These two moves are very useful, but they are practically the same. I feel that Lennart Green's Angle Separation is harder to do than the Harry Lorayne's Great Divide, yet Angle Separation seems to have a better reputation and is used more. Does anyone know why this is?

That's actually a war between the two of them. Harry says his method was created years ago. As always, Harry is quite dogmatic concerning this. Lennart's is different, and just more modern. It's probably more known because he gets out and lectures more.

I made a post on this about a year ago stating basically the same thing as the question posed in this thread. Shortly thereafter, I received a very mean spirited email from Harry himself. In trying to communicate back to him that I was simply stating what I knew, not who I thought invented the move, he became very mean and harsh.

Harry was just in the special guest of honor section, and he made a little quote concerning this topic that allows you to read between the lines:

"I mentioned in another post that a Swedish guy followed me around all over Scandinavia when I lectured there for magicians. He paid very close attention to THE GREAT DIVIDE, which I used to perform, but not teach in those days. I sold the manuscript. And sure enough, he came out with an "angle" thing to separate the colors. A rip-off."

Everyone has their opinion; we have all just come to know that Harry's opinion is a little stronger than anyone else's.

Finally on this subject, I think it goes back to the fact that two people CAN think of the same thing at different times.

Harry said he published a note on this sleight when he visited Scandinavia.

If someone has the note with definite proof of publishing date, isn't it a proof that he preceded others?

Even if both came up with the same idea independently, the person who published the idea first should be considered to be the originator. That is my belief.

As I have never heard about this matter, I might be missing important information. In that case, I apologize in advance.

Hideo Kato

I somewhat agree with you Hideo. The person who publishes first has the book or notes to prove it. The person who waits all their life to come out afterwards and claim that they made it has a very weak case. I personally believe Harry Lorayne made it first but that's just me. Lennart's does have its uses as he explains on the video, but it's too much to bother with as I can hardly even do the move compared to Harry's, which is a lot more direct.

It's my understanding that Lennart formultated most of his ideas and moves in the 60s and the 70s. When was Harry at his most famous?

It's a bit hot in here. I think I'll go sit in the "non-smoking" section of the Café.

Nonetheless, I will have to check out your original information regarding the color separation idea, Mr Lorayne. I always like to know the origin of sleights or methods that I particularly enjoy.

Definitely brilliant!

I'll go buy the write-up to make sure you are properly remunerated.

I realize it was orginally a separate item, is it now contained in one of your "collection" books?

Sean

Harry,


To the actual question at hand, the run through color seperation idea and the technique itself (The Great Divide) should be credited to you as you published it first.

Although I don't think that means any color seperation that uses that proceedure could be called a ripoff. The same way different double lifts aren't ripoffs.

I personally have used Lennart Green's Angle Seperation (as anyone familiar with both know) that the technique is different and more certain for me. As when I first learned the Great Divide I had problems (due to my own sloppiness). I also find the Angle Seperation's strip out to be easier.

Lennart's technique may certainly have come from Harry's but that doesn't necessarily mean ripoff, they have their notable differences from each other.

As to the ORIGINAL question (even though I don't think the asker really cares anymore, it was two years ago...) I think the reason The Angle Separation is more known is that it was more widely released. I first learned it in Card College Vol 4.

Harry, lennart green isn't here to defend himself.. so maybe you should email him or somthing....

I wanted to resurrect this, for two reasons:
Firstly, for Sean Walters "non smoking" gag...maybe there should be a "smoking" section of the Café, where all hell lets loose....

But also to see if anyone has more information on this.
It does seem to me that Harry was first in print.
Maybe the Green cull works better for some; Harry's works fine for me.
But does Green credit Harry?
Does he claim he developed it before he 'followed' Harry around Scandinavia?

My view - magic is fun. It should be a way of making friends. I hate when friendships are broken through crediting issues. I think friendship should be more important than card tricks.
But that could be because I've yet to come up with a ground-breaking technique!

I do think this cull is ground-breaking. And it would be good to be sure of its paternity.

Way to go, Sparky.

I say try them both. Find what works best for you. I don't believe we'll ever know the entire truth about crediting whom. I admire both men.

See? This is the kind of thing I'll never understand. Psychobabble?! My The Great Divide is copyrighted 1972. Just show me that anything was in print anywhere like it - and the discussion is over. Via all my research over the decades, with the help of true "magic historians (Ken Krenzel and Doug Edwards to name only two) there was no such thing. And read my post way back those years ago - the man FOLLOWED ME TO EVERY LECTURE IN SCANDINAVIA where I performed and sold THE GREAT DIVIDE. And he "came up" (please!) with his angle thing AFTER THAT LECTURE TOUR OF MINE. Please, what else do you need to know. How else can you "be sure of its paternity"? And you know what? In the great scheme of things, how Unimportant can all this get? What bothers me (aside from the basic concept of being ripped off - let me repeat, because when I'm sure of something, know the facts DEFINITELY, I can repeat it and state it definitely - Green's angle thing is an out and out rip-off!) And - I'd better say "in my opinion" - nowhere as good as The Great Divide. I might also suggest that you check some of the routines I teach utilizing it.

Someone mentioned earlier that Lennart Green is not here to defend himself and obviously if he is not a member, then, well fill in the blank so to speak. I am researching this current debacle - and it is a debacle - and thus far, my research has revealed that The Great Divide precedes the Green Angle Separation. And here I need to add something that while at first blush would seem unrelated I believe it is in fact germane to the discussion as it involves Mr. Green.

Three weeks ago The World Magic Shop reviewed a "new" effect by Lennart Green titled "Stolen Cards." The effect actually belongs to Nick Trost and is titled "Rainbow Miracle." If you look in that thread you will see that I quoted Nick Trost from volume 3 of Nick Trost's Subtle Card Creations. He stated that he received permission in 1984 to release Rainbow Miracle which is a variant of a Mel Stover effect. I have asked anyone who has purchased the Lennart Green version to post if indeed Mr. Green credits Mr. Trost. No one has responded. The folks at World Magic Shop, who obviously have viewed the DVD because Craig Petty performed it have also not revealed whether Lennart Green credits Mr. Trost. Is history repeating itself? I believe it is and as such, it is germane to the discussion. By the way, I fully intend to post my research on The Great Divide once I am convinced I have exhausted all possible avenues, but, thus far, the literature strongly suggests that the move is Harry Lorayne's creation. As to the Trost effect, I think that if indeed no crediting was given to Messrs. Trost and Stover, the the estate of Nick Trost and H&R Magic Books need to be aware that Lennart Green has appropriated an effect that is readily available in a book published by H&R and with Mr. Trost's blessing as he intended this projected eight volume set to be a compendium of his effects in a similar manner to the Stewart James works.

Namaste,
Vlad

What a complete and utter load of bull!

If Lennart Green's Angle Separation is, as stated above, a "rip-off", then it must be pretty much the same move. But if it's pretty much the same move, how can it be so much worse?

No - the truth is that the Angle Separation is DIFFERENT. That's why Harry is able to say that in his opinion it is 'nowhere near as good'. But if it's different, there's no point making a fuss about it. They are different moves, and each person should just choose which they prefer to use.

Also, since this is an issue for Harry, then rather than calling it a "rip-off", it would be bigger and classier of him to call it "inspired by", and not make himself look so mean spirited in the process.

Saucy Jack: Thank you so much for your input. I suppose we should all bow to your superior knowledge, but - difficult, since you really have no idea as to what you're talking about. I think your lovely statement - "What a complete and utter load of bull!" fits YOU just PERFECTLY. And, just to make sure you understand - despite your deep knowledge - let me repeat - Green's angle thing IS AN 0UT-AND-OUT RIP-OFF. When something is "inspired" by me - I SAY SO. We will all now breathlessly await your next load of wit! (Incidentally, it would be "bigger and classier" for you to mind your own business in areas you know nothing about. No?)

Yes - you say it is an OUT-AND-OUT RIP-OFF. Which means it's basically the same move. In which case, it can't also be 'nowhere near as good'. You can't have it both ways. If it's truly 'nowhere near as good' then it must be a different move, in which case you have nothing to make a fuss about. People invent different moves all the time.

I rather think you KNOW it's a significantly different move, and are just p.i.s.s.e.d at the fact that someone created a different move to achieve the same thing. You thought that your own move was the only one anyone would ever need or like. And you were wrong. Hard cheese!

You really DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Ignorance IS bliss.

I think the point has been well made that your view on the matter is self-contradictory. By all means, attempt a refutation. Or just shout instead.

And I think the point is well made that you have absolutely no idea as to what you're talking about, and that you're jealous of me for some reason, that you have some sort of bone to pick, and that you obviously have a problem. You really should see someone. Soft sh.., much better than your hard ch..se. For you, anyway. And I thank you for keeping this thread alive so that I have the excuse to really stress the fact that Green's angle thing is AN OUT-AND-OUT RIP-OFF. Which, incidentally, has been proven over and over again, but you'll just keep shouting. Another load of wit. Incidentally, just so we all know if there's a semblance of knowledge - how long have you been in magic? And why hide your real name? If you're going to say things like "...complete and utter load of bull" we all should really know who is making that lovely statement.

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the differences? I saw a video of the Green move and it looks identical to Harry's. Just the effect you use doesn't looks like it needs a set up. I think because of the effect done with both (don't know if the one I saw was what Green normally does, but will talk about that one) and think that Harry's effect is better. It can be done anytime with any deck, which is what makes it so great. So from what I saw Green's moves are the same or close to it, but the effect is different then the Great Divide.