A buddy of mine asked me a question the other day and I wasn't sure of the answer...so, I'm turning to the great minds of the Café'.

How much physcial wear and tear should a set of Linking Rings endure. What I mean is, when looking a set that's been heavily used, should they have scratches and dings all in them? Also, how often do welds break if ever?

The set my buddy has is from an unknown maker...they're 12s, and one of the welds just broke and he's searching for a machinist to get them fixed. I've pointed him in the right direction for that, but his rings look pretty beat up.

My set (that you saw me with in my Ring Video that I posted on here a few days ago) are still very prestine but are only about 2 years old. My set beyond that were a cheap stainless set but I never remember them being scratched up.

Anyone out there know an answer to this little mystery?

I have a set of Merv Taylor rings from maybe the 1950's that still look brand new.
I have a 12" Bumper set from about the 70's that also show no wear.

My beloved Owen Orb Eternal Rings, live up to their name "eternal" and look as good as the day they were made.

The best are worth the investment, and can look good for thirty-years and not split.

High quality rings should never bust a seam, and if quality steel, need little care other than a good rinse and polish periodically, chrome plate if not good can chip and ding easily.

Steel rings may also be sent out for professional polishing if they get tiny scratches and dings over the years.

I always keep mine in a soft cloth case, and make a huge effort not to drop them on cement floors, other than that, they should not need extra care.

Very small scratches are not important under lights when the light is refracted from (say) a spotlight, but finger smudges can look bad under lights.

Beat up props are not reputation making and need replacement.

I don't recommend cheap rings to anyone who has worked up a quality routine, and I personally don't care for the sound or sheen of aluminum rings.

Not sure that answers your mystery, but hope it helps.
Magically,
Walt

All depends on the routine you're using them for. More clanking = more wear & tear on the props. I'll bet if your friend is using Richard Ross' routine, his rings will last forever.

The 12 inch Owen Rings I have look like they did when I bought them many years ago. They have been dropped and banged innumerable times. The weld is invisible and should never fail. They are very expensive but will last a lifetime.

Larry

My Owen 10s look fine and are 20 or so years old. I sold my 12s and they looked like new after 10 or more years.
My Porper 12s are too new to tell, but I assume as good as the Owens.

Good linking rings are generally not found today... I Have some rings I purchased like in 1980 (used them for 42 years)and they still look new. They had the Gene Gordon routine and another basic routine included.They said nothing about Suds or Bumber,I however assume they are bumpers. Quality chrome plating will Never chip of flake off... My rings where dropped once on the concrete the 2 rings. You can hardly tell,you would need a microscope to see it.THese rings are actually 10.25 size and 1/4 stock.

I have also a 9 ring set of Rings and Things rings,that include 2 specialty rings ( Overs*** and L***er)... These are great quality.They where purchased from a sailor inthe Navy that wanted to sell them and needed the money. I have never used them just practiced with them.

I just acquired my mentors set of Rings N Things Rings and will start using them,10 inch size. I will measure them when I get them in a week to see what they actually measure in size.

For stage size rings 10 is good because they pack easy,can be done for a large audience that most will encounter and a parlor show also. The 1/4 stock is also thick enough for all moves and visibilty.

The new rings such as magic makers have gone to a much thinner gauge with seams that are ok but, no where near as good as the Suds or Rings N Things rings. Also the gauge of the ring has gotten thinner to save money. They are NOT using 1/4 rod but something thinner. This make the rings more fragile and easier to bend.

In my opinion even the expensive Porper rings,Owen Rings and Proline rings, the gauge is to thick. This makes certain ring moves less deceptive unless you are further away. Those 10,12 and 13 inch rings should be a little thinner.

The TCC/Ammar rings gauge should also be thinner.


These are some of my observations from 42 years of using the same rings, and doing the linking rings.

Don

Don- I have to concur with you and all the points you made, I used to use Owen or Proper !2" rings (3/8" diameter?) that were gold plated.
I've retired those and prefer to use a good set of 10" Magic Masters or vintage Rings n' Things.

Did you mean Magic Makers instead of Magic Masters? If so, how were the welds? I looked at a couple sets of Empire Rings and wondered why they were wasting good metal on shoddy workmanship.

I think he meant...Ken Fletcher's Magic Masters that is now defunct, I believe.

You're right and that's too bad. A classic.

Doug

All right I’ve got to tune in on this . I’ve performed with a set of Owen rings12”set for 40 years .One Single ring finally broke . I took it too a custom welder at Jesse James motorcycle shop in Austin .It turned out like brand new The guys at his shop are master craftsmen they custom build $300,000 motorcycles I bought a brand new set of 12” from Owens before they close shop so I assume the new set I have now will last me the rest of my life .So Owens rings are the only one I know .

Even the premium commercially available linking rings you find today such as the "Michael Ammar deluxe rings" (which I own) are a mere shadow of good linking rings of the past. They truly "don't make em like they used to..."

I totally agree...at least on the more commercially available rings. Hopefully, one day soon, a new master craftsman will surprise us all!

I've been using a set of 12 inch Owen's for years now and absolutely love them. After using a set of 10" rings for quite sometime, I switched to 12 inch and really do prefer the 12 inch rings. Rarely do I use the 10 inch rings anymore. I also purchased, just before closing, some 15 inch Owen's - beautiful, but much heavier than I anticipated.

Yes, Magic Masters, not Magic Makers. Two different companies. Magic Masters was a chain of magic shops that usually operated in high end shopping areas (there was one at Downtown Disney in Florida, which I believe was the last of the chain in operation before it closed down forever in 2011.) Magic Masters shops were themed to look like a library, the walls lined with mahogany bookcases, and the floors covered with Oriental rugs, reproduction classic magic posters on the walls. The old Magic Master's website (still available via Archive.org) mentions: "Each of our Magic Masters retail locations is designed to have the "look" and "feel" of Houdini's personal library in his 26-room mansion in New York City".

"If a customer buys a trick, he is taken behind a hidden panel in the bookcase to learn its secret."



https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php?title=Magic_Masters

Some well-known magicians such as David Williamson worked for Magic Masters at one time or another.




Some of the remaining Magic Masters stock is still available. Their 8" Linking Rings are being sold by a few different dealers. I haven't found any of Magic Masters' 10" rings available.

https://madhattermagicshop.com/magicshop......id=67560

These are not the same thing as the "Magic Makers" linking rings which use a thinner metal rod. The Magic Masters rings are 1/4" thick rod.




Does anyone know for sure who manufactured the rings for Magic Masters? At some time in the past I read that either Bumper/Suds or Rings 'N Things may have made the rings for Magic Masters, but I don't know if that's true or not.

David:
I've owned a couple of Magic Masters sets. They either came with Bumper or Suds instructions (in addition to the MM booklet).

Thank you for confirming that the Magic Masters rings were made by Bumper/Suds.

I also have a set of 15 inch Van Dokum Linking rings.I have stopped using them.They are overkill for 90% of shows I do.They also take up more space in my case and are heavier to travel with.BUT if I performed in large arenas/theaters of 2000 or 3000 I would use them.

To answer the original poster very good rings should last a lifetime.At least 50 years or even longer.It however takes about 35 years or so of constant use before you find out!Unless you find out from someone that has used them that long that you know of (which is unlikely).

I say watch dropping them on concrete and the
like.

They should or could have scratches or dings.However this is part of the character of the rings and you should be proud of this,which means you have entertained many many audiences.

If they are chromed properly no chipping will occur.If they are real stainless steel and dropped they could get a scratch that can be
buffed out.

The weld should not break unless it was poorly made unless you constantly bang them purposely on hard floors.In this case any weld could break even quality rings.All rings are WELDE
D together. The more time is spent with each weld,quality technique, the longer it it will last.

The audience and spectator will be watching you and not the scratches and dings on your rings,which they won't see.

Just don't have rings with obvious weld marks that usually will ruin the illusion.

The thinner, cheaper rings make certain moves easier, and more deceptive like Chris Capehart's double crash link. After crash linking one ring onto the key, you grab the other single ring and repeat the move! It doesn't seem possible to do with the linked ring in the way, but it won't interfere.

The drop thru unlink works well with the thinner rings. I would have to give up these two moves with thicker rings.