I have a Billiard Ball routine where at different points in the routine the balls disappear only to be removed from my table. Now although this type of move is something of a standard in ball routines, I find it a little less than magical. It is usually used (as in my routine) to obtain the ball's little friend.

What I am looking for instead, is a device or container that I can remove a ball, from leaving it empty, only to produce another ball from it a few moments later. I've tried a couple of different methods but am not happy with what I have come up with.

Any ideas?

Magically yours,

Michel Fouche

http://www.comedybymagic.com

Think of it like a chop cup. It might help in inspiring some moves there.

Thanks. That's one angle I haven't looked at it from. I've looked at a T.O. Trunk and at a moving loads type thing so far. Also just a box that I tip the balls out of one at a time so the emptiness is implied. Much like a Foo Can.

Michel,

You might want to look at the Harbin Ball and Tubes. It is not a very well known effect but it might be what you are looking for. I have a friend of mine who bought one and from what you are describing may work for you.

http://www.abramagicshop.com/general-mag......c-trick/

David

Maybe you would enjoy using a Billiard Ball Stand.

http://www.abbottmagic.com/Abbotts-Ball-......tand.htm

http://www.owenmagic.com/New_Items/new_items.html

Hello Michel, did you ever find a solution to your billiard ball production box? I'm an illusion builder and just got the exact same request from a cruise ship magician. I have not committed to the project yet, but I'll probably take it on when I get some of my current projects behind me. It could certainly be accomplished electromechanically, but I want to keep it simple & reliable, so my plan was to capture the motion of the lid to drive the ball delivery mechanism.

I know, old thread BUT I have a philosophical view to consider.

Even though I could build an "Endless Ball Production" box I wouldn't Because ...
It misconstrues the concept of performing skillful manipulation.
Why would anyone use a box to do what the balls (and some skill ) are intended (designed) to do.
The idea is an oxymoron. Multiplying balls, from box, huh?

Now. If you wanted a box that made 8 balls vanish (or a hat) for the end of the routine, that is another story and is logical.

If you wanted a box to make the last ball "travel" from your hand, at the end of the routine, that's also a different story.
But to use a box for endless ball productions is akin to using a cigarette pack to produce quantities of cigarettes - - -, and if you go that then YOU don't get any credit for great manipulation. All you get is recognition for "doing tricks"

Anyone can buy a box for ball productions but not everyone can learn great manipulation.

Would you (general question) would you prefer to earn the audiences applause because you're a great manipulator or would you rather have them see you as a trickster?

I don't attach this philosophy to all magic, just where you have the ability to rise to a higher level of performance - and therefore elevate the way the general public sees us. IMO

You make a valid point Jay, but you are looking at it from the viewpoint of an educated magician. You and I understand that manipulation is a higher art form and we understand the time and effort required to master it.

I believe the typical layman only sees magic, and does not understand or care how it is accomplished. He only wants to be entertained.

So I believe anything that makes a routine different, interesting or baffling is fair game.

I think the typical layman does--at least in some cases--care how magic is accomplished.

The example I usually cite in my unfinished treatise "Heavy Magic" is the different ways that a silk handkerchief can be produced. Here is a list of 6 ways to produce a silk, from the least magical-looking to the
most magical-looking
1) From a square circle
2) From a phantom tube
3) From a ghost tube
4) From a TT
5) From the bare hand while the back of the hand is toward the audience
6) From the bare hand while the front of the hand is toward the audience

The same perception can be seen in stage illusions. Making a person defy gravity can be accomplished by:
1) a Grant Magic Carpet
2) a Sword Suspension
3) an Aga levitation
4) Kalanag's levitation
5) Copperfield's levitation where the lady floats out toward the audience with the camera showing shots from in front, in back and above

The differences of each of these methods on the audience's conscious mind is progressively more amazing. In the example of the silk handkerchief production, a spectator may look at the production from a phantom tube and think to herself: "I could go that if I had that silver tube." But in the example of the production from a bare hand when the palm of the hand is clearly shown to be empty and the fingers widespread, the spectator likely will think: "Where did that handkerchief some from?"

I think we as magicians should strive to make the magic appear as unexplainable as possible. How successfully we do that depends in part on the level of our skill. And as our knowledge, skill and experience increase, our success in making the magic look more unexplainable increases. Consider, for example, the difference between the way David Copperfield levitated a woman in his first TV special (a pretty straightforward AGA levitation as I recall) to the way he levitated her in a later special, when the lady floated not only up into the air, but forward toward the audience as well, with the camera showing the illusion from in front, behind, and above. That levitation was so amazing that some very knowledgeable pros suspected that David edited three different performances into one videotape. When one well-known magician contacted David about that, David assured him that it was one performance--and explained to the magician how it was done, whereupon the magician published a letter in one of the magazines sort of apologizing that he had accused David of camera editing.

Another example of how magic tricks evolve to become more amazing is the coin assembly effect. Originally it was done with four cardboard squares covering each coin. Then people started doing it with fewer cardboard covers--until a method was developed for doing it with no cardboard covers at all--just the hands waving over the coins.

----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez

Doesn't Patrick & Mia keep making a ball appear under hat. Never seen it done but, I think they do or did it?

Bairefoot

IIRC, Petrick would produce a ball from a hat and place it in a basket held by Mia. This happened three or four times in the act as a sort of running gag--except it's not a gag so much as a continuous production throughout the act.

----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez

Yes, Patrick and Mia's "ball from the hat" is very much in the category of a running gag. It is a production of a Zombie sized ball from a hat. This production is repeated several times, interspersed with very skillful manipulations an d productions of conventional billiard sized balls. The 'takeaway' for the audience is NOT that these jumbo ball productions are a substitute for skill, but rather a humorous moment that is repeated throughout the act.

I think that the OP (who only replied ONCE!) has a lot to learn about performing--and ENTERTAINING--!!!

Jay said it well. Anatole, too. JNeal clarified Petrick & Mia's "big" ball from hat" bit as a running gag. (I've seen "P & M" do it, and it was a lovely bit.

Why anyone would even consider producing billiard balls (or golf balls) from a BOX is beyond my comprehension.

(The late Howard Flint's BOWLING BALL from the ATTACHE CASE, is "just a bit" DIFFERENT!)

Im glad I remembered who did it then so they could talk about it. LOL