s there a point where classic sleight of hand magic just cannot compete with card magic done with expensive props or gimmicks?
You don't need
expensive props and gimmicks to do strong card magic. Let me explain.
Card magic can be done through the combination of sleight of hand, principles and gimmicks. An effect can use one, two or three of those methods. Sleight of hand includes all the moves like forces, controls, counts, color changes, etc. Principles include non-sleight of hand methods like the key card principle, the Gilbreath Principle, Miraskill, the Jonah Card principle, card counting principles, etc. Gimmicks include gaff cards, short cards, double backed cards, double faced cards, rough and smooth cards and things as simple as double-sided tape or restickable adhesive. You can have gimmicked cards or gimmicked decks like a Svengali, Stripper, Mirage, Mene Tekel, etc. None of those gimmick are that expensive.
The real question is what combination of sleight of hand, principles and gimmicks provides the best method to achieve the desired effect based on your performing ability and circumstances.
well, sleight of hand effects will always beat gimmick magic.
I disagree. When you use a gimmick, the audience shouldn't know that you are using one (unless of course that is the point of the trick like a gaff card with the "Tree of Diamonds" or two "3 1/2 of Clubs" cards where the spectator picked a 7 of Clubs). I can do things using a short card which will leave most magicians completely fooled. There is a great effect from Andy Nyman in Genii a couple of years back using a Mirage Deck. A double-backer has a hundred different uses. It just requires a bit of knowledge to use gimmicks in a way that disguises their existence. Christian Englbloom completely fooled me (and a room full of magicians) using a Cheek to Cheek deck from four feet away.
There are things that can't be done with just sleight of hand and things that can't be done with just gimmicks. Focus on what effect you want to accomplish and then use the appropriate method.
In my eyes, if a card trick is not completely impromptu but is a close-up card routine, it is almost always a failure.
***
However, unless you have a very specific trick, card tricks must be impromptu when performing close-up. Therefore, I really think gimmick-heavy tricks should only be left to stage performances because, in a close-up situation, you should leave your deck examinable.
Although there are times were doing an effect FASDU (From A Shuffled Deck in Use) is miraculous, there is no reason in a close up performance you can't use a gimmick. One of my favorite effects is Wildcard which uses gaff cards and is designed to be performed close-up. I actually give the spectator a deck and have them force a card on themselves using a double backer. Take a look at the Ellusionist gaff deck teaching videos - all of those effects are close-up. One of my favorites is Justin Miller's Stranger Card on Army of 52. I've performed close-up using Mirage, Svengali, Stripper and Invisible decks. Did you know a spectator can shuffle a Svengali deck? One effect that I do is Jim Steinmeyer's Khardova Deck which uses a gaffed deck with a gaffed card given to the spectator to do all of the handling.
My sense is that the word "impromptu" is used to market magic to beginners. I think that having effects planned out and set up ahead of time usually leads to a better performance. As long as your audience doesn't know you have a set-up or use a gimmick, it will seem impromptu to them. Proper preparation prevents poor performances.
As far as having the deck examinable, a performer should demonstrate that the deck they are using is "normal" through the design of the effect. The performer should be in control of the performance. Letting spectators examine props just continues the impression that magic is about being fooled or figuring it out.