A fooler.

Personally I only ever perform for laypeople, and I've used quite a few of John's routines, including this one. I'm particularly fond of his mentalism type routines with cards, which I think are very effective. These are baffling to laypeople, and he puts them together so cleanly. If you're interested in entertaining laypeople, he has tons of stuff you can use. I always look forward to seeing what he puts out.

After seeing this announced I also remembered reading it recently (a month or so ago) in the fantastic "Me My Cards and I" book. But I still may pick this up. Yes, I already have it. Yes, I know how it's done. In all fairness though, I have bought a couple Cameron Francis effects lately that I also already had in print (even some Bannon videos). The reason I still think they are worth getting is that
A) You get to see the creators vision (which often differs a bit from mine) as to how the effect plays.
B) The creator may have tweaked it a bit since its first appearance in print
C) Often times the creator has made a major change (or it is one of a few presentations that works) but mostly...
D) Video is different because there is no time or space limits (like trying to fit it into a books format) so I find I learn "a little more".

To be honest, the trick is simple and quite excellent when you do it once. But it can't really be done several times to the same spectator or you might give some clues

This is true of many, many effects, including great classics such as the cups and balls.

"So, I'd like you to select a card in this very particular way...

"Now gather the cards up exactly as I say....

"Now mix up the cards in this peculiar fashion, exactly as I say...

"Ta-daa! This is your card."

Not for me.

Presenting it that way would not be for anyone

I think you mean "not for everyone."

Even though this nice little effect fools lay audiences really well, with some thought you can apply numerous engaging presentations in a way that makes the moves appear to have some kind of meaning. For example, you could label the three initial piles as 'Past, Present, and Future' and then present the moves to fit a narrative around that premise - including the reveal. I might actually work on this myself. (I've also changed one aspect so that I always know the exact position of their card).

For sure, but my point stay valid:I have hundreds of tricks that I can do several times to the very same person without being caught. It's not one of these tricks, at all.

Original Out of sight out of mind is clearly 11/10 when it comes to card magic. This is hardly a 3/10. This takes absolutely masterpiece from card MAGIC and makes it feel like heavy procedure mathematical TRICK...

I just don't get why, if you like Vernon's Out Of Sight Out Of Mind, you don't just learn that. It is not THAT difficult, for heaven's sake. It's on one of the Ammar videos and there's nothing impossible there. This, like too much of John Carey's stuff, is tediously procedural stuff for lazy amateurs.

To characterise John's magic in this way is deeply unfair. John streamlines routines by simplifying procedures and eliminating moves. This is something that Vernon himself advocated on many, many occasions. This makes John's magic accessible to magicians and hobbyists of a lower skill level; nothing wrong with that. In fact, this actually stops people butchering classics, like OOSOOM, that are far beyond their current level of skill. John is certainly not pandering to "lazy amateurs".

When compared to the Vernon original, "Little Vernon" gives you almost the same effect with fewer moves. It also allows your participant to mix the cards after the thought-of selection has been made. This is something you cannot do when performing OOSOOM. The downside is that it doesn't involve the entire pack. I think that this is a worthwhile trade off.

Marty

P.S. The mixing procedure being used is the invention of Paul Curry and it is very deceptive. I've been using it in similar tricks for years.

I believe, as many others do, that the strength of OOSOOM is largely dependent on creating the impression that the spectator can select any card from the whole deck. The selection handling has to obfuscate the restricted choice aspect of the trick to make it deceiving and amazing.

John Carey’s handling does just the opposite, i.e. it makes it plainly obvious that one has to choose a card among three. Also, it’s all openly procedural. All in all a poor handling of a terrific effect, IMHO. However, the “lazy amateur” characterisation is uncalled for.

There are many other versions of this effect and some very cleverly simplify either the shuffling/placement sequence (Paul R. Wilson’s Out Of Your Mind) or limit the number of cards (four in some cases) without sacrificing the perceived aspect of full deck choice. A later Dai Vernon handling was published in The Vernon Chronicles Vol 2 which gives more choice to the spectator (12 cards) and the distribution of the cards is set with two riffle shuffles. Worth investigating if you like this effect.

Hi Claudio,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm familiar with the variants you mention - the R. Paul Wilson one is especially good - but I still prefer the original handling. I'm not defending this particular trick of John's. I'm defending his approach to magic. I'd consider it a form of widening participation. An educational ideal that is very important to the future health of magic as a performance art.



A spectator may remember it this way, dependant on your scripting. However, Vernon's original procedure for the trick does not support the idea that any card from the pack can be selected. It is still a selection from a group of nine taken from the top of the pack. Even so, I do agree that if you can create this impression, regardless of handling, the trick will be more deceptive.

See Ammar's performance below. I think he does manage to do this.



The only thing he's added to Vernon's handling is to give the spectator the chance to shuffle the nine cards before they're lost in the pack. Again, this is something you could do when performing "Little Vernon" (if you think the selection process seems too restrictive). Personally, I really don't think most people see it as a one-in-three selection; it's as a one-in-nine choice. The justification for the procedure is that you want them to pick a "random" playing card.

One aspect of OOSOOM that I've never liked is the odd and rather suspicious questioning that takes place as you spread through the pack. It is obvious that you're trying to zone in on the location of the selection. This weakness is clearly present in Michael Ammar's performance, although he does attempt to hide it with patter. This could be improved with better acting, e.g. pretending to mentally divine the thought-of card. John avoids this issue entirely by forming three piles; this can be presented as a way of testing your spectator's intuition before you demonstrate your own powers.

I will concede that the original handling is superior, but only when presented correctly (even Michael Ammar struggles to do this). I'm sure John would also agree that "The Maestro" knew best. However, "Little Vernon" acts as an excellent set of training wheels for beginners to cut their teeth on before attempting OOSOOM (or one of the variants you mention).

Marty