent company starting with Vernon's routine.

I personally did not start with his routine. I started with Michael Ammar's videos and put together a sequence that made sense to me and for me.

That said, Michael's great professor was THE professor, so naturally Michael has passed on much of the wisdom of Vernon's Cups & Balls routine.

As for the suggestion that those of us using final loads are just "finger flicking and dumping" hey, we shouldn't take it personally.

I'd rather finger flick and "dump" than just finger flick and put the cups away.

Don't get me wrong. you CAN do a Cups and Balls routine without final loads.

I just argue that it would be boring as heck.

CAJUN - where abouts in Mississippi are you?

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 10, 2004 05:58PM)
Thanks, I was responding somewhat tongue in cheek. I am sticking to a known routine, but I try to add my own embelishments when possible. But I figure that I need to understand what C&Bs really mean before I start flying off the handle and reinventing the wheel, but making it square. I have had Ammar's book for a month (and saw him at out Ring meeting last week) so I have time.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 10, 2004 06:08PM)
Help is on the way!

First... what specifically is the cup to you?

Till you have an answer for that... finger flinging and the worst of both ignorance and tradition are all you have. I can't give you YOUR reason.

Second... what specifically is the ball to you?

Again, till YOU have a reason for the thing it is just a prop and may as well be your coin purse, a pat of butter off the table or your pet mouse.

Three cups? Again, what does that mean to you? What would one mean to you? How about two or eight?

Please spare us all the blind defense of 'tradition' posts. Racism and bigotry are also traditional and we don't need to read posts in defense of those either.

In combining the props... again what does the idea of a ball under a cup mean to you? What if there were more than one cup?

This is where the trick becomes something more than a tame version of the three shell game. Here is where you as a magician can take the three shell game and make is something fun and special. There is a very nice little bit of this shown in the movie "Time Bandits", performed by no less than Sean Connery.

When you perform, people are affected by YOU and YOUR MAGIC. What do you want to bring to the table?
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 10, 2004 06:57PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 19:08, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Please spare us all the blind defense of 'tradition' posts. Racism and bigotry are also traditional and we don't need to read posts in defense of those either.
[/quote]
John,

With all due respect, I don't think those arguing tradition about a piece of fruit are on the cusp of putting White-Out to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Apr 10, 2004 06:59PM)
Of course you can do the cups and balls without the loads. I got into a serious conversation about the big loads in magic with Ed Marlo.

He talked about the loads being a distraction. And after the load is produced they forget about the routine that you just did for them.

I got into a serious conversation about the big coin ending I use in matrix one time in Chicago at the Top Hat Mini convention. With Al Schnider.

He asked why would I clutter up matrix with the big coin ending. And he gave me the same conversation as Ed Marlo did years earlier about the big loads being a distraction to the cool routine that the audience just saw.

I remarked that HE loaded big loads in the cups and balls. And he was selling his routine at the convention.

He said that the cups and balls routine could be done without the big loads...

I said again - yes it can be done without the big loads but YOU DO load the big loads in your cups and balls... Don't YOU?

He smiled and said Glenn it is OK with me If you close your matrix with big coins with a big smile on his face. I watched his stuff when he needed to get a bite to eat or take a break. My Dad had a dealers table next to his at that convention.

If you do decide on big loads don't use button quail...

Best ahead,

Glenn Bishop
http://www.mrhypnotist.org
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 10, 2004 07:12PM)
I happen to be of the opinion that a magician should resign his or herself to a routine devoid of large loads--for a period of time. Michael Skinner has said that he was surprised at the awful vanishes of the small balls that permeated magic. This is probably because so many have depended on the disproportionate effect to amend the weaknesses of the routine itself.

If all one had to go on was a set of cups with the requisite balls (sans loads), then there would be greater pressure to produce an excellent routine.

With regard to the loads, I do not make my loads a "kicker." I make them a legitimate part of the routine, and not something that "appears to happen" after the percieved end of the routine, during the spectator's relaxation phase. It could be argued that any inorganic props that arrive in a rotuine constitute a kicker, I guess.

As far as questions regarding why this approach is not taken with cards, to me this is simple. When you are dealing with cups, you are dealing with a presumably vacant vessel. Therefore it should not be considered odd to fill these voids with incrementally bigger things.
Message: Posted by: MJ Marrs (Apr 10, 2004 07:53PM)
Johhny Ace Palmer's cups and balls routine with the baby chicks as the final loads is a wonderful routine. In fact, even if he didn't have the final loads, I'd say that his routine would still be cool to watch. His first couple of phases have some really nice ball vanishes and reappearances.

However, I really don't think that his routine would be as memorable without the final loads.

Should ALL phases of a cups and balls routine be entertaining. Of course. Although, IF you think that folks are going to walk out of the close-up room of the Magic Castle and ask, "How did Johhny make those little yellow balls jump from cup to cup?" rather than, "Where did those little chicks come from?", THEN in my opinion you're overthinking things.

Just because many magicians find the cups and balls to be boring because they've been there and done that doesn't mean that we should stop performing this classic. Lots of laymen out there haven't seen a cups and balls routine.
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 10, 2004 08:10PM)
Exactly. I am 43 and have done magic for only 15 months. I am not likely to ever do much more than some parties and maybe a restaurant once a week (If my wife lets me.) I can't give up my full time job, and the time I spend on this hobbie annoys my wife as it is. The point is that I don't have time to develop a radical new approach to C&Bs especially since I have worked it for a month (6 months if you count the time since I got the Carl Andrew's DVD.) I suspect that those who do develop the newer ideas did so from a solid foundation of the traditional cups and balls. And since most of them still do a final load, forgive my close mindedness.

I am open to new ideas and I am not welded to the traditional loads, but even if I do break from tradition it will be because I have seen some other magician perform it in a radically different way--a different tradition, perhaps?

I also know that failure to inovate and to be your own person and to use your own style is the death to any decent magician. I do inovate where I can and I do try to develope my own style.

But I am new. Give me time. :)

P.S. There is only one thing more tiresome than a blind acceptance of tradition is someone who uses poor analogies. Besides, it was a rethinking of traditional ideas that led to the civil rights movements.
Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (Apr 10, 2004 09:42PM)
Admittedly, they are few and far between, but here are some of the examples Mr. Bloor was seeking:

1. Completely entertaining and memorable cup and ball routine without final loads? Michael Skinner's "Rub a Dub Dub". Would a kicker ending add anything to that routine? I doubt it.

2. Routine where the final loads are thematically consistent, and indispensible to the piece? Tommy Wonder's two-cup routine. Here, rather than being nonsequiturs, these final productions are almost inevitable, and the only logical ending.

3. Routines where the smaller ball work is interesting and entertaining in its own right? Michael Ammar's (especially the opening production with the surprise third ball) Michael Skinner's large cup opening sequence where a single ball penetrates the cups and visibly splits, Tommy Wonder's, especially the ball appearing on the spectator's hand, Again, Skinner's charming "Rub a Dub Dub" since the small ball sequence is all there is, Jason Lattimer's small ball sequences, Gary Kurtz's sequence in which the balls all suddenly change color, and John Ramsay's routine, in which the reappearance of the small balls is one of the final surprises.

Are the small ball sequences worthy magic on their own? I submit that all the ones listed in paragraph 3, above, are. Would the audience be even more surpised and impressed if you did these sequences, and then popped out a final load? Probably. They would also probably fail to appreciate or remember the excellent material that had preceeded the big surprise. Worse, they would come away from your show believing that you think the small ball sequence is trivial, too.

Anyone wishing to explore these ideas can perform a simple experiment: learn the Vernon "balls in net" routine. Here's a routine that is just three small balls moving around. And yet, it was supposed to be one of the Professor's favorite routines. More importantly, you can end the routine either by vanishing all the balls, or a final load. Try it both ways. What works better for you? Is the final load essential? Please report back with results.

Just IMHO. What the heck, I'm a coin guy.
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 10, 2004 11:34PM)
[quote]If all one had to go on was a set of cups with the requisite balls (sans loads), then there would be greater pressure to produce an excellent routine. [/quote]

By whose standards are we applying excellence? Other magicians? Or lay people?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I perform for lay people. Not magicians.

And probably no one should take my advice because I only care about what my audience thinks.

And speaking of what my audience thinks, I [b]have[/b] performed cups and balls without a final load. Courtesy claps were abundant.

Then I created operation: shock and awe and slayed my audiences with final loads.

[quote]Curtis: Would the audience be even more surpised and impressed if you did these sequences, and then popped out a final load? Probably.[/quote]

What you're missing though is that several of those DID have final loads that popped out.
Different colored balls? Sure.
Balls finally RE appearing? Sure.

Take a second and read back over my posts. I've yet to say that a final load had to be a large object/ball/fruit etc.

[quote]Curtis: They would also probably fail to appreciate or remember the excellent material that had preceeded the big surprise. Worse, they would come away from your show believing that you think the small ball sequence is trivial, too. [/quote]

Hey, Celine Dion is known for unbelievably powerful notes towards the end of her songs.

Think anyone ever says, "Man, she hit that high note and it completely made the first two verses trivial."

I doubt it.

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: Samuel Catoe (Apr 11, 2004 12:33AM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-09 23:34, cajuninms wrote:
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands(can't even palm a card) and I need to know...are the final loads really nessesary?? and if so wat small loads could I use?
[/quote]
Admittedly, I do not perform the Cups and Balls. I have performed a Kindergarten routine for some customers in the magic shop but that is it. However, I love to watch a C&B routine done well. If you are not comfortable with adding a final load, why not simply end with no balls under the cups at all. After all the little round balls could just be figments of the imagination.

Samuel
Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (Apr 11, 2004 01:07AM)
Hey, Celine Dion is known for unbelievably powerful notes towards the end of her songs.

Think anyone ever says, "Man, she hit that high note and it completely made the first two verses trivial."

I doubt it.

[/quote]

Well, since you also keep insisting that the final loads need not even be consistent, and in fact, should perhaps be as incongrous as possible, what you are really advocating is that Celine Dion (to use your example) end her song with a little rap. Or perhaps she could "stun" and "surprise" the audience by stripping at the end of her number?

What will they recall about the song, then? Do you still doubt that the surprising, out-of-place spectacle would overshadow the well-sung song?

Suppose Janet Jackson were to end a big number by having someone expose her b****t? Is there really any question what America would remember?

You see, if you will go back and read My post carefully, your Celine Dion example only proves my point. A strong finish that celebrates the range and power of the singer's voice is the perfect way to end a song that also emphasizes these same things. When each moment of the song enhances what follows, the ending is as much the natural result of what went before as Tommy Wonder's ending is in his cups and balls.

This is hardly the same as performing some forgettable tricks with the little balls, and then producing kumquats, just to lap up the yucks it produces.
Message: Posted by: wsduncan (Apr 11, 2004 01:09AM)
I have a video of Ross Bertram performing an Egyptian themed Cups And Balls routine with a wooden wand carved to look like a snake. At the begining of the routine the balls are "squeezed" out of the snakes mouth. At the end they vanish. Full circle... no jumbo anything at the end. Just empty cups and that weird wand.

Alex Elmsley doing Cups And Balls. At the end, after a false explaination he says: "...but you must take everything a magican tells you with a grain of salt... Here's the salt." and proceeds to pour salt from one of the cups until all three cups are filled to overflowing.

I have a video of Tommy Wonder performing a routine in which the pompom from the bag the cups are carried in and eventually the bag itself end up in the cups. No jumbo anything there either...

I think those who maintain it's the change at the end that matters are correct. Size matters only in that it's the easiest way to get impact. If people see large objects they'll be suprised. But it's possible to get the same reaction or more by thinking about what's possible intead of simply doing what everyone else does.
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 11, 2004 01:28AM)
[quote]

By whose standards are we applying excellence? Other magicians? Or lay people?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I perform for lay people. Not magicians.
[/quote]
Good grief, man.

Robert, the layman will be the first to indicate that your routine sucks. I was merely saying that [i]practicing[/i] your routine (sans loads) will perhaps balance the focus of the routine.

I remember the first time I saw Paul Gertner perform his routine (which is really a stylized Vernon adaptation). The final loads were awesome, but I distinctly remember being blown away the whole time--not defibrillated from a bad false transfer coma.
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 11, 2004 01:37AM)
[quote]Curtis: Well, since you also keep insisting that the final loads need not even be consistent, and in fact, should perhaps be as incongrous as possible, what you are really advocating is that Celine Dion (to use your example) end her song with a little rap. Or perhaps she could "stun" and "surprise" the audience by stripping at the end of her number? [/quote]
Actually no.

What I'm advocating is that professionals would understand the importance of finishing cups and balls with final loads.

Cajuninms asked if they were necessary. I said yes they were. And they are.

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Apr 11, 2004 08:59AM)
One of the good points of the trick if you do final loads is that they are solid.

I have had spectators pick up the balls and try to squeeze them. And they marvel at the fact that they are solid and don't squish.

Terry Vecky used to load pool balls.

You can do the effect without the loads if you want to but I like doing the loads as an ending.

Glenn Bishop
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 11, 2004 10:19AM)
I am loading bright red, yellow and blue lacross balls that are quite heavey. Seems to go well with the 6th and 7th graders I show it too. Especially since they spend a lot of time guessing how I do the routine.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 11, 2004 11:05AM)
There is a perfectly good trick, the Cone and Ball that avoids the fussing with small balls entirely. Why not just do that trick and start clean?

There is another trick, where three walnuts appear inside an glass on the table that offers the 'all under the cup' assembly facet of the traditional cups trick. Here is a trick where a surprise of some kind during a repeat phase might play well. In this case finding a giant walnut or cup full of shelled walnuts might play well.

In both cases the basic premise and construction of the routine allow for a dramatic progression and internal consistency in the effect. IE the STORY of the trick leads the audience towards the climax.

There is a traditional effect called the cornucopia where bigger and bigger stuff is produced from something. This too has its merits.

The fact that all these tricks COULD be performed with the same props does not suggest that they SHOULD be performed as such or combined into one routine.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Apr 11, 2004 12:24PM)
History wise... The cups and balls and the shellgame are linked... In both effects I don't think that it really matters what you use. A great set of Ross Bertram cups from Magic Inc. Or a set of three plastic cups from wallmart.

Use rolled up dollar bills, balls, corks for the balls. ETC...

Use glasses covered in paper, plastic cups from wallmart or a nice magic set from a magic shop for cups.

Load big balls, little balls, Pool balls, streamers, live chicks for the load.

The props are not as importsnt as the routine and the magician that is performing them. You sort of have to play the cups like you would play a guitar or a base tuba.

The cups and balls is like a great piece of music. I think that this is why the cups and balls have stood the test of time so well.

Best ahead,

Glenn Bishop
http://www.mrhypnotist.org
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 11, 2004 02:32PM)
Tommy wonder covers a pool ball load in the most interesting of ways--a noisless load into a metal cup. Check his material for how. The DVD's have a brief explnantion as well as his books.

Tommy's two-cup routine actually finds a medium between the large load, and an empty finish. His production of the pom pom, along with the previously-attached bag, provides an organic--and really amazingly different sort of ending. To my mind, it is one of the most well-thought-our routines ever created.

His reasoning for avoiding the large loads, however, had nothing originally to do with a doctrinal aversion to them. He worked this up in the 1970's, when Angel Flight suits were all the rage (Imagine John Travolta's Saturday Night fever character trying to hide three lemons in [i]those[/i] pants), and thus worked on another place to store them.

This is how his routine evolved, but he does indicate that magicians should strive for something outside the usual elements of shock and surprise. At the same time, he does not in anyway malign this technique, it's just that Mother Necessity shined the light to a different corridor for him.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hegbli (Apr 11, 2004 03:13PM)
The final loads is what blows the laypeople away. Not the hopping and penetrating balls.

If you are working for non-magician, ordinary people, then you will see the value of the final loads.
Message: Posted by: Stuart Hooper (Apr 11, 2004 03:24PM)
Dear me. It fails to sink in, doesn't it?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 11, 2004 04:27PM)
The Tommy Wonder idea of working in the Bag and Pom-Pom is just ONE way of making the two aspects of the traditional trick work together.

If you took the premise of the Tommy Wonder trick and started with ONE cup or cone, used the pom pom openly a few times and then had the bag appear... you would be quite organic and have the impact desired. Making the pom-pom change color or having a different colored pom-pom appear would work quite well. As would making the bag change color. Such are options AFTER the basic premise of routine is established.
Message: Posted by: wisdom (Apr 11, 2004 04:38PM)
I really do think you need the final loads to get the maximum from this effect.
Mind you I wouldn't neglect the other stuff in the routine. Some of it, if you do it right without too much confusion can be very powerful and entertaining indeed.
As a magic pitchman I have sold thousands of the little plastic cups and balls. There are no large loads but the reaction is still great. They part with their money and in some ways that is the ultimate test.
Message: Posted by: MJ Marrs (Apr 11, 2004 05:14PM)
The question really shouldn't be: Are final loads necessary? Because one could still have a good routine without them.

Rather, the question should be: Do final loads make a good routine better?

I would be willing to bet that MOST professional magicians (making money from the art and craft of magic) would answer "Yes".
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 11, 2004 08:55PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-11 16:13, wmhegbli wrote:
The final loads is what blows the laypeople away. Not the hopping and penetrating balls.
[/quote]

Where's my Cynaide tablets?
Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (Apr 12, 2004 02:44AM)
Give it up, Ron, the final loads are necessary. Bloor said so. That should be good enough for anyone.

Funny how Wonder, Skinner, Bertram and Ramasay all seemd to miss it.
Message: Posted by: Steve Brooks (Apr 12, 2004 04:20AM)
Had the pleasure of spending quality time with Michael Skinner - smart man and really knew what made magic work. :nod:

Using a final load appears to be a personal preference I would think, much like deciding whether to use eight Linking Rings as opposed to three.
If the routine is structured well, is magical and entertains the audience, then who really cares? Just a thought... :bwink:
Message: Posted by: wisdom (Apr 12, 2004 08:39AM)
Eliminating the final load would certainly be more convenient.Carrying all that extra stuff around can be a hassle. Perhaps I will investigate although I do think that the final load impact is too strong to leave out.

Perhaps a suitable compromise is the one suggested by Harry Blackstone Jr in his book of "Magic and Illusion"
That is to just produce one lemon or big load only. Just the one item. The cups are all stacked and lifted to reveal the one big load. Less to carry about. Just a thought.

Mind you, I don't think I agree with my own thought. It is hard to get away from the 3 load thing because it is so effective.

I will say that I have experimented with double loads. In other words, produce 6 items. It doesn't seem to be as effective as 3. It seems that less is indeed more.

Oh, maybe I will try the Blackstone thing after all.
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Apr 12, 2004 10:28AM)
Okay, I have a feeling I'm starting to sound like an anti-loading advocate. I am not. I do it.

Steve Brooks has seen my routine, which I happen to think is very good.

All I have contended for is a focus on the handling of the small ball sequences, which can be very magical in and of themselves. That is why you hear gasps throughout Ricky Jay's routine in his "52 Assistants" performance--way prior to the final loads, and then a crescendo at the loads themselves. Ricky did a wonderful buildup to them that has that "based on three" feeling of completeness--like a musical chord.

In my routine, I use a similar, musically-charged method. If you go to the piano, put your finger on middle C, and play it and the next seven white keys to the right, in an even tempo, you will have played an incomplete C Major scale.

I had a teacher once that would do this on purpose, and then walk away from the piano, knowing that someone would absolutely [i]need[/i] to resolve this by playing the final note of completion--otherwise there is unresolved tension, that can really annoy even those who have no musical knowledge.

Hence my approach to the cups and balls. My final loads (which consist of fruit, sometimes congruous, and sometimes varied, depending upon my mood) appear at the end of my routine, but as a part of this completed scale.

If you played an extra ninth note on the piano (a D), it would seem like some fractured musical phrase, with far less purpose. This is also a bad place to put your final loads.

I believe that words and speech are musical, and thus there is a compositional approach that can be taken to make a routine better.

Maybe that sounds fringe. But I know I believe it.

Cheers,

Ron
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Apr 12, 2004 10:35AM)
The last word.

Just do what you want.

If it plays well, fine.

If not, try something else.

Think "INSIDE THE CUP."

:kermit:
Message: Posted by: KirkG (Apr 12, 2004 12:05PM)
I think an excellent suggestion has gotten lost in the mix.

Try, as an exercise to develop a cups and balls routine with the intention of not having large loads. See what changes you would make to the routine to make it the strongest magic you can. Would you do more or less than you do now? Would you do the same sequences in the same order you do now. Would you go faster or slower, etc.? This is akin to performing the balls in the net routine that Curtis suggested.

Now, again without the large loads, think of an ending or other climax for the routine. What could it be? One example might be vanishing the cups.

I think the "finger flinging and dump" comment refers to weak early segments just so you can get to the final loads. I think we all agree that is a disrepectful way of dimmissing one of the great classics of magic. I would hope all here would give it the practice and respect it deserves and have it throughly ready before going out and butchering it in front of audiences.

I know I get gasps throughout my routine(from laymen, not magicians, although occasionally magicians too) and I end with 4 solid loads. I think six is overdoing it.

I have another routine that use only 1 final load. They both get excellent responses at the end. The 4 version has a double ending so it gets a second "ending" response, so technically more, but the initial surprise of the "final" loads is the same.

And finally after introducing the cups, produce the final loads and then do the small ball work, ending with the strongest segment you know. See how that works. Interestingly enough, I think Jason Latimer's final loads to be the weakest point in his routine. It gets no where near the response of his intermediary sequences.

Kirk G
Message: Posted by: TheAmbitiousCard (Apr 12, 2004 12:13PM)
I agree with this as well...
[quote]
On 2004-04-12 13:05, KirkG wrote:
I think an excellent suggestion has gotten lost in the mix.

Try, as an exercise to develop a cups and balls routine with the intention of not having large loads. See what changes you would make to the routine to make it the strongest magic you can.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: MJ Marrs (Apr 12, 2004 07:21PM)
I tried this experiment:

After running the results through a supercomputer, I find that within a 3.75% margin of error, the final loads have more impact. The results were 89% to 11% in favor of the loads. You can't aruge with science!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 12, 2004 07:38PM)
Simpler argument here folks.

If you took a cup, tabled it mouth down, and produced one load after another...

versus doing the same with a short 'little ball appears under the cup a few times' type routine...

You would find that...

And for that reason I posted above that the routine with the small balls that most folks do has such little merit that it almost only serves to kill a couple of minutes in the show before the loads start.

Some of the cups folks are using could almost hold a botania. Perhaps someone will offer cup load botanias for this purpose... nothing like producing a BIG when you can. What do you think of silk flowers? of A pile of cash? A pile of coins?

Again, I argue that the trick CAN be all about the loads. Is that the BEST way to do the trick?
Message: Posted by: cajuninms (Apr 12, 2004 09:52PM)
Thanks everyone...this helps me alot.
I will probably do a golf ball with different colored balls.
Message: Posted by: MJ Marrs (Apr 13, 2004 12:10AM)
I have just invented a cups and balls routine with NO little balls OR final loads. Also, I figure that three cups, or even two cups or one cup, are unnecessary, so I'll be doing my routine with no cups as well. The only prop you'll need is a magic wand and a table.

Come to think of it, you don't even need the table. It's called "The Cups and Balls Without the Cups,Balls or the Final Loads." I'll have a detailed DVD titled "The Minimalist's Approach to a Classic" on sale in about a month or so. Wand sold separately!
Message: Posted by: Dave V (Apr 13, 2004 02:30AM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 01:30, Pete Biro wrote:
I once used Final Unloads.

For magicians, I did a basic routine and flashed loading jumbo balls under the cups.

Then, when I lifted the cups there was NOTHING THERE.
[/quote]
I just read about David Williamson's Final Load in Michael Ammar's Cups and Balls book. Similar concept, he flashed the loads (don't worry, it was for a magician's convention) and when he lifted the cups they were gone. Puzzled, he went to his briefcase, then announced "Here they are!" as he dumped an entire case load of lemons on the table.
:lol:
Message: Posted by: shanla (Apr 14, 2004 10:46PM)
Sometimes the impact of final big load makes people forget the sequence of the small balls. A few days after the performance, friends may call the cups & balls routine "The trick where you procuce lemons". They won't call it cups & balls.

If the sequence of the balls is good enough, I think the final load is not always necessary.

One of the most beautiful cups & balls routine I think is Ross Bertram's one. I saw his performance in L&L's video, there is no final load in that routine.
It is so beautifuly constructed that the sequense of the small balls attracts the people.

Of course I think the final loads gets huge reaction from the audience and I myself always use them.
But again, I think the final load is not always necessary.


Tomoo
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 15, 2004 12:06AM)
[quote]Tomoo: Sometimes the impact of final big load makes people forget the sequence of the small balls. A few days after the performance, friends may call the cups & balls routine "The trick where you produce lemons". They won't call it cups & balls. [/quote]
And...this affects the presentation negatively...how?

I think a lot of magicians REALLY want the spectator to care as much about their moves, sleights, and double-undercut-pass over-double lift move as the magician does.

Spectators will never care as much about your two-none-two sequence, or Charlie Miller move as you the magician does.

[quote]MJ Marrs: Come to think of it, you don't even need the table. It's called "The Cups and Balls Without the Cups,Balls or the Final Loads." I'll have a detailed DVD titled "The Minimalist's Approach to a Classic" on sale in about a month or so. Wand sold separately![/quote]
I'm glad you got rid of the table because if I wanted to do Cups and Balls in a restaurant without the cups and balls, you know it's debated whether to use a table. So you just solved a big headache!

Cheers!

Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: Bill Hegbli (Apr 15, 2004 12:50AM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-14 23:46, shanla wrote:
Sometimes the impact of final big load makes people forget the sequence of the small balls. A few days after the performance, friends may call the cups & balls routine "The trick where you produce lemons". They won't call it cups & balls.

Tomoo
[/quote]
So shouldn't that tell you something. In todays fast changing attention spans, get to the climax. If you are performing for the real world. Get to the climax before the audience moves on.

Magicians are the only ones that will sit through a long ball presentation and appreciate your long hours of practice and skill.

When it comes to the people that pay you, you do what they want, not what you want. Of course that is why Chop Cup is so popular.
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (Apr 15, 2004 06:57AM)
Of course, the Chop Cup was popular before TV, MTV, video games, and the like ruined our attention spans.

I think most of us will agree that it is possible to do a great cup and balls routine without the final loads, but most magicians do a final load. If you are new to the whole routine, you will probably pick up a resource, like Ammar's Complete C&Bs and learn a final load, but you should not be afraid to investigate different approaches. It also would not hurt for many of us to concentrate on our small ball routines and make sure that we can do credible vanishes and that the routine is powerful. I can't speak about any other relatively new magicians, but I know I spend most of my time accessing the small ball part of the routine--making sure I do a decent vanish, that I build up tension and that there is a point to what I am doing (at least as much of a point one can possible have with having people watch me fiddle with three copper cups. :) )

(Quick note to those with little sense of humor--I am not really fiddling, that's just a phrase--I take this all seriously. When I am done with my C&B's, nobody gets out of the room until they can answer 20 questions outlining their understanding of every aspect and purpose of my routine--and if any of them like the final loads best, then back to the drawing board.) :)
Message: Posted by: RobertBloor (Apr 15, 2004 08:35AM)
[quote]Chris: nobody gets out of the room until they can answer 20 questions outlining their understanding of every aspect and purpose of my routine[/quote]

I find the standardized testing methods with 30 questions or more to be better. ;-)
[quote]Bill: Magicians are the only ones that will sit through a long ball presentation and appreciate your long hours of practice and skill. [/quote]
God bless you for this comment.
And funny isn't it...I've never seen a magician applaud when the final loads are revealed.

Cheers!
Robert Bloor
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 15, 2004 10:01AM)
Re: "Magicians are the only ones that will sit through a long ball presentation and appreciate your long hours of practice and skill. "

Some final loads do get a reaction from magicians. Eric Decamps has one.

Folks are there to be entertained... and truly should not know if the means used are mechanical, sleight of hand or 'other'.
Message: Posted by: shane_delon (Apr 15, 2004 03:08PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 01:30, Pete Biro wrote:
I once used Final Unloads.

For magicians, I did a basic routine and flashed loading jumbo balls under the cups.

Then, when I lifted the cups there was NOTHING THERE.
[/quote]
David Williamson did this at Magi-fest.
Message: Posted by: Ronnie Ramin (Apr 15, 2004 06:59PM)
I worked very hard on my ball vanishes. I now have the technique down to the point where I fool laymen and audiences alike. I've been doing my vanish for at least 15 years. Every time I see Richard Hatch from H+R magic, he makes me do it :)

Anyway, if your interested I'd be willing to share my technique. I've gotten so much from others in the past, it wouldn't hurt to give back.

Mickey Silver's generosity must be rubbing off.

Thanks,
Ronnie Ramin
Message: Posted by: cardman1990 (Apr 24, 2004 08:54PM)
I love big loads, and for people with small hands, I would recommend you pick up Brad Burt's Chop Cup video, he has a great way of loading large things under cups.
Message: Posted by: John Cass (May 2, 2004 07:04PM)
Isn't whatever you produce from the cup last, by definition, the "final" load?
Message: Posted by: magic_tom1 (May 2, 2004 07:09PM)
Has anyone here seen Bill Malone's presentation of final loads?? I didn't even think of doing it that way, and actually producing 4 loads.

Do you think that this is too many loads, and that it is pretty much "old" to the spectator after 2 or 3?

It is an interesting move, but I don't think I will ever use it.
Message: Posted by: chrisrkline (May 3, 2004 11:05PM)
Gazzo loads six lemons as a prelude to the melon under the hat. But he did say, without the melon, he would not do more than three final loads. He says it is counter productive and can actually cause the routine to lose its oomph. Vernon sometimes did three and sometimes four.
Message: Posted by: rawdawg (May 4, 2004 12:27AM)
Would this be considered a final load?

I borrow three dollars, crumple them up into little balls and perform an impromptu Cups & Balls routine. For the finale, I explain that I use extra dollars to pull off the "trick". Uncrumpling the balls, they are seen to be ten dollar bills. I give them back the money a la Jeff Hobson.

Concerning the discussion, would it not be more efficient to just walk up with a cup and produce a final load? It is simple, direct and to the point, all hallmarks of great magic. Plus, we could get rid of all those annoying little ball sequences. Too much practicing involved in doing something nobody pays for anyway.
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (May 4, 2004 05:21AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-04 01:32, rawdawg wrote:
Would this be considered a final load?

I borrow three dollars, crumple them up into little balls and perform an impromptu Cups & Balls routine. For the finale, I explain that I use extra dollars to pull off the "trick". Uncrumpling the balls, they are seen to be ten dollar bills. I give them back the money a la Jeff Hobson.
[/quote]
That's a really interesting idea.
Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (May 4, 2004 09:23PM)
Rawdawg,

Bill Goodman suggested a "final load only" routine in Genii, and requested feedback from the readers. I don't think there was much. I happen to like the idea quite a bit. His concept was to show the cup empty, then set the cup in the center of the table. He then would somehow force the audience to "freely" name a lemon. He would pick up the cup, and bingo, lemon.

I think it would have quite an impact, as long as the force is good.

Regarding the transformation of bills as a climax to the routine, I like the idea. David Regal's "Two in the Hand One in the Pocket" routine ends this way. Also, I published a routine in Apocalypse in which a dollar is torn in half to make tow balls, which are used in a cup routine, and then the bill is ultimately restored. A "change of state" rather than a big load. I hedged my bets back then, and used the restoration of the bill as misdirection for the big load.
Message: Posted by: Magicmatt1982 (May 4, 2004 10:59PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-09 23:34, cajuninms wrote:
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands (can't even palm a card) and I need to know; Are the final loads really necessary, and if so what small loads could I use?
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: rawdawg (May 5, 2004 04:58PM)
Curtis,

I really like that Goodman concept. About as close as you can get to reaching into your pocket and taking out a ham sandwich on request. I can easily see this as one of those things that you keep in your bag of tricks for that special moment. I'm always tucking little bits of info away that I "get" on people and using it later some way, some how. Mostly I find out obscure, personal stuff that allows me to give them a very unexpected birthday present.

Allow me to run free for a moment.

Say I have this Tupperware bowl. It's adorned with cheap jewels, glitter, whatnot and it is proposed to be this old, ancient Cornucopia styled bowl that can bring forth all your desires. It's an heirloom, being in the family for several generations. Unfortunately, it's so old, it doesn't really work the way it's supposed to.

Ludicrous? Perfect.

So I keep this bowl with me and on occasion, bring it out and talk about. Of course, I would love to show everybody how it works but lately, it's been on the blink. I show a card trick instead.

Days or weeks pass and eventually (for example) one of my favorite bartender's birthday comes up. Unfortunately, she has to work on her birthday but she will be celebrating it at her bar with all her friends. I show up looking for my pint of Guinness and to my horror, I had completely forgotten about her party. I have no present and I apologize profusely. Of course she tells me it is okay, that just being here is present enough.

Wait a minute, I tell her, as light dawns upon my head. I have a wonderful idea. I rush out to my car and bring back my old, rickety Cornucopia like bowl. I will do a magic trick for her birthday. I hope it works.

What follows is a performance of the Benson Bowl Routine whereby I bang, curse, cajole and wish out loud in order for each phase to properly work. For the finale, I ask the Birthday Girl to wish for anything. Better yet, since my bowl is a little rusty, I ask her to remember all her wishes she's ever had in her entire life. Give the bowl a chance, I say.

Upon lifting the Bowl, everyone, including me is perplexed at what lies there. But the Birthday Girl isn't. She stands there privately amazed. She doesn't realize that maybe, just maybe, she, a close friend or a family member said something in passing, probably months ago that led to this moment. Maybe it was during a cold reading segment, a game of pool or in a drunken stupor at Denny's early in the morning. All she knows is that Ugly Bowl did it. It actually did it.

Weberesque? What do you think?

Sorry for the long post but I'm not one to get to the point.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 5, 2004 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-09 23:34, cajuninms wrote:
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands (can't even palm a card) and I need to know; Are the final loads really necessary, and if so what small loads could I use?
[/quote]
Re: small hands -- Gazzo regularly loads oranges, which are much larger than his hands, into the cups for final loads. You can load ANYTHING into the cup that will fit in there, if you have strong enough misdirection when you make the loads.

The hands don't need to be in full view all the time.

OTOH, you can get a set of Jim Riser's mini cups. They take a smaller ball, about the size of a handball. They will work fine.
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (May 5, 2004 08:30PM)
SIZE does NOT MATTER... it is the change from the small balls to something else.
Message: Posted by: Han Solo (May 6, 2004 06:25PM)
Size matters not. Judge me by my size do you?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 6, 2004 08:19PM)
The symmetry of the three cups to the three shell game all but forces the use of final loads to distinguish the trick. What's missing is a PLOT for the trick. Why do you have the cups and what are the balls?

IT all begins with a premise. Lacking that... what's left is something between tragedy and history.

I can't take a position of a routine that has no explicit premise or internal logic. There are some wonderful magical moments in the routine assembled by Vernon. Also in the routine created by Ramsay. Even more in the Tommy Wonder routine. Lots of METHOD and STRUCTURE to work with. All one needs is a premise to motivate the props and the action.

If the premise leads to a LARGE conclusion... good. If the routine builds to a climax of productions... good. There are posts about routines that take different approaches. If you want to discuss one option or approach or premise in particular we can proceed to commentary and opinions.

Till we have a working premise for the trick we may as well be arguing about why most people cite a rule of three and don't use two or four cups.
Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (May 7, 2004 04:37AM)
Rawdawg,

I admire your dedication to the cause. (We'll ignore the obvious allure of a female who a) has a steady job and b) knows how you like your beer) Go, Do, and name your first child after the Café.

Funny premise. Perhaps the bowl is so old it's hard of hearing...hey, suppose you could produce 20 ducks?? (you know, "I said Bucks!")

Another "old bowl" line: "Well, now I know why they call it a Jello MOLD".

Here's my private fave handling for the Goldman idea. YOu start with the final load in the bowl. Covering all is a rag over the mouth-up bowl. Tip the opening of the bowl towards you, showing the ornate craftsmanship, and stealing the load behind the Rag. Now show the bowl empty, then wipe out the bowl with whatever lines you want, ending by loading the bowl using the Stencil load from the Jennings chop cup routine.

Use the rag for something else, maybe to wipe your hands in preparation for the miracle. Put it aside (over load #2) Produce the loads as needed.

With the original Goldman idea, this works well with a coffee cup and a paper napkin. The napkin is then used, with a sharpie, to force the load. BYFM since I don't have one.

BTW, if you want practice, Mother's Day is near, and this presentation (with a little tweaking) will please mom, don't you think?
Message: Posted by: rawdawg (May 7, 2004 04:19PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-07 05:37, Curtis Kam wrote:
BTW, if you want practice, Mother's Day is near, and this presentation (with a little tweaking) will please mom, don't you think?
[/quote]
Imagine her surprise when I lift up the bowl and she sees me married to a nice Thai girl with a handful of grandchildren for her.
Message: Posted by: maniac (May 8, 2004 05:12AM)
WOW !!! so much advice. I beleave that the issue was the size of his hands and what he could load.

cajuninms,

If you want to do a final load and you feel that you hands are too small, then you could do you cups and balls routine sitting down. Doing a Cup load sitting down does not require palming the ball.

If you must perform standing up, then leave your hand in your pocket, tap you pocket with your wand and the cup turn pickup the cup at the same time bring your hand out with the load and move the cup over it, and PUT IT DOWN. This will work....even if the load is to big for your hand


Good Luck and Good MAGIC...
Message: Posted by: Larry Davidson (May 8, 2004 07:46AM)
Check out Scott Alexander's new DVD, [i]10 O'Clock Show[/i]. It contains a very clever cup and ball [i]type[/i] of routine using nothing but final loads. Notice that I said [i]type[/i] because it doesn't actually use a cup or a ball but it's the equivalent of a one cup routine, and you have much more cover than you'd have with a cup so the size of your hands is entirely irrelevant!

Larry D.
Message: Posted by: Kent Wong (May 13, 2004 11:25AM)
Using final loads is not so much a matter of being able to palm large objects as it is a matter of being able to redirect attention while you are making the final loads. You may want to take a look at some of the innovative ideas that Tommy Wonder has on the cups and balls (check out Books of Wonder). His final loads are actually on the table the whole time!

As for whether they are absolutely necessary in a cups and balls routine, I would say they are. Otherwise, there really is no strong finish to the routine.
Message: Posted by: Michael Seay (Mar 20, 2005 10:54AM)
Ken Brooke's 3 cup routine from Routined Manipulation, uses one load, appearing under the stacked set of cups. Only one BIG load to worry about storing and loading. Anyone use this kind of ending?
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Mar 20, 2005 11:57AM)
It is all practice. I started palming things left and right since I was 8 years old.

For final loads, you don't necesarily need to palm anything, you just need to hold it in a natural concealed fashion. Keep practicing. I am 15, and I just loaded 4 tennis balls is cups that barely could fit.I had people all around me. Try learning a little misdirection. As long as everything goes with the flow, the audience should look where you tell/prompt them to look. Practice. that is all there is to it. As for palming cards, look at the Gamblers cop. In that palm, half the card is totally out in the open, but because it looks so natural and because I have practiced my angles with it for about a year now, no one can catch it.

Try not thinking about it as if you have to palm it, you merely have to hold it in a natural, consealed way.

I think that final loads are quite necessary for a Cups and Balls routine.

IMO
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Mar 20, 2005 09:16PM)
Michael Skinner at times would do the old Rub a Dub cups and balls routine. No final loads but a routine that worked for him. True maybe not many could take that ryming patter and make that work for them but it at least gives you an idea that not all cups and balls routines have to have a final load. As was said by Pete Biro do what works for you. If final loads don't work don't use them. It is not a rule that final loads have to be used. It never has been a rule and it never will be.
Message: Posted by: Glenn Godsey (Mar 21, 2005 12:15PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 08:24, drwilson wrote:
Part of the fun of the final loads, if you are using larger cups, is that they are objects far too large to be concealed in the hand. When they appear, the idea that you could have put them there with everyone watching seems to be an impossible explanation. Therefore, they appeared magically.

Yours,

Paul
[/quote]
Paul hit the nail on the head. The whole point to a cups or a cup routine is the surprise appearance of large objects. To the spectator, this is not a "load" - it is an impossible appearance. It seems (if well done) that there is no possible way that the magician could have put the large objects there with everyone watching. Don Alan, the first close-up table magician to appear on the Tonight Show blew everyone's minds and his entire act was based around the production of large heavy objects under cups, under hats and under bowls.
In table magic, it is the most magical thing you can do for a layman. To the layman, the small balls in the 3 cups or in the chop cup are just a rather boring preliminary to the shocking and inexplicable surprise!

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Mar 22, 2005 08:36PM)
[quote]
On 2005-03-20 12:57, Magicmaven wrote:

For final loads, you don't necesarily need to palm anything, you just need to hold it in a natural concealed fashion. Keep practicing. I am 15, and I just loaded 4 tennis balls is cups that barely could fit.I had people all around me. Try learning a little misdirection. As long as everything goes with the flow, the audience should look where you tell/prompt them to look. Practice. that is all there is to it. As for palming cards, look at the Gamblers cop. In that palm, half the card is totally out in the open, but because it looks so natural and because I have practiced my angles with it for about a year now, no one can catch it.

Try not thinking about it as if you have to palm it, you merely have to hold it in a natural, consealed way.
[/quote]
These are wise words, indeed. In fact, when I do the loading sequence on the chop cup routine -- which Magicmaven witnessed as close as I let anyone get to it -- that was exactly what I was doing. I use three real 2 1/4 inch billiard balls. The only pressure on the ball is with the ring finger. The other fingers are completely relaxed. The hand is positioned in such a way that the index and thumb cover any possible flash of the ball. The fingers curve in such a way that the hand looks reasonably natural.
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Mar 22, 2005 11:13PM)
And you executed that beautifully Bill!
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Mar 22, 2005 11:21PM)
Thanks! Flattery will get you everywhere!
Message: Posted by: BlackShadow (Mar 26, 2005 03:05PM)
I don't think you need to do final loads in the classical sense, but it finishes the whole routine nicely if you do something different at the end. Most well thought through small object manipulation finishes on this kind of climax. eg A jumbo coin, a shower of coins, jumbo cards, or making all the cards vanish.

The production of large round objects at the climax of a cups routine has become overdone. Liquids, sand, salt or silks strike me as more varied items. Or what about making the cups disappear instantly at the very end. This can actually be done after the production of whatever else you are doing.(method same as vanishing glass/bowl of water etc)
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Mar 27, 2005 11:04PM)
Nothing is NECESSARY... but the surprise ending of the cups and balls is as good a finish as you can imagine.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Mar 27, 2005 11:10PM)
[quote]
On 2005-03-26 16:05, BlackShadow wrote:
The production of large round objects at the climax of a cups routine has become overdone. Liquids, sand, salt or silks strike me as more varied items. Or what about making the cups disappear instantly at the very end. This can actually be done after the production of whatever else you are doing.(method same as vanishing glass/bowl of water etc)
[/quote]
Maybe we, as magicians, see this as overdone, but I don't think the layman does. Sometime when you are strolling around, take a clipboard with you and act as if you are taking a poll. Just see how many people have actually ever SEEN a cups and balls worker.

I, for one, would be curious to know what percentage of a representative group that was.
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Mar 28, 2005 02:42AM)
It is correct, we are talking about ppl who probably never ever have seen a magician, or if they have, this was in their youth, 30 years or so back..
So seeing the wonders will give them the threat of their lifetime, sometimes...
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Mar 28, 2005 03:17AM)
I always want to be the first guy someone saw doing one of the classics.

I would want the very first cup and ball worker someone ever sees to be me.
Message: Posted by: T. Joseph O'Malley (Mar 28, 2005 09:48AM)
I remember the first cups and balls routine I ever saw.

This was before I started reading and learning about magic, a few years back.
It was performed by a Toronto street performer.
It was the Vernon routine, I believe, but with a pepper squash loaded under his hat at the end.

He absolutely floored me. I was completely baffled and mystified. I walked over and put $40 in his hat. I stuck around and watched the act a few more times throughout the day and loved it.

I would not say that the production of large round objects has become overdone. It earned that man $40 from my wallet.

Final loads may not be necessary, but I remember that I was impressed by the routine prior to seeing the final loads, and when they began to appear under the cups, my jaw hit the floor. I can understand why Whit mentions that he wants to be the first magician someone sees perform the cups and balls, because when you see a classic like this performed well, you NEVER forget it.
Message: Posted by: TheAmbitiousCard (Mar 28, 2005 03:54PM)
They are absolutely not necessary.

If you've got a good reason NOT to use them, then don't.

As Jason L, shows us, it's also not necessary that the cups are even opaque.
I thought for sure that was necessary.

As long as you have a VERY good reason, do what you want.

... but not liking to shop for oranges does not seem like a good reason :)
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Mar 29, 2005 12:13AM)
Yeah, If you can't do the move (final load), then don't include it. lol.
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Mar 29, 2005 02:17AM)
[quote]
On 2005-03-29 01:13, Magicmaven wrote:
Yeah, If you can't do the move (final load), then don't include it. lol.
[/quote]Anybody can do lousy final loads !
The 'art' is to do them well, meaning they'll pass unnoticed and without arousing the slightest suspection, so the final appearance of the load REALLY is a 'miracle'!
If they sense you loaded 'something' even a smal ball, the mysteri is gone..
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Mar 29, 2005 08:50AM)
Exactly my point!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 31, 2005 02:03PM)
Okay, you got the loads onto the table. You are done gloating. Now what?

There they are and there you are?

What are you doing with those things now that they are sitting there?

You've set the stage. What is the next activity that uses the props?
Message: Posted by: Dave V (Mar 31, 2005 02:29PM)
There is none. Played the way I see it, this [i]is[/i] the big "finale," the one they've been waiting for, so all that's left is to go into your "hat line" if you're so inclined, or simply take your bow and thank the people for watching your show.

Some will want to come up and check things out, make sure the oranges (or whatever) are real, look for trap doors in the cups, that sort of thing. Now is the perfect time for all of that.
Message: Posted by: TheAmbitiousCard (Mar 31, 2005 02:30PM)
Your next activity could be a feeling of genuine ...Surprise!!

I don't know how they got there.
I was trying for balls. Honest.
I have no idea how it happened.
Maybe I'm not using my own magic wand? Hmm... looks like mine, alright.
Sometimes magicians make mistakes.
I was thinking ball but I was sort of thinking I was hungry
when I tapped the cup. Must have mixed up the spell.
Message: Posted by: Magicmaven (Mar 31, 2005 07:36PM)
The traditional:

"I know many of you think I am using extra balls, and your right. See, I have one here, one here, here, and here. Well, now you know how that's done."
Message: Posted by: rikbrooks (Apr 1, 2005 11:04AM)
I would have to agree that it's not NECESSARY, after all, you don't need stitches after surgery, you could just use scotch tape and tell the patient not to move for 6 weeks - but those stitches certainly help!

I wouldn't dream of doing cups and balls without the final load. Without the wand, maybe, with more or fewer final loads, certainly.

As far as people having seen the cups and balls. I submit that very few people have actually seen a magician live - much less a particular trick. I think the extent of exposure that most people have to magic is uncle Harry's 21 card trick - and even that poorly done without the magician's choice at the end.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Apr 1, 2005 12:20PM)
Sometimes, doing ANYTHING with the final loads diminishes the impact of them. I have seen fellows do the load sequence and then immediately go into a juggling routine. It killed the applause they were getting and did nothing for their juggling routine at all.

I also think that routines in which you produce a lemon at the end of the routine, then go into the bill in lemon are confusing. Also routines where you vanish a bill, do the cups and balls, produce a lemon and then find the bill in it are not necessarily good "layman" routines. There are too many plot lines to follow.

Do the cups and balls. Close with it. Pass your hat (if you are busking).

If you do Gazzo's routine, you will understand how the melon production leads directly into the hat pass.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 1, 2005 01:30PM)
Okay, as a closer... and you leave the loads on the table... no problem there.

I just get irked when a performer produces stuff, then rolls it away and on to the next thing.
Message: Posted by: Dave V (Apr 1, 2005 02:29PM)
I never imagined the Cups and Balls as anything else [i]but[/i] a closer, especially if you do multiple, jumbo loads.

I know some don't play it as strong, leading into other things. Carl Andrews for example, performs a nice two cup sequence ending with sponge balls and transitions directly into a sponge ball routine from there.
Message: Posted by: magicbob116 (Jan 12, 2006 09:40PM)
[quote]
On 2005-03-21 13:15, Glenn Godsey wrote:
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 08:24, drwilson wrote:
Part of the fun of the final loads, if you are using larger cups, is that they are objects far too large to be concealed in the hand. When they appear, the idea that you could have put them there with everyone watching seems to be an impossible explanation. Therefore, they appeared magically.....

Yours,

Paul
[/quote]
Paul hit the nail on the head. The whole point to a cups or a cup routine is the surprise appearance of large objects. To the spectator, this is not a "load" - it is an impossible appearance. It seems (if well done) that there is no possible way that the magician could have put the large objects there with everyone watching. Don Alan, the first close-up table magician to appear on the Tonight Show blew everyone's minds and his entire act was based around the production of large heavy objects under cups, under hats and under bowls.
In table magic, it is the most magical thing you can do for a layman. To the layman, the small balls in the 3 cups or in the chop cup are just a rather boring preliminary to the shocking and inexplicable surprise!

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey
[/quote]
This has always been my opinion. The surprise of a DIFFERENT object appearing is good, but because the object is too large to even fit in the cup, then HOW did it get there?

P.S. For those of you who like the traditional lemon or orange production... Wal-mart (and probably most craft/hobby stores) stocks plastic fruit in the craft department that looks very real... and you don't have to worry about spoilage between performances!
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jan 12, 2006 11:13PM)
But the Wal-Mart fruit has a hard exterior, and will talk if you are using a metal cup. I've tried it. I check it from time to time. Ammar's Fab Fruit is better.

As pointed out in another thread, the fruit from http://www.faxfoods.com/ has a softer exterior, as well.
Message: Posted by: Sam Tabar (Jan 14, 2006 05:12AM)
Won't the "talking" be masked by the ambient noise and your patter. Perhaps one could tap the cups with their wand or another cup the same way Paul Gertner does when loading the final load steel balls.
Message: Posted by: magic guy (Mar 28, 2006 01:37PM)
When I do "Conan the Ball Bearing," my final load is a ball bearing too large for the cup -- a fake like Paul Gertner's. Also, you don't really need to tap the cups to cover the talking if you practice absolute control of the ball bearings. It takes time to master, but I've been doing it for years.

When I'm doing the coffee cups and balls with Mike Rogers 3/4" baseballs, I top the mouth-down cups with the large loads, in my case 2" juggling bags and a smiley ball. Then as an afterthought, I mention to the audience member who produced the first of the three loads, smiley, that we've forgotten something. He removes the load from his cup, waves his hand over the cup and picks it up to find -- the three little balls we started with. At that point, eyeballs pop out of heads and begin rolling around the table.

As for possible loads for the small-pawed originator of this thread, try a set of 2" juggling bags. More important, be sure you're using proper cup-to-pocket technique with a simple turnaround of the loading hand to load the cup. That ought to solve your angle problems.

Good luck, and keep at it!

:)ed
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Mar 28, 2006 09:42PM)
Cups and balls without a final load is like sex without an orgasam...anyway's...

I Did a bad thing this afternoon...I found four pokemon toys with shiny steel ballbearings inside, these I found in my sons toy box.

10 mins later I had these nice mirror like finish steel balls in my greedy mit's, all four of 'em.

Now I think to myself, how do I use them the right way? I do not and will not ever sit, so lappin's outta the question, just loading these things seperatly under each cup is rough buisness to say the least.

My question is this...does this sorta thing require a different style of technique/handling? I saw Paul Gertners routine once, years ago and can only recall the final load sequence...WHATS THAT TELL YOU??? THAT FINAL LOADS ARE NECESARY, THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE REMEMBER YEARS LATER. :) :) :)...so I do not recall his handling, I just know I was impressed greatly.

I plan on trying my hand at busking this summer, steel balls won't blow away.

So whats the skinny on using steel balls instead of regular ones?

johnny
Message: Posted by: Lawrens Godon (Mar 29, 2006 06:26AM)
Today, after learning a lot of differents routines, I use a 2-cups routine with the best vanishes I could work out of the little balls and wand...About the final loads, I've found that I could make some magic with the little balls in hands :

-The first is a direct transformation in hands...
-The second is the charlie Miller move with a little ball passing through the cup and transforming all the way through,
-The third I produce it from under the stacked cups...

This way I found that my routine was enhanced because the magic continues as the muscades change form visually, and the last load from under the cups works as a final surprise to the routine...
Message: Posted by: Christopher Moro (Mar 29, 2006 07:36AM)
Paul Gertner teaches his Steel Cups and Ball Bearings on his videos & book, Steel & Silver. It's largely based on the Vernon routine, but his presentation begins centered around the sound a ball bearing makes when under a cup. That's the brilliance of the phases before the loads. He uses what we'd normally expect to be a problem to his advantage. The sound element adds a completely new element. Your memory is probably jogged now, huh, Johnny? :)
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Mar 29, 2006 09:45AM)
Well, I'll tell ya...after playing around with the steel balls and cups late into lastnite, or should I say in the wee hours of the morn'

yes, I found that one must use sound to your advantage.

johnny
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Mar 29, 2006 11:33AM)
Also, for a final load of the large silver ball variety, I found that when the x-mas season falls upon us once more I'll be able to go to a craft store or something and get me a nice plastic silver ball for hanging on the x-mas tree. I've had a couple of these before 'cuz I was gonna make a zombie ball and astrosphere, however I've seemed to have misplaced them...

johnny
Message: Posted by: magic guy (Apr 6, 2006 03:18PM)
Hi Johnnymystic,

I've developed some techniques for positive control of the ball bearings to eliminate the sound whenever the cups aren't clacking together to cover it.

Here's a good technique for loading the ball under a cup. Hold the ball beneath the cup's rim firmly in the crook of your pinky. Set the ball down on your performing surface as you touch the forward tip of the cup to the surface. Release the ball and drag the cup over it as you set down the back rim. If you do it right, your pinky slides out from beneath the rim and the ball stays put.

Like I say, I've been doing it for years.

Also, Paul Gertner has a great technique in his book for loading three balls atop the bottom cup and showing how "the heavy steel ball passes through not one cup at a time, but two."

:)ed
Message: Posted by: gerard1973 (Apr 6, 2006 03:57PM)
Cajuninms:

No, final loads for the Cups & Balls routine are not necessary but how are you going to end the routine? What are you going to do for the climax at the end? Some type of change would be great but what would you do without a final load?
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Apr 6, 2006 04:48PM)
The last thing you find under the cups is, by definition, the final load. So why not make it a big one?
Message: Posted by: J.G. the magnificent (May 11, 2011 11:53AM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 09:14, chrisrkline wrote:
This has been debated before, but you could also use sponge balls as the final load. Not as nice as something solid, but Carl Andrews does a nice two cup version with sponge balls leading into a sponge ball routine on his Table Hopping Cups and Balls DVD. I don't like the sponge balls as well, especially since I am working on Vernon's Classic routine, but they do solve the problem of pocket management (and hand size) if you are not wearing a jacket. No problem using them in a three cup routine.
[/quote]
Wish I could recall where I heard it and who said it but. There is something to the effect of perfection is where nothing can be taken away or added and I think that is what Carls routine is. I have the dvd and is is a gem.

Posted: May 11, 2011 12:54pm
Maybe use smaller cups. Making up for smaller loads if you still use them.
Message: Posted by: djkuttdecks (May 14, 2011 01:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-11 12:54, J.G. the magnificent wrote:
Maybe use smaller cups. Making up for smaller loads if you still use them.
[/quote]
Seeing how this post started in 2004, the original poster is about 21 now! Let's just hope his hands got bigger and he can do a mean final load after 7 years of practice :)
-Lee
Message: Posted by: Rainboguy (May 15, 2011 12:38PM)
Yes. Final loads make the trick.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 15, 2011 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-06 17:48, Bill Palmer wrote:
The last thing you find under the cups is, by definition, the final load. So why not make it a big one?
[/quote]
Football sized or maybe a tree? Why turn a trick with cups into a production (and a pointless one at that) ? Is this just a lazyman's version of a dove routine for closeup?

How about starting by making the trick where a ball that appears under a cup interesting and building from there?

BTW, I used to try using the mylar coils to turn the cups into a production - seemed a fuss - when the biggest reaction I got doing that trick was to have a napkin signed and have that appear under a cup. The rest- repeats etc where excess to the magic as far as the audiences I observed were concerned.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 15, 2011 04:39PM)
Lazy man's version? To do indetectible final loads requires a lot more practice than you may think. It also requires a lot more critical thinking to come up with something that is a bit different from the stuff the run of the mill performer produces.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 15, 2011 09:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-15 17:39, Bill Palmer wrote:
Lazy man's version? [snip].
[/quote]
of a dove or production act. A lazy version of the routine where you plant a seed and the plant grows into a tree. A lazy version of where a scarf is shown and all sorts of things from flaming plates to a goldfish bowl are produced.

So I guess the three ball transposition using a scarf could just as well be taken as the setup to that scarf production routine.

Or we could find ways to make the work with the little balls interesting and let any productions come from the theme of the routine rather than just "let me see if I can just one more load under the cup."
Message: Posted by: Dr_J_Ayala (May 20, 2011 07:40AM)
I have done what Pete said way back in 2004 on the first page of this thread: a flashed non-load final load. It really floors lay audiences and just kills those magicians that know it all.

I have also used an idea from Fl!p that he does at the end of his sponge ball routine: Peanuts. This is a small load, yes, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the props, it is still a surprise and gets a laugh, especially when delivered with a line about how magicians work for peanuts.... It also does not detract from the routine, but even with producing fruit in my other routines, I have never heard people talking about just that after the show. If the routine is well thought out, well played and properly performed and presented, all final loads should only enhance the whole package, not detract from it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 20, 2011 04:12PM)
Dr_J_Ayala, folks,

It's exactly that "well thought out, well played and properly performed and presented" that, IMHO, should be the focus of the discussion - not so much the matter of loads as we have other tricks like the mango tree for that focus. :)

Jon
Message: Posted by: WalkerMagic (May 20, 2011 06:54PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-10 01:30, Pete Biro wrote:
I once used Final Unloads.

For magicians, I did a basic routine and flashed loading jumbo balls under the cups.

Then, when I lifted the cups there was NOTHING THERE.
[/quote]
That sounds really cool, wish I could have seen it!
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 21, 2011 01:55PM)
Do we have any knowledge of who was the first to do C and B with a final load?
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 21, 2011 03:26PM)
Not exactly. The concept of final loads is well illustrated in 19th century French political cartoons. Ozanam mentions producing an apple from under the cups -- ca. 1723. There is also the mention of producing frogs, which appears in a book of natural science from the 17th century in Germany.

It is implied in a section of Hocus Pocus, Jr (to passe a large balle threw a table.)
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 02:57PM)
Frogs! Brilliant. I'm seeing for JT a ten plagues on the Egyptians premise.
Maybe substitute a dozen of those Edmund scientific bimetal discs? Timing!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 23, 2011 04:39PM)
Here's a rough outline of a cups routine in the works with just the theme and a few passes described. The method(s) are not relevant - just the basic effect.

A red ball and a yellow ball.
They tend to stay together.
If I put the red ball in my pocket, the yellow ball will vanish if you blink (put in other hand -show gone) and appear there too.
(Remove both from pocket)
Let's use a cup. All is well if the red ball is under the cup and the yellow ball up top.
But if I put the yellow ball into my pocket...(lift cup - to show nothing underneath) the red ball is now there too.
Let's use another cup. The red ball is under the cup and the yellow on top. Now I move the yellow ball to the top of this cup and ...
(repeat pocket sequence - display then replace IN POCKET)
You you tell me which cup to put the yellow ball on top of.
That one - okay
And now the red ball is ... under that cup.
(introduce third cup)
Offer to explain
do an open multiplication of the yellow balls at your fingertips
and put a yellow ball on top of each cup.
Lift each gently to show a red ball under each cup.

Final loads, no cliches - and a nod to the many worlds sci-fi idea.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 24, 2011 04:25PM)
Nice, Jon. It's the 10% visible of the iceberg underneath. Any chance we'll get to see a clip?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 24, 2011 05:19PM)
L*, if you mean leaving the motivating principle in action that the performer is demonstrating a mystery - agreed.

As to methods - I read a mentalist item where which of a few markers the audience member takes off the lid of a box sets the prediction to be found inside the box in an envelope - and it dawned on me that applying that to a chop cup - putting the "wrong" monopole kind of ball on top might permit another such ball to get dropped into place. Recalling the tip/load sequence - it occurred that such a ball would want to stay in place up there and one might be able to get that same action to serve as a vanish method - provided one is okay being left holding the cup (mouth toward the audience) or mouth down if doing a pour out action.

The only phases I did not describe were the transpositions as I'm not sure they belong. Ball on top of cup/ball under cup type of thing.

Still playing with a few neodymium magnets here to see how easy it is to play with monopoles.

But that's hardly the point of this discussion. The question was raised about the typical large ball/fruit loads being necessary and I still feel they are just one option among many.
Message: Posted by: Dr_J_Ayala (May 24, 2011 09:30PM)
In as far as live loads are concerned, I am surprised that there has been no mention of Heba Haba Al and his three cup routine with live baby chicks. That was a beautiful example of proper routining and misdirection because by the end of the routine, it was almost as if the chicks were appearing as fast as he could handle it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2011 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 18:19, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
L*, if you mean leaving the motivating principle in action that the performer is demonstrating a mystery - agreed.

[/quote]
Yes, exactly what I meant. Implication rather than explanation.
As for methods, as a math teacher I had would say, "the rest we'll leave to the accountants*."

*Not that there's anything wrong with accountants . . .
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2011 10:18PM)
Did you see the rubber walnuts on the other thread?
was thinking of a peanut and a walnut kept in a little paper ice cream cup - the kind that comes with a lid.
hmmmm
Message: Posted by: Roger_Staton (Jun 15, 2011 03:04PM)
I do not believe a final load is necessary, if you can perform an effect in such a powerful way I believe anyone can make a coin from the ear become a modern miracle, such is the same with cups and balls, or any other effect, although I feel that, for me at least, a final load is a must for me in performances because it leaves the spectators with that feeling of wonder that most of us here are in it for.

Posted: Jun 15, 2011 4:15pm
I also feel as if, back to the topic at the beginning, that if you pick up some books by Tommy Wonder and read his theory on misdirection you would learn a lot of great ways to redirect the attention of the spectators so well that you could put a final load in full view and not get caught. So I believe with a lot of practice of the right things that your hand size should not be a factor in your success. Point can be proven when you see a small child playing piano like a star. I play piano and I know a lot of chords were hard for me to stretch to at first, but if you practice you can make the moves, or find new ways of doing the moves, but no matter what there is no fast track method and I feel as getting rid of the final load is just quitting because its too tough. There is always a way to get things done with a little practice a creativity.
Message: Posted by: DomKabala (Jun 25, 2011 07:25AM)
No final loads in this routine (after the candle vanish)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEqUrmXLV_A

Cupsamagically,
Dom :) ;)
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jun 25, 2011 11:05PM)
@Roger:

Once you have the required 50 posts, you will be able to access the Secret Sessions. There is a wealth of material in there about final load logic.
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Jun 26, 2011 12:00AM)
Wonder who's hands were doing the teacups and balls? Anyone know?
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Jun 26, 2011 08:00AM)
In Ammar's book, Gazzo talks about not using final loads when they would step on crowd reaction.
On a much lower scale, I have sold hundreds of sets of Adams cups, to real people, for real money using the forth ball as the final load.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jun 26, 2011 11:54AM)
This may be so, but Gazzo doesn't perform the cups and balls without the final loads. If you re-read the Gazzo section in the Ammar book, you will see that he does mention stopping after the third orange. When he refers to not doing the final loads, he refers to not doing the other three oranges and the melon.

BTW, I may be wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure that the interview in the book was done before Gazzo had his stroke. In other words, it's at least 17 years old. Gazzo's routine is basically the same, but certain aspects of his performing are a bit different.

Why reveal the fourth ball, when you can just as easily load in a golf ball?
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Jun 26, 2011 06:18PM)
Point taken, I misread Gazzo.
When I first started deming cups I did use a plastic golf ball thing. I stopped years ago for several reasons. I wasn't including the golf ball and most folks rightly felt it was beyond their ability. Layman want a smart looking trick that they feel they can do right away. I'm going to disagree with psychic reverend, when I sell something, I want the purchaser to actually be able to do it. Whether or not they do, is another matter.
The dem I show uses only the one turn over move,repeated four times. That greatly simplifies the explination The different phases are actually identical, but disguised by changes in timing, acting. I throw away the first pass, the second is done in exaggerated slo-motion that is ridiculously open, the third is a retention of vision kind of thing. Then I stop, lose interest in the props completely for a beat and then do a gag that lets me produce the forth ball on the of beat and let every thing be examined. Not great magic, but it is commercial in the sense that it gets real money from real people, every time. And they go away happy.
That's in the magic shop; in the parlor with my Charlie Miller's I use four La Cross balls.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jun 29, 2011 12:07AM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-09 23:34, cajuninms wrote:
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands (can't even palm a card) and I need to know; Are the final loads really necessary, and if so what small loads could I use?
[/quote]

When I read Mark Wilson's routine in "The Encyclopedia of Magic." He suggested having three lemons in your pocket. I can't imagine having three lemons in any pocket (coat or pant) that wouldn't look like I had a goiter!

I thought about this for awhile and then used some red yarn to make golf ball sized balls. Reaching the end of the routine where the three little balls keep appearing under the cup, I patter that they're probably hard to see because they're so tiny but there really is one ball under each cup. (Showing the golf ball sized balls that I snuck in at the point where I was supposed to be sneaking in the lemons.)

I am considering a lime to produce under the stack at the end claiming that after the show, I'm going home and opening an ice-cold Carona.
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jun 29, 2011 05:43PM)
[quote]
On 2004-04-09 23:34, cajuninms wrote:
I am a 14 year old guy who has really small hands (can't even palm a card) and I need to know; Are the final loads really necessary, and if so what small loads could I use?
[/quote]
Ed:

Thanks for bringing us back to the beginning of this whole topic.

To cajunims, I point out the example of Max Malini, who was famous because he had hands that were extremely small, yet he managed to palm cards and other objects very well. If you can't palm a card, you need to read what Malini did. Of course, by now, you are about 20 years old, and barring some kind of odd accident, you are probably bigger.

You don't have to palm final loads.
Message: Posted by: yin_howe (Aug 22, 2011 04:18AM)
[quote]
You don't have to palm final loads.
[/quote]
I think that this is one of the secrets that make the CnB Magicial!
Message: Posted by: Dr_J_Ayala (Aug 22, 2011 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-29 18:43, Bill Palmer wrote:
[quote]

You don't have to palm final loads.

[/quote]

This is very true. If you do find yourself doing this, you had better look at your routining and your performance practice (or lack thereof)...
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Aug 22, 2011 06:39PM)
My loads are in my palm till they get to the cup with 3 different amounts of time held out.
So that means I gave no thought to the routine or the practicing thereof?
Yeah well there's no action with the 3 balls so that means I'm swimming upstream anyway.
I'm just extremely lucky that people dig my bits I suppose.
Statements like "you had better..." do little for me.
Message: Posted by: Donnie Buckley (Aug 22, 2011 07:53PM)
Being "in the palm" and being "palmed" are actually two different things.
I suppose I could say my loads are in my palm also, but for the split second that one is residing there, they are not palmed.
One of my good friends is a full time close up performer - works surrounded all the time (you should see the restraints he puts on a classic palm for these conditions!) - he is quite adamant that the cup must "come to the load" and not the other way around. I would not say he palms a load at all - he loads baseballs into a full size Don Alan Chop Cup.

But it sounds like HerbLarry is actually concealing a load in the hand for a period of time. That's fine as long as you are not working surrounded and the load can be fully covered by the hand. That is not always possible.
I think Yin Howe hits it right on the head when he says "I think that this is one of the secrets that make the CnB Magical!".
Message: Posted by: Donnie Buckley (Aug 22, 2011 07:58PM)
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that the tricks with the three little balls are just an entertaining distraction to allow me to sneak the big things under the cups.
To me, it's not really complete until the finale, and that's what makes the trick memorable [i]and[/i] lasting.
Message: Posted by: yin_howe (Aug 22, 2011 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-22 17:45, Dr_J_Ayala wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-06-29 18:43, Bill Palmer wrote:
[quote]

You don't have to palm final loads.

[/quote]

This is very true. If you do find yourself doing this, you had better look at your routining and your performance practice (or lack thereof)...
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2011-08-22 20:53, Donnie Buckley wrote:
Being "in the palm" and being "palmed" are actually two different things......

.....But it sounds like HerbLarry is actually concealing a load in the hand for a period of time. That's fine as long as you are not working surrounded and the load can be fully covered by the hand. That is not always possible.
I think Yin Howe hits it right on the head when he says "I think that this is one of the secrets that make the CnB Magical!".
[/quote]

I think Mr Palmer's statement can be better worded as "u do not need to hide the final load with your hand"..

Most laymen may think: how the hell did the baseball get in the cup when it's too big to hide it in his hand!"
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Aug 23, 2011 01:05AM)
[quote]But it sounds like HerbLarry is actually concealing a load in the hand for a period of time. [/quote]
Yes I am.

[quote]That's fine as long as you are not working surrounded and the load can be fully covered by the hand. That is not always possible.[/quote]
Or there is no visible movement obtaining the load, the hand is in a most natural position, and attention is directed 2 1/2 feet away when the loading process is done.
Verbal, physical, logical, practical, and natural direction motivate the loading process. The hand with the load is the most insignificant thing on the planet even after it has done it's job and begins the business of quietly putting another layer of innocence on it's intentions.