Generally speaking, do you find that Chop cup routines are easier for your audience to follow, compared with 3 cup routines? I realize that a lot depends on the clarity of the routine itself but I'm wondering whether a single cup and a single ball (?) have a way of concentrating the mind and vision in a way that is more difficult to achieve in most three cup routines. I don't perform with Chop cups at all so I don't have any personal perspective on this question.

......And just why do some of you prefer the chop Cup over the more conventional 3 cups setup? Is it for the reason suggested above, or is it because of other things like portability; better for tight performing spaces; better control over your props, etc. ?

Fortasse

Paul Daniels and Don Alan certainly thought so. My preference is a BOWL routine, over the chop cup... I get more fun reactions with it.

I like it because I can incorporate other things (like the shot glass and silk that Ron Wilson used) whereas I feel doing that with a three cup routine would muddy the effect and make it more complicated...unless of course it was routined properly. I wouldn't necessarily say that the concentration is better with the chop cup - it just allows me to focus the concentration on different aspects while still using the cup and ball.

I know a lot of restaurant workers use chop cups (my good friend Mike being one of them) because of the portability and the small amount of room it takes up on a table.

I like a chop cup routine, because it gets to the punch line quickly.

Agreed! With three cups it's just like "okay... I get the point, the balls move around a lot magically. What else ya got? Oh... more balls moving around... thanks". With the chop cup its more like "Okay... I get the point, the balls move around a lo--- whoa! where'd that big ball come from!?".

Don't discount the three cups routines. They have a place. HOWEVER... keep them easy to follow and understand. That is one of the reasons the Vernon routine has lived so long.
When the routine gets complicated, you lose your audience... and me.

Absolutely true.

I like the clarity achieved with just 1 ball and 1 cup. As has been mentioned already, it does pack lighter and gets to the payoff a lot quicker.

Right now, I'm using a variation of the Scotty York cup routine. 1 ungimmicked cup, 3 balls. All moves are very similar to C&B workers, the only thing I'm doing differently is I use a wand for the vanishes. Gets great reactions.

Pete, I had to go back and read your post a few times. I thought you said that the 3 cup routine was one of the reasons VERNON lived so long. LOL!

Probably was.

IMO, I don't consider the two tricks equivalent anymore than an Invisible Deck routine is the same as a Brainwave Deck routine. They are two different effects.
One cup, with one ball that inexplicable travels back to the cup, is not the same as three balls moving between and thru the cups. It's just not the same trick.
Regarding the merits of each, I like a chop cup routine because it moves faster to the punchline, BUT a good cups and balls routine can move pretty quick too and is just as magical, and probably even more unexplainable, because it's THREE times the surprise. I can't say I prefer a chop cup routine over a cups and balls routine.
Cups and balls routines get a bad rap for being dragged out too long because there is such a wealth of material the performer can choose from, so it benefits a magician to learn a good cups and balls routine, study the sleights required and design a routine that is clean and magical, but not repetitive. Some of what you will learn is applicable to the Chop Cup, but not all.
And mini cups travel just as well as chop cups do and a good mini cup routine, with a deceptive loading technique, is very, very magical to an audience.

Agreed that cups and balls, chop cup and bowl routines are all different effects with similarities within the routine. As far as whether the chop is easier to follow, depends upon the routine. All your magic routines should be easy for the audience to follow or impact is lost or diminished. A more complicated routine is made easy to follow and packs more of a wallop through "pointing."

Personally, I like the chop cup because it cuts to the chase, is magical, involves spectators and finishes with loads creating surprise and grand magical effect.

Also love presenting a bowl routine and cups n balls. They all have their place.

Don Alan did the Chop Cup, a Bowl routine and "The Darker Shade of Malini" (big load of coal under a hat) ALL IN THE SAME SHOW

Then there are pieces like Mendoza's three cup routine that lasts what, 30 seconds? Brilliant timing and those final loads hit you almost as soon as the trick starts. That right there is proof that the length of a routine isn't in the props, it's in the routine itself.

Nothing wrong with thinking like Don Alan!

Just watched Don on Youtube from the 80's doing chop cup on That's Incredible. Quick, to the point, easy to follow, and big surprises. The perfect magic trick

You just have to stop at the point where you are pinching other people's material and calling it your own.

Mr. Palmer you speak an obvious truth that is too often sadly overlooked. Claiming originality for a copied effect is pitiful.

Don Alan's chop cup opener was a picture of economy and effect.

Frank Everhart Sr. performed both a chop cup routine and a bowl routine in his bar sets that finished with large loads.

Two fantastic performers with very different styles that killed with their versions of these effects.

I just revisited the Don Alan routine again...I love the moment at which the female spectator picks up the cup at the end to reveal the second load. I don't know if that was how it was intended to play (perhaps someone else can speak to that) but it's a wonderful ending.

Don Alan ia gone. Does it matter if you do his routine?