I got a light from Kent

One question: when using bright colour balls, I sometimes have a reflection which could betray the concealed presence of a ball in a cup or under it.
How do you guys avoid this (I found a solution that I'm using but I'd like to know if someone has a smarter one)

I use a flat black interior to my cups used in performance.
I really never had that problem in the past because of the cups I used.
My Brass/Church Bronze R-n-T cups are unfinished inside so they do not reflect light much, same with my original R-n-T chrome cups.
My johnson Cups have a satin interior as do my Silver anniversary cups.
My Riser cups do not have a very reflective surface inside either ...satin is the best way to describe it and of course the CNC Steel Cups Sisti made had a satin finish all around inside and out.
My copper Sherwoods are designed so that when the ball is inside they do not reflect all the way to the top, the light seems to catch inside and you cannot tell the color of the ball inside.

I guess I chose the right cups to keep eh?
Mobius

You sure did choose your cups wisely.
My solution sofar is to paint the inside with metallic painf for figurines. It doesn't reflect light but if makes more sense to me than dull black in a cup,
Actually painting corkwood balls that way opens nice ways to Conus, Paul Gertner Stephen Tucker types of routines with metallic balls. It is possible to mix one metallic ball (for the sound but painted the same way) with the three corkwood ones

It could be that if they're scrutinizing the dirty cup during the load or after, there's something else wrong besides the cup itself.

My favorite cups have finishes that do not reflect what I might be holding in my hand. It's the simplest solution. The one with the metallic but not too reflective paint is a good idea. P&L used to paint many of their cups with a metallic grey paint on the inside.

While we're on the subject of reflection:

Al Schneider wrote about having been busted by a spectator because they saw a reflection of the ball, in his hand, off the shiny exterior surface of the cup.

Al's solution was to not use reflective cups. He let them patinate and never looked back.

I use really shiny cups on the interior. I think the construction of my routine precludes internal reflection problems. I will keep an eye out for it in reviewing video though!

KG

Kent you use Sherwoods then the design helps quite a bit as does the work on the outside as far as refelctions.
Check out the Mendoza Routine on youtube.
I had a friend that spray painted his interior of his cups and yes anything like that will help. I like the look of a nicely done Satin inerior to my cups. I will try to put up a few new pics to show this.

I fully understand the problem and it is probably not Etienne's problem but one of the design of the cups and the reflective surface inside. Not so many makers think of the design besides loads and exterior funtion....Brett thought about both when he made his design.

The P&L cups are great and I wonder if you could find a Powder coating that may match it and be quite durable as most powder coats now are even scratch resistant.
Mobius

Mike,

I actually like the shiny interior of the Sherwoods. I like to stress that the cups are empty, when I start out. I intentionally cover the entire mouth with my hand as I put the balls in the cups. I don't think my routine has any points where the shiny nature of the interiors would belie any of the machinations going on.

The engraving definitely kills any reflections coming off the exteriors. I love those darned cups!

I agree with Kent. I think that the Sherwood cups are the nicest cups on the market (for magic) and they do kill the outer reflection.

Everything is a trade off: Kent keeps his hand flat over the mouth of the cup as he fairly reports. This gesture is eye catching (it's the trade off for the shiny part of the inside of the cups). Having something eye catching can be used by the performer for misdirection purposes. He must however be conscious that he needs to be doing something about his trade off: IMHO it has to be managed.

I chose a different trade off from Kent: I accepted a less esthetical inside to avoid a less eye catching gesture which, IN MY ROUTINE, would put spectators off track. I think that Kent should find some form of justification for such an eye catching move (maybe just in his patter).

We can reduce the "cost" of the trade off but there is no way to avoid the trade offs, and this cost is in different "currency" because each routine has its own "currency" and its own finance minister: thus no solution is universal. However our task as magician is to manage the trade off we choose, not in a narssistic way but with the audience in mind.