What would you say are the most innocent looking cups (excluding "found" cups)? Riser's "Innocent" mini-cups and RNT II's "Classic Cups" both come to mind. Ditto the old Ravel cups. Would be interested in learning about others.

Fortasse

I think all cups extraordinarily innocent looking unless the magician makes a mistake and draws attention to them unnecessarily. Only magicians would think that cups are suspicious and full of guile. The "innocent" designs are ugly by comparison, in my opinion, and do nothing to enhance a routine. Sometimes a bit too much thought can be put into something and this is one of those times.

The funniest part is when one designer comes up with (what I consider) an ugly design, and then it STILL gets copied by others.

That cracks me up.

Makes you wonder if the first designer did it on purpose.

Well, I don't know if I've ever seen an "ugly" cup design - beauty IS in the eye of the beholder afterall, but I appreciate your answer Frank.
For a cup to NOT look innocent, it would probably have to be VERY unusual and even then, if an ornamental cup fits the performance style, costume and other props, then it's not so unusual in that setting.
Maybe I'm the wrong guy to answer this... as I like an ornamental cup. In my opinion, you are using cups in a theatrical production, so they CAN look as ornamental as you like. It's theater, glam it up if you like.
You can always let the audience inspect them first. No matter how fancy the cup looks, it is still just a cup.

I don’t have the experience of those that perform professionally or continuously, but I have never been questioned as to whether I am using an “innocent or normal” Cup or not. To me they all look like something a magician would use and I see nothing wrong with that. To me most routines appear as if they are just that routines and justify the use of such Cups.

IMHO, for a Cup to look innocent or normal, it would have to be made of glass, ceramic, plastic or paper… what most use every day.

I totally agree with Don… “I don't know if I've ever seen an "ugly" cup design - beauty IS in the eye of the beholder,” though I don’t care for aluminum Cups.

I guess it all comes down to how the Cups are premised to be used.

Thanks,
Bruce

That's why I said "ugly by comparison". None of them are truly ugly.

I bet they all look innocent to spectators.

Hi Sean!
The cups you listed are the ones that came to my mind.

I know you said "excluding" found cups. Found cups (I Feel) really go back to the spirit of the trick. I think what helped the routine originally blow minds was because the magicians might be using a set of cups you in fact own or have used at a restaurant. Or the cups might be common items like coconut shells or sea shells.

Magicians have to now "prove" their normal looking cups are in fact normal by handing them out, flipping them over and showing the insides; however nonchalant.

-todd

Borrowed.

I concur with Andrew.. borrowed is the most innocent you can use.

Bob Read normally performed with three teacups or coffee cups that he borrowed from the venue he was working. The balls he used were made of the center of a piece of bread. He even borrowed the final loads, whenever he could.

However, even the Sherwood cups, as fancy as they are, do look a lot like punch cups.

The old "Hocus Pocus" style cups are quite innocent looking.

Oh whoops, should have read the original post more thoroughly, specifically the "excluding found cups" part. Sorry about that.

Personally, though, I was lucky enough to get trained using awful cups and cruddy balls, and as such if I ever was going to purchase a set of cups for the cups and balls, I'd probably hit the dollar store, save money on the cups, and spend the rest on some means of transport that will keep them from cracking.

That's probably a backwards way of doing it.

I don't really think it is.

I had an extensive amount of correspondence with Bob Read before his untimely death. He felt that the cups described in Hocus Pocus Junior were the first purpose-built magic props.

Many magicians have used "found" cups, though. Mike O'Rady used cups he picked up somewhere.

I've seen many posts that state that we couldn't drink out of the cups that we use for magic. That's not true at all, although I'm sure that some of them would add a rather odd flavor to the water -- especially the brass or copper ones.

"Stadium" cups make very good cups for the routine.

But then, we are getting back to "found" cups.

I agree with Frank - cups are as innocent as you make them. This is reflected in the ease and naturalness that the performer shows in handling the cups.

Unlike Hocus Pocus and his contemporaries, we're not in an age where spectators believe that real magic is being performed. They know you're doing 'something' to make the balls appear and disappear (regardless of the cups being used). The skill is making your audience unaware when that 'something' is happening and combining that with an entertaining routine so that they're enjoying themselves so much that they don't care about the means the effects are achieved.

I designed my cups routine to be able to be done so the cups never touch each other during the routine. This was back when I had my silver/gold engraved Sherwoods and wanted to reduce any marks on the cups. I eventually sold them and now use the Sherwood coppers. I don't care about the marks anymore but as a nice side-effect I realized that routine can be done with practically any cups at all. So there's no issue with stacking, wobbling, sticking, jamming, or even using similar cups.

I do still require that I can put a ball on top of each cup.

So Fortasse... I guess it's Classic Cups.

But there is also everyone's first set of cups and balls: the little plastic ones in the Adams set - they are very innocent looking.

Richard -- it's kind of funny that you mention that we are in an age where people don't believe that real magic is being performed. Interest in the occult and the paranormal is at an all-time high. I'm still trying to figure out whether Miranda Aldhouse-Green is anything other than an archaeologist.

If you cloak anything with the right amount of mumbo-jumbo, and word it in modern terms, you can convince the spectators of almost anything...as long as you can keep a straight face!

I don't think that laymen (I hate that term but can't think of anything to replace it right now) care to be honest. I've never had anyone tell me that the cups look suspiscious. The most common comment I have had on the cups themselves (especially with Sherwoods) is "I thought there were about 6 cups there not three..." though that's just because of the beads.

I never bother explaining abouththe cups or having them examined either. perhaps is what you; as a performer, project...

Bri

I've had it suggested that the cups have trapdoors.

John

That's a great opportunity John. What did you do.

If you don't like the word laymen, how about "gilpins"? I don't like the use of the word "mundanes," which the SCA seems to delight in. To tell the truth, there are a lot of people in the SCA who are much more mundane than some of the "mundanes" they denigrate.



This would be a great place to ring in a solid cup.