I love this effect. I learned it from an older Michael Ammar vid. It's killer. Also try 19" band for the best result. After doing this I have them loop the band on their fingers and have it "Melt" thru again. I do a rising ring effect too.
Most magically yours,
WR

Hi,

I do CMH and then follow up doing it with a finger ring....

(thread the band through the ring and place finger and thumb into band, ring should hang loose in center of band)

Just use exactly the same "move" to PENETRATE the ring as you would with another band, you could then follow up with a LINKING routine as in "Ring on Band"

This sounded like a great idea but having tried it I'm not so sure. Because the ring is of relatively small diameter the penetration can't be shown slooowwwly which IMO adds greatly to the illusion. How do you deal with this Wayman?
Also, I like to open my elastic band routine with Stargazer which is very easy to learn when you're shown, but incredibly difficult from the manuscript.
BTW Mr Ed I just checked my Dan Harlan Vids and the first Volume is called 'The Band Shark'.The first routine on that vid is 'Bandlocked' which looks nothing like CMH.
Maybe there are different issues of these videos. I have volumes 2 & 3 also but as far as I can see, CMH doesn't appear on any of them. Can anyone else confirm this?

I do CMH with two bands first and second time as usual (maybe 2nd in spectators hands). If they still want more I do the
"single string" penetration, where the bad
"melts" through the strings of the "passive" band one after another (I don´t know the originator..).

I tried the penetration through finger-ring, but in my opinion it´s more visible, where the band goes... it does not look like
"melting through" as with two rubber bands
Martin

Bill,

The Bandshark isn't volume 1 of a set. It's a "complete" product in itself, and was put out before the three-volume set by a different company. So Harlan actually has a total of four rubberband videos out: "The Bandshark" by A-1, and "Magic with Rubberbands" volumes 1-3 by L&L. I got the 3-volume set, then also picked up the Bandshark when I happened to find it cheap -- and surprisingly, there was actually a substantial amount of good material on it that wasn't on the other three. So if you're a rubberband fiend, it's worth it to get all four.

Quinn

I also follow up CMH with penetrating a finger ring and yes, it can be difficult to pull it off smoothly. I have a little method that's worked well for me.

After setting up the ring on a rubber band as wayman descibed, I patter to the spectators about how the only way to remove the ring is to give it a little twist and it comes right off the band (my left hand holds band and ring). I twist my right hand towards myself (I also sell the awkwardness of my hand here, to draw more attention to the twist later) so that my pinky is up and grab the ring (this makes the twist really easy in a sec). I keep my left hand in the same position the whole time. Then with my right hand I draw attention to the twisting of the right hand (back to it's natural position, while the right hands pulls far away from the left. Since everyone is paying attention to the twist and the moving away right hand, the trick move goes unnoticed.

As I finish the trick move and the twist of the right hand, I move my right hand back towards the left and when it comes back to the position it started in, it is free of the band and can be slowly and visably pulled away free of the band.

CMH is an awesome trick and it fools the layman, but there's something fishy about two ruber bands to some people. When you visably penetrate someones solid finger ring, you really nail them with a strong follow up effect..

Hope this helps

Raj Madhok published the CMH with the twisting of the ring movement in APOCALYPSE, May 1987, pp. 1350-1351. It's titled "The Uncanny Penetrating Finger Ring."

Look it up.

Some good ideas about having three or four bands, but I think when you do CMH it should be so simple that it is complex. Having more than two bands, it sounds like a puzzle to me, when I was reading about some of your guys ideas, it may be that some of your spectators may think that, why can't you do it with five or six rubber bands. When you do it with two rubber bands, I think it should not be a question of how many you can you penetrate, but that's real magic. You want to get credit for the magic and not for the, wow, you're good with your hands. I think, why try to improve the perfect miracle.

to BillParky

I do it as described by "Nae Blis" not slow but it looks like I just Pluck it from the band, also I link the ring ONTO the band, it looks like the ring IS on the band with a single rubber thread going through the center of the ring.

I believe it's a Michael Ammar Technique.
and it looks Great.

I'm new to CMH, love the routine, and I'm a beginner so I just do one band.

My question relates on inclusion of the linking part. I'm wondering if the effect is dimished if you link them, because the linking is covered by the hand as you grab down on the other band. Whereas the unlinking is slowly in plain view and they can 'see' it melt through vs a 'trick' that can be done with one hand (they don't see it melt 'in').

So how many of you only do the unlinking part.. at least on the first showing.

ChessMess:

When you re-link there are two options open
1 fast
2 slow

1) if you choose the fast option then it is supposed to look like the band is just ping'ed through the other band. (I say "its when they collide at speed they just melt through each other")

2) if you choose the slow option (sometimes I do) then grab down as normal and do the move but keep the band pinched (ie dont let go yet) and show the spectator, say "look theres the first strand through, watch carfully" now let go and the second strand will LOOK like it just penetrated

done right this looks so good. (and fair)