Thanks to Bill again, we get the facts of the birth B SM.

Bill, how I wish we have on-line real time access to the tremendous amount of cup information in your brain! You mentioned before about publishing a book, I hope it will come sooner. What will it contain?

Bruce,

I agree with you. I do have the stainless steel Monti too. In fact I probably have the greatest variety of Monti compare against other RNT2 cups!

Francis

I can't really back this up with any statistics, but I think the Monti design is the most copied of all the cup designs. The vast number of Indian made knockoffs would support this.

Bill there is truth to what you say; as of late there are also all the PF style knockoffs... Penguin, Magic Makers and those copper clad Chinese knockoff Cups.


Do you think that the Monti style Cups were knocked off so much because the shape is easier to spin compared to others? Maybe all the new PF style knockoffs have come to light because their shape is more desirable to those buying Cups at the moment… I don’t know.

Thanks,
Bruce

The Penguin and Magic Makers cups are all the same. Same spinners, same producers, same importers. The other cups, the ones by Zenneth Kok are really not as much knockoffs as they are cups in a similar shape. They are too big to be considered knockoffs, I think.

Even then, we are still considering only two knockoffs. Also, if we consider the ones from England, Spain and Italy a couple of years back, then that's a total of 5.

There are at least 4 different Indian manufacturers making Monti cups, as well as some in China, and there are some in Italy and the US, as well. I think it's the simplicity of the design that makes them a target.

The funny thing is that Harry Monti isn't nearly as upset about this as Jeff Busby was about people "stealing" his intellectual property.

Bill... you bring up an interesting point, “the ones by Zenneth Kok are really not as much knockoffs as they are cups in a similar shape. They are too big to be considered knockoffs, I think.” So if I understand you correctly, you are leaning towards the thought they are not knockoffs unless they are the same size?

I kind of lean that way myself... I hope this makes sense... there are really only so many basic shapes that Cups can have, truncated cones, stubby rounded, variants of cylinders, etc. I really can’t fault some whose work is considered similar to another’s. There are only so many ways to use shoulder beads or saddles... where I consider a Cup a knockoff is if its size, weight and material are exactly the same as a known original design.

Reading the above might not make sense... I am having problems getting what I mean into words; maybe after another posting or so we can flesh out what I am trying to say.

Regarding your Busby comment... I find it funny that he got so upset over a design he had nothing to do with originally and who he went after, but yes he did own () the intellectual property and that’s business.

Thanks,
Bruce

There's some question about whether Busby actually owned the intellectual property. In order to own it, Jeff would have had to purchase the IP from the person who owned the IP, which would probably be the Paul Fox estate. So it would be Margaret Mandel, not Danny Dew. I don't think Danny acted maliciously. I don't think Danny had a malicious bone in his body.

The other thing concerns whether it was actually PAID for. Questions have been raised about this.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, though.

All Jeff actually owned, when it comes down to legalities is the PF trademark, which he allowed to expire.

Another group of  cups I have that have similar shape are those with one bead. I have James Riser cups, Owen Aniversary cups, RNT 2 Shibby cups, RNT 2 Sistic cups (smaller) and the limited MK cups (also smaller). I will put up the photos shortly. My purpose is purely to help in identifying them by knowing the differences.

Francis

There are a number of variations on this style of cup. It's almost a rounded cylinder.

You are so right, Bill. I have problem identifying them until they are placed side by side. Even then, the Owen cups and RNT2 Shibby cups are so similar in size and shape. Here are the pictures (first 3 photos).

http://s1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff450/Francisngkl/My%20Collection%20of%20Cups/Cups%20Comparisons/?action=view&current=P6051245.jpg#!oZZ1QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs1236.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff450%2FFrancisngkl%2FMy%2520Collection%2520of%2520Cups%2FCups%2520Comparisons%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DP6051245.jpg

Frome left, James Riser, Owen Aniversary cups, RNT2 Shibby, MK limited edition and Sistic cups.

The 3 cups beginning from the left  have similar height of about 3" with a diameter range of 2.8 - 3". Saddle Diameter is the same at 1.8" and skirt height varies marginally at 0.01" difference. James Riser cups can be distinguished easily with its hall mark inside the cup and its saddle dimple. It only has copper as its material used. It looks differently when you put it beside Owen Aniversary cups and Shibby. RNT2 shibby cups have powder coating in the interior of the cups. The bead is also bigger than that of Owen. The two smaller cups,MK cups and sistic cups are 2.7" in height, so clearly are smaller. MK cups with a distinct 3 lines cut on the skirtand therefore is visibly different from the Sistic cups. Furthermore its only produced in Brass.

Francis

That's part of the fun of collecting. You begin to notice the similarities and the differences.

As I re-read this post and ponder over Cup shapes; I do believe that there are only so many shapes that will be produced and only those that have come out with something novel will get most of the credit. From what I see at TC&BM it kind of starts with basic popular Cup shapes of the time and as time goes by spun Cups come into play... I have no idea as to who should be credited with the Traditional Shape. Bertram did change things then the PF and Monti shapes. Will Morrissey be credited with the cylinder shape they currently use (IMO bad shape).

Maybe the introduction of Derllin... Durlan... (Spelling) the plastic introduced by Mike and Jake might be considered as a new Cup design.

I can’t say that Sherwood really came up with a novel Cup shape; however the placement of the shoulder beads and engraved options make his Cups different (not to be taken as an insult to Sherwood).

I don’t think that I can fault artisans that spin Cups who’s shapes are pretty close... however if they spin a Cup that is the same size, weight & material of a established known design... maybe then does it become copying.

Again I hope that I am making sense and not rambling... I usually am not at a short of words but can’t seem to get my meaning down in the post.

Thanks,
Bruce

The use of Delrin was an interesting innovation. The cup shape itself is basically a three bead Paul Fox shape. Delrin had been used in the CNC machining process because it allowed for inexpensive trial pieces without damaging the lathe or the cutters.

I think Mike and Jake introduced the use of Delrin for cups as a final product, though. I can't recall any earlier ones. It took a while for them to be accepted, though. Auke was making larger cups for test runs.

The Sherwood design is actually quite original, because of the platform saddle.

Bill... you are right I should have mentioned the Sherwood saddle... here is a question for you...

Is there a magician or Cup spinner that should be credited for Cup design that are traditional in shape as found in the “Early Cups” and  “Traditional Cups- 20th Century” of your fantastic museum? Was there a Paul Fox of that time period?

Thanks,
Bruce