I'm looking into getting a dye tube. I was watching Fielding West video, I thought it would be a nice little trick I can use as a backup or something.

My question is what is a good size silk for the Vernet Dye Tube http://www.tannens.com/shop/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3881also, also is a regular silk good or should I use a diamond cut silk?

William

Hi William

You have several sizes of dye tube according to the silk size: 12", 18" or 24".
Most of the dye tube will work with 18" silks.
When ever you buy the tye tube it say the size of the silk you can use with.

I use the Vernet tube and use the 18 inch diamond cut silks from Bob Sanders...it works great!

If you want to work with larger silks look into the palmo. Duane Laflin makes a great one..I use mine in every show. I use 18" silks..

I own the Vernet Dye Tube. The design of the Vernet makes it very easy to do finger-clip steals. It will take a very thin momme 18" inch silk, but the instructions recommend using '14" inch silks ' (which is an odd size . Usually they come in 9" , 12" , 15", 18", and 24" size.) I can use it with thin 18" and this video shows it with what appears to be 18" silk ( or maybe it's 15" ?) ---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkgvupLxR2I

I also use a Palmo Ball . The capacity of the Palmo is greater than the Vernet Dye Tube. A regular 18" silk is no problem for the Palmo. (and like it's name implies , it is very ergonomically designed for easy palming.)

If I had to choose one or the other I'd go with the Palmo.

The 18" diamond cut looks like a 24" square silk but will work in a dye tube made for 12" square silks. Remember that silk sizes are determined by measuring the hemmed edge.

Bob Sanders
Magic By Sander

PS --- Currently I have some real silk 15" and 21" square silks to fit antique magic props. There are eleven colors and they are $3 and $5 each until they are gone. They do look much better than using the 12" and 18" silks as substitutes just because they will work in vintage props.

I've used the Johnson dye tube for years. (no longer made) Have never found another to compete with it. I've traded , bought and scrounged to find them. I have 2 left in pretty good condition. In a routine I do, I change 3 2" regular sponge balls into 3 12" silks. Works like a hot ***. At 71 maybe they'll take me to the finish line.

Nala

Hi Shadpoke here. I think this guy uses a dye tube but how would he just blow out one. I have tried emailing him but I haven't got a response. Can someone help? Here is a you tube link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIlvXaxDh8I&feature=related

Thank you.

THis is not a commercial effect on the market, it is this perfomers version of the Harrison Silk Blow. The gimmicks are not available on the market any longer. Yes, it uses 4 very small plunger type dye tube.

Sorry, but the Harrison Silk Blow has not been on the market for at least 50 years.

Without giving away Tricky Ricky's method, this is something that can be done using ANY color changing silk gimmick, including a home made one as described in my Dollar Store Book 2 e-Book on "Color Changing Silk Gimmicks." As I point out in those e-Books, when you change the color of just one silk at a time, it is a color-change silk gimmick. The term dye tube is reserved for the gimmick used when you change the colors of several silks at a time.

As you can see from the effect used in the video, this is just a change of color of one silk at a time with each sheet of paper. The tube of paper simply replaces the closed fist used in most color changing silk routines, and actually makes it easier to conceal the gimmick(s) than when working with just the hands for concealment.

The gimmicks are available though you do not need a real dye tube. Duane Laflin sells the routine and gimmicks. I think Trixie Bond was selling a version a few years ago.

The actual Harrison blow I think was last made by Magic Inc. Magic Inc. sold a book "Lots of Lawton" which had Don Lawton great routine for this. There was also some other pretty good routines also.


Richard

I am sorry to disagree with you Richard, but the mini plunger dye tubes are not available. I have checked many resources, and they are none to be found.

Also to do the trick as in the referenced YouTube video, you do need this exact gimmick, otherwise the handling would not be as clean as he was doing.

Yes, Magic Inc. made or sold the trick, that was 50 years ago. Time flies!

Hank Lee had it listed a 5 years ago, until the Café members started talking about it, then it was taken off his site.

Can't get Trixie Bond's products page to load. (?) http://www.trixiesmagic.com/

Wow.....


Im lucky I have two sets of Harrison's silk blow~!

I did get a set of plunger tubes from Duane not more than 4 years ago. But as I said, you do not need the plunger tubes. You can use a straight tube with a little modification. Tim Balster uses one and he worked Abbott's last year.

Richard

I must be getting senile. I took the lightest weight color changing silk gimmick in my collection (made of aluminum) which uses tape, not a plunger, and had no trouble recreating all the moves from beginning to end, clean as a nun's wimple. I must be doing something wrong. Perhaps you should try this before deciding it can't be done, wmhegbli.

As for the original poster, William Wortman, you should also give it a try with a one-silk-size color changing silk gimmick (tape or plunger, it matters not), which some on this forum unfortunately call a "dye tube" thereby confusing the gimmicks, and if you can figure out how it works, you'll need one gimmick for each color you plan to transform (unless you come up with a different routine and reuse some of the colors as in the feather plumes color transformations).

Spellbinder, we are discussing Shadpoke's post, it maybe should have been in another topic by itself, but this is how things go in these forums.

Thinking about your idea spellbinder, I can see how a tape may work, but I am a tradtionalist, what can I say, if it was done with a special plunger tube, that is what I would stick with.

That proves I am getting senile. I meant my response to Shadpoke and not William Wortman. It is a waste of time being a traditionalist in a world that is constantly changing. One gets covered in so much dust of one's own making.