For those who love (card) sandwiches.

Nov 27, 2009
456
3
(Longer post ahead.)

Or for those who hate sandwiches. I'm speaking of sandwich tricks here, and my question is, what is the purpose of the card sandwich at its root level? Is it to put the card in a difficult/impossible location? If so, why not use your pocket or some similar place, or even -- AH-HA! -- the spectators hands. Is the purpose of the sandwich to create a scenario where sleight of hand would be "impossible?" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more effective to put the deck in your spectators hands, or in a plastic bag? Or, maybe, is the purpose of the card sandwich to hide some other secret or surprise? This is at least a novel idea that could be used to create some amazing effects, such as the Bizarre Twist from Paul Harris. I've not done this effect, but from what I've read in the instructions, Paul seems to be using the sandwich to hide a much bigger surprise. Consider these questions and evaluate whether or not the sandwich plot deserves some of the work it gets.

I will give you this, there are good sandwich tricks out there. I can think of a few, Eric Jones's Ishkabibble sandwich is one. So is Search And Destroy, and the whatever it's called sandwich (that's me being lazy) from Mark Wilson's Complete Course In Magic, and Helder's Sculpture. Each of these tricks have something that sets them apart in my mind for the ordinary sandwich trick, either in method, surprise value, or overall beauty.

One final thought, how many sandwich tricks are in books? I think this tells us something about the sandwich plot itself. I've mentioned the two sandwich tricks I know of that are in books (the trick form Mark Wilson's book and Search and Destroy), feel free to point out any I may have missed. Both are among the best tricks in my arsenal. Also when answering this question, consider when the books were published. I have to admit that I'm biased towards older books for a number of reasons. One of them being this, the effects in older books are still some of the best out there. I'm in no way saying that modern magic books are not as good, but, the authors of the older books put a lot of thought into their material, and they had to because that book could have made the difference between them living comfortably or not. And they couldn't just produce a new DVD within 6 months to make up for it, unlike today.

Thanks for reading.

Ps. My favorite plot happens to be the mistake and recovery plot, I don't see many of those tricks invented now. Why not? Try a few different tricks with the mistake and recovery plot and I think you will soon find you enjoy the reactions you get.
 
May 9, 2011
11
0
Hey...

First of all, Im not huge sandwich card trick fan, but, yeah, I do them in my routines...

Well, It seems like you hate these tricks, and like you wanna make us never do them? :D Just kidding :)

You said

Or for those who hate sandwiches. I'm speaking of sandwich tricks here, and my question is, what is the purpose of the card sandwich at its root level? Is it to put the card in a difficult/impossible location? If so, why not use your pocket or some similar place, or even -- AH-HA! -- the spectators hands.

Well, we cannt see things as spectators see them and we will never see them that way, but from what I found, sandwich effects are very visual tricks, and people usually like visual tricks ;)
 
Nov 27, 2009
456
3
Well, we cannt see things as spectators see them and we will never see them that way, but from what I found, sandwich effects are very visual tricks, and people usually like visual tricks ;)

I also perform a sandwich trick or two, and I agree with you. My main goal with this post was to get people thinking about the premise behind a sandwich trick, and maybe a few other applications for the concept, which is why I posed the questions I did. I started thinking about this awhile ago when I heard a professional magician (maybe Lee Asher, but I don't remember exactly) say they'd never seen a sandwich trick that really struck them.

You have also made a good point that we never will see a trick from a layman's eyes again. I sometimes wish I could get back my layman's eyes and be completely astonished again. This is where talking to laymen about how our tricks look to them can be useful. Sometimes I'll ask my sister how an effect looks to her, or what she thinks of an idea. She still has layman's eyes, but she had the unfortunate task of being my guinea pig for the first few years I was a magician, so she's a little more "in on it" than most "muggles," even though I didn't necessarily intend to show her how things were done.

Final thought, I know you were kidding when you said it seems like I never want magicians to do sandwich tricks, but I will go ahead and state my opinion directly for the benefit of anyone who's unsure of what I think. I think sandwich tricks are great for getting reactions, so if you want a reaction, sandwich tricks can be the way to go. But keep in mind that there are other plots that have the potential to get the same, or better reactions. Basically, if you like sandwich tricks and are good at them, use them, but don't limit yourself.
 
Jan 21, 2010
41
0
I started thinking about this awhile ago when I heard a professional magician (maybe Lee Asher, but I don't remember exactly) say they'd never seen a sandwich trick that really struck them.

I sometimes wish I could get back my layman's eyes and be completely astonished again.

1) I think for magicians sandwich tricks are some of the easiest to figure out because often when two cards are presented to sandwich a card, you immediately know what to look for- how the card gets controlled near those cards, or vice versa. Most plots, even some of the great ones you mentioned, are relatively straightforward. Pick a card, it's lost, I have no idea where it is, so these two cards will find it. That said, while they might not be as impressive to magicians, they often hit hard to laymen. First, I do believe that the effect is justified; as opposed to many tricks where you push it in and then proceed to find it yourself, bringing in the jokers/aces justifies the finding process in that the card is supposed to have truly been lost (according to the spectators). If that's true, why are you able to find it again yourself? If you present the jokers as two magical helpers that find it even though you can't, the action is justified. SECOND, adding on to this, using two other cards makes you the facilitator of a magical impossibility with a deck of cards (to the spec, the cards do the work), rather than making you the sleight of hand artist who happens to be using a deck of cards (w/o justification, it can seem like you do all the work).

2) Don't we all...
 
Nov 27, 2009
456
3
...That said, while they might not be as impressive to magicians, they often hit hard to laymen. First, I do believe that the effect is justified; as opposed to many tricks where you push it in and then proceed to find it yourself, bringing in the jokers/aces justifies the finding process in that the card is supposed to have truly been lost (according to the spectators). If that's true, why are you able to find it again yourself? If you present the jokers as two magical helpers that find it even though you can't, the action is justified. SECOND, adding on to this, using two other cards makes you the facilitator of a magical impossibility with a deck of cards (to the spec, the cards do the work), rather than making you the sleight of hand artist who happens to be using a deck of cards (w/o justification, it can seem like you do all the work).

You have a few good points here. I like you reasoning about justifying finding the spectators card. I hadn't thought of that, but it's certainly worth considering. I need to consider this point in a few of my tricks.
 
Sep 1, 2007
733
2
Awesome question by the way, it's always interesting to question something that seems like such a norm in magic.

If I'm doing a professional gig or something more formal it's always fun to bring two sandwich cards from a random "fancy back" different color deck. Then I can BS a story about a couple cards from the first deck I ever got, or my grandfathers favorite trick etc etc. Just to add to giving them a purpose/ justification.

It does depend on how you present the effect, either the cards are doing the work or you're doing the work and the cards are making it harder for anything but magic to be the explanation. Etc etc
 
Apr 12, 2011
30
0
"Or for those who hate sandwiches. I'm speaking of sandwich tricks here, and my question is, what is the purpose of the card sandwich at its root level? Is it to put the card in a difficult/impossible location? If so, why not use your pocket or some similar place, or even -- AH-HA! -- the spectators hands. Is the purpose of the sandwich to create a scenario where sleight of hand would be "impossible?" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more effective to put the deck in your spectators hands, or in a plastic bag? Or, maybe, is the purpose of the card sandwich to hide some other secret or surprise? This is at least a novel idea that could be used to create some amazing effects, such as the Bizarre Twist from Paul Harris. I've not done this effect, but from what I've read in the instructions, Paul seems to be using the sandwich to hide a much bigger surprise. Consider these questions and evaluate whether or not the sandwich plot deserves some of the work it gets."

You are overthinking the plot. It isn't about difficulty or impossibility. That all pertains to your character. The actual plot for the Sandwich is that the entertainer will use 2 cards to find the selection... Somehow.

"One final thought, how many sandwich tricks are in books? I think this tells us something about the sandwich plot itself. I've mentioned the two sandwich tricks I know of that are in books (the trick form Mark Wilson's book and Search and Destroy), feel free to point out any I may have missed. Both are among the best tricks in my arsenal. Also when answering this question, consider when the books were published. I have to admit that I'm biased towards older books for a number of reasons. One of them being this, the effects in older books are still some of the best out there. I'm in no way saying that modern magic books are not as good, but, the authors of the older books put a lot of thought into their material, and they had to because that book could have made the difference between them living comfortably or not. And they couldn't just produce a new DVD within 6 months to make up for it, unlike today.

Umm. Feel free to quote what you have missed? Sorry to be blunt, but... you missed hundreds of publications which include sandwich effects in them. What do you mean you preference to "older" books versus modern books? What is "old" to you?

P.S. Great on listing your favorite sandwich effects. Those are on video. ;)

[B"]Ps. My favorite plot happens to be the mistake and recovery plot, I don't see many of those tricks invented now. Why not? Try a few different tricks with the mistake and recovery plot and I think you will soon find you enjoy the reactions you get. "[/B]


Where are you looking if you don't see many that have been invented?


Cheers
 
Nov 27, 2009
456
3
@NeitherBlindNorSilly thank you for pointing out my mistakes. Old, to me is, I guess anything before Paul Harris.

I believe that Search and Destroy is in the Paper Engine but I may be wrong, and the one from Mark Wilson may be on video, but it's also in print. I know that Ishkabibble is on video. I wasn't trying to limit that list to printed effects, but that may not have been clear.

Mistake and recovery plots aren't commonly published, or at least not as common as sandwich tricks seem to be. The only recent one I can think of is Loaded from f(9), the under shoe version, although this isn't the best example. They are out there, but I don't see many new ones.
 
Sep 10, 2008
915
3
QLD, AUS
You are overthinking the plot. It isn't about difficulty or impossibility. That all pertains to your character. The actual plot for the Sandwich is that the entertainer will use 2 cards to find the selection... Somehow.

The "plot"? I don't think it's about difficulty or impossibility in the first place. I just think that not enough sandwich effects have a logical premise.

"Please, take a card. Thank you, we'll now lose your card into the middle of the deck. And now (for apparently no reason whatsoever), I'm going to use these 2 ladies, the 2 red queens to find your card."
 
Nov 27, 2009
456
3
The "plot"? I don't think it's about difficulty or impossibility in the first place. I just think that not enough sandwich effects have a logical premise.

"Please, take a card. Thank you, we'll now lose your card into the middle of the deck. And now (for apparently no reason whatsoever), I'm going to use these 2 ladies, the 2 red queens to find your card."

This is part of what I was getting at, in a rather roundabout fashion. Why are you using whatever two cards to find the other card? The only sandwich effect I do regularly is one where their card "jumps" to between the other two cards, and I make it about the jump, not the sandwich.
 
Sep 10, 2008
915
3
QLD, AUS
I'm sure there's some magicians who do have a logical, justifiable reason to use the other two cards to find a selection, but I don't.

The sandwich effects that I like are not necessarily about the sandwich.
Aaron Fisher's "Search and Destroy" is about the "images" it creates, John Bannon's "Fat City" is all about the surprise ending, and his "Dawn Patrol" is about the impossibility of faroing their card in between the two sandwich cards.


I do like sandwich tricks, but most of them just don't make enough sense for me.
 
Apr 12, 2011
30
0
Originally Posted by NeitherBlindNorSilly
"You are overthinking the plot. It isn't about difficulty or impossibility. That all pertains to your character. The actual plot for the Sandwich is that the entertainer will use 2 cards to find the selection... Somehow."

Originally posted by Theatrehead
The "plot"? I don't think it's about difficulty or impossibility in the first place. I just think that not enough sandwich effects have a logical premise.

"Please, take a card. Thank you, we'll now lose your card into the middle of the deck. And now (for apparently no reason whatsoever), I'm going to use these 2 ladies, the 2 red queens to find your card."



That is exactly what I was referring to. But thank you for clarifying.
 
Apr 12, 2011
30
0
I'm sure there's some magicians who do have a logical, justifiable reason to use the other two cards to find a selection, but I don't.

The sandwich effects that I like are not necessarily about the sandwich.
Aaron Fisher's "Search and Destroy" is about the "images" it creates, John Bannon's "Fat City" is all about the surprise ending, and his "Dawn Patrol" is about the impossibility of faroing their card in between the two sandwich cards.


I do like sandwich tricks, but most of them just don't make enough sense for me.


Check out a routine called "Deadlier Than the Male".
 
Apr 11, 2011
43
0
for me...every plot could be broken..when u make a coin disappear...is it teleported somewhere else?
is it still there but your audience couldn't see it (by using a cloak of invisibility)?
it is your presentation that clarifies the effect. as a card man..I know that there are almost no real magic using a deck of playing card. prof. Dumbledore didn't do the ambitious card routine, and Jesus didn't hold up an envelope that says "prediction".
For me if it is card related, I always tells them that this is pure sleight of hand, coz I want my audience know that what i'm doing is very difficult so they would appreciate it even more. we cant say that we love or hate an effect/ plot. Audience's mind set are different, one thing that they have in common, they always want to see something that they don't see every day. by the way...let me share one of my favorite sandwich effect.
[video=youtube;N8hpsH2urQg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8hpsH2urQg[/video]
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results