I am learning John Mendoza's routine for the cups and balls, but my observation applies to all cups and balls routines:

One should not place the fruits into the cups for the final loading. One should instead place the cups over the fruits. It looks more natural this way. Do the experts out there agree?

This entirely depends on the process and surrounding action. In Tommy Wonder's great Two Cup Routine, there is a strong example of each way of doing this.

Due to my hand size, I always place the final loads into the cups.

The fact is that this move should be taking place during a moment of misdirection anyway, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on how natural it looks, as the audience should be looking elsewhere. To me, placing the loads into the cups doesn't look so unnatural that it would throw a spectator off, were they to see it, so I've never worried about it.

To demonstrate, in this little routine, the ball was shoved into the cup.

http://youtu.be/xvE0gTouogg

That's a beautiful routine, Al!

Al, I've watched your YouTube videos before and I'll say you are very unique in your style of sleight of hand, one of the best I've seen. I hope to one day be as good as you are.

I can't really see you shove the ball into the cup, so my observation is wrong.

The final load maneuver is supposed to be an In Transit action that should go unnoticed. You are merely placing the cup into the receiving (loading) hand in order to free the other hand so that it can point, pick up the wand or small ball on the table. The French Drop can be more deceptive if you mask it as an In Transit action to free the hand that holds the object.

Caféinst
Thanks, I appreciate your straight forward attitude. And, I would not say you are necessarilly wrong. When I design a routine, I do not pick techniques for the routine. Rather, I look to see what technique is needed to accomplish some end then that technique is developed. As Mr. Baker points out, it depends on the situation you are in. For example, in my research I found this interesting technique for the step. This is when the cup edge must drop behind the table edge. If the ball is on the back of the hand when the hand rises from the lap, the cup and ball can meet as the ball enters the cup. Then as both come into view, the hand is turning palm up. It appears extreamly deceptive. There can be a little stick on the ball so it can be held on the back of the hand. I have not used this in any routine.

I do not percieve that my skill level is very high. What makes my magic, magic is paying attention to detail. The purpose of the above cup and ball routine was to demonstrate the use of eye contact during moves. The specific focus in that routine was to show that during a false transfer, the eyes should flick up and glance at the audience. My hope is that when you watch the video, you will not notice the false transfers in the routine because the glance at the audiene labels the transfer as meaningless. My point is that looking at the audience or not looking at the audience is not a skill thing. You just need to remember to do it.

The factor that makes my false transfers effective is that the receiving hand closes under the transmitting hand. This does not reqire skill. It is a matter of doing it. My experience is that the vast number of magicians out there refuse to give that concept credability. Many will say this is just an opinion. But look at how effective that cup and ball routine appears. The transfer move is used three times in a row. There is no tendency for the audience to say, "It is in the other hand." It is not skill but simple understanding of what works.

Leo H
As you use a name for the load technique, might I ask you where you got it from? The motion works well in the routine above because you want the motion to be unnoticed. However, my guess is that such a device should not be used in the French Drop. In that action you want the audience to be totally aware of the move. The trick to this is not obsecuring the move but haveing the audience label it as innocent and not worth attention. I feel that doing such a move with the French Drop would tend to confuse the observer.

I just PM Al on this routine, because like for many the false transfers used here are magical. Al mentioned that he has a book almost finished on false transfers, so if we encourage/push him a little bit the almost finish could be finished and done and we can get a copy of the book.

So here is my Al, "Finish it up"

Pablo

Hi Al--I learned from John Carney's publications that false transfers should go unnoticed--as if the transfer did not occur. In other words, the object just vanishes in your hand. John Ramsay had this effect on Jean Hugard. After witnessing Ramsay's magic on a trip to Europe, Hugard kept insisting to Vernon when the Professor pressed him for information on Ramsay's techniques that the coins just vanished in Ramsay's hands.

The term In Transit Action is, I believe Ascanio's and it's widely used by magicians like Giobbi in his publications.

+1 for "Finish it up" !

I think this is another time when the situation governs the mode, although I tend to lean toward this line of thinking, preferring it when it is possible, practical, and not something that will add confusion. I would also like to add that there are times when I will do a false transfer as a reactionary move (not unlike the concept of moving the cup to the other hand in order to free the original hand for a defined purpose), rather than a key point action, but then secretly transfer the item elsewhere. Most importantly however, I will then noticeably put the "supposed" object back to the original location. It is entirely bluff at that moment, and it can really throw off anyone with proclivities for backtracking. It reads complicated, but it really isn't.

AL: Great handling. Flawless, well thought out. Deceptive.

Simple and direct magic. Enjoyed it AL.

Paul

Wow. Mr. Schneider, that was as close to perfect as I've ever seen. The casual gesture towards the end is such a fooler. Still fooled me even though (I think..!) I know exactly what I'm looking for and when it's happening.

I threw that routine together in response to some comments here on the forum. It was an attempt to show the power of glancing at the audience at the point of transfer to label the move as innocnet. In the clip I did not want to just do the transfer sequence by itself as I planned on putting it on youtube and wanted a complete routine. I have had several pdfs out on the transfer move. I decided to put them all together and add a ball transfer sequence. It presents Schneider Vanish, Schneider Classic Vanish, and a ball vanish. Each lesson is concluded with a small rotuine in which to use the material just taught. This is the work pabloinus refereed to. An interesting aspect of the routine is that three different color balls can be used as the routine does not use a gimmick. The book is titled The Theory and Practice of False Transfers. I wrote the work not expecting interest in it for it is a book of long, tedious, and boring drills. However, the intention of the book is to enable a serious student to master the transfers and perform the moves with as much skill as I do. It is available on amazon dot com. All of the thoughts I have presented in many threads on false transfers on this forum are contained in this work.

Leo H, this backs up what you pointed out about Carney's comment that transfers should go unnoticed. I guess I have a little bit of a diffferent attitude. The move must be noticed but labeled as nothing happened. Perhaps this is splitting hairs. In much of my magic thinking my goal is to get the audience to look direclty at the moment of deception. I do not mean the moment of magic revalation. I feel the audience must see the move happening and must label it innocnet. The idea is that when they see the magic result, the cause of the result has a strong label on it that the move of deception had nothing to do with the magical result. Therefore, I believe the transfer should not be obsecured.


I recollect reading about the conversation between Hugard and Vernon. I recollect reading someplace that Ramsay had someone write up his method of transfers. I recollect him being upset that the writer did not include the motion of Ramsay's eyes. I find this intresting in that the purpose I designed the little ball routine was to demonstrate the power of eye usage. When I watch that little routine myself, I miss the false moves.


Well, I babble.

All the best.

Perhaps what Ramsay meant is that the transfer is seen peripherally but not consciously registered in the mind. If the mind did not register the transfer, it is misremembered as never leaving the hand. Based on my own experience, false transfers like the French Drop cannot stand alone. Spectators will correctly surmise that the object is in the other hand after the vanish. These maneuvers stand a better chance of deception when couched inside routines. Spectators will experience difficulty back tracking the false transfers while at the same time following the performance as it moves along.

'ppreciate your modesty, Al. The upward glance is a nice touch but that little routine is full of misdirection throughout, from the timing of the moves within the patter and the use of the index finger to blur the moment of the loads -- both little and large. As for the lapping, squint as I might, I can't see the moment it happens. It's a fine example of how even the smallest seemingly casual bit is more than sly hands, but should be a total experience.

Well, Al, the last book of yours with a lot of boring drills (that I read, at least) was your book on Zombie. The drills in that book are so good, so focused and so responsible for making the ball that I'm going to have to get this one, too.

Very nicely constructed teaching routine. The vanishes, even though I know the technique, fly right by. And there is nothing to see on the final load. I know where it's probably happening, but even ignoring your eyes, there's nothing to see.

Leo H
I cannot speak for Ramsey. Nor can I deny that what you say is true. What I can say is something about my overridding philosophy relative to my moves in magic. I strive and put great effort into getting the spectator to look directly at any move I do while I do it. This can counter the obvious when someone say, "Its in the other hand." If they are looking directly at my hands during the transfer, know what I am doing without question, they just may decide the whatever is in my left hand. I won't say it works all of the time, but it increases the possibility.