talkmagic.co.uk

I recently saw a thread on here asking for peoples favourite Oil and Water effects and so I wondered what people would say their favourite out of this world effect was. Purely out of interest, not trying to determin the best method because that's purly relative to the magician performing it.

Mine for the longest time was the version found on the Devils Picture Book. I liked this because of the ability to get the entire deck into play, but also because it eliminated the need to do that very odd change over that you see in many of the classic versions. However, for a while now, my favourite out of this world effect has been my own. It too uses the entire deck and hasn't got any odd switches in it. Plus has a great kicker at the end.

So, what's your favourite version?

The classic version, although a recent demo of Out of this Universe has me wavering.

That's interesting. I have writen my method in my new PDF book, and as I couldn't think of a decent name, named it out of this universe. I'm guessing it's not the same though as mine has only been sold for this last month so far but it did give me a shock. Where did you see this demo?

Well, OOTU has been around for a while. Since the 50s, I think. Harry Lorayne published it, as far as I know. As for the demo, it was a friend.

Few, it was the one I had found. Thankfully it's only similarity besides the plot of the spectator seperating the colours is the name. I guess out of this universe probably isn't the most original name though so I shouldn't have been suprised. That is a very nice version though.

Out Of This Universe is Harry Loraynes take on OOTW. Here is a clip of the man himself performing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FfA4IyHiz8" target="_blank


You should probably change the name of your version. It would perhaps be ok if it were a different effect with the same name. But since they are both essentially the same basic effect it may be better to re-name yours.

jim

I was a bit late with my reply and see Harry was already mentioned and you've already seen a clip

I used to do DB's version from The Devils Picturebook, but didn't like that it was set for just that effect if that makes sense to those who have seen it.

I now use Ray Carlyle's from Carlyle Touch Vol 2, impromptu, borrowed deck of cards, and they name the colours themselves.

I should mention that the version of OOTU I saw was much quicker than the one shown on the video above. That routine is way too long for me!

I loved Paul Harris' "Galaxy" back when I experimented with OOTW.

Ted wrote:I should mention that the version of OOTU I saw was much quicker than the one shown on the video above. That routine is way too long for me!

Harry is a very fast paced worker. If you think that was too long can you imagine how drawn out it would be with the average performer! Personally I have never liked Out of This Universe. The original Out of This World is far stronger to my mind. I suppose if you have to present the Universe version it is best to think of it as an exercise in colour separation after shuffling rather than the clairvoyant presentation of the World version. In other words, they are two essentially different tricks.

I honestly think I have the best version of Out of This World. It is really the standard, original version with some extra touches. The biggest improvement is the George Blake method of setting up the cards before the trick starts. You do it OPENLY with a play on words and this makes the trick completely impromptu. There are other touches too which I have no space to get into. For example here is a great bit from my version. I ask the spectator to give me one card he is not sure of. I put it aside until later. After the trick is over I show the discarded card and it turns out to be the Joker!

BTW the George Blake method was printed (for those who wish to know) in Max Andrew's Magic magazine in Volume 2, issue 10 (January 1954) on page 268. You can get the whole run of the magazine on Lybrary for $26 (£16ish).

mark lewis wrote:There are other touches too which I have no space to get into.

Do you think that, if you find the time later, you might post the details in the protected Routines area? I for one would be very interested to see them.
T.

I haven't the energy. I shall just give you some clues instead. First, is the George Blake method. I don't have to explain that since Heckler has explained where to find it. The Joker think can be found in Paul Clive's classic "Card Tricks Without Skill". Another idea is that I put the half way marker card face upwards in the pack. It saves me counting silently. I always use the "mistake" gag but that is pretty standard so there is no point in explaining it.

This is one of the best card tricks of all time, if not THE best. However, it should be done at the right time and the right place. It will not get shouts of amazement so much as stunned silence. However, it is the trick that will make them talk about you for years and in some cases decades.

There is too much visual card magic nowadays. I don't mind it but you can have too much of it. Just chewing gum for the eyes. Nothing to baffle the mind. The strongest kind of card trick has a cerebral quality to it rather than a visual quality. This one fills the void admirably.

I use OOTW as a second phase in a routine after Luke Jermay's Colourblind. Coloutblind is a beautiful effect but has no natural climax and is essentially a "Look what I can do" effect. OOTW after it is perfect however, allowing the spec to recreate what you just did as well as providing a climax to the routine. For a while I obsessed about different handlings etc but have generally stuck with the original but I may well take a look into the George Blake method and see if I can incorporate anything.

More often than with cards I perform OOTW with photographs as part of a psychometry demonstration and use the White Star handling.

If you're looking for an interesting impromptu version with no deck setup (the deck can be freely shuffled) then a look at Cosmos by Greg Rostami might be worth your while. There's a review here.