Would be interested in hearing from other c&b collectors as to how they would generally compare the craftsmanship of higher-end cups being produced now (e.g. Sherwood, RNT II, Porper, Riser) with higher-end cups that were spun, say, 40 plus years go (e.g. Brema, Burtini, Paul Fox/Danny Dew, P&L).

Fortasse

First of all, it's important to remember that Danny Dew did not spin his own cups. These were done for him by Perigee, for the most part, later by Rings and Things. However, Danny did the polishing and finishing work on all but the ones from Rings and Things.

As far as the craftsmanship is concerned, it's about equal. Burtini spun cups for many different people -- Harry Stanley, Davenport's -- for example. The one thing that has come back to haunt us on some of the cups is that the older craftsmen sometimes did not anneal their brass cups as well as they should, which caused problems down the road.

If you buy a high end cup now, you will probably be getting quality comparable to, or better than, the ones made 50 - 75 years ago.

Bill :

Prior to the 20th century, cups (at least those that have survived) seem to have been very crudely made. This seems to be the case with cups (tin) that have survived from the Civil War era and, on the other side of the Atlantic, tin cups that were standard issue with magic sets (mostly French)in the late 19th century. As a general proposition,do you think this is correct?

Fortasse

Not at all. There were lots of brass cups made as well. The cups that Ken Klosterman has that were on the Monitor were very well made. They were brass. So are several other sets that I have seen that are contemporaneous with these. You can't judge the cups the pro's used by the magic set cups that were made in France.

Normally, when it comes to form over substance, I'm not as nice as I should be. Experience has shown me that nothing is better than results for judging effort. But I can fully understand how to a collector, form can well matter more than substance. In this case, substance is not the resulting effect. (I can cheerfully admit now that after nearly fifty years in the professional entertainment industry, I have four guitars that I won't sell. Only two of them ever made me a dime. Although one of them certainly put bacon in the beans. It has nothing to do with their value or the craftsmanship.) Value is very subjective. (All we have to do is ask our wives why they choose us!)

Perhaps it is fairer to see collecting as a "hands-on" method of comparing craftsmanship but then objectively ignoring it for the values of collectability.

Your question is thought-provoking well beyond which cups are better made. Thank you!

Bob Sanders
Magic By Sander

Great comments, Bob! My friend Jay Malbrough used to say that he preferred apparatus that had been used by Magicians of bygone days because the old stuff had more "Magish" in it. It's taken a few years, but now I understand what he meant...

Julie

Thank you there Miss Julie! Having you in my corner is valued indeed.

I hope Christmas in Arizona was as nice as it was here in Dixie.

Somethings certainly do have more "Magish" in them than others. There's magic in just touching them.

(Now how objective was that?)

Bob Sanders
Magic By Sander

I know what you mean about the instruments. I have a modest collection of banjos. I have two from the 1920's. Modern attempts to recreate them have fallen far short of the mark. However, there are modern instruments that are every bit as well made as the older ones. The people who made the better ones are not the ones who did the reproductions.

I wouldn't part with my 1925 Granada DeLuxe unless I were forced to give it up.

And, like you, Bob, I've never made a dime with it!

Bill,

That's how we can justify our collections!

"I have never made a dime with this property. The potential for getting rich is still inside. Make me an offer you can brag about."

What do you think?

Bob

The only thing I ever collected with any thoughts of an "investment" was stamps. Then I sold my collection. I got about a dime on the dollar.

Since then, I've collected simply for the joy of the art, history, charm and "mana" within the objects, themselves. I used to play the banjo for a living. I quit that when I went into full time magic. I sold my instruments and used the money to finance illusions. Well, sometimes to pay rent. Now that I can afford them, I purchase the things I want. I always wanted a pre-war Granada. The history behind mine has an odd connection to magic.

It belonged to a fellow named Mike Longworth. Mike was the man who re-started the inlay program at C.F. Martin, Inc. His uncle was David Price, who owned the Egyptian Hall Museum in Nashville. Mike and I made contact through a banjo players' e-mail forum. When he found out that I was a magician, he asked if I would like to meet his uncle. So the next time I went to Nashville, I visited David Price. From there, I also met a fellow I do some work with from time to time, who is a big time collector of historical banjos.

When this Granada came up for sale, I jumped at the chance. It's my "baby." I just play it for fun. I don't EVEN want to use it to earn a living! So, when someone comes over for me to set up a banjo for him, I bring out the Granada and let them play it.

I don't even charge for the drool cups!

Life is too short to go through it with ugly cups and bad banjos!

Bill
I feel the same way about my Bacon and Day Silver Bell #2.

I know what you mean. Those are wonderful banjos. Is yours a tenor or a plectrum?

Bill
The B&D is a tenor and I have an old Epiphone plectrum.

Those are both wonderful instruments. My main instrument is 5-string, but I also play plectrum and tenor.

If you ever need any restoration parts for your B&D, I know a fellow who has everything from bracket nuts to parts for the internal mute system.

The "Magish" in somethings never changes. Maybe that is the test of time?

Bob Sanders
Magic By Sander

That's absolutely true.

Carrandi is running an auction with some geniune Robert-Houdin clocks. Talk about workmanship!