Does anyone have personal experience with stage routines that involve borrowing a finger ring (a la Ring Leader or the like)? I was chatting with some older magicians that were convinced this stuff lives in close up and simply does not play well on stage. I am looking for a routine that is relatively "pure" sleight of hand with just a spectator's borrowed ring, involving several vanishes or whatnot that would visually work well in an audience of 1000+.

Ring on Wand ... billy Mc Comb's version is a stage routine. So could Jim Ryan's ring on wand from rope.

No personal experience but Tom Stone has an excellent stage routine with 3 borrowed rings.
It's on his Vortex DVD.

JNeal: Thank you for the suggestion. Is it anything like this Bergeron performance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHX_ru8HRSo)? Because I honestly found it pedantic and was not fooled. I'm looking for something a bit more convincing.

ThomasR: I have heard good things about Stone. I assume I need a linking finger ring gimmick. Again this seems more like a one-hit-wonder effect. I'm looking for something with multiple phases. I have a lot of rope experience so it would be nice if it was some type of rope/string + borrowed ring.

The search continues....

Tom Stone's routine is a linking Finger routine In my suggestions, I was limiting the list to effects which apparently use a single finger ring.
if you are looking for tricks involving multiple rings, certianily a linking finger routine is ideal. you might also look into a ring or (rings) into a nest of boxes.

As for the conviction level of the other ring on wands I mentioned..... yes they are more convincing

Ddamen,

So you are looking for finger ring trick that will fool you.
Has many phases to it.
NO gimmicks and only pure sleight of hand.
Can be performed on stage for a thousand people audience.

Sorry, no such finger ring routine already exist. I guess you will be the first to create such a routine. Your first hurdle is to find a finger ring a thousand people can see in the back of the theater.

Of course if you create it, that does not meet your 1st requirement.

Remember, if you have knowledge of how magic tricks are accomplished, you will not be fooled in a pure sleight of hand trick. That does not mean the audience will not be fooled.

Also, you are looking at from the wrong perspective, Bev Bergeron could not use misdirection in a video, as you are looking at the whole picture. The spectators in the video, was seeing what Bev wanted them to see and pay attention to. That is just not possible without editing the video.

Your description sounds like close up with the focus on pure sleight of hand with a small item like a ring. I have done a borrowed ring to nest of boxes routine that played well on stage. It has some sleight of hand, but the stage emphasis was how the borrowed ring got lost as it was being flung to the volunteer, and then reappeared inside three boxes.

Bill: I suppose it's more than being fooled. I was very impressed with Bob Millers routine, even though I had seen all those sleights before. I just did not particularly like the moves/misdirection McComb's routine uses. It's a personal thing and I just prefer a few more layers of deception. You are unfortunately telling me what I know deep down now --- a stage routine based on a tiny little finger ring is a battle that will be fought uphill.

Tony: After spending nearly the entire day agonizing over this issue, I kept returning to your same train of thought. The way to make a tiny ring play huge is to have some clever type of ring-to-impossible-location miracle. The only gimmick required would be some type of lippincott box or nest of boxes. That is a situation that could be appreciated across the entire theatre. I think if I used a considerable amount of humor, a few of the standard close-up moves (e.g. "fishing" with the rope to catch the ring) might be enjoyable to a large audience. But again, they are just minor appetizers for the finale "impossible location" appearance.

I'm really struggling looking for a new modality to add to my stage show. I was hoping this type of routine would be it, but it feels like I'm awkwardly forcing a close up routine into a stage setting. The search continues...

You may find Off interesting. It uses a graduation type ring and a rope with the core pulled out. No other gimmicks. While it was originally a close up trick on a table, I adapted it for walk around. The difference in handling is minimal. And I could see it working well on stage. The idea is to have two helpers. One on the left and the other on the right. The ring is always dead center between the three so the audience can focus on the action.

Just a thought.

Right now, I do not know where to get a copy of the routine. I think it is on an L&L DVD.

I have Al Schneider's "Off" booklet, it is good, but it is only a the finger ring off a short length of rope, not a full routine that would cover what would be considered a routine for a live Stand-up stage show.

Al, maybe you should republish it with the stand-up version as well.

If you need a copy, I can make and send you a copy so you can work on it.

Keep working on it. I think it's a very good idea. I think a multi phase routine could play really well.
Ring on rope, ring flight, linking finger rings, ring to nest of boxes. I could see several of these turning into a really nice routine.
Even though rings are small... The fact they are so personal and from the audience makes it play really big.

Thomas: I agree, there are as many good reasons as bad to use a borrowed finger ring on stage.

Schneider: Thanks for the suggestion. I noticed you published "off" and then "new off." Unfortunately I could not find a performance, so I will track them both down to compare. I like how you described using two spectators as a border that helps keeps the finger ring in frame for the audience. Apparently Spellbinder uses a move from your "off" routine to perform "Fellowship of the Ring," where a ring flies from one rope a spectator is holding to another rope that is simultaneously pulled through a second spectator's body. Sounds epic

Bill: Thank you for explaining the difference between Al's booklet and the stage-type handling he was originally describing. If Al is fine with it, please feel free to send any details to my reburbia "at" gmail account

Thanks for all the optimism and realism thus far

Thoughts:

First I would not borrow a ring for this trick. The legal consequences are appalling. I have given great thought to this. And we could discuss that at length.

Since the props are normal they can be fully examined. Or use a stooge that supplies the ring or have the president of the company that hired you take responsibility for the use of his ring. Just thoughts.

Second, I have heard of great magicians doing great things with very small objects in front of audiences of thousands. Torn and restored cigarette paper, vanishing an eight inch silk, a number of card tricks, coin in the bottle. I have heard it said that the expression on the faces of the helpers is what makes the trick. Then, cameras and big screens bring much to the audience.

Third, yes Bill, please send him a copy.

I would like to make a video of the routine I have in mind. However, I would need to practice it to make it public on Youtube. Sorry but that eats up a lot of time I am presently devoting to a hot project since before Christmas. And being 73 slows me down.

We will see.

Bill Hegbli I look forward to the day we can get together and chat. I always think I will run into you as some convention.

Lok for Fred Kaps doing my ring on wineglass stem on you tube

Https://youtu.be/pyXVDBiTjgg

Al, we did meet at the Minneapolis, Minnesota magic convention years ago. You were in the hallway doing some magic, then when I made the trip back, you were finished. We spoke briefly.

The booklet offer was to you Al. I don't freely give magic material away, unless I know the person and he can actually use it. I assumed from your post, you did not keep a copy for yourself, so you can publish it again with added information.

The benefit of borrowing a spectator's ring is twofold: it's very personal, and it avoids any thought of duplicates. If I use my own ring, a stooge's ring, or have it prearranged, I'm afraid it will ruin the illusion, surprise, or emotional attachment. I read earlier threads (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=236489&forum=4) about this subject though, and I must admit having some diamond pop off or denting the ring by sending it across the room would be awful.

I considered using my own ring and then applying a piece of tape (or tag) that the spectator could sign. It would at least eliminate thoughts of a duplicate. But it does seem to detract from the elegance of the presentation. If I refrain from doing effects as I truly want because of some fear, don't the terrorists win?

Pete: I have seen that Kaps video on your website many times; it's just so classy. I am trying to minimize the number of gimmicks I use but I'm positive one day I will try that routine.

Thoughts in whose minds, the 1000 people you are standing in front of. How will they know it is the guys actual ring to begin with.

How will it ruin the illusion, surprise, or emotional attachment, of a thousand people.

Your justifications just to not make any sense when you apply your conditions/requirements you stated earlier.

I don't think you grasp the difference of performing on stage in front of an audience, and a one on one, with a few onlookers.

It sounds like you are only concerned with your needs and not the audiences. No matter what you try to prove to an audience, all they have to say, is, you did with some kind of trick method, and your bubble is burst.

Your job as a performance magician, is to entertain them, not try to prove you actually have magical powers, and do not use trickery to accomplish your miracles.

I only see a very poor performance on your part, trying to prove you are not using special equipment, totally borrowed items, and only your superior skill to accomplish your tricks. They are called "tricks" for a reason.

I think you are in magic for the wrong reasons, and I hope you see that, but I also wish you well in your path to being a "pure" magician.

Bill your post was incredibly condescending. Please do not spare me anymore "advice" in the future.

I believe borrowing a ring is more deceptive than supplying my own. I believe the strongest illusions leave the audience with the least amount of workable theories. These are not radical thoughts, and you can disagree politely.

Trying to prove I am not using "special equipment" is not "poor performance." One of the reasons people love Allen's Pain Game is because the props look completely innocent and normal.

I tried very hard to not be condescending, but encouraging for you to see what magic performance is all about. If you noted my final comment, wishing you well, was to say, I will no longer assist you as your thinking is so different for the performance of magic. I just tried to share my knowledge of 50 years in magic. Thus, trying to shorten your learning curve of what the performance of magic is. I am sure you called all your teachers in school condescending as well.

I have no idea who Allen is, but effects called Pain Game, is not magic, in my opinion. How do you know any of the reason people would "love" this type of effect because of the way they look. Care to show your survey results. No, I guess that is your opinion as well.

Sorry, I do not believe in your ideas, thus we are not on the same wave length. That is okay, in my opinion, but I guess you do not care for those that do not think the same as you, again that is okay. But it shows you are not looking for help, and open to all avenues of discussion.