I have enjoyed performing my three ring, close-up,routine for many many years. Mine are a standard set of steel rings. I am guessing that they are nickel-plated intsead of chrome-plated (though I am not certain)because the finish (happily) does not seem to wear off.
I perform the Roy Benson silent link move and often the silent drop to disconnect. The key is ungimmicked, and I prefer this.
I am considering the possibility of switching to the larger,more beautifully crafted Owen or Porper rings. However, I am concerned that because they are hollow, when I perform my crash links (and I often do this with gusto), the rings might be prone to damage.
Also, I sometimes like to bang a ring on the table, or encourage the volunteer to do so, to prove that they are "solid". In this way, I am very "physical" and highly interactive with my ring routine.
Will this banging cause the hollow/Owen of Porper rings damage? They sound much too delicate and "beautiful" to handle in such a physical way.
If my particular style is not suited to the use of hollow rings, can anyone recommend a set of steel rings and the type of finish (ie. nickel, or stainless steel) that thay should have to withstand the wear and tear of frequent performance?
To execute the Silent Link and unlink, I believe that the added weight of a solid steel ring might be helpful. However, I may be wrong. Do the hollow rings allow these silent moves easily?
Auke Van Dokkum at: www.cupsandballs.nl
offers what appear to be a very nice looking set of stainless steel rings that are described to be "very light, but can withstand all of the professional stage or street-performers demands".
He can make them 3/8 inches thick or 1/2 inch thick.
Any comments on the Van Dokkum paticular set of rings in comparison to the Owens or Porper? Also, any comments on which thickness is preferred and why?
Any comments or advise on any (or all) of the above would be much appreciated.