Can anyone comment on the quality of these? are the welds seamless etc?

http://www.murphysmagic.com/Product.aspx?id=48140

Or for this price, would it be better to get a set of Klamm's?

Posted: Sep 21, 2011 1:39am
They also have a Chrome set at about half the price of the Stainless Steel ones linked on the previous post.

http://www.murphysmagic.com/Product.aspx?id=48139

I got this set about a month ago. It is my first set of stage sized linking rings (before this I only had experience in close-up sizes rings). I like this set, rings look pretty good and they sound great, altought you need to practise a little to hit that right spot in the key ring so it doesent sound different. When I opened the box first time, I had to spend like 10 minutes to "fix" my key ring because it didin't look and feel right (I think this is the thing you need to do with every set?). Just some pulling and testing and now I have a key ring made for my purposes.

Because this is my first set of bigger linking rings, I don't have any experience about other sets. But as this is my first set, I have been completly satisfied for my purchase.

Riku,

An important question is, do the regular rings have invisible welds? They should be smooth and invisible by eye or touch if made correctly like the Owen Rings.

Larry

I called them today and I believe that the non chromed set is more expensive because it's stainless and I think the cheaper set is much cheaper because it's made from regular hot or cold rolled steel and then chromed. They said that it is described as being made from "chrome."

Jim

I have a set of Koran Rings from Ken Brooke, at 15-inches, with a spare key.... 2 singles and 2 keys. Any offers? PM me.

James,

Did they mention if the welds are seamless?

Didn't ask about the welds. They are researching for me if the manufacturer offers extra rings.

Jim

The most important feature is if the welds have been worked to look seamless. Then other things can be considered.

What is the thickness of the material, what does 2.0 mean?

They told me both versions of his rings are 1/4 stock. One is stainless and the other is what I assume to be regular steel stock with chrome platting. I think the Klamm rings are also not stainless but plated cold or hot rolled steel stock.

Jim

Yes, the welds are invisible. You cant even feel any welds.

Looks like this set if worth checking out.

Quarter inch stock in that size is pretty thin.

True, but it does make some moves easier. The Klamm and Bumper/Suds rings are that same thickness. I'm considering the stainless rings - may be just what I'm looking for.

Agree with Pete. My 10 inch are 3/16 inch so that makes the 12 inchers only 1/16 inch thicker. However, that is the only size available for solid 12 inch rings. The hollow rings are 3/8. It may also be a weight issue. Anything more than 1/4 might be considered too heavy to handle a full set of rings.

Jim

Posted: Sep 23, 2011 4:30pm
Talked to Mr. Klamm. His rings are not stainless. They are steel that is plated. The plating, he says, gives them a golden hue. He also brought up (without me asking) that the welds are visible. He said the plating will last a lifetime. He also said his lo*king k*y will as well.

Jim

Will 1/4 and 3/8 make a significant difference in how it looks on stage?
Levent uses 3/8 on his DVD right?
But for the price the DiFatta set looks very attractive if indeed the welds are invisible.

Hi Guys:

I've been on a cruise ship for the past week and because of the expensive and slow satellite connections while at sea, I don't get to look at this forum too often. But I happened to catch this thread today and I feel I should chime in a bit with a few random thoughts about this subject:

The only 12 inch rings that I own are the Owens, the Aluminum 3 ring set with magnetic locking key that I think was from Tannens and the Rings and Things set. Also I have tried out various 12" sets over the years at magic dealers (Van Dokken, Porper, etc) and magic friends.

Because I am a stage performer and 99% of the time I work in large (1000 seat plus) theaters, I chose the 12" Owens because they look good at a distance and the hollow stainless makes them light enough to use an 11-ring set without killing yourself and I think the stainless steel sounds better when they clink together than the aluminum sets.

I think the ring set you choose to use is determined by where you perform. If I was a corporate performer and did a lot of shows in hotel conference rooms with audiences of 200 people or less, then I would certainly get a 10" Owens set, because the 12" Owens set seems too big for that short distance. And if I primarily did a parlor show and worked for 20 people at a time then I would get an 8" set.

I have a friend, who is a very fine magician and he primarily works in outdoor events, like State Fairs and Renaissance Faires. He uses 12" solid steel rings and when I asked him why not the hollow Owens, he told me that he was afraid that if he gave the Owens chain of three to a group of drunken "bikers" at Octoberfest, they would damage the valuable rings, while trying to pull them apart. I think he is absolutely correct.

As far as the plating of rings flaking off is concerned, I could be wrong about this, but I believe you can go to a electroplating shop that adds chrome plating to automobile bumpers and have them re-plate your rings and from what I understand, this is NOT very expensive.

And as far as the welds being visible is concerned, as long as they are not giant bumps on the rings you are OK, I used Klamm/Bumpers/Suds rings in the past and I don't think that it is a real problem.

About the thickness of the rings is concerned, I do not like the look of 1/4" stock on a 12" diameter rings. Earlier this year a young stage performer showed me his 5-ring routine with an Indian set of that size and it looked too thin for my eyes. I let him try out my Owens 12" rings for his routine and he immediately decided to invest in such a set. Also I feel that when a 12" solid steel ring is thicker than 1/4" (like my Rings and Things set), they are OK for a 3 or 4 ring silent routine, but they are much too heavy for handing out to spectators, especially children. A ring like that could fall out of a kids hand and injure their toes! If a kid show performer wants to use 12" rings it is better to have lighter hollow rings.

Which gets to my last point. I am a photographer and a common thing that happens is when you start out (in photography) you get a cheap tripod. It soon breaks or does not work too well, so you put it in the closet and get a better tripod and then later you realize it is also not good enough, so you get a better and more expensive tripod. This happens about 5 times until you buy a very expensive professional tripod, which lasts for the rest of your life and the 5 older and cheaper tripods sit in the closet gathering dust. Had you saved your money and bought the best tripod in the first place you would have been better off. In fact the total money spent on the 5 cheaper tripods alone would have more than paid for the first class tripod (I am sure Pete Biro who IS a professional photographer can back me up with my observation). In my opinion it is the same with Linking Rings. So, if you are financially able, it is probably better to save your money and get the best set that matches the kind of performance that you do. All they are are welded metal rings and with a tiny bit of care they will last you your entire lifetime. I know this is true because, I have collector friends with 100 year old ring sets and those old rings are in good enough condition to be used in a show today.

Agreed.... buying junk stays junk. I use the 10-inch Owen set, and have for over 30 years. Comes out to a couple of dollars a year. A bargain.
I have half a dozen wobbly tripods and the one I got 20 or so years ago is still the killer (my pals at Time magazine suggested it).

If you can't afford good rings, do the linking ropes

Hi Guys,

Yin Howe: I have not seen or used the Difatta rings however I have ever worked with Klamms Rings more then 10 years ago which are 1/4 " solid rod, and they tend to break easily at their joints especially if you perform a lot of crash links in your act. I use to do a routine whereby I have rings thrown, bounce on the floor and link again. That damages the rings as well easily. If you are doing a slow routine (ie, Jonathan Neil Brown, Richard Ross etc) then the material of the ring may not be a crucial choice. For my routine which is faster and more dynamic, I require a stronger set of rings.

One of the best set I used for the a couple of years in the past was from Dominico Dante of Italy. They are 3/8" hollow brass rings. They have a good weight and feel however they break after a couple of years as well. Then I have to bring it to a workshop to have it welded and chromed again.

The best rings to get which would last you a lifetime are stainless steel hollow rings. Which is why I designed and manufactured my own sets of stainless steel hollow rings, the "Redefine Rings". I personally have not used or own a set of Owen rings so I cannot compare it with mine. However I have had many magicians who own both rings and told me they could not tell them apart when held at a short distance. I have a set in my shows for the past 6 years, used over few thousand performances and is still rock solid and shiny! I am more then happy with the current rings I am using.

I have to mention that I have completely sold out my rings and will not be manufacturing them for a while as the cost vs the demand is not very profitable for my company. However I did have a successful run of 4 batches, and hope it has helped many magicians out there for finding a good set of rings at a reasonable price.

I am sure some sets will be floating around the net or Stevens Magic may have a few sets left.

Good luck!

Jeremy

Can anyone confirm that Jeremy's redefine rings match the Owens in apperance? Could you use an 8 redefine set and a couple Owens in the same routine? Thank you.

Jim

I have used the Di Fatta stainless steel rings for one saason. They are well made, but showed one annoying problem: Although being stainless steel, they have a coating film similar to the chrome film found on regular steel rings. That film soon started to peel off, often producing some interesting and unwanted visual effects as the material fell off in performance. In the end, I found myself scratching the stuff off the rings to be able to use them. Would be better if the rings came without that coating - they would shine less but still look good. The price is great and the rings are good.

Due to the mentioned problem and the weight, I switched to 13 inch hollow aluminum rings made by Proline. Some moves are harder to do with light rings, though. 13 inches is a great size for linking rings, as they really look great on stage!

You can see the proline rings in action in one of my vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvzb7jc7vfA